IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION


WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A HIGH-
POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10", 165 LBS.
.. 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL, NOT
SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT WAS A
WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO 165
LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE. AND
WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL, BUT
NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT FIRST,
TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS
AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER", WHICH
WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO LOOK
AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE HARBORED
SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE WONDERED
HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A HIGH-

POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10", 165

LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT WAS A

WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO 165
LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE. AND

WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL, BUT
NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT FIRST,

TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER", WHICH

WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO LOOK
AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE HARBORED
SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE WONDERED HOW A
MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

It would have to be a garbled report by Sawyer, and Worrell never said that he told anybody, neither. I don't think Worrell deserves all the caps.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 7:37:08 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A

HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10", 165

LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT WAS

A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO 165
LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

It would have to be a garbled report by Sawyer, and Worrell never said that he told anybody, neither. I don't think Worrell deserves all the caps.

The caps were a residual fluke of something else I was working on. If Worrell didn't tell Sawyer, his testimony just happened, then, to line up weirdly well with Sawyer's suspect description. And I'm sure that Worrell gleaned that he'd better not
connect the dots between *his* suspect description and Sawyer's. He dropped the references to Oswald and the rifle pretty quickly. And of course you realize that this means that the "Oswald" suspect description now puts Oswald out behind the building,
running in a direction (north) opposite both the McWatters bus and the Whaley cab. But the Sawyer description was always pretty vague. LNs, however, dote on it and probably won't be happy to see their guy Oswald seeming to head off in the wrong
direction. But they're stuck with the now-Sawyer-and-Worrell suspect description.

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:17:24 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 7:37:08 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A

HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT

WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO
165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

It would have to be a garbled report by Sawyer, and Worrell never said that he told anybody, neither. I don't think Worrell deserves all the caps.

The caps were a residual fluke of something else I was working on. If Worrell didn't tell Sawyer, his testimony just happened, then, to line up weirdly well with Sawyer's suspect description. And I'm sure that Worrell gleaned that he'd better not

connect the dots between *his* suspect description and Sawyer's. He dropped the references to Oswald and the rifle pretty quickly. And of course you realize that this means that the "Oswald" suspect description now puts Oswald out behind the building,
running in a direction (north) opposite both the McWatters bus and the Whaley cab. But the Sawyer description was always pretty vague. LNs, however, dote on it and probably won't be happy to see their guy Oswald seeming to head off in the wrong direction.
But they're stuck with the now-Sawyer-and-Worrell suspect description.

dcw

I have a different explanation for Worrell, but I won't soil your topic with it. Good that you think about the actual evidence! You bring some dignity to the Nut House.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A HIGH-

POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10", 165

LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT WAS A

WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO 165
LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE. AND

WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL, BUT
NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT FIRST,

TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER", WHICH

WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO LOOK
AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE HARBORED
SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE WONDERED HOW A
MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:10:16 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Couldn't pass this thread without commenting, huh ?
You just can't resist it.

Here's a challenge for you: go a week without posting.
I doubt you could.

There is no such thing as looking at something incorrectly.
You may look at something and INTERPRET it incorrectly, but there's no such thing as looking at something incorrectly.
That's just a bullshit excuse when you can't refute what's being posted.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:22:40 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:10:16 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Couldn't pass this thread without commenting, huh ?
You just can't resist it.

Here's a challenge for you: go a week without posting.
I doubt you could.

I'll make a deal with you. Let's see which one of us can go the longest without posting. You can
read all the posts you want but the loser is the first one to post. The contest will begin after you
post your acceptance. Do you accept?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 03:22:38 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjmail1202@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:10:16?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Couldn't pass this thread without commenting, huh ?
You just can't resist it.

Here's a challenge for you: go a week without posting.
I doubt you could.

There is no such thing as looking at something incorrectly.
You may look at something and INTERPRET it incorrectly, but there's no such thing as looking at something incorrectly.
That's just a bullshit excuse when you can't refute what's being posted.

More importantly, and according to Chickenshit - these sorts of
uncited empty claims are simply lies.

Even Chickenshit has never been able to cite for his "wrong things"
claim.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 08:38:14 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:22:40?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:10:16?AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Couldn't pass this thread without commenting, huh ?
You just can't resist it.

Here's a challenge for you: go a week without posting.
I doubt you could.

I'll make a deal with you. Let's see which one of us can go the longest without posting. You can
read all the posts you want but the loser is the first one to post. The contest will begin after you
post your acceptance. Do you accept?

I'm quite sure that Gil will expect you not to use other names as
well...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:10:16 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A

HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10", 165

LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT WAS

A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO 165
LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Perhaps someday you or Bud will explain just *how* I look at things wrongly or incorrectly, rather than generalize mindlessly.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 10:44:11 -0700 (PDT), donald willis
<dcwillis9@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:10:16?AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION >>>

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A

HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10", 165

LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT WAS

A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO 165
LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS

HE WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Perhaps someday you or Bud will explain just *how* I look at things wrongly or incorrectly, rather than generalize mindlessly.

Never happen.

He cannot cite ANYTHING that would tell the average person how to do
this.

Chickenshit & Corbutt cannot.

But I can. If something supports the WCR, then it's the "right
thing." If you look at this "right thing" as supporting the WCR, then
you are "looking" at the "right thing" correctly.

Both Corbutt and Chickenshit will be unable to refute that definition,
nor provide a citation to one.

Watch!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A HIGH-

POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10", 165

LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT WAS A

WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO 165
LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE. AND

WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL, BUT
NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT FIRST,

TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER", WHICH

WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO LOOK
AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE HARBORED
SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE WONDERED HOW A
MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

Nowhere in Morrell's accounts of what he did that day indicate that he talked to a police officer. In fact, he says he left the scene shortly after and only decided to talk to the police after seeing Curry on TV Saturday asking for witnesses to come
forward. So how did the police get this story?
From his testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - All right. When did you first report to any official what you had seen and heard on this occasion?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I turned the TV on early the next morning to see what had happened, and Chief Curry was making his plea --
Senator COOPER - Is that going to become part of the evidence at this point? Mr. WORRELL - Chief Curry was making his plea for anyone who had seen the shooting, would they please come down and make a statement. So I called the Farmer Branch Police, and told them, and they came and picked me up, and the called the Dallas police,
and they came way out there and picked me up and took me downtown to make a statement and brought me back home.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:56:33 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 10:44:11 -0700 (PDT), donald willis
<dcwi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:10:16?AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: >>> IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A

HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT

WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO
165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS

HE WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Perhaps someday you or Bud will explain just *how* I look at things wrongly or incorrectly, rather than generalize mindlessly.

Never happen.

He cannot cite ANYTHING that would tell the average person how to do
this.

Why lie, I`ve explained the concept more than once.

Chickenshit & Corbutt cannot.

But I can. If something supports the WCR, then it's the "right
thing." If you look at this "right thing" as supporting the WCR, then
you are "looking" at the "right thing" correctly.

Both Corbutt and Chickenshit will be unable to refute that definition,
nor provide a citation to one.

Watch!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:10:16 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A

HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT

WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO
165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Perhaps someday you or Bud will explain just *how* I look at things wrongly or incorrectly, rather than generalize mindlessly.

I`m sure if I searched I could find where I made specific observations. But why do you say the generalizations aren`t accurate? Generally what you do is take some clearly erroneous information, carve that into stone and proceed to try to bend all the
other information satisfy the clearly erroneous information. Examples off the top of my head of this would be the description of the shells as automatic at the Tippit shooting scene, the door one of the Davis girls went to at that scene, the "openness"
of windows in the TSBD, ect.

Also you use any excuse to start speculating fantastic occurrences.

Keep in mind that I don`t care that you do these things, if playing silly games like this makes you happy. I`m only replying because you invoked my name, I`m like a wish genie.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 13:45:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 13:46:18 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:38:41 PM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A

HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10", 165

LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT WAS

A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO 165
LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

Nowhere in Morrell's accounts of what he did that day indicate that he talked to a police officer. In fact, he says he left the scene shortly after and only decided to talk to the police after seeing Curry on TV Saturday asking for witnesses to come

forward. So how did the police get this story?

First, you should start with the correct witness name, which is not "Morrell", unless you're talking hot dogs. And if you're taking WORRELL at his word, then you accept his 11/30/63 FBI ID of the man he saw running as Oswald: Worrell "felt that [Oswald]
was the person he had seen." Good, you yourself have put Oswald out back of the depository, fleeing North, away from busses and taxis. Good work!

Compare the testimony of witness WW Scoggins, who testified to the WC that he had left the Tippit scene immediately after returning with Callaway because the police didn't seem to want to talk to him. That hasty departure "explained" why he did not
attend a lineup later in the day. However, later in his testimony, he says that when he & Callaway returned to the scene, "the policemen came along", and he, Scoggins, left his "cab sitting down there & got in a car with them & left the [Tippit] scene."
(v3p337) (There is verification of that.)

As I wrote, Worrell makes more sense as Sawyer's witness than does Brennan--he could believably have estimated the suspect's height & weight. Brennan could not have. It's not believable that he'd even (unprompted) try, and yet the "unidentified
individual"'s specs make it to Sawyer's suspect description. And it is Worrell, not Brennan, who would have been "standing where he could have seen [the suspect]. Brennan, as we all know was, sitting.

And if Worrell said that he saw someone who looked like Oswald running out the back of the building, obviously he's going to be, shall we say, downplayed, at the very least. As was Scoggins, who similarly testified, at first, that he didn't hang around
to talk to the police. But Worrell and Scoggins both did.

dcw

From his testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - All right. When did you first report to any official what you had seen and heard on this occasion?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I turned the TV on early the next morning to see what had happened, and Chief Curry was making his plea --
Senator COOPER - Is that going to become part of the evidence at this point? Mr. WORRELL - Chief Curry was making his plea for anyone who had seen the shooting, would they please come down and make a statement. So I called the Farmer Branch Police, and told them, and they came and picked me up, and the called the Dallas police,

and they came way out there and picked me up and took me downtown to make a statement and brought me back home.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:17:37 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:38:41 PM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A

HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT

WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO
165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

Nowhere in Morrell's accounts of what he did that day indicate that he talked to a police officer. In fact, he says he left the scene shortly after and only decided to talk to the police after seeing Curry on TV Saturday asking for witnesses to come

forward. So how did the police get this story?

First, you should start with the correct witness name, which is not "Morrell", unless you're talking hot dogs. And if you're taking WORRELL at his word, then you accept his 11/30/63 FBI ID of the man he saw running as Oswald: Worrell "felt that [Oswald]

was the person he had seen." Good, you yourself have put Oswald out back of the depository, fleeing North, away from busses and taxis. Good work!

Compare the testimony of witness WW Scoggins, who testified to the WC that he had left the Tippit scene immediately after returning with Callaway because the police didn't seem to want to talk to him. That hasty departure "explained" why he did not

attend a lineup later in the day. However, later in his testimony, he says that when he & Callaway returned to the scene, "the policemen came along", and he, Scoggins, left his "cab sitting down there & got in a car with them & left the [Tippit] scene." (
v3p337) (There is verification of that.)

As I wrote, Worrell makes more sense as Sawyer's witness than does Brennan--he could believably have estimated the suspect's height & weight. Brennan could not have. It's not believable that he'd even (unprompted) try, and yet the "unidentified

individual"'s specs make it to Sawyer's suspect description. And it is Worrell, not Brennan, who would have been "standing where he could have seen [the suspect]. Brennan, as we all know was, sitting.

And if Worrell said that he saw someone who looked like Oswald running out the back of the building, obviously he's going to be, shall we say, downplayed, at the very least. As was Scoggins, who similarly testified, at first, that he didn't hang around

to talk to the police. But Worrell and Scoggins both did.

dcw

From his testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - All right. When did you first report to any official what you had seen and heard on this occasion?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I turned the TV on early the next morning to see what had happened, and Chief Curry was making his plea --
Senator COOPER - Is that going to become part of the evidence at this point?
Mr. WORRELL - Chief Curry was making his plea for anyone who had seen the shooting, would they please come down and make a statement. So I called the Farmer Branch Police, and told them, and they came and picked me up, and the called the Dallas

police, and they came way out there and picked me up and took me downtown to make a statement and brought me back home.
My mistaken typo. It's Worrell not Morrell. Again, nowhere did he say/testify that he talked to a police officer at the time of shooting. Period. The rest of his testimony states that he *only* decided to talk to police after seeing Curry request that
witnesses come forward.
This is your witness not mine. If he's reliable for you when he said he "felt" the person was Oswald - even though he testified that he never saw the man's face (ouch) - then he's reliable when he said the only time he talked to police was on Saturday.
So a witness says he only talked to police on Saturday not the day of the assassination and the same witness says he never saw the face of the person he saw leaving the TSBD. From that you conclude he did talk to the police and the person he saw was
Oswald?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:17:37 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:38:41 PM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A

HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT

WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO
165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

Nowhere in Morrell's accounts of what he did that day indicate that he talked to a police officer. In fact, he says he left the scene shortly after and only decided to talk to the police after seeing Curry on TV Saturday asking for witnesses to come

forward. So how did the police get this story?

First, you should start with the correct witness name, which is not "Morrell", unless you're talking hot dogs. And if you're taking WORRELL at his word, then you accept his 11/30/63 FBI ID of the man he saw running as Oswald: Worrell "felt that [Oswald]

was the person he had seen." Good, you yourself have put Oswald out back of the depository, fleeing North, away from busses and taxis. Good work!

Why couldn`t Oswald go to where the buses and taxis were after getting clear of the TSBD?

Compare the testimony of witness WW Scoggins, who testified to the WC that he had left the Tippit scene immediately after returning with Callaway because the police didn't seem to want to talk to him. That hasty departure "explained" why he did not

attend a lineup later in the day. However, later in his testimony, he says that when he & Callaway returned to the scene, "the policemen came along", and he, Scoggins, left his "cab sitting down there & got in a car with them & left the [Tippit] scene." (
v3p337) (There is verification of that.)

As I wrote, Worrell makes more sense as Sawyer's witness than does Brennan--he could believably have estimated the suspect's height & weight. Brennan could not have. It's not believable that he'd even (unprompted) try, and yet the "unidentified

individual"'s specs make it to Sawyer's suspect description. And it is Worrell, not Brennan, who would have been "standing where he could have seen [the suspect]. Brennan, as we all know was, sitting.

And if Worrell said that he saw someone who looked like Oswald running out the back of the building, obviously he's going to be, shall we say, downplayed, at the very least. As was Scoggins, who similarly testified, at first, that he didn't hang around

to talk to the police. But Worrell and Scoggins both did.

dcw

From his testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - All right. When did you first report to any official what you had seen and heard on this occasion?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I turned the TV on early the next morning to see what had happened, and Chief Curry was making his plea --
Senator COOPER - Is that going to become part of the evidence at this point?
Mr. WORRELL - Chief Curry was making his plea for anyone who had seen the shooting, would they please come down and make a statement. So I called the Farmer Branch Police, and told them, and they came and picked me up, and the called the Dallas

police, and they came way out there and picked me up and took me downtown to make a statement and brought me back home.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:01:01 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:17:37 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:38:41 PM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF

A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT

WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO
165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

Nowhere in Morrell's accounts of what he did that day indicate that he talked to a police officer. In fact, he says he left the scene shortly after and only decided to talk to the police after seeing Curry on TV Saturday asking for witnesses to

come forward. So how did the police get this story?

First, you should start with the correct witness name, which is not "Morrell", unless you're talking hot dogs. And if you're taking WORRELL at his word, then you accept his 11/30/63 FBI ID of the man he saw running as Oswald: Worrell "felt that [

Oswald] was the person he had seen." Good, you yourself have put Oswald out back of the depository, fleeing North, away from busses and taxis. Good work!

Compare the testimony of witness WW Scoggins, who testified to the WC that he had left the Tippit scene immediately after returning with Callaway because the police didn't seem to want to talk to him. That hasty departure "explained" why he did not

attend a lineup later in the day. However, later in his testimony, he says that when he & Callaway returned to the scene, "the policemen came along", and he, Scoggins, left his "cab sitting down there & got in a car with them & left the [Tippit] scene." (
v3p337) (There is verification of that.)

As I wrote, Worrell makes more sense as Sawyer's witness than does Brennan--he could believably have estimated the suspect's height & weight. Brennan could not have. It's not believable that he'd even (unprompted) try, and yet the "unidentified

individual"'s specs make it to Sawyer's suspect description. And it is Worrell, not Brennan, who would have been "standing where he could have seen [the suspect]. Brennan, as we all know was, sitting.

And if Worrell said that he saw someone who looked like Oswald running out the back of the building, obviously he's going to be, shall we say, downplayed, at the very least. As was Scoggins, who similarly testified, at first, that he didn't hang

around to talk to the police. But Worrell and Scoggins both did.

dcw

From his testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - All right. When did you first report to any official what you had seen and heard on this occasion?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I turned the TV on early the next morning to see what had happened, and Chief Curry was making his plea --
Senator COOPER - Is that going to become part of the evidence at this point?
Mr. WORRELL - Chief Curry was making his plea for anyone who had seen the shooting, would they please come down and make a statement. So I called the Farmer Branch Police, and told them, and they came and picked me up, and the called the Dallas

police, and they came way out there and picked me up and took me downtown to make a statement and brought me back home.

My mistaken typo. It's Worrell not Morrell. Again, nowhere did he say/testify that he talked to a police officer at the time of shooting. Period. The rest of his testimony states that he *only* decided to talk to police after seeing Curry request that

witnesses come forward.

This is your witness not mine. If he's reliable for you when he said he "felt" the person was Oswald - even though he testified that he never saw the man's face (ouch) - then he's reliable when he said the only time he talked to police was on Saturday.
So a witness says he only talked to police on Saturday not the day of the assassination and the same witness says he never saw the face of the person he saw leaving the TSBD. From that you conclude he did talk to the police and the person he saw was

Oswald?

Worrell's description of the man he saw running:
Mr. SPECTER - Can you describe the characteristics of his hair?
Mr. WORRELL - Black.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he have --
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I will say brunette.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he have a full head of hair, a partial head of hair, or what? Mr. WORRELL - Well, see, I didn't see his face, I just saw the back of his head and it was full in back. I don't know what the front looked like. But it was full in back.
Mr. SPECTER - What clothes did the man have on?
Mr. WORRELL - Dark, like a jacket like that.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating a dark gray jacket?
Mr. WORRELL - No, no. It was a jacket like that.
Mr. SPECTER - A suit jacket?
Mr. WORRELL - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Or was it a sports jacket?
Mr. WORRELL - Sports jacket.
If you think this is an ID of Oswald then...well, I don't.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:45:25 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:10:16 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF

A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT

WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO
165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Perhaps someday you or Bud will explain just *how* I look at things wrongly or incorrectly, rather than generalize mindlessly.

I`m sure if I searched I could find where I made specific observations. But why do you say the generalizations aren`t accurate? Generally what you do is take some clearly erroneous information, carve that into stone and proceed to try to bend all the

other information satisfy the clearly erroneous information. Examples off the top of my head of this would be the description of the shells as automatic at the Tippit shooting scene

OK, that may be "erroneous". Sometimes I think so, sometimes I don't.

, the door one of the Davis girls went to at that scene

That was probably the gospel truth, on the part of Virginia, in her affidavit!

, the "openness" of windows in the TSBD, ect.

Here, you are clearly the one in error. At least four different witnesses agreed.

dcw

Also you use any excuse to start speculating fantastic occurrences.

Keep in mind that I don`t care that you do these things, if playing silly games like this makes you happy. I`m only replying because you invoked my name, I`m like a wish genie.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 2:22:10 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:17:37 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:38:41 PM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF

A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT

WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO
165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

Nowhere in Morrell's accounts of what he did that day indicate that he talked to a police officer. In fact, he says he left the scene shortly after and only decided to talk to the police after seeing Curry on TV Saturday asking for witnesses to

come forward. So how did the police get this story?

First, you should start with the correct witness name, which is not "Morrell", unless you're talking hot dogs. And if you're taking WORRELL at his word, then you accept his 11/30/63 FBI ID of the man he saw running as Oswald: Worrell "felt that [

Oswald] was the person he had seen." Good, you yourself have put Oswald out back of the depository, fleeing North, away from busses and taxis. Good work!

Why couldn`t Oswald go to where the buses and taxis were after getting clear of the TSBD?

Ah! So you agree with the Worrell of his FBI statement, that it was Oswald running out the back. I was just going by the direction the suspect was running in when last seen by the witness.

dcw

Compare the testimony of witness WW Scoggins, who testified to the WC that he had left the Tippit scene immediately after returning with Callaway because the police didn't seem to want to talk to him. That hasty departure "explained" why he did not

attend a lineup later in the day. However, later in his testimony, he says that when he & Callaway returned to the scene, "the policemen came along", and he, Scoggins, left his "cab sitting down there & got in a car with them & left the [Tippit] scene." (
v3p337) (There is verification of that.)

As I wrote, Worrell makes more sense as Sawyer's witness than does Brennan--he could believably have estimated the suspect's height & weight. Brennan could not have. It's not believable that he'd even (unprompted) try, and yet the "unidentified

individual"'s specs make it to Sawyer's suspect description. And it is Worrell, not Brennan, who would have been "standing where he could have seen [the suspect]. Brennan, as we all know was, sitting.

And if Worrell said that he saw someone who looked like Oswald running out the back of the building, obviously he's going to be, shall we say, downplayed, at the very least. As was Scoggins, who similarly testified, at first, that he didn't hang

around to talk to the police. But Worrell and Scoggins both did.

dcw

From his testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - All right. When did you first report to any official what you had seen and heard on this occasion?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I turned the TV on early the next morning to see what had happened, and Chief Curry was making his plea --
Senator COOPER - Is that going to become part of the evidence at this point?
Mr. WORRELL - Chief Curry was making his plea for anyone who had seen the shooting, would they please come down and make a statement. So I called the Farmer Branch Police, and told them, and they came and picked me up, and the called the Dallas

police, and they came way out there and picked me up and took me downtown to make a statement and brought me back home.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:37:45 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:45:25 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:10:16 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE

OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF
A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND
LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155
TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE

AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT,

AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED
THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS
AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Perhaps someday you or Bud will explain just *how* I look at things wrongly or incorrectly, rather than generalize mindlessly.

I`m sure if I searched I could find where I made specific observations. But why do you say the generalizations aren`t accurate? Generally what you do is take some clearly erroneous information, carve that into stone and proceed to try to bend all the

other information satisfy the clearly erroneous information. Examples off the top of my head of this would be the description of the shells as automatic at the Tippit shooting scene

OK, that may be "erroneous". Sometimes I think so, sometimes I don't.

You are right when you think so, wrong when you don`t.

, the door one of the Davis girls went to at that scene
That was probably the gospel truth, on the part of Virginia, in her affidavit!

She said she went with Barbara, Barbara said she could see the cop car from the door they went to. The both said "yard", and only one door opens onto a yard. You things like this so you can play your silly game of "this much mean this, which much mean
this, which must mean this", with each step getting more and more fantastic until the result is only about a thousand times more unlikely than her being wrong about the door she went to. Likewise with the "openness" of the window in the TSBD.

, the "openness" of windows in the TSBD, ect.

Here, you are clearly the one in error. At least four different witnesses agreed.

But other evidence shows the information to be erroneous. You use this to pile on a whole truckload of things that are more fantastic than four people being wrong about a minor detail.

dcw

Also you use any excuse to start speculating fantastic occurrences.

Keep in mind that I don`t care that you do these things, if playing silly games like this makes you happy. I`m only replying because you invoked my name, I`m like a wish genie.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:01:01 PM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:17:37 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:38:41 PM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF

A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT

WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO
165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

Nowhere in Morrell's accounts of what he did that day indicate that he talked to a police officer. In fact, he says he left the scene shortly after and only decided to talk to the police after seeing Curry on TV Saturday asking for witnesses to

come forward. So how did the police get this story?

First, you should start with the correct witness name, which is not "Morrell", unless you're talking hot dogs. And if you're taking WORRELL at his word, then you accept his 11/30/63 FBI ID of the man he saw running as Oswald: Worrell "felt that [

Oswald] was the person he had seen." Good, you yourself have put Oswald out back of the depository, fleeing North, away from busses and taxis. Good work!

Compare the testimony of witness WW Scoggins, who testified to the WC that he had left the Tippit scene immediately after returning with Callaway because the police didn't seem to want to talk to him. That hasty departure "explained" why he did not

attend a lineup later in the day. However, later in his testimony, he says that when he & Callaway returned to the scene, "the policemen came along", and he, Scoggins, left his "cab sitting down there & got in a car with them & left the [Tippit] scene." (
v3p337) (There is verification of that.)

As I wrote, Worrell makes more sense as Sawyer's witness than does Brennan--he could believably have estimated the suspect's height & weight. Brennan could not have. It's not believable that he'd even (unprompted) try, and yet the "unidentified

individual"'s specs make it to Sawyer's suspect description. And it is Worrell, not Brennan, who would have been "standing where he could have seen [the suspect]. Brennan, as we all know was, sitting.

And if Worrell said that he saw someone who looked like Oswald running out the back of the building, obviously he's going to be, shall we say, downplayed, at the very least. As was Scoggins, who similarly testified, at first, that he didn't hang

around to talk to the police. But Worrell and Scoggins both did.

dcw

From his testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - All right. When did you first report to any official what you had seen and heard on this occasion?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I turned the TV on early the next morning to see what had happened, and Chief Curry was making his plea --
Senator COOPER - Is that going to become part of the evidence at this point?
Mr. WORRELL - Chief Curry was making his plea for anyone who had seen the shooting, would they please come down and make a statement. So I called the Farmer Branch Police, and told them, and they came and picked me up, and the called the Dallas

police, and they came way out there and picked me up and took me downtown to make a statement and brought me back home.

My mistaken typo. It's Worrell not Morrell. Again, nowhere did he say/testify that he talked to a police officer at the time of shooting. Period. The rest of his testimony states that he *only* decided to talk to police after seeing Curry request that

witnesses come forward.

This is your witness not mine. If he's reliable for you when he said he "felt" the person was Oswald

I didn't say that he was. I said that either Worrell was right, then, or there was a second shooter. Then I raised a question re whether the suspect could really have carried a rifle through the lobby of the depository--in other words, I'm not sure re
Worrell's reliability here.

- even though he testified that he never saw the man's face (ouch)

In one of the sources, he said he saw the guy in profile.

- then he's reliable when he said the only time he talked to police was on Saturday.

So you're saying that a witness is reliable on every point or wrong on every point.

So a witness says he only talked to police on Saturday not the day of the assassination and the same witness says he never saw the face of the person he saw leaving the TSBD. From that you conclude he did talk to the police and the person he saw was

Oswald?

Again, I hardly concluded that it was Oswald. I concluded that the witness DID talk to Sawyer before 12:44. Age, weight, & height, and rifle are a match between Malley and the 12:44 description. And the timing and place are a match between Worrell and
Malley.

Sawyer, 12:44: "About 30, 5 foot 10, 165, & carrying what looked like a 30-30 or some type of a Winchester." Perfect match with Malley. How could the witness in Malley/Shanklin not be Sawyer's 12:44 witness?

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:31:16 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A HIGH-

POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10", 165

LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT WAS A

WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO 165
LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE. AND

WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL, BUT
NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT FIRST,

TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER", WHICH

WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO LOOK
AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE HARBORED
SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE WONDERED HOW A
MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

So this is all based on a memo wherein Shanklin said that
Malley said that Batchelor said that Sawyer said something,
and James Worrell's story. This is the same James Worrell
who said that he saw JFK at Love Field, then caught a bus
to somewhere near Dealey Plaza and walked to Elm and
Houston before 11 AM. That's some trick when Air Force
One didn't touch down until 11:30.

Worrell never said that the man whom he claimed to see
running from the TSBD was carrying anything. In fact, his
DCSD affidavit describes the man as "a w/m, 5'8" to 5'10",
dark hair, average weight for height, dark shirt or jacket open
down front, no hat, didn't have anything in his hands." In his
WC deposition, Worrell said the man "wasn't holding nothing
when he was running. He was just running"

Also, Worrell said that he left the scene immediately after
seeing the man, making his way home. He would have had
to double back to the front of the Depository to run into
Sawyer. He can't be the source of a the story related by
Shanklin. And Shanklin's account is nothing more than
treble hearsay.

There's simply nothing here, but your own misreading
and faulty reasoning.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:37:45 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:45:25 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:10:16 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE

OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF
A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5'

10", 165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND
LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155
TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE

AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT,

AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED
THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS
AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/

WINCHESTER", WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN
WAS MADE TO LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE
MAY HAVE HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS
HE WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Perhaps someday you or Bud will explain just *how* I look at things wrongly or incorrectly, rather than generalize mindlessly.

I`m sure if I searched I could find where I made specific observations. But why do you say the generalizations aren`t accurate? Generally what you do is take some clearly erroneous information, carve that into stone and proceed to try to bend all

the other information satisfy the clearly erroneous information. Examples off the top of my head of this would be the description of the shells as automatic at the Tippit shooting scene

OK, that may be "erroneous". Sometimes I think so, sometimes I don't.

You are right when you think so, wrong when you don`t.

, the door one of the Davis girls went to at that scene
That was probably the gospel truth, on the part of Virginia, in her affidavit!

She said she went with Barbara, Barbara said she could see the cop car from the door they went to. The both said "yard", and only one door opens onto a yard. You things like this so you can play your silly game of "this much mean this, which much mean

this, which must mean this", with each step getting more and more fantastic until the result is only about a thousand times more unlikely than her being wrong about the door she went to. Likewise with the "openness" of the window in the TSBD.

, the "openness" of windows in the TSBD, ect.

Here, you are clearly the one in error. At least four different witnesses agreed.

But other evidence shows the information to be erroneous. You use this to pile on a whole truckload of things that are more fantastic than four people being wrong about a minor detail.

Which floor & which window are MINOR details?

dcw

Also you use any excuse to start speculating fantastic occurrences.

Keep in mind that I don`t care that you do these things, if playing silly games like this makes you happy. I`m only replying because you invoked my name, I`m like a wish genie.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:07:56 PM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:01:01 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:17:37 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:38:41 PM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE

OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF
A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND
LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155
TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE

AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT,

AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED
THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS
AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

Nowhere in Morrell's accounts of what he did that day indicate that he talked to a police officer. In fact, he says he left the scene shortly after and only decided to talk to the police after seeing Curry on TV Saturday asking for witnesses to

come forward. So how did the police get this story?

First, you should start with the correct witness name, which is not "Morrell", unless you're talking hot dogs. And if you're taking WORRELL at his word, then you accept his 11/30/63 FBI ID of the man he saw running as Oswald: Worrell "felt that [

Oswald] was the person he had seen." Good, you yourself have put Oswald out back of the depository, fleeing North, away from busses and taxis. Good work!

Compare the testimony of witness WW Scoggins, who testified to the WC that he had left the Tippit scene immediately after returning with Callaway because the police didn't seem to want to talk to him. That hasty departure "explained" why he did not

attend a lineup later in the day. However, later in his testimony, he says that when he & Callaway returned to the scene, "the policemen came along", and he, Scoggins, left his "cab sitting down there & got in a car with them & left the [Tippit] scene." (
v3p337) (There is verification of that.)

As I wrote, Worrell makes more sense as Sawyer's witness than does Brennan--he could believably have estimated the suspect's height & weight. Brennan could not have. It's not believable that he'd even (unprompted) try, and yet the "unidentified

individual"'s specs make it to Sawyer's suspect description. And it is Worrell, not Brennan, who would have been "standing where he could have seen [the suspect]. Brennan, as we all know was, sitting.

And if Worrell said that he saw someone who looked like Oswald running out the back of the building, obviously he's going to be, shall we say, downplayed, at the very least. As was Scoggins, who similarly testified, at first, that he didn't hang

around to talk to the police. But Worrell and Scoggins both did.

dcw

From his testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - All right. When did you first report to any official what you had seen and heard on this occasion?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I turned the TV on early the next morning to see what had happened, and Chief Curry was making his plea --
Senator COOPER - Is that going to become part of the evidence at this point?
Mr. WORRELL - Chief Curry was making his plea for anyone who had seen the shooting, would they please come down and make a statement. So I called the Farmer Branch Police, and told them, and they came and picked me up, and the called the Dallas

police, and they came way out there and picked me up and took me downtown to make a statement and brought me back home.

My mistaken typo. It's Worrell not Morrell. Again, nowhere did he say/testify that he talked to a police officer at the time of shooting. Period. The rest of his testimony states that he *only* decided to talk to police after seeing Curry request

that witnesses come forward.

This is your witness not mine. If he's reliable for you when he said he "felt" the person was Oswald - even though he testified that he never saw the man's face (ouch) - then he's reliable when he said the only time he talked to police was on

Saturday.

So a witness says he only talked to police on Saturday not the day of the assassination and the same witness says he never saw the face of the person he saw leaving the TSBD. From that you conclude he did talk to the police and the person he saw was

Oswald?

Worrell's description of the man he saw running:
Mr. SPECTER - Can you describe the characteristics of his hair?
Mr. WORRELL - Black.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he have --
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I will say brunette.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he have a full head of hair, a partial head of hair, or what?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, see, I didn't see his face, I just saw the back of his head and it was full in back. I don't know what the front looked like. But it was full in back.
Mr. SPECTER - What clothes did the man have on?
Mr. WORRELL - Dark, like a jacket like that.
Mr. SPECTER - Indicating a dark gray jacket?
Mr. WORRELL - No, no. It was a jacket like that.
Mr. SPECTER - A suit jacket?
Mr. WORRELL - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Or was it a sports jacket?
Mr. WORRELL - Sports jacket.
If you think this is an ID of Oswald then...well, I don't.

Worrell seemed to, at first, for the FBI.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:31:16 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A

HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10", 165

LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT WAS

A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO 165
LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

So this is all based on a memo wherein Shanklin said that
Malley said that Batchelor said that Sawyer said something,
and James Worrell's story. This is the same James Worrell
who said that he saw JFK at Love Field, then caught a bus
to somewhere near Dealey Plaza and walked to Elm and
Houston before 11 AM. That's some trick when Air Force
One didn't touch down until 11:30.

Worrell never said that the man whom he claimed to see
running from the TSBD was carrying anything.

Never say "never". How do you know? If it was not Worrell, it was another man who claimed to see someone running from the building with a rifle. Whether or not Worrell's or this unID'd individual's story is true or not, we don't know. Even if none of
it were true (I don't know), the 12:44 suspect description wasn't Brennan's, it was this man's, known or unknown. And I'm guessing you bought the Brennan version, hook line & sinker, despite its various problems... Apparently a little hypocrisy here...

In fact, his

DCSD affidavit describes the man as "a w/m, 5'8" to 5'10",
dark hair, average weight for height, dark shirt or jacket open
down front, no hat, didn't have anything in his hands." In his
WC deposition, Worrell said the man "wasn't holding nothing
when he was running. He was just running"

Also, Worrell said that he left the scene immediately after
seeing the man, making his way home.

Guess you didn't read my comparison, above, of Worrell to Scoggins, another witness who, at first, said he left a murder scene immediately. Scoggins didn't. Worrell most probably didn't either.

He would have had

to double back to the front of the Depository to run into
Sawyer.

It's Dealey fiction that Sawyer was in front of the depository that early--or maybe there's some other reason that he didn't hear or run into Harkness, Hargis, Haygood, Hill, Brennan or Euins before 12:46, when he had to be told that the shooting came
from... the Depository. Get up to speed, R... Maybe Sawyer was busy de-briefing Worrell on the east side of the building. "Front of the depository"--funny...

He can't be the source of a the story related by

Shanklin. And Shanklin's account is nothing more than
treble hearsay.

The details of which almost perfectly match Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, formerly thought to be Brennan's, actually probably Worrell's, whoever he saw. How'd someone thrice-removed get so many details right?

There's simply nothing here, but your own misreading
and faulty reasoning.

You'd like that to be so. Undermines Belin's "star witness", as he wrote in his book.

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 12:05:05 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:31:16 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A

HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT

WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO
165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

So this is all based on a memo wherein Shanklin said that
Malley said that Batchelor said that Sawyer said something,
and James Worrell's story. This is the same James Worrell
who said that he saw JFK at Love Field, then caught a bus
to somewhere near Dealey Plaza and walked to Elm and
Houston before 11 AM. That's some trick when Air Force
One didn't touch down until 11:30.

Worrell never said that the man whom he claimed to see
running from the TSBD was carrying anything.

Never say "never". How do you know? If it was not Worrell, it was another man who claimed to see someone running from the building with a rifle. Whether or not Worrell's or this unID'd individual's story is true or not, we don't know. Even if none of

it were true (I don't know), the 12:44 suspect description wasn't Brennan's, it was this man's, known or unknown. And I'm guessing you bought the Brennan version, hook line & sinker, despite its various problems... Apparently a little hypocrisy here...

In fact, his

DCSD affidavit describes the man as "a w/m, 5'8" to 5'10",
dark hair, average weight for height, dark shirt or jacket open
down front, no hat, didn't have anything in his hands." In his
WC deposition, Worrell said the man "wasn't holding nothing
when he was running. He was just running"

Also, Worrell said that he left the scene immediately after
seeing the man, making his way home.

Guess you didn't read my comparison, above, of Worrell to Scoggins, another witness who, at first, said he left a murder scene immediately. Scoggins didn't. Worrell most probably didn't either.
He would have had

to double back to the front of the Depository to run into
Sawyer.

It's Dealey fiction that Sawyer was in front of the depository that early--or maybe there's some other reason that he didn't hear or run into Harkness, Hargis, Haygood, Hill, Brennan or Euins before 12:46, when he had to be told that the shooting came

from... the Depository. Get up to speed, R... Maybe Sawyer was busy de-briefing Worrell on the east side of the building. "Front of the depository"--funny...

He can't be the source of a the story related by

Shanklin. And Shanklin's account is nothing more than
treble hearsay.

The details of which almost perfectly match Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, formerly thought to be Brennan's, actually probably Worrell's, whoever he saw. How'd someone thrice-removed get so many details right?

There's simply nothing here, but your own misreading
and faulty reasoning.

You'd like that to be so. Undermines Belin's "star witness", as he wrote in his book.

There were no star witnesses, Don. The case against Oswald can be made strictly on the
forensics. The witnesses just add a few more nails in his coffin.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:38:43 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:37:45 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:45:25 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:10:16 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME

TYPE OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING
OUT OF A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5'

10", 165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND
LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM

AGAIN. IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL",
"155 TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND

THE AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE

SUSPECT, AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME,
CREATED THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS
SPONSOR, SS AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/

WINCHESTER", WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN
WAS MADE TO LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE
MAY HAVE HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS
HE WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Perhaps someday you or Bud will explain just *how* I look at things wrongly or incorrectly, rather than generalize mindlessly.

I`m sure if I searched I could find where I made specific observations. But why do you say the generalizations aren`t accurate? Generally what you do is take some clearly erroneous information, carve that into stone and proceed to try to bend all

the other information satisfy the clearly erroneous information. Examples off the top of my head of this would be the description of the shells as automatic at the Tippit shooting scene

OK, that may be "erroneous". Sometimes I think so, sometimes I don't.

You are right when you think so, wrong when you don`t.

, the door one of the Davis girls went to at that scene
That was probably the gospel truth, on the part of Virginia, in her affidavit!

She said she went with Barbara, Barbara said she could see the cop car from the door they went to. The both said "yard", and only one door opens onto a yard. You things like this so you can play your silly game of "this much mean this, which much

mean this, which must mean this", with each step getting more and more fantastic until the result is only about a thousand times more unlikely than her being wrong about the door she went to. Likewise with the "openness" of the window in the TSBD.

, the "openness" of windows in the TSBD, ect.

Here, you are clearly the one in error. At least four different witnesses agreed.

But other evidence shows the information to be erroneous. You use this to pile on a whole truckload of things that are more fantastic than four people being wrong about a minor detail.

Which floor & which window are MINOR details?

Is that what you thought I was saying? I`m sure if you tried hard enough you`d realize the minor detail I was referring to was the "openness" of the window. Just because you like to pretend that this is the determining factor for the location, it
really isn`t (and you proceed to ignore the very witnesses you are using when they say things like "the window above the colored guys", two floors down from the roof, circle the window, ect) . Like most conspiracy folks you can`t make a distinction
between your ideas about the evidence and the evidence itself.

dcw

Also you use any excuse to start speculating fantastic occurrences.

Keep in mind that I don`t care that you do these things, if playing silly games like this makes you happy. I`m only replying because you invoked my name, I`m like a wish genie.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:25:56 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:38:43 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:37:45 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:45:25 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:10:16 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME

TYPE OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING
OUT OF A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER,

5' 10", 165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT
GROUND LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO
MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM

AGAIN. IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL",
"155 TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND

THE AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE

SUSPECT, AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME,
CREATED THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS
SPONSOR, SS AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/

WINCHESTER", WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN
WAS MADE TO LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE
MAY HAVE HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS
HE WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Perhaps someday you or Bud will explain just *how* I look at things wrongly or incorrectly, rather than generalize mindlessly.

I`m sure if I searched I could find where I made specific observations. But why do you say the generalizations aren`t accurate? Generally what you do is take some clearly erroneous information, carve that into stone and proceed to try to bend

all the other information satisfy the clearly erroneous information. Examples off the top of my head of this would be the description of the shells as automatic at the Tippit shooting scene

OK, that may be "erroneous". Sometimes I think so, sometimes I don't.

You are right when you think so, wrong when you don`t.

, the door one of the Davis girls went to at that scene
That was probably the gospel truth, on the part of Virginia, in her affidavit!

She said she went with Barbara, Barbara said she could see the cop car from the door they went to. The both said "yard", and only one door opens onto a yard. You things like this so you can play your silly game of "this much mean this, which much

mean this, which must mean this", with each step getting more and more fantastic until the result is only about a thousand times more unlikely than her being wrong about the door she went to. Likewise with the "openness" of the window in the TSBD.

, the "openness" of windows in the TSBD, ect.

Here, you are clearly the one in error. At least four different witnesses agreed.

But other evidence shows the information to be erroneous. You use this to pile on a whole truckload of things that are more fantastic than four people being wrong about a minor detail.

Which floor & which window are MINOR details?

Is that what you thought I was saying? I`m sure if you tried hard enough you`d realize the minor detail I was referring to was the "openness" of the window. Just because you like to pretend that this is the determining factor for the location, it

really isn`t (and you proceed to ignore the very witnesses you are using when they say things like "the window above the colored guys"

You mean like Jarman & Norman. The former didn't even mention the 5th floor for 2 days; the latter, for 4 days! Took them a long time to come around re the 5th floor. Williams came out right away, on 11/22, and put himself on the 5th floor. Why
couldn't the other two??
Williams was indeed on the 5th floor at 12:30; Norman & Jarman were most probably not.

dcw

, two floors down from the roof, circle the window, ect) . Like most conspiracy folks you can`t make a distinction between your ideas about the evidence and the evidence itself.

dcw

Also you use any excuse to start speculating fantastic occurrences.

Keep in mind that I don`t care that you do these things, if playing silly games like this makes you happy. I`m only replying because you invoked my name, I`m like a wish genie.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:45:50 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 12:05:05 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:31:16 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF

A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT

WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO
165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

So this is all based on a memo wherein Shanklin said that
Malley said that Batchelor said that Sawyer said something,
and James Worrell's story. This is the same James Worrell
who said that he saw JFK at Love Field, then caught a bus
to somewhere near Dealey Plaza and walked to Elm and
Houston before 11 AM. That's some trick when Air Force
One didn't touch down until 11:30.

Worrell never said that the man whom he claimed to see
running from the TSBD was carrying anything.

Never say "never". How do you know? If it was not Worrell, it was another man who claimed to see someone running from the building with a rifle. Whether or not Worrell's or this unID'd individual's story is true or not, we don't know. Even if none of

it were true (I don't know), the 12:44 suspect description wasn't Brennan's, it was this man's, known or unknown. And I'm guessing you bought the Brennan version, hook line & sinker, despite its various problems... Apparently a little hypocrisy here...

In fact, his

DCSD affidavit describes the man as "a w/m, 5'8" to 5'10",
dark hair, average weight for height, dark shirt or jacket open
down front, no hat, didn't have anything in his hands." In his
WC deposition, Worrell said the man "wasn't holding nothing
when he was running. He was just running"

Also, Worrell said that he left the scene immediately after
seeing the man, making his way home.

Guess you didn't read my comparison, above, of Worrell to Scoggins, another witness who, at first, said he left a murder scene immediately. Scoggins didn't. Worrell most probably didn't either.
He would have had

to double back to the front of the Depository to run into
Sawyer.

It's Dealey fiction that Sawyer was in front of the depository that early--or maybe there's some other reason that he didn't hear or run into Harkness, Hargis, Haygood, Hill, Brennan or Euins before 12:46, when he had to be told that the shooting

came from... the Depository. Get up to speed, R... Maybe Sawyer was busy de-briefing Worrell on the east side of the building. "Front of the depository"--funny...

He can't be the source of a the story related by

Shanklin. And Shanklin's account is nothing more than
treble hearsay.

The details of which almost perfectly match Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, formerly thought to be Brennan's, actually probably Worrell's, whoever he saw. How'd someone thrice-removed get so many details right?

There's simply nothing here, but your own misreading
and faulty reasoning.

You'd like that to be so. Undermines Belin's "star witness", as he wrote in his book.

There were no star witnesses, Don. The case against Oswald can be made strictly on the
forensics. The witnesses just add a few more nails in his coffin.

Belin thought there was one, Brennan.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:25:56 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:38:43 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:37:45 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:45:25 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:10:16 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME

TYPE OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING
OUT OF A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER,

5' 10", 165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT
GROUND LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO
MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM

AGAIN. IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL",
"155 TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND

THE AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE

SUSPECT, AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME,
CREATED THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS
SPONSOR, SS AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/

WINCHESTER", WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN
WAS MADE TO LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE
MAY HAVE HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS
HE WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Perhaps someday you or Bud will explain just *how* I look at things wrongly or incorrectly, rather than generalize mindlessly.

I`m sure if I searched I could find where I made specific observations. But why do you say the generalizations aren`t accurate? Generally what you do is take some clearly erroneous information, carve that into stone and proceed to try to bend

all the other information satisfy the clearly erroneous information. Examples off the top of my head of this would be the description of the shells as automatic at the Tippit shooting scene

OK, that may be "erroneous". Sometimes I think so, sometimes I don't.

You are right when you think so, wrong when you don`t.

, the door one of the Davis girls went to at that scene
That was probably the gospel truth, on the part of Virginia, in her affidavit!

She said she went with Barbara, Barbara said she could see the cop car from the door they went to. The both said "yard", and only one door opens onto a yard. You things like this so you can play your silly game of "this much mean this, which much

mean this, which must mean this", with each step getting more and more fantastic until the result is only about a thousand times more unlikely than her being wrong about the door she went to. Likewise with the "openness" of the window in the TSBD.

, the "openness" of windows in the TSBD, ect.

Here, you are clearly the one in error. At least four different witnesses agreed.

But other evidence shows the information to be erroneous. You use this to pile on a whole truckload of things that are more fantastic than four people being wrong about a minor detail.

Which floor & which window are MINOR details?

Is that what you thought I was saying? I`m sure if you tried hard enough you`d realize the minor detail I was referring to was the "openness" of the window. Just because you like to pretend that this is the determining factor for the location, it

really isn`t (and you proceed to ignore the very witnesses you are using when they say things like "the window above the colored guys"

According to Bonnie Ray Williams, the "window above the colored guys" would have been "at the middle of the building" (FBI interview 11/23/63), on the 6th floor, or, Williams again, "at about the center of the building" (FBI interview 3/19/64)! He might
of course have been unsure as to where to place Norman & Jarman, since they were most probably not there at 12:30 on 11/22, but he should have known where *he* was. Now it's *your* turn to ignore the witness, as you must, since he doesn't tally with
your preconceptions...

dcw

, two floors down from the roof, circle the window, ect) . Like most conspiracy folks you can`t make a distinction between your ideas about the evidence and the evidence itself.

dcw

Also you use any excuse to start speculating fantastic occurrences.

Keep in mind that I don`t care that you do these things, if playing silly games like this makes you happy. I`m only replying because you invoked my name, I`m like a wish genie.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 2:31:16 PM UTC-7, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A HIGH-

POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165."

Brennan's height estimate is even more suspect when you read that he thought the man was "STANDING in the 6th floor window" (FBI interview 1/7/64). Not a credible witness re height!

dcw

(AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523.
AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10", 165

LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT WAS A

WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO 165
LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE. AND

WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL, BUT
NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT FIRST,

TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER", WHICH

WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO LOOK
AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE HARBORED
SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE WONDERED HOW A
MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:47:36 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

Brennan's height estimate is even more suspect when you read that he thought the man was "STANDING in the 6th floor window" (FBI interview 1/7/64). Not a credible witness re height!

Nobody cares how tall Brennan estimated the shooter to be because from his vantage point
there was no way he could have determined that. The fact his estimate was reasonably close
was nothing more than a lucky guess.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:05:18 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:45:50 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 12:05:05 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:31:16 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE

OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF
A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND
LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155
TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE

AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT,

AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED
THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS
AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

So this is all based on a memo wherein Shanklin said that
Malley said that Batchelor said that Sawyer said something,
and James Worrell's story. This is the same James Worrell
who said that he saw JFK at Love Field, then caught a bus
to somewhere near Dealey Plaza and walked to Elm and
Houston before 11 AM. That's some trick when Air Force
One didn't touch down until 11:30.

Worrell never said that the man whom he claimed to see
running from the TSBD was carrying anything.

Never say "never". How do you know? If it was not Worrell, it was another man who claimed to see someone running from the building with a rifle. Whether or not Worrell's or this unID'd individual's story is true or not, we don't know. Even if none

of it were true (I don't know), the 12:44 suspect description wasn't Brennan's, it was this man's, known or unknown. And I'm guessing you bought the Brennan version, hook line & sinker, despite its various problems... Apparently a little hypocrisy here...

In fact, his

DCSD affidavit describes the man as "a w/m, 5'8" to 5'10",
dark hair, average weight for height, dark shirt or jacket open
down front, no hat, didn't have anything in his hands." In his
WC deposition, Worrell said the man "wasn't holding nothing
when he was running. He was just running"

Also, Worrell said that he left the scene immediately after
seeing the man, making his way home.

Guess you didn't read my comparison, above, of Worrell to Scoggins, another witness who, at first, said he left a murder scene immediately. Scoggins didn't. Worrell most probably didn't either.
He would have had

to double back to the front of the Depository to run into
Sawyer.

It's Dealey fiction that Sawyer was in front of the depository that early--or maybe there's some other reason that he didn't hear or run into Harkness, Hargis, Haygood, Hill, Brennan or Euins before 12:46, when he had to be told that the shooting

came from... the Depository. Get up to speed, R... Maybe Sawyer was busy de-briefing Worrell on the east side of the building. "Front of the depository"--funny...

He can't be the source of a the story related by

Shanklin. And Shanklin's account is nothing more than
treble hearsay.

The details of which almost perfectly match Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, formerly thought to be Brennan's, actually probably Worrell's, whoever he saw. How'd someone thrice-removed get so many details right?

There's simply nothing here, but your own misreading
and faulty reasoning.

You'd like that to be so. Undermines Belin's "star witness", as he wrote in his book.

There were no star witnesses, Don. The case against Oswald can be made strictly on the
forensics. The witnesses just add a few more nails in his coffin.

Belin thought there was one, Brennan.

Brennan was the one guy who saw Oswald fire a shot, the last one. Worrel saw the rifle being
fired but couldn't see who was firing it. That made Brennan important but hardly a star witness.
If Brennan's testimony was the prime piece of evidence against Oswald, I doubt they would have
even taken Oswald to trial. Without the forensic evidence corroborating Brennan, I doubt they
could have convinced a jury that Brennan could make a positive ID of the shooter from his
vantage point. There certainly would have been room for reasonable doubt. On the other hand,
even without Brennan, the forensic evidence against Oswald was conclusive. He owned the
murder weapon. The means of bringing it into the TSBD was established. He palm print was
on the murder weapon. Fibers matching his shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle. His
palm prints were on the boxes stacked as a rifle rest at the very window several witnesses saw
a rifleman. The medical evidence revealed the shots that killed JFK were fired from above and
behind him. In short, the forensic evidence is exactly what we would expect it to be if Oswald
was the shooter and there is no plausible explanation for it that does not conclude Oswald was
the shooter. If there was, someone would have come up with one by now. Brennan's testimony
was important but hardly necessary.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:09:56 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:25:56 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:38:43 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:37:45 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:45:25 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:10:16 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE,

SOME TYPE OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS,
WAVING OUT OF A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT
DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER,

5' 10", 165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT
GROUND LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO
MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM

AGAIN. IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL",
"155 TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT,

AND THE AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION
FIT WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE

SUSPECT, AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME,
CREATED THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS
SPONSOR, SS AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/

WINCHESTER", WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN
WAS MADE TO LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE
MAY HAVE HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS
HE WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Perhaps someday you or Bud will explain just *how* I look at things wrongly or incorrectly, rather than generalize mindlessly.

I`m sure if I searched I could find where I made specific observations. But why do you say the generalizations aren`t accurate? Generally what you do is take some clearly erroneous information, carve that into stone and proceed to try to bend

all the other information satisfy the clearly erroneous information. Examples off the top of my head of this would be the description of the shells as automatic at the Tippit shooting scene

OK, that may be "erroneous". Sometimes I think so, sometimes I don't.

You are right when you think so, wrong when you don`t.

, the door one of the Davis girls went to at that scene
That was probably the gospel truth, on the part of Virginia, in her affidavit!

She said she went with Barbara, Barbara said she could see the cop car from the door they went to. The both said "yard", and only one door opens onto a yard. You things like this so you can play your silly game of "this much mean this, which much

mean this, which must mean this", with each step getting more and more fantastic until the result is only about a thousand times more unlikely than her being wrong about the door she went to. Likewise with the "openness" of the window in the TSBD.

, the "openness" of windows in the TSBD, ect.

Here, you are clearly the one in error. At least four different witnesses agreed.

But other evidence shows the information to be erroneous. You use this to pile on a whole truckload of things that are more fantastic than four people being wrong about a minor detail.

Which floor & which window are MINOR details?

Is that what you thought I was saying? I`m sure if you tried hard enough you`d realize the minor detail I was referring to was the "openness" of the window. Just because you like to pretend that this is the determining factor for the location, it

really isn`t (and you proceed to ignore the very witnesses you are using when they say things like "the window above the colored guys"

You mean like Jarman & Norman. The former didn't even mention the 5th floor for 2 days; the latter, for 4 days! Took them a long time to come around re the 5th floor. Williams came out right away, on 11/22, and put himself on the 5th floor. Why couldn'

t the other two??

Williams was indeed on the 5th floor at 12:30; Norman & Jarman were most probably not.

You're a very silly man. You decided that the description of how wide open the window was is
the most empirical piece of evidence we have to determine the shooter's location and you
ignore all the rest of the evidence that clearly indicates he was on the 6th floor. None of that
matters to you because a few witnesses said the shooter fired from a wide open window so
that must be correct and everything else was fabricated. You can believe all the other nonsense
you have been forced to dream up but you won't consider for one second the witnesses
estimate of how wide open the window was is just plain wrong. That's why the sensible people
laugh at you.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:09:56 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:25:56 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:38:43 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:37:45 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:45:25 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:10:16 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE,

SOME TYPE OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS,
WAVING OUT OF A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT
DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER,

5' 10", 165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT
GROUND LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO
MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM

AGAIN. IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL",
"155 TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT,

AND THE AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION
FIT WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE

SUSPECT, AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME,
CREATED THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS
SPONSOR, SS AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/

WINCHESTER", WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN
WAS MADE TO LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE
MAY HAVE HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS
HE WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Perhaps someday you or Bud will explain just *how* I look at things wrongly or incorrectly, rather than generalize mindlessly.

I`m sure if I searched I could find where I made specific observations. But why do you say the generalizations aren`t accurate? Generally what you do is take some clearly erroneous information, carve that into stone and proceed to try to bend

all the other information satisfy the clearly erroneous information. Examples off the top of my head of this would be the description of the shells as automatic at the Tippit shooting scene

OK, that may be "erroneous". Sometimes I think so, sometimes I don't.

You are right when you think so, wrong when you don`t.

, the door one of the Davis girls went to at that scene
That was probably the gospel truth, on the part of Virginia, in her affidavit!

She said she went with Barbara, Barbara said she could see the cop car from the door they went to. The both said "yard", and only one door opens onto a yard. You things like this so you can play your silly game of "this much mean this, which much

mean this, which must mean this", with each step getting more and more fantastic until the result is only about a thousand times more unlikely than her being wrong about the door she went to. Likewise with the "openness" of the window in the TSBD.

, the "openness" of windows in the TSBD, ect.

Here, you are clearly the one in error. At least four different witnesses agreed.

But other evidence shows the information to be erroneous. You use this to pile on a whole truckload of things that are more fantastic than four people being wrong about a minor detail.

Which floor & which window are MINOR details?

Is that what you thought I was saying? I`m sure if you tried hard enough you`d realize the minor detail I was referring to was the "openness" of the window. Just because you like to pretend that this is the determining factor for the location, it

really isn`t (and you proceed to ignore the very witnesses you are using when they say things like "the window above the colored guys"

You mean like Jarman & Norman.

Are they part of your four witnesses to the half open window? Why are you always flitting off to somewhere else? Is it an attention deficiency or lack of focus that is the cause of your propensity to think stupid shit?

The former didn't even mention the 5th floor for 2 days; the latter, for 4 days! Took them a long time to come around re the 5th floor. Williams came out right away, on 11/22, and put himself on the 5th floor. Why couldn't the other two??

What does this have to do with people using them as a reference point to where the shooter was?

Williams was indeed on the 5th floor at 12:30; Norman & Jarman were most probably not.

dcw
, two floors down from the roof, circle the window, ect) . Like most conspiracy folks you can`t make a distinction between your ideas about the evidence and the evidence itself.

dcw

Also you use any excuse to start speculating fantastic occurrences.

Keep in mind that I don`t care that you do these things, if playing silly games like this makes you happy. I`m only replying because you invoked my name, I`m like a wish genie.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:39:00 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:25:56 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:38:43 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 4:51:06 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:37:45 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:45:25 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:44:13 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:10:16 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE,

SOME TYPE OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS,
WAVING OUT OF A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT
DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER,

5' 10", 165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT
GROUND LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO
MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM

AGAIN. IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL",
"155 TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT,

AND THE AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION
FIT WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE

SUSPECT, AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME,
CREATED THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS
SPONSOR, SS AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/

WINCHESTER", WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN
WAS MADE TO LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE
MAY HAVE HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS
HE WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

Don continues to look at all the wrong things and looks at them incorrectly.

Perhaps someday you or Bud will explain just *how* I look at things wrongly or incorrectly, rather than generalize mindlessly.

I`m sure if I searched I could find where I made specific observations. But why do you say the generalizations aren`t accurate? Generally what you do is take some clearly erroneous information, carve that into stone and proceed to try to bend

all the other information satisfy the clearly erroneous information. Examples off the top of my head of this would be the description of the shells as automatic at the Tippit shooting scene

OK, that may be "erroneous". Sometimes I think so, sometimes I don't.

You are right when you think so, wrong when you don`t.

, the door one of the Davis girls went to at that scene
That was probably the gospel truth, on the part of Virginia, in her affidavit!

She said she went with Barbara, Barbara said she could see the cop car from the door they went to. The both said "yard", and only one door opens onto a yard. You things like this so you can play your silly game of "this much mean this, which much

mean this, which must mean this", with each step getting more and more fantastic until the result is only about a thousand times more unlikely than her being wrong about the door she went to. Likewise with the "openness" of the window in the TSBD.

, the "openness" of windows in the TSBD, ect.

Here, you are clearly the one in error. At least four different witnesses agreed.

But other evidence shows the information to be erroneous. You use this to pile on a whole truckload of things that are more fantastic than four people being wrong about a minor detail.

Which floor & which window are MINOR details?

Is that what you thought I was saying? I`m sure if you tried hard enough you`d realize the minor detail I was referring to was the "openness" of the window. Just because you like to pretend that this is the determining factor for the location, it

really isn`t (and you proceed to ignore the very witnesses you are using when they say things like "the window above the colored guys"

According to Bonnie Ray Williams,

Is he one of your four witnesses to the "openness" of the windows?

the "window above the colored guys" would have been "at the middle of the building" (FBI interview 11/23/63), on the 6th floor, or, Williams again, "at about the center of the building" (FBI interview 3/19/64)! He might of course have been unsure as to

where to place Norman & Jarman, since they were most probably not there at 12:30 on 11/22, but he should have known where *he* was. Now it's *your* turn to ignore the witness, as you must, since he doesn't tally with your preconceptions...

I don`t have "preconceptions", I have knowledge of what floor those guys were on.

And all you are doing is supporting the accuracy of what I said earlier in this post...

"Generally what you do is take some clearly erroneous information, carve that into stone and proceed to try to bend all the other information to satisfy the clearly erroneous information."

And this...

"Also you use any excuse to start speculating fantastic occurrences."

dcw
, two floors down from the roof, circle the window, ect) . Like most conspiracy folks you can`t make a distinction between your ideas about the evidence and the evidence itself.

dcw

Also you use any excuse to start speculating fantastic occurrences.

Keep in mind that I don`t care that you do these things, if playing silly games like this makes you happy. I`m only replying because you invoked my name, I`m like a wish genie.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 11:42:57 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:05:18 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:45:50 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 12:05:05 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:31:16 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE

OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF
A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5'

10", 165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND
LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155
TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE

AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT,

AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED
THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS
AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/

WINCHESTER", WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN
WAS MADE TO LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE
MAY HAVE HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS
HE WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

So this is all based on a memo wherein Shanklin said that
Malley said that Batchelor said that Sawyer said something,
and James Worrell's story. This is the same James Worrell
who said that he saw JFK at Love Field, then caught a bus
to somewhere near Dealey Plaza and walked to Elm and
Houston before 11 AM. That's some trick when Air Force
One didn't touch down until 11:30.

Worrell never said that the man whom he claimed to see
running from the TSBD was carrying anything.

Never say "never". How do you know? If it was not Worrell, it was another man who claimed to see someone running from the building with a rifle. Whether or not Worrell's or this unID'd individual's story is true or not, we don't know. Even if

none of it were true (I don't know), the 12:44 suspect description wasn't Brennan's, it was this man's, known or unknown. And I'm guessing you bought the Brennan version, hook line & sinker, despite its various problems... Apparently a little hypocrisy
here...

In fact, his

DCSD affidavit describes the man as "a w/m, 5'8" to 5'10",
dark hair, average weight for height, dark shirt or jacket open
down front, no hat, didn't have anything in his hands." In his
WC deposition, Worrell said the man "wasn't holding nothing
when he was running. He was just running"

Also, Worrell said that he left the scene immediately after
seeing the man, making his way home.

Guess you didn't read my comparison, above, of Worrell to Scoggins, another witness who, at first, said he left a murder scene immediately. Scoggins didn't. Worrell most probably didn't either.
He would have had

to double back to the front of the Depository to run into
Sawyer.

It's Dealey fiction that Sawyer was in front of the depository that early--or maybe there's some other reason that he didn't hear or run into Harkness, Hargis, Haygood, Hill, Brennan or Euins before 12:46, when he had to be told that the shooting

came from... the Depository. Get up to speed, R... Maybe Sawyer was busy de-briefing Worrell on the east side of the building. "Front of the depository"--funny...

He can't be the source of a the story related by

Shanklin. And Shanklin's account is nothing more than
treble hearsay.

The details of which almost perfectly match Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, formerly thought to be Brennan's, actually probably Worrell's, whoever he saw. How'd someone thrice-removed get so many details right?

There's simply nothing here, but your own misreading
and faulty reasoning.

You'd like that to be so. Undermines Belin's "star witness", as he wrote in his book.

There were no star witnesses, Don. The case against Oswald can be made strictly on the
forensics. The witnesses just add a few more nails in his coffin.

Belin thought there was one, Brennan.

Brennan was the one guy who saw Oswald fire a shot, the last one. Worrel saw the rifle being
fired but couldn't see who was firing it. That made Brennan important but hardly a star witness.
If Brennan's testimony was the prime piece of evidence against Oswald, I doubt they would have
even taken Oswald to trial. Without the forensic evidence corroborating Brennan, I doubt they
could have convinced a jury that Brennan could make a positive ID of the shooter from his
vantage point. There certainly would have been room for reasonable doubt. On the other hand,
even without Brennan, the forensic evidence against Oswald was conclusive. He owned the
murder weapon. The means of bringing it into the TSBD was established. He palm print was
on the murder weapon. Fibers matching his shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle. His
palm prints were on the boxes stacked as a rifle rest at the very window several witnesses saw
a rifleman. The medical evidence revealed the shots that killed JFK were fired from above and
behind him. In short, the forensic evidence is exactly what we would expect it to be if Oswald
was the shooter and there is no plausible explanation for it that does not conclude Oswald was
the shooter. If there was, someone would have come up with one by now. Brennan's testimony
was important but hardly necessary.

Good summation, but as you say he owned the weapon, and the palm print & fibers could have been on it for some time. So those details just go to ownership again, not to whether or not he used the weapon that day.

But my post is not about Whodunit, but about a suspect description's being taken from one witness and given to another witness. And that establishes that the police were not above duplicity in making their case. And historians have picked up this
misinformation and passed it on. Bugliosi, for instance:

""What did you see?" Sawyer asks Brennan.
The steelworker gives him a description of the man in the window & the inspector mashes the button on his car radio again: "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30. Five foot ten. A hundred & 65. And carrying what looked like a 30-
30 or some type of Winchester."" ("Four Days in November", p100)

We know now that most of that information (except "slender white male" and "about 30") could not have come from Brennan. It came from someone who saw the suspect at ground level and could reasonably have estimated height & weight. But Sawyer did his
part to promulgate the duplicity: "That description came to me mainly from one witness who claimed to have seen the rifle barrel in the fifth or sixth floor of the building..." (v6p322)

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 11:52:44 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:47:36 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

Brennan's height estimate is even more suspect when you read that he thought the man was "STANDING in the 6th floor window" (FBI interview 1/7/64). Not a credible witness re height!

Nobody cares how tall Brennan estimated the shooter to be because from his vantage point
there was no way he could have determined that. The fact his estimate was reasonably close
was nothing more than a lucky guess.

An amazing, nigh impossible "guess". And I'm assuming you're referencing his testimony, because the 12:44 suspect description was not from him, we now know...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:18:45 PM UTC-7, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:01:01 PM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:17:37 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:38:41 PM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE

OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF
A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND
LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155
TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE

AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT,

AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED
THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS
AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

Nowhere in Morrell's accounts of what he did that day indicate that he talked to a police officer. In fact, he says he left the scene shortly after and only decided to talk to the police after seeing Curry on TV Saturday asking for witnesses to

come forward. So how did the police get this story?

First, you should start with the correct witness name, which is not "Morrell", unless you're talking hot dogs. And if you're taking WORRELL at his word, then you accept his 11/30/63 FBI ID of the man he saw running as Oswald: Worrell "felt that [

Oswald] was the person he had seen." Good, you yourself have put Oswald out back of the depository, fleeing North, away from busses and taxis. Good work!

Compare the testimony of witness WW Scoggins, who testified to the WC that he had left the Tippit scene immediately after returning with Callaway because the police didn't seem to want to talk to him. That hasty departure "explained" why he did not

attend a lineup later in the day. However, later in his testimony, he says that when he & Callaway returned to the scene, "the policemen came along", and he, Scoggins, left his "cab sitting down there & got in a car with them & left the [Tippit] scene." (
v3p337) (There is verification of that.)

As I wrote, Worrell makes more sense as Sawyer's witness than does Brennan--he could believably have estimated the suspect's height & weight. Brennan could not have. It's not believable that he'd even (unprompted) try, and yet the "unidentified

individual"'s specs make it to Sawyer's suspect description. And it is Worrell, not Brennan, who would have been "standing where he could have seen [the suspect]. Brennan, as we all know was, sitting.

And if Worrell said that he saw someone who looked like Oswald running out the back of the building, obviously he's going to be, shall we say, downplayed, at the very least. As was Scoggins, who similarly testified, at first, that he didn't hang

around to talk to the police. But Worrell and Scoggins both did.

dcw

From his testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - All right. When did you first report to any official what you had seen and heard on this occasion?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I turned the TV on early the next morning to see what had happened, and Chief Curry was making his plea --
Senator COOPER - Is that going to become part of the evidence at this point?
Mr. WORRELL - Chief Curry was making his plea for anyone who had seen the shooting, would they please come down and make a statement. So I called the Farmer Branch Police, and told them, and they came and picked me up, and the called the Dallas

police, and they came way out there and picked me up and took me downtown to make a statement and brought me back home.

My mistaken typo. It's Worrell not Morrell. Again, nowhere did he say/testify that he talked to a police officer at the time of shooting. Period. The rest of his testimony states that he *only* decided to talk to police after seeing Curry request

that witnesses come forward.

This is your witness not mine. If he's reliable for you when he said he "felt" the person was Oswald

I didn't say that he was. I said that either Worrell was right, then, or there was a second shooter. Then I raised a question re whether the suspect could really have carried a rifle through the lobby of the depository--in other words, I'm not sure re

Worrell's reliability here.

- even though he testified that he never saw the man's face (ouch)
In one of the sources, he said he saw the guy in profile.
- then he's reliable when he said the only time he talked to police was on Saturday.
So you're saying that a witness is reliable on every point or wrong on every point.

So a witness says he only talked to police on Saturday not the day of the assassination and the same witness says he never saw the face of the person he saw leaving the TSBD. From that you conclude he did talk to the police and the person he saw was

Oswald?

Again, I hardly concluded that it was Oswald.

Though I must add that one witness's affidavit makes it sound as if Worrell's man was Oswald. The latter must have looked older than he really was (24), and heavier than he really was (140, as per the WR, p614): From Patrolman Baker's 11/22 affidavit:
"approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds". Sawyer's 12:44: "about 30, 5 foot 10, 165." The Sawyer/Worrell & Baker descriptions are a match for each other, even if they're not quite a match for Oswald. But if Baker saw Oswald, then it seems that
Worrell saw Oswald, or someone with very similar specs.

dcw

I concluded that the witness DID talk to Sawyer before 12:44. Age, weight, & height, and rifle are a match between Malley and the 12:44 description. And the timing and place are a match between Worrell and Malley.

Sawyer, 12:44: "About 30, 5 foot 10, 165, & carrying what looked like a 30-30 or some type of a Winchester." Perfect match with Malley. How could the witness in Malley/Shanklin not be Sawyer's 12:44 witness?

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:25:15 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

Brennan was the one guy who saw Oswald fire a shot, the last one. Worrel saw the rifle being
fired but couldn't see who was firing it. That made Brennan important but hardly a star witness.
If Brennan's testimony was the prime piece of evidence against Oswald, I doubt they would have
even taken Oswald to trial. Without the forensic evidence corroborating Brennan, I doubt they
could have convinced a jury that Brennan could make a positive ID of the shooter from his
vantage point. There certainly would have been room for reasonable doubt. On the other hand,
even without Brennan, the forensic evidence against Oswald was conclusive. He owned the
murder weapon. The means of bringing it into the TSBD was established. He palm print was
on the murder weapon. Fibers matching his shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle. His
palm prints were on the boxes stacked as a rifle rest at the very window several witnesses saw
a rifleman. The medical evidence revealed the shots that killed JFK were fired from above and
behind him. In short, the forensic evidence is exactly what we would expect it to be if Oswald
was the shooter and there is no plausible explanation for it that does not conclude Oswald was
the shooter. If there was, someone would have come up with one by now. Brennan's testimony
was important but hardly necessary.

Good summation, but as you say he owned the weapon, and the palm print & fibers could have been on it for some time. So those details just go to ownership again, not to whether or not he used the weapon that day.

The fibers on the but plate are the best evidence it was Oswald who fired the weapon that day.
The palm print on the barrel could only have been put there when the weapon was disassembled
which we know it was when smuggled into the TSBD. Do you think Oswald routinely disassembled
the rifle?

But my post is not about Whodunit, but about a suspect description's being taken from one witness and given to another witness. And that establishes that the police were not above duplicity in making their case. And historians have picked up this

misinformation and passed it on. Bugliosi, for instance:

How do you arrive at such nonsensical conclusion?

""What did you see?" Sawyer asks Brennan.
The steelworker gives him a description of the man in the window & the inspector mashes the button on his car radio again: "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30. Five foot ten. A hundred & 65. And carrying what looked like a 30-30

or some type of Winchester."" ("Four Days in November", p100)

Brennan admitted to not knowing that much about firearms. He had limited experience with them.

We know now that most of that information (except "slender white male" and "about 30") could not have come from Brennan.

You think you know that. It makes no sense.

It came from someone who saw the suspect at ground level and could reasonably have estimated height & weight. But Sawyer did his part to promulgate the duplicity: "That description came to me mainly from one witness who claimed to have seen the rifle

barrel in the fifth or sixth floor of the building..." (v6p322)

Earlier I asked how you arrive at such nonsensical conclusions. Now that you have told me,
it makes even less sense.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:23:04 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:25:15 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

Brennan was the one guy who saw Oswald fire a shot, the last one. Worrel saw the rifle being
fired but couldn't see who was firing it. That made Brennan important but hardly a star witness.
If Brennan's testimony was the prime piece of evidence against Oswald, I doubt they would have
even taken Oswald to trial. Without the forensic evidence corroborating Brennan, I doubt they
could have convinced a jury that Brennan could make a positive ID of the shooter from his
vantage point. There certainly would have been room for reasonable doubt. On the other hand,
even without Brennan, the forensic evidence against Oswald was conclusive. He owned the
murder weapon. The means of bringing it into the TSBD was established. He palm print was
on the murder weapon. Fibers matching his shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle. His
palm prints were on the boxes stacked as a rifle rest at the very window several witnesses saw
a rifleman. The medical evidence revealed the shots that killed JFK were fired from above and
behind him. In short, the forensic evidence is exactly what we would expect it to be if Oswald
was the shooter and there is no plausible explanation for it that does not conclude Oswald was
the shooter. If there was, someone would have come up with one by now. Brennan's testimony
was important but hardly necessary.

Good summation, but as you say he owned the weapon, and the palm print & fibers could have been on it for some time. So those details just go to ownership again, not to whether or not he used the weapon that day.

The fibers on the but plate are the best evidence it was Oswald who fired the weapon that day.
The palm print on the barrel could only have been put there when the weapon was disassembled
which we know it was when smuggled into the TSBD. Do you think Oswald routinely disassembled
the rifle?

But my post is not about Whodunit, but about a suspect description's being taken from one witness and given to another witness. And that establishes that the police were not above duplicity in making their case. And historians have picked up this

misinformation and passed it on. Bugliosi, for instance:

How do you arrive at such nonsensical conclusion?

As I wrote,
HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10", 165 LBS..
. 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL, NOT
SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

The above quote was from someone who had "last seen an individual run from the depository". You'll agree that this witness could not have been Brennan, who saw his suspect in a window of the building, not "running from" it. And yet the details are
almost word for word in Sawyer's 12:44 transmission. Sawyer's "unidentified individual", then, was the source for the latter. If the individual saw the suspect running he could see how tall and how heavy he was, and reasonably provide estimates.
Brennan's estimates are hardly reasonable--he even said that he thought the man at the window was "standing"!

It's you who are making nonsensical assumptions.

""What did you see?" Sawyer asks Brennan.
The steelworker gives him a description of the man in the window & the inspector mashes the button on his car radio again: "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30. Five foot ten. A hundred & 65. And carrying what looked like a 30-

30 or some type of Winchester."" ("Four Days in November", p100)

Brennan admitted to not knowing that much about firearms. He had limited experience with them.

In his testimony, he says only that it looked like a "high powered rifle"--nothing about the make or type. He couldn't even venture that much about the weapon, and yet the 12:44 witness did.

We know now that most of that information (except "slender white male" and "about 30") could not have come from Brennan.

You think you know that. It makes no sense.

You think it makes no sense because you're looking at things incorrectly.

It came from someone who saw the suspect at ground level and could reasonably have estimated height & weight. But Sawyer did his part to promulgate the duplicity: "That description came to me mainly from one witness who claimed to have seen the rifle

barrel in the fifth or sixth floor of the building..." (v6p322)

Earlier I asked how you arrive at such nonsensical conclusions. Now that you have told me,
it makes even less sense.

Tell me exactly how "It came from someone who saw the suspect at ground level and could reasonably have estimated height & weight" makes no sense.

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:23:04 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:25:15 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

Brennan was the one guy who saw Oswald fire a shot, the last one. Worrel saw the rifle being
fired but couldn't see who was firing it. That made Brennan important but hardly a star witness.
If Brennan's testimony was the prime piece of evidence against Oswald, I doubt they would have
even taken Oswald to trial. Without the forensic evidence corroborating Brennan, I doubt they
could have convinced a jury that Brennan could make a positive ID of the shooter from his
vantage point. There certainly would have been room for reasonable doubt. On the other hand,
even without Brennan, the forensic evidence against Oswald was conclusive. He owned the
murder weapon. The means of bringing it into the TSBD was established. He palm print was
on the murder weapon. Fibers matching his shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle. His
palm prints were on the boxes stacked as a rifle rest at the very window several witnesses saw
a rifleman. The medical evidence revealed the shots that killed JFK were fired from above and
behind him. In short, the forensic evidence is exactly what we would expect it to be if Oswald
was the shooter and there is no plausible explanation for it that does not conclude Oswald was
the shooter. If there was, someone would have come up with one by now. Brennan's testimony
was important but hardly necessary.

Good summation, but as you say he owned the weapon, and the palm print & fibers could have been on it for some time. So those details just go to ownership again, not to whether or not he used the weapon that day.

The fibers on the but plate are the best evidence it was Oswald who fired the weapon that day.
The palm print on the barrel could only have been put there when the weapon was disassembled
which we know it was when smuggled into the TSBD. Do you think Oswald routinely disassembled
the rifle?

I just realized, and I think that you will realize, too, now, that that is a dumb question, John. Of course Oswald must have practiced disassembling the rifle, so that he could time how long it would take for him to reassemble it in the depository, and
streamline the reassembly process as best he could. Practice makes...

But my post is not about Whodunit, but about a suspect description's being taken from one witness and given to another witness. And that establishes that the police were not above duplicity in making their case. And historians have picked up this

misinformation and passed it on. Bugliosi, for instance:

How do you arrive at such nonsensical conclusion?

""What did you see?" Sawyer asks Brennan.
The steelworker gives him a description of the man in the window & the inspector mashes the button on his car radio again: "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30. Five foot ten. A hundred & 65. And carrying what looked like a 30-

30 or some type of Winchester."" ("Four Days in November", p100)

Brennan admitted to not knowing that much about firearms. He had limited experience with them.

We know now that most of that information (except "slender white male" and "about 30") could not have come from Brennan.

You think you know that. It makes no sense.

It came from someone who saw the suspect at ground level and could reasonably have estimated height & weight. But Sawyer did his part to promulgate the duplicity: "That description came to me mainly from one witness who claimed to have seen the rifle

barrel in the fifth or sixth floor of the building..." (v6p322)

Earlier I asked how you arrive at such nonsensical conclusions. Now that you have told me,
it makes even less sense.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 9:32:12 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:23:04 PM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:25:15 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

Brennan was the one guy who saw Oswald fire a shot, the last one. Worrel saw the rifle being
fired but couldn't see who was firing it. That made Brennan important but hardly a star witness.
If Brennan's testimony was the prime piece of evidence against Oswald, I doubt they would have
even taken Oswald to trial. Without the forensic evidence corroborating Brennan, I doubt they
could have convinced a jury that Brennan could make a positive ID of the shooter from his
vantage point. There certainly would have been room for reasonable doubt. On the other hand,
even without Brennan, the forensic evidence against Oswald was conclusive. He owned the
murder weapon. The means of bringing it into the TSBD was established. He palm print was
on the murder weapon. Fibers matching his shirt were found on the butt plate of the rifle. His
palm prints were on the boxes stacked as a rifle rest at the very window several witnesses saw
a rifleman. The medical evidence revealed the shots that killed JFK were fired from above and
behind him. In short, the forensic evidence is exactly what we would expect it to be if Oswald
was the shooter and there is no plausible explanation for it that does not conclude Oswald was
the shooter. If there was, someone would have come up with one by now. Brennan's testimony
was important but hardly necessary.

Good summation, but as you say he owned the weapon, and the palm print & fibers could have been on it for some time. So those details just go to ownership again, not to whether or not he used the weapon that day.

The fibers on the but plate are the best evidence it was Oswald who fired the weapon that day.
The palm print on the barrel could only have been put there when the weapon was disassembled
which we know it was when smuggled into the TSBD. Do you think Oswald routinely disassembled
the rifle?

I just realized, and I think that you will realize, too, now, that that is a dumb question, John. Of course Oswald must have practiced disassembling the rifle, so that he could time how long it would take for him to reassemble it in the depository, and

streamline the reassembly process as best he could. Practice makes...

Oswald would have plenty of practice disassembling a rifle in the Marine Corps. If he thought
he needed to practice doing it with the Carcano, he only would have had the previous night to
do it. We don't know if Oswald put that palm print on the rifle the previous night when he
disassembled the rifle or that morning when he reassembled it, but it's a pretty safe bet it had
been placed there within 24 hours of the assassination.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:25:15 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 11:42:57 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:05:18 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:45:50 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

This is very interesting and deserves further exposure and review on the Education Forum...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:05:05 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:31:16 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A

HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT

WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO
165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

So this is all based on a memo wherein Shanklin said that
Malley said that Batchelor said that Sawyer said something,
and James Worrell's story. This is the same James Worrell
who said that he saw JFK at Love Field, then caught a bus
to somewhere near Dealey Plaza and walked to Elm and
Houston before 11 AM. That's some trick when Air Force
One didn't touch down until 11:30.

Worrell never said that the man whom he claimed to see
running from the TSBD was carrying anything.

Never say "never". How do you know? If it was not Worrell, it was another man who claimed to see someone running from the building with a rifle. Whether or not Worrell's or this unID'd individual's story is true or not, we don't know. Even if none of

it were true (I don't know), the 12:44 suspect description wasn't Brennan's, it was this man's, known or unknown. And I'm guessing you bought the Brennan version, hook line & sinker, despite its various problems... Apparently a little hypocrisy here...

How do I know? Because that's what Worrell *actually said*.

In fact, his
DCSD affidavit describes the man as "a w/m, 5'8" to 5'10",
dark hair, average weight for height, dark shirt or jacket open
down front, no hat, didn't have anything in his hands." In his
WC deposition, Worrell said the man "wasn't holding nothing
when he was running. He was just running"

Also, Worrell said that he left the scene immediately after
seeing the man, making his way home.

Guess you didn't read my comparison, above, of Worrell to Scoggins, another witness who, at first, said he left a murder scene immediately. Scoggins didn't. Worrell most probably didn't either

Worrell never said that he went back to the scene, nor is there any evidence that he did, so there is no meaningful comparison here.

He would have had to double back to the front of the Depository to run into Sawyer.

It's Dealey fiction that Sawyer was in front of the depository that early--or maybe there's some other reason that he didn't hear or run into Harkness, Hargis, Haygood, Hill, Brennan or Euins before 12:46, when he had to be told that the shooting came

from... the Depository. Get up to speed, R... Maybe Sawyer was busy de-briefing Worrell on the east side of the building. "Front of the depository"--funny...

You're just trying to talk around the fact that Worrell's own statements prevent him from playing the role you claim for him.

He can't be the source of a the story related by

Shanklin. And Shanklin's account is nothing more than
treble hearsay.

The details of which almost perfectly match Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, formerly thought to be Brennan's, actually probably Worrell's, whoever he saw. How'd someone thrice-removed get so many details right?

There's simply nothing here, but your own misreading and faulty reasoning.

You'd like that to be so. Undermines Belin's "star witness", as he wrote in his book.

Worrell's own statements demonstrate it so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 2:23:26 PM UTC-7, Brian Doyle wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:25:15 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 11:42:57 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:05:18 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 2:45:50 AM UTC-7, John Corbett wrote:

This is very interesting and deserves further exposure and review on the Education Forum...

How would this happen?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:35:56 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:05:05 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:31:16 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF

A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT

WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO
165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

So this is all based on a memo wherein Shanklin said that
Malley said that Batchelor said that Sawyer said something,
and James Worrell's story. This is the same James Worrell
who said that he saw JFK at Love Field, then caught a bus
to somewhere near Dealey Plaza and walked to Elm and
Houston before 11 AM. That's some trick when Air Force
One didn't touch down until 11:30.

Worrell never said that the man whom he claimed to see
running from the TSBD was carrying anything.

Never say "never". How do you know? If it was not Worrell, it was another man who claimed to see someone running from the building with a rifle. Whether or not Worrell's or this unID'd individual's story is true or not, we don't know. Even if none of

it were true (I don't know), the 12:44 suspect description wasn't Brennan's, it was this man's, known or unknown. And I'm guessing you bought the Brennan version, hook line & sinker, despite its various problems... Apparently a little hypocrisy here...

How do I know? Because that's what Worrell *actually said*.

At any rate, Sawyer's "unID'd individual" told Sawyer that the man was carrying. And this "unID'd individual"'s words turned up in Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, almost verbatim. Out goes Brennan, at least as the main source of 12:44...

In fact, his
DCSD affidavit describes the man as "a w/m, 5'8" to 5'10",
dark hair, average weight for height, dark shirt or jacket open
down front, no hat, didn't have anything in his hands." In his
WC deposition, Worrell said the man "wasn't holding nothing
when he was running. He was just running"

Also, Worrell said that he left the scene immediately after
seeing the man, making his way home.

Guess you didn't read my comparison, above, of Worrell to Scoggins, another witness who, at first, said he left a murder scene immediately. Scoggins didn't. Worrell most probably didn't either

Worrell never said that he went back to the scene, nor is there any evidence that he did, so there is no meaningful comparison here.

The comparison is apt. Both witnesses said they left a scene immediately, without talking to police. Scoggins did not, after he returned with Callaway. He stayed and went with the police. It's proven. I wasn't talking about whether either of the
two went back to a scene.

He would have had to double back to the front of the Depository to run into Sawyer.

It's Dealey fiction that Sawyer was in front of the depository that early--or maybe there's some other reason that he didn't hear or run into Harkness, Hargis, Haygood, Hill, Brennan or Euins before 12:46, when he had to be told that the shooting

came from... the Depository. Get up to speed, R... Maybe Sawyer was busy de-briefing Worrell on the east side of the building. "Front of the depository"--funny...

You're just trying to talk around the fact that Worrell's own statements prevent him from playing the role you claim for him.

His statements are only statements, unverified. One of Worrell's statements (to the FBI) was that he thought the suspect resembled Oswald. Later, for the WC, he neglected that detail.

He can't be the source of a the story related by

Shanklin. And Shanklin's account is nothing more than
treble hearsay.

The details of which almost perfectly match Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, formerly thought to be Brennan's, actually probably Worrell's, whoever he saw. How'd someone thrice-removed get so many details right?

There's simply nothing here, but your own misreading and faulty reasoning.

You'd like that to be so. Undermines Belin's "star witness", as he wrote in his book.

Worrell's own statements demonstrate it so.

Worrell or not Worrell, the mystery "unID'd" witness was actually the source for the 12:44 description.

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:51:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:35:56 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:05:05 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:31:16 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE

OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF
A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND
LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155
TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE

AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT,

AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED
THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS
AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

So this is all based on a memo wherein Shanklin said that
Malley said that Batchelor said that Sawyer said something,
and James Worrell's story. This is the same James Worrell
who said that he saw JFK at Love Field, then caught a bus
to somewhere near Dealey Plaza and walked to Elm and
Houston before 11 AM. That's some trick when Air Force
One didn't touch down until 11:30.

Worrell never said that the man whom he claimed to see
running from the TSBD was carrying anything.

Never say "never". How do you know? If it was not Worrell, it was another man who claimed to see someone running from the building with a rifle. Whether or not Worrell's or this unID'd individual's story is true or not, we don't know. Even if none

of it were true (I don't know), the 12:44 suspect description wasn't Brennan's, it was this man's, known or unknown. And I'm guessing you bought the Brennan version, hook line & sinker, despite its various problems... Apparently a little hypocrisy here...

How do I know? Because that's what Worrell *actually said*.

At any rate, Sawyer's "unID'd individual" told Sawyer that the man was carrying. And this "unID'd individual"'s words turned up in Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, almost verbatim. Out goes Brennan, at least as the main source of 12:44...

In fact, his
DCSD affidavit describes the man as "a w/m, 5'8" to 5'10",
dark hair, average weight for height, dark shirt or jacket open
down front, no hat, didn't have anything in his hands." In his
WC deposition, Worrell said the man "wasn't holding nothing
when he was running. He was just running"

Also, Worrell said that he left the scene immediately after
seeing the man, making his way home.

Guess you didn't read my comparison, above, of Worrell to Scoggins, another witness who, at first, said he left a murder scene immediately. Scoggins didn't. Worrell most probably didn't either

Worrell never said that he went back to the scene, nor is there any evidence that he did, so there is no meaningful comparison here.

The comparison is apt. Both witnesses said they left a scene immediately, without talking to police. Scoggins did not, after he returned with Callaway. He stayed and went with the police. It's proven. I wasn't talking about whether either of the two

went back to a scene.

He would have had to double back to the front of the Depository to run into Sawyer.

It's Dealey fiction that Sawyer was in front of the depository that early--or maybe there's some other reason that he didn't hear or run into Harkness, Hargis, Haygood, Hill, Brennan or Euins before 12:46, when he had to be told that the shooting

came from... the Depository. Get up to speed, R... Maybe Sawyer was busy de-briefing Worrell on the east side of the building. "Front of the depository"--funny...

You're just trying to talk around the fact that Worrell's own statements prevent him from playing the role you claim for him.

His statements are only statements, unverified. One of Worrell's statements (to the FBI) was that he thought the suspect resembled Oswald. Later, for the WC, he neglected that detail.

He can't be the source of a the story related by

Shanklin. And Shanklin's account is nothing more than
treble hearsay.

The details of which almost perfectly match Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, formerly thought to be Brennan's, actually probably Worrell's, whoever he saw. How'd someone thrice-removed get so many details right?

There's simply nothing here, but your own misreading and faulty reasoning.

You'd like that to be so. Undermines Belin's "star witness", as he wrote in his book.

Worrell's own statements demonstrate it so.

Worrell or not Worrell, the mystery "unID'd" witness was actually the source for the 12:44 description.

Indubitably. In fact, there is an FBI document which flatly states that the DPD said that the description came from "an unknown citizen." https://postimg.cc/XXY0p1NY

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 11:08:59 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:51:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:35:56 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:05:05 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:31:16 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE

OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF
A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5'

10", 165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND
LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155
TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE

AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT,

AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED
THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS
AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/

WINCHESTER", WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN
WAS MADE TO LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE
MAY HAVE HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS
HE WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

So this is all based on a memo wherein Shanklin said that
Malley said that Batchelor said that Sawyer said something,
and James Worrell's story. This is the same James Worrell
who said that he saw JFK at Love Field, then caught a bus
to somewhere near Dealey Plaza and walked to Elm and
Houston before 11 AM. That's some trick when Air Force
One didn't touch down until 11:30.

Worrell never said that the man whom he claimed to see
running from the TSBD was carrying anything.

Never say "never". How do you know? If it was not Worrell, it was another man who claimed to see someone running from the building with a rifle. Whether or not Worrell's or this unID'd individual's story is true or not, we don't know. Even if

none of it were true (I don't know), the 12:44 suspect description wasn't Brennan's, it was this man's, known or unknown. And I'm guessing you bought the Brennan version, hook line & sinker, despite its various problems... Apparently a little hypocrisy
here...

How do I know? Because that's what Worrell *actually said*.

At any rate, Sawyer's "unID'd individual" told Sawyer that the man was carrying. And this "unID'd individual"'s words turned up in Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, almost verbatim. Out goes Brennan, at least as the main source of 12:44...

In fact, his
DCSD affidavit describes the man as "a w/m, 5'8" to 5'10",
dark hair, average weight for height, dark shirt or jacket open
down front, no hat, didn't have anything in his hands." In his
WC deposition, Worrell said the man "wasn't holding nothing
when he was running. He was just running"

Also, Worrell said that he left the scene immediately after
seeing the man, making his way home.

Guess you didn't read my comparison, above, of Worrell to Scoggins, another witness who, at first, said he left a murder scene immediately. Scoggins didn't. Worrell most probably didn't either

Worrell never said that he went back to the scene, nor is there any evidence that he did, so there is no meaningful comparison here.

The comparison is apt. Both witnesses said they left a scene immediately, without talking to police. Scoggins did not, after he returned with Callaway. He stayed and went with the police. It's proven. I wasn't talking about whether either of the two

went back to a scene.

He would have had to double back to the front of the Depository to run into Sawyer.

It's Dealey fiction that Sawyer was in front of the depository that early--or maybe there's some other reason that he didn't hear or run into Harkness, Hargis, Haygood, Hill, Brennan or Euins before 12:46, when he had to be told that the shooting

came from... the Depository. Get up to speed, R... Maybe Sawyer was busy de-briefing Worrell on the east side of the building. "Front of the depository"--funny...

You're just trying to talk around the fact that Worrell's own statements prevent him from playing the role you claim for him.

His statements are only statements, unverified. One of Worrell's statements (to the FBI) was that he thought the suspect resembled Oswald. Later, for the WC, he neglected that detail.

He can't be the source of a the story related by

Shanklin. And Shanklin's account is nothing more than
treble hearsay.

The details of which almost perfectly match Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, formerly thought to be Brennan's, actually probably Worrell's, whoever he saw. How'd someone thrice-removed get so many details right?

There's simply nothing here, but your own misreading and faulty reasoning.

You'd like that to be so. Undermines Belin's "star witness", as he wrote in his book.

Worrell's own statements demonstrate it so.

Worrell or not Worrell, the mystery "unID'd" witness was actually the source for the 12:44 description.

Indubitably. In fact, there is an FBI document which flatly states that the DPD said that the description came from "an unknown citizen." https://postimg.cc/XXY0p1NY

dcw

This is the entire document https://postimg.cc/18tHF6n6

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 8:18:21 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 11:08:59 PM UTC-4, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:51:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:35:56 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:05:05 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:31:16 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME

TYPE OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING
OUT OF A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5'

10", 165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND
LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM

AGAIN. IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL",
"155 TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND

THE AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE

SUSPECT, AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME,
CREATED THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS
SPONSOR, SS AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/

WINCHESTER", WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN
WAS MADE TO LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE
MAY HAVE HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS
HE WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

So this is all based on a memo wherein Shanklin said that
Malley said that Batchelor said that Sawyer said something,
and James Worrell's story. This is the same James Worrell
who said that he saw JFK at Love Field, then caught a bus
to somewhere near Dealey Plaza and walked to Elm and
Houston before 11 AM. That's some trick when Air Force
One didn't touch down until 11:30.

Worrell never said that the man whom he claimed to see
running from the TSBD was carrying anything.

Never say "never". How do you know? If it was not Worrell, it was another man who claimed to see someone running from the building with a rifle. Whether or not Worrell's or this unID'd individual's story is true or not, we don't know. Even if

none of it were true (I don't know), the 12:44 suspect description wasn't Brennan's, it was this man's, known or unknown. And I'm guessing you bought the Brennan version, hook line & sinker, despite its various problems... Apparently a little hypocrisy
here...

How do I know? Because that's what Worrell *actually said*.

At any rate, Sawyer's "unID'd individual" told Sawyer that the man was carrying. And this "unID'd individual"'s words turned up in Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, almost verbatim. Out goes Brennan, at least as the main source of 12:44...

In fact, his
DCSD affidavit describes the man as "a w/m, 5'8" to 5'10",
dark hair, average weight for height, dark shirt or jacket open down front, no hat, didn't have anything in his hands." In his
WC deposition, Worrell said the man "wasn't holding nothing
when he was running. He was just running"

Also, Worrell said that he left the scene immediately after
seeing the man, making his way home.

Guess you didn't read my comparison, above, of Worrell to Scoggins, another witness who, at first, said he left a murder scene immediately. Scoggins didn't. Worrell most probably didn't either

Worrell never said that he went back to the scene, nor is there any evidence that he did, so there is no meaningful comparison here.

The comparison is apt. Both witnesses said they left a scene immediately, without talking to police. Scoggins did not, after he returned with Callaway. He stayed and went with the police. It's proven. I wasn't talking about whether either of the

two went back to a scene.

He would have had to double back to the front of the Depository to run into Sawyer.

It's Dealey fiction that Sawyer was in front of the depository that early--or maybe there's some other reason that he didn't hear or run into Harkness, Hargis, Haygood, Hill, Brennan or Euins before 12:46, when he had to be told that the

shooting came from... the Depository. Get up to speed, R... Maybe Sawyer was busy de-briefing Worrell on the east side of the building. "Front of the depository"--funny...

You're just trying to talk around the fact that Worrell's own statements prevent him from playing the role you claim for him.

His statements are only statements, unverified. One of Worrell's statements (to the FBI) was that he thought the suspect resembled Oswald. Later, for the WC, he neglected that detail.

He can't be the source of a the story related by

Shanklin. And Shanklin's account is nothing more than
treble hearsay.

The details of which almost perfectly match Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, formerly thought to be Brennan's, actually probably Worrell's, whoever he saw. How'd someone thrice-removed get so many details right?

There's simply nothing here, but your own misreading and faulty reasoning.

You'd like that to be so. Undermines Belin's "star witness", as he wrote in his book.

Worrell's own statements demonstrate it so.

Worrell or not Worrell, the mystery "unID'd" witness was actually the source for the 12:44 description.

Indubitably. In fact, there is an FBI document which flatly states that the DPD said that the description came from "an unknown citizen." https://postimg.cc/XXY0p1NY

dcw

This is the entire document https://postimg.cc/18tHF6n6

Excellent!

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 09:25:54 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
wrote:


So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 15:23:02 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:

The fibers on the but plate are the best evidence it was Oswald who fired the weapon that day.

Yet you're TERRIFIED of citing this evidence.

Why is that?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 8:08:59 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:51:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:35:56 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:05:05 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:31:16 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE

OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF
A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5'

10", 165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND
LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155
TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE

AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT,

AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED
THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS
AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/

WINCHESTER", WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN
WAS MADE TO LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE
MAY HAVE HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS
HE WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

So this is all based on a memo wherein Shanklin said that
Malley said that Batchelor said that Sawyer said something,
and James Worrell's story. This is the same James Worrell
who said that he saw JFK at Love Field, then caught a bus
to somewhere near Dealey Plaza and walked to Elm and
Houston before 11 AM. That's some trick when Air Force
One didn't touch down until 11:30.

Worrell never said that the man whom he claimed to see
running from the TSBD was carrying anything.

Never say "never". How do you know? If it was not Worrell, it was another man who claimed to see someone running from the building with a rifle. Whether or not Worrell's or this unID'd individual's story is true or not, we don't know. Even if

none of it were true (I don't know), the 12:44 suspect description wasn't Brennan's, it was this man's, known or unknown. And I'm guessing you bought the Brennan version, hook line & sinker, despite its various problems... Apparently a little hypocrisy
here...

How do I know? Because that's what Worrell *actually said*.

At any rate, Sawyer's "unID'd individual" told Sawyer that the man was carrying. And this "unID'd individual"'s words turned up in Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, almost verbatim. Out goes Brennan, at least as the main source of 12:44...

In fact, his
DCSD affidavit describes the man as "a w/m, 5'8" to 5'10",
dark hair, average weight for height, dark shirt or jacket open
down front, no hat, didn't have anything in his hands." In his
WC deposition, Worrell said the man "wasn't holding nothing
when he was running. He was just running"

Also, Worrell said that he left the scene immediately after
seeing the man, making his way home.

Guess you didn't read my comparison, above, of Worrell to Scoggins, another witness who, at first, said he left a murder scene immediately. Scoggins didn't. Worrell most probably didn't either

Worrell never said that he went back to the scene, nor is there any evidence that he did, so there is no meaningful comparison here.

The comparison is apt. Both witnesses said they left a scene immediately, without talking to police. Scoggins did not, after he returned with Callaway. He stayed and went with the police. It's proven. I wasn't talking about whether either of the two

went back to a scene.

He would have had to double back to the front of the Depository to run into Sawyer.

It's Dealey fiction that Sawyer was in front of the depository that early--or maybe there's some other reason that he didn't hear or run into Harkness, Hargis, Haygood, Hill, Brennan or Euins before 12:46, when he had to be told that the shooting

came from... the Depository. Get up to speed, R... Maybe Sawyer was busy de-briefing Worrell on the east side of the building. "Front of the depository"--funny...

You're just trying to talk around the fact that Worrell's own statements prevent him from playing the role you claim for him.

His statements are only statements, unverified. One of Worrell's statements (to the FBI) was that he thought the suspect resembled Oswald. Later, for the WC, he neglected that detail.

He can't be the source of a the story related by

Shanklin. And Shanklin's account is nothing more than
treble hearsay.

The details of which almost perfectly match Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, formerly thought to be Brennan's, actually probably Worrell's, whoever he saw. How'd someone thrice-removed get so many details right?

There's simply nothing here, but your own misreading and faulty reasoning.

You'd like that to be so. Undermines Belin's "star witness", as he wrote in his book.

Worrell's own statements demonstrate it so.

Worrell or not Worrell, the mystery "unID'd" witness was actually the source for the 12:44 description.

Indubitably. In fact, there is an FBI document which flatly states that the DPD said that the description came from "an unknown citizen." https://postimg.cc/XXY0p1NY

Your discovery of this "mystery witness" has reassured me re the role of Insp. Sawyer. I had previously thought that it was not based on a witness at all, that it was a speech made for him by the conspiracy intelligentsia *before* 12:30, 11/22. I had
thought that he was part of the conspiracy. He was only part of the cover-up. I had wondered how he could radio re the "3rd/5th" floor if he were in on it. He wasn't, and the info in that transmission is one of the key indicators of conspiracy, which
Sawyer put out there all unwitting of its importance. Thank you, Inspector!

dcw

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 8:51:32 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:35:56 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:05:05 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:31:16 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE

OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF
A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND
LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155
TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE

AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT,

AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED
THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS
AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

So this is all based on a memo wherein Shanklin said that
Malley said that Batchelor said that Sawyer said something,
and James Worrell's story. This is the same James Worrell
who said that he saw JFK at Love Field, then caught a bus
to somewhere near Dealey Plaza and walked to Elm and
Houston before 11 AM. That's some trick when Air Force
One didn't touch down until 11:30.

Worrell never said that the man whom he claimed to see
running from the TSBD was carrying anything.

Never say "never". How do you know? If it was not Worrell, it was another man who claimed to see someone running from the building with a rifle. Whether or not Worrell's or this unID'd individual's story is true or not, we don't know. Even if none

of it were true (I don't know), the 12:44 suspect description wasn't Brennan's, it was this man's, known or unknown. And I'm guessing you bought the Brennan version, hook line & sinker, despite its various problems... Apparently a little hypocrisy here...

How do I know? Because that's what Worrell *actually said*.

At any rate, Sawyer's "unID'd individual" told Sawyer that the man was carrying. And this "unID'd individual"'s words turned up in Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, almost verbatim. Out goes Brennan, at least as the main source of 12:44...

In fact, his
DCSD affidavit describes the man as "a w/m, 5'8" to 5'10",
dark hair, average weight for height, dark shirt or jacket open
down front, no hat, didn't have anything in his hands." In his
WC deposition, Worrell said the man "wasn't holding nothing
when he was running. He was just running"

Also, Worrell said that he left the scene immediately after
seeing the man, making his way home.

Guess you didn't read my comparison, above, of Worrell to Scoggins, another witness who, at first, said he left a murder scene immediately. Scoggins didn't. Worrell most probably didn't either

Worrell never said that he went back to the scene, nor is there any evidence that he did, so there is no meaningful comparison here.

The comparison is apt. Both witnesses said they left a scene immediately, without talking to police. Scoggins did not, after he returned with Callaway. He stayed and went with the police. It's proven. I wasn't talking about whether either of the two

went back to a scene.

Assuming Scoggins flipflopped as to whether he stayed at the scene or went home, you are assuming, *against* *all* of Worrell's statements, that Worrell returned to the TSBD after seeing the fleeing man. There is no comparison here, no matter what you'd
like to pretend

He would have had to double back to the front of the Depository to run into Sawyer.

It's Dealey fiction that Sawyer was in front of the depository that early--or maybe there's some other reason that he didn't hear or run into Harkness, Hargis, Haygood, Hill, Brennan or Euins before 12:46, when he had to be told that the shooting

came from... the Depository. Get up to speed, R... Maybe Sawyer was busy de-briefing Worrell on the east side of the building. "Front of the depository"--funny...

You're just trying to talk around the fact that Worrell's own statements prevent him from playing the role you claim for him.

His statements are only statements, unverified. One of Worrell's statements (to the FBI) was that he thought the suspect resembled Oswald. Later, for the WC, he neglected that detail.

OIC....His statements are significant only when they support your conjecture, but are "only statements, unverified" when they don't.

He can't be the source of a the story related by

Shanklin. And Shanklin's account is nothing more than
treble hearsay.

The details of which almost perfectly match Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, formerly thought to be Brennan's, actually probably Worrell's, whoever he saw. How'd someone thrice-removed get so many details right?

There's simply nothing here, but your own misreading and faulty reasoning.

You'd like that to be so. Undermines Belin's "star witness", as he wrote in his book.

Worrell's own statements demonstrate it so.

Worrell or not Worrell, the mystery "unID'd" witness was actually the source for the 12:44 description.

We don't know. More than one source may have contributed to the descriptionm.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 15:25:07 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:18:45?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:01:01?PM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote: >>> On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:17:37?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:38:41?PM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote: >>>>>> IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A

HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT

WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO
165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT
SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG)

PERHAPS HE WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

Nowhere in Morrell's accounts of what he did that day indicate that he talked to a police officer. In fact, he says he left the scene shortly after and only decided to talk to the police after seeing Curry on TV Saturday asking for witnesses to

come forward. So how did the police get this story?

First, you should start with the correct witness name, which is not "Morrell", unless you're talking hot dogs. And if you're taking WORRELL at his word, then you accept his 11/30/63 FBI ID of the man he saw running as Oswald: Worrell "felt that [

Oswald] was the person he had seen." Good, you yourself have put Oswald out back of the depository, fleeing North, away from busses and taxis. Good work!

Compare the testimony of witness WW Scoggins, who testified to the WC that he had left the Tippit scene immediately after returning with Callaway because the police didn't seem to want to talk to him. That hasty departure "explained" why he did not

attend a lineup later in the day. However, later in his testimony, he says that when he & Callaway returned to the scene, "the policemen came along", and he, Scoggins, left his "cab sitting down there & got in a car with them & left the [Tippit] scene." (
v3p337) (There is verification of that.)

As I wrote, Worrell makes more sense as Sawyer's witness than does Brennan--he could believably have estimated the suspect's height & weight. Brennan could not have. It's not believable that he'd even (unprompted) try, and yet the "unidentified

individual"'s specs make it to Sawyer's suspect description. And it is Worrell, not Brennan, who would have been "standing where he could have seen [the suspect]. Brennan, as we all know was, sitting.

And if Worrell said that he saw someone who looked like Oswald running out the back of the building, obviously he's going to be, shall we say, downplayed, at the very least. As was Scoggins, who similarly testified, at first, that he didn't hang

around to talk to the police. But Worrell and Scoggins both did.

dcw

From his testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - All right. When did you first report to any official what you had seen and heard on this occasion?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I turned the TV on early the next morning to see what had happened, and Chief Curry was making his plea --
Senator COOPER - Is that going to become part of the evidence at this point?
Mr. WORRELL - Chief Curry was making his plea for anyone who had seen the shooting, would they please come down and make a statement. So I called the Farmer Branch Police, and told them, and they came and picked me up, and the called the Dallas

police, and they came way out there and picked me up and took me downtown to make a statement and brought me back home.

My mistaken typo. It's Worrell not Morrell. Again, nowhere did he say/testify that he talked to a police officer at the time of shooting. Period. The rest of his testimony states that he *only* decided to talk to police after seeing Curry request

that witnesses come forward.

This is your witness not mine. If he's reliable for you when he said he "felt" the person was Oswald

I didn't say that he was. I said that either Worrell was right, then, or there was a second shooter.

Or Worrell made up the story...

That falls under "Worrell was wrong"

You claim it's a false dilemma, then you refuse to name other
possibilities...

And empty claim, in other words.

And according to Chickenshit, empty claims you can't cite for are
lies.

You're a liar.

Then I raised a question re whether the suspect could really have carried a rifle through the lobby of the depository--in other words, I'm not sure re Worrell's reliability here.
- even though he testified that he never saw the man's face (ouch)
In one of the sources, he said he saw the guy in profile.
- then he's reliable when he said the only time he talked to police was on Saturday.
So you're saying that a witness is reliable on every point or wrong on every point.

So a witness says he only talked to police on Saturday not the day of the assassination and the same witness says he never saw the face of the person he saw leaving the TSBD. From that you conclude he did talk to the police and the person he saw was

Oswald?

Again, I hardly concluded that it was Oswald. I concluded that the witness DID talk to Sawyer before 12:44. Age, weight, & height, and rifle are a match between Malley and the 12:44 description. And the timing and place are a match between Worrell and

Malley.

Sawyer, 12:44: "About 30, 5 foot 10, 165, & carrying what looked like a 30-30 or some type of a Winchester." Perfect match with Malley. How could the witness in Malley/Shanklin not be Sawyer's 12:44 witness?

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 5 Sep 2023 15:17:14 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsienzant@aol.com> wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16?PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION >>

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A

HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10", 165

LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT WAS

A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO 165
LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE. AND

WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL, BUT
NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

Worrell put himself under the sixth floor window and said he saw the rifle in a window above him from there:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/worrell.htm
� quote �
Mr. SPECTER - Now, how close were you standing to this building which I will ask you to identify; first of all, what building is that?
Mr. WORRELL - That is the Texas Depository.
Mr. SPECTER - All right. Now how close to that building were you standing? >Mr. WORRELL - I was, I don't know, 4 or 5 feet out from it.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you standing with your face to the building, with your back to the building, or how?
Mr. WORRELL - My back was to the building.
�
Mr. WORRELL - Didn't get too good a view of the President either, I missed out on there too. But as they went by, they got, oh at least another 50, 75 feet on past me, and then I heard the shots.
Mr. SPECTER - How many shots did you hear?
Mr. WORRELL - Four.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe anything at about that time?
Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir, I looked up and saw the rifle, but I would say about 6 inches of it.
Mr. SPECTER - And where did you see the rifle?
Mr. WORRELL - I'm not going - I am not too sure but I told the FBI it was either in the fifth or the sixth floor on the far corner, on the east side.
�
Mr. SPECTER - Now, are there any other distinguishing characteristics that you can describe about him?
Mr. WORRELL - Not a thing.
Mr. SPECTER - What did he --
Mr. WORRELL - He wasn't holding nothing when he was running. He was just running.

All you've done is point out an inconsistency in the evidence - yet
you make no attempt to explain it.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT FIRST,

TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN.

Think about what you just said, Don. Do you think somebody could run
out of the Depository with a rifle just after shots had been heard
fired during the President�s motorcade and only one person would
witness this?

I DARE YOU TO NAME THIS LOGICAL FALLACY!!!

But you won't ...you're both a coward and a liar.

And no officer would stop and question this guy? Surely there should
be multiple reports like Worrell�s if Worrell�s story was true, don't
you think?

There were DOZENS of witnesses... (expert witnesses too!) who
described a wound in the occipital parietal... yet you don't believe
them.

Why are you implying that you'd believe something if only there were
more witnesses?

THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER", WHICH

WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO LOOK
AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE HARBORED
SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS
HE

WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:18:45 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:01:01 PM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:17:37 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 1:38:41 PM UTC-7, Steven Galbraith wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE

OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF
A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10",

165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND
LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155
TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE

AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT,

AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED
THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS
AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

dcw

Nowhere in Morrell's accounts of what he did that day indicate that he talked to a police officer. In fact, he says he left the scene shortly after and only decided to talk to the police after seeing Curry on TV Saturday asking for witnesses to

come forward. So how did the police get this story?

First, you should start with the correct witness name, which is not "Morrell", unless you're talking hot dogs. And if you're taking WORRELL at his word, then you accept his 11/30/63 FBI ID of the man he saw running as Oswald: Worrell "felt that [

Oswald] was the person he had seen." Good, you yourself have put Oswald out back of the depository, fleeing North, away from busses and taxis. Good work!

Compare the testimony of witness WW Scoggins, who testified to the WC that he had left the Tippit scene immediately after returning with Callaway because the police didn't seem to want to talk to him. That hasty departure "explained" why he did not

attend a lineup later in the day. However, later in his testimony, he says that when he & Callaway returned to the scene, "the policemen came along", and he, Scoggins, left his "cab sitting down there & got in a car with them & left the [Tippit] scene." (
v3p337) (There is verification of that.)

As I wrote, Worrell makes more sense as Sawyer's witness than does Brennan--he could believably have estimated the suspect's height & weight. Brennan could not have. It's not believable that he'd even (unprompted) try, and yet the "unidentified

individual"'s specs make it to Sawyer's suspect description. And it is Worrell, not Brennan, who would have been "standing where he could have seen [the suspect]. Brennan, as we all know was, sitting.

And if Worrell said that he saw someone who looked like Oswald running out the back of the building, obviously he's going to be, shall we say, downplayed, at the very least. As was Scoggins, who similarly testified, at first, that he didn't hang

around to talk to the police. But Worrell and Scoggins both did.

dcw

From his testimony:
Mr. SPECTER - All right. When did you first report to any official what you had seen and heard on this occasion?
Mr. WORRELL - Well, I turned the TV on early the next morning to see what had happened, and Chief Curry was making his plea --
Senator COOPER - Is that going to become part of the evidence at this point?
Mr. WORRELL - Chief Curry was making his plea for anyone who had seen the shooting, would they please come down and make a statement. So I called the Farmer Branch Police, and told them, and they came and picked me up, and the called the Dallas

police, and they came way out there and picked me up and took me downtown to make a statement and brought me back home.

My mistaken typo. It's Worrell not Morrell. Again, nowhere did he say/testify that he talked to a police officer at the time of shooting. Period. The rest of his testimony states that he *only* decided to talk to police after seeing Curry request

that witnesses come forward.

This is your witness not mine. If he's reliable for you when he said he "felt" the person was Oswald

I didn't say that he was. I said that either Worrell was right, then, or there was a second shooter.

Or Worrell made up the story (see Romack’s testimony, quoted above) and there was only one shooter — Oswald. Clearly there are as many different scenarios as you could care to imagine. But curiously, you list only the two you favor - the logical
fallacy of a false dilemma.
— quote —
False dilemma
A false dilemma, also known as a false dichotomy, claims there are only two options in a given situation. Often, these two options are extreme opposites of each other, failing to acknowledge that other, more reasonable, options exist.
— unquote —

Then I raised a question re whether the suspect could really have carried a rifle through the lobby of the depository--in other words, I'm not sure re Worrell's reliability here.
- even though he testified that he never saw the man's face (ouch)
In one of the sources, he said he saw the guy in profile.
- then he's reliable when he said the only time he talked to police was on Saturday.
So you're saying that a witness is reliable on every point or wrong on every point.

So a witness says he only talked to police on Saturday not the day of the assassination and the same witness says he never saw the face of the person he saw leaving the TSBD. From that you conclude he did talk to the police and the person he saw was

Oswald?

Again, I hardly concluded that it was Oswald. I concluded that the witness DID talk to Sawyer before 12:44. Age, weight, & height, and rifle are a match between Malley and the 12:44 description. And the timing and place are a match between Worrell and

Malley.

Sawyer, 12:44: "About 30, 5 foot 10, 165, & carrying what looked like a 30-30 or some type of a Winchester." Perfect match with Malley. How could the witness in Malley/Shanklin not be Sawyer's 12:44 witness?

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A HIGH-

POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10", 165

LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT WAS A

WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO 165
LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE. AND

WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL, BUT
NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

Worrell put himself under the sixth floor window and said he saw the rifle in a window above him from there:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/worrell.htm
— quote —
Mr. SPECTER - Now, how close were you standing to this building which I will ask you to identify; first of all, what building is that?
Mr. WORRELL - That is the Texas Depository.
Mr. SPECTER - All right. Now how close to that building were you standing?
Mr. WORRELL - I was, I don't know, 4 or 5 feet out from it.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you standing with your face to the building, with your back to the building, or how?
Mr. WORRELL - My back was to the building.
…
Mr. WORRELL - Didn't get too good a view of the President either, I missed out on there too. But as they went by, they got, oh at least another 50, 75 feet on past me, and then I heard the shots.
Mr. SPECTER - How many shots did you hear?
Mr. WORRELL - Four.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe anything at about that time?
Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir, I looked up and saw the rifle, but I would say about 6 inches of it.
Mr. SPECTER - And where did you see the rifle?
Mr. WORRELL - I'm not going - I am not too sure but I told the FBI it was either in the fifth or the sixth floor on the far corner, on the east side.
…
Mr. SPECTER - Now, are there any other distinguishing characteristics that you can describe about him?
Mr. WORRELL - Not a thing.
Mr. SPECTER - What did he --
Mr. WORRELL - He wasn't holding nothing when he was running. He was just running.
— unquote —
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/romack.htm
However his testimony is contradicted by another witness:
— quote —
Mr. ROMACK. And I looked up and I felt kind of chilly looking down towards the which I am facing the Houston entrance, and I looked down toward where all the people were standing along, the motorcade was passing by, and just immediately after I heard the
shots, I saw a policeman running north towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building.
Mr. BELIN. What building?
Mr. ROMACK. Texas School Book Depository Building. And he didn't stay but just, oh, he was just there to check and he runs back.
Well, sensing that something is wrong, I automatically take over watching the building for the man.
Mr. BELIN. What part of the building were you watching?
Mr. ROMACK. The back.
Mr. BELIN. Could you see that back dock in the back part?
Mr. ROMACK. Well, I mean, they got it sealed off. I could see as much as anyone could see.
…
Mr. ROMACK. Well, I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 minutes, 4 or 5 minutes. That would probably be true. I stayed there, but I wasn't particularly watching.
Mr. BELIN. In other words, then as I understand your testimony, you said that from about the time of the shots until about 5 minutes after the shots, you watched the back door of the building?
Mr. ROMACK. Right.
Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not you saw anyone leave the building?
Mr. ROMACK. They wasn't anyone left the building.
…
Mr. BELIN. What caused you to contact the FBI in March?
Mr. ROMACK. I was trying to pinpoint the day that I must have come in from — it was on the weekend that I'd come home, and there was a paper up left-hand corner.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the newspaper?
Mr. ROMACK. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Dallas newspaper?
Mr. ROMACK. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Which one, do you know, offhand?
Mr. ROMACK. Herald, the paper that I take.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see in the paper?
Mr. ROMACK. I saw an article that was written by a guy, which I have been concerned about this thing all the way through, the assassination, and I got to reading it, and it is a story that just don't jibe with about me sitting there and watching the
building. It just kind of upset me to know there is some monkey just hatched up such a story.
Mr. BELIN. What is the story that you read that you got concerned about?
Mr. ROMACK. About a guy seeing a rifle drawn in from the building above him, and he also seen the people as the shots were being fired, and he also seen some character running toward me with an overcoat on which was brown or gray or blue, and he heard 4
shots.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this. Do you remember what page of the paper this was on?
Mr. ROMACK. It was on the headlines. I don't mean the headlines. It was on the front page in the left corner of the page.
Mr. BELIN. Now you say something concerned you about the article. Was it the fact that he said he saw a rifle there that concerned you?
Mr. ROMACK. No, sir; the fact that he was running somebody over me, and that is what I was out there doing. That is what I was doing. I was watching.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the portion of the article that concerned you was that someone said that someone else was running?
Mr. ROMACK. Towards Pacific Street.
Mr. BELIN. Towards Pacific Street from the direction of the School Book Depository?
Mr. ROMACK. That is the way the article read, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What did you tell the FBI when you called them?
Mr. ROMACK. I told them, tried to tell them about the same thing that I am telling you right now today.
— unquote —

“The monkey that hatched up the story” that Romack is referring to is clearly Worrell.

Worrell puts himself at Love Field seeing the President, in Dealey Plaza seeing the weapon, and then seeing a guy run out the back of the building.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT FIRST,

TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN.

Think about what you just said, Don. Do you think somebody could run out of the Depository with a rifle just after shots had been heard fired during the President’s motorcade and only one person would witness this? And no officer would stop and
question this guy? Surely there should be multiple reports like Worrell’s if Worrell’s story was true, don't you think?


THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER", WHICH

WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO LOOK
AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE HARBORED
SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE WONDERED HOW A
MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

Perhaps because Oswald left his rifle behind.

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 5:44:51 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 8:08:59 PM UTC-7, Sky Throne 19efppp wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 9:51:32 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 3:35:56 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:05:05 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:35:23 PM UTC-7, recip...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 4:31:16 PM UTC-5, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME

TYPE OF A HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING
OUT OF A PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5'

10", 165 LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND
LEVEL, NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM

AGAIN. IT WAS A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL",
"155 TO 165 LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND

THE AGE. AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT
WORRELL, BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE

SUSPECT, AT FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME,
CREATED THEIR PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN. THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS
SPONSOR, SS AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/

WINCHESTER", WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN
WAS MADE TO LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE
MAY HAVE HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS
HE WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

So this is all based on a memo wherein Shanklin said that
Malley said that Batchelor said that Sawyer said something,
and James Worrell's story. This is the same James Worrell
who said that he saw JFK at Love Field, then caught a bus
to somewhere near Dealey Plaza and walked to Elm and
Houston before 11 AM. That's some trick when Air Force
One didn't touch down until 11:30.

Worrell never said that the man whom he claimed to see
running from the TSBD was carrying anything.

Never say "never". How do you know? If it was not Worrell, it was another man who claimed to see someone running from the building with a rifle. Whether or not Worrell's or this unID'd individual's story is true or not, we don't know. Even if

none of it were true (I don't know), the 12:44 suspect description wasn't Brennan's, it was this man's, known or unknown. And I'm guessing you bought the Brennan version, hook line & sinker, despite its various problems... Apparently a little hypocrisy
here...

How do I know? Because that's what Worrell *actually said*.

At any rate, Sawyer's "unID'd individual" told Sawyer that the man was carrying. And this "unID'd individual"'s words turned up in Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, almost verbatim. Out goes Brennan, at least as the main source of 12:44...

In fact, his
DCSD affidavit describes the man as "a w/m, 5'8" to 5'10",
dark hair, average weight for height, dark shirt or jacket open down front, no hat, didn't have anything in his hands." In his
WC deposition, Worrell said the man "wasn't holding nothing
when he was running. He was just running"

Also, Worrell said that he left the scene immediately after
seeing the man, making his way home.

Guess you didn't read my comparison, above, of Worrell to Scoggins, another witness who, at first, said he left a murder scene immediately. Scoggins didn't. Worrell most probably didn't either

Worrell never said that he went back to the scene, nor is there any evidence that he did, so there is no meaningful comparison here.

The comparison is apt. Both witnesses said they left a scene immediately, without talking to police. Scoggins did not, after he returned with Callaway. He stayed and went with the police. It's proven. I wasn't talking about whether either of the

two went back to a scene.

He would have had to double back to the front of the Depository to run into Sawyer.

It's Dealey fiction that Sawyer was in front of the depository that early--or maybe there's some other reason that he didn't hear or run into Harkness, Hargis, Haygood, Hill, Brennan or Euins before 12:46, when he had to be told that the

shooting came from... the Depository. Get up to speed, R... Maybe Sawyer was busy de-briefing Worrell on the east side of the building. "Front of the depository"--funny...

You're just trying to talk around the fact that Worrell's own statements prevent him from playing the role you claim for him.

His statements are only statements, unverified. One of Worrell's statements (to the FBI) was that he thought the suspect resembled Oswald. Later, for the WC, he neglected that detail.

He can't be the source of a the story related by

Shanklin. And Shanklin's account is nothing more than
treble hearsay.

The details of which almost perfectly match Sawyer's 12:44 suspect description, formerly thought to be Brennan's, actually probably Worrell's, whoever he saw. How'd someone thrice-removed get so many details right?

There's simply nothing here, but your own misreading and faulty reasoning.

You'd like that to be so. Undermines Belin's "star witness", as he wrote in his book.

Worrell's own statements demonstrate it so.

Worrell or not Worrell, the mystery "unID'd" witness was actually the source for the 12:44 description.

Indubitably. In fact, there is an FBI document which flatly states that the DPD said that the description came from "an unknown citizen." https://postimg.cc/XXY0p1NY

Your discovery of this "mystery witness" has reassured me re the role of Insp. Sawyer. I had previously thought that it was not based on a witness at all, that it was a speech made for him by the conspiracy intelligentsia *before* 12:30, 11/22. I had

thought that he was part of the conspiracy. He was only part of the cover-up. I had wondered how he could radio re the "3rd/5th" floor if he were in on it. He wasn't, and the info in that transmission is one of the key indicators of conspiracy, which
Sawyer put out there all unwitting of its importance. Thank you, Inspector!

dcw

dcw

Yeah, I don't think there was much witting going on in Sawyer's head. Not that he wouldn't put in a word or two for the coverup. There's something funny about inspectors. Does anybody really know what they do, why they hang around?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 3:17:16 PM UTC-7, Hank Sienzant wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 5:31:16 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

IDENTIFIED!--THE ACTUAL SOURCE OF INSP. SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION

WITNESS HOWARD BRENNAN'S CONNECTION TO DPD INSP. J.H. SAWYER'S 12:44 DPD-RADIO SUSPECT DESCRIPTION ALWAYS POSED PROBLEMS:

BRENNAN HAD A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION; SAWYER'S WITNESS APPARENTLY DID NOT. SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE WEAPON AS A 30-30 OR SOME TYPE OF A WINCHESTER; BRENNAN ADMITTED THAT HE WAS "NOT AN EXPERT ON GUNS. IT WAS, AS I COULD OBSERVE, SOME TYPE OF A

HIGH-POWERED RIFLE." (v3p144) AND SAWYER'S WITNESS DESCRIBED THE SUSPECT AS "5 FOOT 10, 165." (AND IF YOU BELIEVE THAT BRENNAN REALLY MADE, UNPROMPTED, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES, TELL ME ABOUT HOW TALL AND HOW HEAVY SGT. HILL SEEMS, WAVING OUT OF A
PARTIALLY-OPENED WINDOW ON THE 6TH FLOOR, IN THE PHOTO IN "PICTURES OF THE PAIN" ON PAGE 523. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVANTAGE THERE--HILL IS LEANING OUT THE WINDOW. YOU HAVE A GOOD LOOK AT HIM.) BRENNAN NEVER QUITE FIT SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION.

HOWEVER, SAWYER APPARENTLY DID TALK TO ONE MYSTERY WITNESS BEFORE 12:44: "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" TOLD INSP. SAWYER THAT HE HAD "LAST SEEN AN INDIVIDUAL RUN FROM THE DEPOSITORY... SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING... APPROXIMATELY 30, SLENDER, 5' 10", 165

LBS... 30/30... WINCHESTER." THIS GREAT FIND FROM OUR OWN SKYTHRONE (alt.conspiracy.jfk 7/18/23), IN THE FORM OF A DISPATCH TO THE FBI'S GORDON SHANKLIN FROM FBI INSP. JAMES R. MALLEY. THAT ID MAKES MORE SENSE COMING FROM SOMEONE SEEN AT GROUND LEVEL,
NOT SEVERAL FLOORS UP, IN A (SUPPOSEDLY) HALF-OPEN WINDOW. AND REMEMBER THAT, AT 12:46, SAWYER HAD TO BE TOLD THAT SHOOTING SEEMED TO HAVE COME FROM THE DEPOSITORY, AND BRENNAN POSITIVELY SAW SOMEONE IN THE DEPOSITORY. SAWYER/BRENNAN--NO MATCH.

THE MALLEY/SHANKLIN DISPATCH PROVES TO BE THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN SAWYER'S 12:44 SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND THE HERETOFORE-UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS WHO GAVE IT TO SAWYER. AND IT WAS NOT A WITNESS WHO "GOT AWAY", NEVER TO BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN. IT WAS

A WITNESS FAMILIAR TO ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED THE COMMISSION VOLUMES. THIS WITNESS SAW THE SUSPECT "COME OUT THE BACK DOOR" OF THE DEPOSITORY "APPROXIMATELY THREE MINUTES" AFTER THE SHOOTING. HE DESCRIBED THE MAN AS "5-7 TO 5-10 INCHES TALL", "155 TO 165
LBS.", AND IN HIS "LATE 20s OR EARLY 30s". NOTICE THAT SAWYER TOOK THE HIGH END OF THE WITNESS'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT ESTIMATES.

THIS WITNESS WAS, OF COURSE, JAMES WORRELL. AND HIS OBSERVATIONS MATCH THE TIMING OF THE SIGHTING OF SAWYER'S "UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL" ("SHORTLY AFTER THE SHOOTING"), THE PLACE (RUNNING OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY), THE HEIGHT, THE WEIGHT, AND THE AGE.

AND WORRELL WAS HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT ALL THIS TIME. (WORRELL, LIKE BRENNAN, DID HAVE A CLOTHING DESCRIPTION: OPENED SPORTS JACKET, LIGHT PANTS.) AND ONE OF SAWYER'S OBSERVATIONS (TAKING BELIN'S LEAD) RE THE MAN IN HIS SUSPECT DESCRIPTION FIT WORRELL,
BUT NOT BRENNAN: "HE WAS STANDING WHERE HE COULD HAVE SEEN HIM." (v6) BRENNAN OF COURSE WAS SITTING (V3) AS HE WATCHED THE UPPER-STORY MAN.

Worrell put himself under the sixth floor window and said he saw the rifle in a window above him from there:
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/worrell.htm
— quote —
Mr. SPECTER - Now, how close were you standing to this building which I will ask you to identify; first of all, what building is that?
Mr. WORRELL - That is the Texas Depository.
Mr. SPECTER - All right. Now how close to that building were you standing? Mr. WORRELL - I was, I don't know, 4 or 5 feet out from it.
Mr. SPECTER - Were you standing with your face to the building, with your back to the building, or how?
Mr. WORRELL - My back was to the building.
…
Mr. WORRELL - Didn't get too good a view of the President either, I missed out on there too. But as they went by, they got, oh at least another 50, 75 feet on past me, and then I heard the shots.
Mr. SPECTER - How many shots did you hear?
Mr. WORRELL - Four.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe anything at about that time?
Mr. WORRELL - Yes, sir, I looked up and saw the rifle, but I would say about 6 inches of it.
Mr. SPECTER - And where did you see the rifle?
Mr. WORRELL - I'm not going - I am not too sure but I told the FBI it was either in the fifth or the sixth floor on the far corner, on the east side.
…
Mr. SPECTER - Now, are there any other distinguishing characteristics that you can describe about him?
Mr. WORRELL - Not a thing.
Mr. SPECTER - What did he --
Mr. WORRELL - He wasn't holding nothing when he was running. He was just running.
— unquote —
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/romack.htm
However his testimony is contradicted by another witness:
— quote —
Mr. ROMACK. And I looked up and I felt kind of chilly looking down towards the which I am facing the Houston entrance, and I looked down toward where all the people were standing along, the motorcade was passing by, and just immediately after I heard

the shots, I saw a policeman running north towards me. He was running to look to see if somebody was running out of the back of this building.

Mr. BELIN. What building?
Mr. ROMACK. Texas School Book Depository Building. And he didn't stay but just, oh, he was just there to check and he runs back.
Well, sensing that something is wrong, I automatically take over watching the building for the man.
Mr. BELIN. What part of the building were you watching?
Mr. ROMACK. The back.
Mr. BELIN. Could you see that back dock in the back part?
Mr. ROMACK. Well, I mean, they got it sealed off. I could see as much as anyone could see.
…
Mr. ROMACK. Well, I would say somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 minutes, 4 or 5 minutes. That would probably be true. I stayed there, but I wasn't particularly watching.
Mr. BELIN. In other words, then as I understand your testimony, you said that from about the time of the shots until about 5 minutes after the shots, you watched the back door of the building?
Mr. ROMACK. Right.
Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not you saw anyone leave the building?
Mr. ROMACK. They wasn't anyone left the building.
…
Mr. BELIN. What caused you to contact the FBI in March?
Mr. ROMACK. I was trying to pinpoint the day that I must have come in from — it was on the weekend that I'd come home, and there was a paper up left-hand corner.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the newspaper?
Mr. ROMACK. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Dallas newspaper?
Mr. ROMACK. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Which one, do you know, offhand?
Mr. ROMACK. Herald, the paper that I take.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see in the paper?
Mr. ROMACK. I saw an article that was written by a guy, which I have been concerned about this thing all the way through, the assassination, and I got to reading it, and it is a story that just don't jibe with about me sitting there and watching the

building. It just kind of upset me to know there is some monkey just hatched up such a story.

Mr. BELIN. What is the story that you read that you got concerned about?
Mr. ROMACK. About a guy seeing a rifle drawn in from the building above him, and he also seen the people as the shots were being fired, and he also seen some character running toward me with an overcoat on which was brown or gray or blue, and he heard

4 shots.

Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this. Do you remember what page of the paper this was on?
Mr. ROMACK. It was on the headlines. I don't mean the headlines. It was on the front page in the left corner of the page.
Mr. BELIN. Now you say something concerned you about the article. Was it the fact that he said he saw a rifle there that concerned you?
Mr. ROMACK. No, sir; the fact that he was running somebody over me, and that is what I was out there doing. That is what I was doing. I was watching.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the portion of the article that concerned you was that someone said that someone else was running?
Mr. ROMACK. Towards Pacific Street.
Mr. BELIN. Towards Pacific Street from the direction of the School Book Depository?
Mr. ROMACK. That is the way the article read, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What did you tell the FBI when you called them?
Mr. ROMACK. I told them, tried to tell them about the same thing that I am telling you right now today.
— unquote —

“The monkey that hatched up the story” that Romack is referring to is clearly Worrell.

Worrell puts himself at Love Field seeing the President, in Dealey Plaza seeing the weapon, and then seeing a guy run out the back of the building.

WORRELL'S IDENTITY WAS HIDDEN, FOR ONE VERY OBVIOUS REASON: IF A SUSPECT WAS SEEN LEAVING THE BUILDING WITH A RIFLE RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, THEN THAT EXPLODES THE OFFICIAL STORY. EITHER IT WAS OSWALD (WHOM WORRELL IDENTIFIED AS THE SUSPECT, AT

FIRST, TO THE FBI [11/30/63]--HE "FELT THAT [OSWALD] WAS THE PERSON HE HAD SEEN")--OSWALD, WHO, FAMOUSLY, LEFT HIS RIFLE BEHIND UPSTAIRS--OR IT WAS A SECOND SHOOTER. SO THEY HID WORRELL IN SAWYER'S SUSPECT DESCRIPTION AND, AT THE SAME TIME, CREATED THEIR
PRIMARY WITNESS (AS PER COMMISSION COUNSEL DAVID BELIN), BRENNAN.

Think about what you just said, Don. Do you think somebody could run out of the Depository with a rifle just after shots had been heard fired during the President’s motorcade and only one person would witness this? And no officer would stop and

question this guy? Surely there should be multiple reports like Worrell’s if Worrell’s story was true, don't you think?

You didn't correct your assumptions here when/if you read the following:

THE ONLY DEALEY WITNESS WHO OFFICIALLY ID'D OSWALD IN A LINEUP, AT LEAST ON THE SECOND TRY (DALLAS MUNICIPAL ARCHIVES)--THE FIRST DPD LINEUP CHART OMITTED BRENNAN AND HIS SPONSOR, SS AGENT SORRELS ("WITH MALICE" p458).

MALLEY/WORRELL IS AN ALMOST PERFECT MATCH. THE ONLY DISCREPANCY: THE INVOKING OF THE RIFLE IN THE MALLEY DISPATCH. BUT IF WORRELL BACKTRACKED ON IDing OSWALD, AS HE DID, HE ALSO PRETTY CLEARLY BACKTRACKED, EVEN SOONER, ON THE "30-30/WINCHESTER",

WHICH WOULD HAVE RAISED 100 RED FLAGS, HAD HE NOT BACKTRACKED AT THE HEARINGS. DID HE REALLY SEE A RIFLE IN THE MAN'S POSSESSION, OR DID HE INVENT THAT VERY SALIENT DETAIL? TRUTH OR LIE RE THE RIFLE, HE WAS SAWYER'S ID GUY. AND POOR BRENNAN WAS MADE TO
LOOK AWFULLY FOOLISH WITH *HIS* CLAIMS TO HAVE ESTIMATED, ALL-UNBIDDEN, THE FAR-OFF, WAY-UP, AND HALF-HIDDEN SUSPECT'S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT. SAWYER TRUSTED WORRELL STRONGLY ENOUGH TO TRANSFER THE RIFLE DESCRIPTION INTACT TO BRENNAN. STILL, HE MAY HAVE
HARBORED SOME LITTLE DOUBT: AS OF 12:46, HE STILL DID NOT SEE THE DEPOSITORY AS THE SITE OF SHOOTING: "ON THIS BUILDING, IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE'S STILL THERE OR NOT. IT'S UNKNOWN WHETHER HE WAS THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE." (DPD RADIO LOG) PERHAPS HE
WONDERED HOW A MAN COULD CARRY A WINCHESTER THROUGH THE LOBBY OF THE DEPOSITORY AT 12:33 WITHOUT AROUSING SUSPICION OR SENDING ONLOOKERS SCURRYING...

You ask the same question (above) that I do here.

dcw

Perhaps because Oswald left his rifle behind.

dcw

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)