Post by mcnutt on Oct 18, 2016 10:07:57 GMT
On Sunday November 24, 1963, Jack Ruby went to Western Union to wire money to one of his strippers. He had closed his clubs that weekend in honor of President Kennedy, so she could not come in and pick up a check. According to Ruby’s phone records, the call from the stripper came at 10:19 AM. Ruby’s roommate remembered he showered, shaved and got dressed and left for Western Union at 11:00 AM.When he got there. there was only one person in line ahead of him. He got in and out quickly. He walked across the street into the Dallas City Hall that included the Police Headquarters and City Lock Up, where Oswald had been held. He saw large crowds at the City Hall. While he had heard on the TV news that Oswald was being moved to the County Jail at 10, the crowds would have attracted him. Ruby liked to be where the action is. He was frequently seen at fires and accidents. He walked down a ramp to the basement of the City Hall, where Oswald was being transported. As he approached the ramp. a police car that was planned to be part of the caravan that would take Oswald to the County Jail came up the ramp. The police officer who stationed at the top of the ramp and should have stopped Ruby, was distracted by stoping traffic, so the police car could move to the street. Ruby got in and he met Oswald. He impulsively drew his pistol and killed him. Ruby did the deed quickly. His money was sent at 11:17 and the call for Oswald’s ambulance went out at 11:21.
The first POD here is someone builds a church next to the Western Union office. The second POD is that during the 10 AM service on Sunday November 24, 1963, there was an inspiring sermon on Mathew 25: 35-40, the verses where Jesus says I was hungry and you fed me etc. Some members of the congregation are inspired to wire money to down and out relatives and friends. Ruby has to wait in a longer line. By the time he is finished Oswald is gone. He sees people leaving city hall and is frustrated that he missed something.
The third POD is Oswald’ is well protected during his trail and lives to be found guilty. He will be found guilty. The prosecution has an excellent case. Henry Wade. the Dallas County District Attorney at the time, said “I have sent people to the chair with less.” In case anyone is unfamiliar with the evidence against Oswald, here is a summary of the prosecution case:
1 The prosecution could have painted Oswald as angry at President Kennedy because he was a Marxist. He was a great admirer of Fidel Castro. if Oswald’s wife. Mariana, who for the first twenty five years after the assassination believed her husband was guilty, became a prosecution witness she could back up this point. Texas law forbid testifying against one’s spouse unless the witness was a victim of the crime the spouse committed. So she would have to get a divorce in order to testify. By the time of the trail, she would have known that she has no future with him. They did have a troubled marriage. If she does testify, she knew that two months before the assassination he traveled to Mexico City and went to the Cuban Embassy to unsuccessfully apply for a visa to move to Cuba and that he suggested hijacking a plane to Cuba. Oswald could help the prosecution by using the witness stand to make political speeches. Oswald was an intelligent man who know that would hurt him. He could take the advice of any decent lawyer to sit down and shut up. On the other hand he is smart enough to know that he is doomed. He might want to have his say before going to the chair.
2 In addition to his opposition to US government policies, Oswald was a violent man. As a teenager, he was seen hitting his mother. He also threatened his sister in law with a knife. The adult Oswald beat his wife. While a number of the Oswald’s friends knew about the abuse. Mariana could back up this point. He also controlled his Russian wife by refusing to teach her English after they moved to the United States. The police also found the note Oswald wrote to Mariana when he tried to kill Gen. Edwin Walker and the photos he took of General Walker’s house. Mariana could testify of how he told her about his attempt on Walker’s life.
3 Mariana could also offer other helpful testimony that would help the prosecution. Oswald was one to defend his rights. Mariana noted that, while visiting him in jail, Oswald said he was being treated “all right” by the police. She said that if he was innocent he would have screamed about the injustice. Oswald did complain while in jail. He said his rights as a citizen were being violated because he did not get a shower. When he was arraigned for killing Officer Tippit in the police office where he was being questioned. Oswald complained that he wasn’t arraigned in a court room.
4 Mariana was one of the people who could testify about Oswald’s big ego. People who knew him, were not surprised, when he was arrested for killing the president. Mariana, when asked by the Warren Commission about her husband’s motives said “from everything I know about my husband and the events that transpired, I can conclude that he wanted in any way, whether good or bad, to do something that make him outstanding, that make him known in history.” She could have said that at trail. Even if she does not testify, others could talk about Oswald’s ego to help establish a motive.
5 In addition to the witnesses who knew Oswald, the prosecution had witnesses who saw the crime. During the Kennedy Assassination, a witness named Howard Brennen looked up at the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and saw Oswald shooting at Kennedy. He gave a description of the assassin that matched Oswald. Oswald’s description went over the Dallas Police radio at 12:45 PM, fifteen minutes after the assassination. What could help the defense is the fact that after Brennen picked Oswald out of line up, he then said he was not sure. OTL Brennen went on to testify about seeing Oswald kill Kennedy to the Warren Commission. So I assume he would testify at the trail. He said when he was doubtful at the line up he was afraid of the safety of his family and himself. I think the jury would understand this. His testimony is also backed up by the testimony of the two police officers he talked to. There was another witness who saw Oswald shooting Kennedy but couldn’t give a description. They are backed up by three witnesses who saw a rifle pointing out of that same window and three witnesses who were on the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and heard the shootings right above them. Witnesses can make mistakes but this is five witnesses who place the assassin at the southeast corner of the School Book Depository and eight that put the killer on the sixth floor.
6 In addition to witnesses during the assassination, Oswald was at the scene of the crime before it happened. A group of Texas School Book Depository employees working on the fifth and sixth floors left at 11:45 AM to eat lunch and watch the president on the first floor, They remembered that Oswald stayed.
7 In addition to being at the crime scene, There were also obvious signs of his involvement in the crime. Police found boxes stacked up to create a sniper’s nest by window at the southeast corner of sixth floor of the School Book Depository. The boxes closed off the window, allowing Oswald privacy. There were also boxes by the window, that allowed Oswald to rest his rile. They found Oswald palm prints on the boxes by the window. There were three bullet casing lying in the sniper’s nest. Oswald also brought a gun to work. During those days, Oswald spent the work week in a rented room near his job. On Friday afternoon and Monday morning a co worker named Wesley Frazier would give him a ride to and from the home of Ruth Paine where his wife and children were staying. On Thursday afternoon November 21, 1963, Oswald asked his coworker for a special ride to Mrs Paine’s house. When he left for work Friday November 22, 1963, Oswald, did not bring his lunch and was carrying a long package. He said it was curtain rods. No one saw him carrying the package after the assassination, so he did not install the non existent curtain rods. The police went to Oswald’s rented room and found there was already curtain rods. A Life Magazine photographer took a picture of it. The police also found a bag with Oswald’s fingerprints in the sniper’s nest.
8 It became obvious that Oswald brought a gun not curtain rods, when police found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository a rifle that had been purchased by A. Hidell. The jury would hear testimony that when he was arrested Oswald had two ID cards one said Lee Harvey Oswald and the other said Aleck Hidell and that the three people who could receive mail at his PO box were Lee and Mariana Oswald and Aleck Hidell. The rifle also had Oswald’s fingerprints. Handwriting experts say the handwriting on the purchase order matched Oswald’s handwriting. The FBI tested the bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine and found that were fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor. When the police arrived at Mrs Paine’s house, Oswald’s wife told them that her husband owned a rifle. She took them to the garage to show them. A police officer unfolded the blanket the rifle was wrapped in and the blanket was empty.
9 In addition to what he took with him, what Oswald left behind is also an important sign of guilt. When he left Mrs Paine’s house that morning. Oswald left behind his wedding ring and
$ 170, almost all of his money. He told his wife to spend buying shoes for their new baby. He obviously thought he may never see her again. Since he might not survive the assassination. She found it strange, since the stingy Oswald normally opposed her spending money. Mariana’s testimony could be helpful here. If she does not testify, Ruth Paine probably knew about this and she would probably help the prosecution..
10 Oswald’s behavior also shows signs of guilt. When they got to work, normally Frazier and Oswald would walked together into the School Book Depository. On the day of the assassination, Oswald grabbed his package and rushed in. Oswald would always stop in a break room and read the day old newspaper. He did not do so on the day of assassination.
After the assassination, Oswald left work. I don’t know about jury instructions in Texas in the 1960s, but when I was on jury duty our instructions said that flight was a sign of guilt. Why would he leave work except to escape? He could get fired for leaving work. He needed his job. He had a family to support. He had a new born baby. New born babies are expensive. If Oswald testified, as he told his interrogators, that he thought that after the assassination there would be no more work, the prosecution can argue that Oswald was the only one who left. They can also show that since no one talked to Oswald as he left, he could not have been told to go home. Although there was a bus stop across the street from the School Book Depository, Oswald walked to a bus stop seven blocks away. He got on a bus. There was a bus that went right by his rooming house, he did not wait for that bus. He got on a bus that would only take him a five minute walk form his rooming house. When the bus got stuck in traffic, he got off the bus. That shows he was in a hurry. The stingy Oswald took a cab back to his rooming house. He never in his life taken a cab before. He had the cab drop him off a five minute walk from his rooming house. He obviously did not want a witness knowing where he stayed. The housekeeper at the rooming house testified that she saw Oswald at about 1 PM, a half hour after the assassination. She saw him rush in and then go to his room and then leave. He had changed his pants and put on a jacket. He admitted grabbing his pistol. Why would he need a pistol ?
11 Of all Oswald’s actions after the assassination, the most incriminating was killing a police officer. One witness would testify that she saw Oswald kill Dallas Police Officer JD Tippet. Three would testify that they heard the shots, saw Tippit fall and Oswald running away. Two would testify that they heard shots and saw Oswald running away. There were four shell casings found by Tippet’s body. Five witnesses, who were down the street, would testify that they saw Oswald running from the scene of the crime carrying a pistol. Ten witnesses tie Oswald to Tippit’s killing. A firearms expert of the Warren Commission tested the four bullets taken from Tippit’s body and said one of them was fired from Oswald’s revolver to exclusion of all weapons. Another experts said all four could have been fired from Oswald’s revolver. Both the Warren Commission and the House Assassination Committee’s experts said the four expended cartridge cases found near Tippit’s body were fired from Oswald’s revolver to exclusion of all weapons. Murdering a police officer shows how panicked Oswald was. He knew he was the most wanted criminal on the face of the earth. This is not only incriminating in the murder of John F Kennedy but more importantly will convict him for the murder of JD Tippit.
12 In addition to the evidence tying Oswald to Tippit’s murder, Oswald’s jacket was found along the route he took after the Tippit shooting. Mariana could help identify the jacket, but there were probably other people who saw him wearing the jacket.
13 In addition to the evidence tying Oswald to the two murders, Oswald acted like a guilty man. He hid from the police. As the police were coming down the street, Oswald hid in the lobby of a shoe store fifteen feet from the street. The manager of the shoe store thought he looked suspicious and watched him leave the store after the police were gone and run into a movie theater without buying a ticket. The shoe store manager walked across the street and spoke to women in the theater ticket booth and she called the police. When the police approached him, Oswald said “ It is all over now.” He then resisted arrest. Oswald punched the first police officer who came near him in the nose and reached for his pistol, before being tackled and arrested.
14 After his arrest, more physical evidence tied Oswald to the crime. The Dallas Police perfumed a paraffin test on Oswald’s hands. The tests showed Oswald has gunpowder residue on his hands. The autopsy showed that Kennedy had been shot from behind, Oswald was behind Kennedy. The autopsy has been criticized for being rushed and incomplete. The qualifications of the doctors who performed the autopsy have been unjustly criticized. An expert panel appointed by Attorney General Ramsey Clark backed up the findings of the autopsy in 1967. Another expert panel working for the Rockefeller Commission, in 1975, likewise agreed with the autopsy’s findings. In 1978, the expert panel hired by the House Committee on Assassinations was very critical of the autopsy but agreed with the it’s conclusions. So the prosecution would probably have used an expert panel to back up the autopsy. The autopsy also backs up the solid evidence against Oswald, so I think the jury will find it credible.
Oswald will be found guilty in a fair trail, There will be community pressure on the judge and the prosecutor to make sure things are fair. The image of Dallas took quite a beating with the assassination. The business community will not want their city to be know as the place where the President was killed and where his assassin was lynched, The judge and the prosecution will be under incredible scrutiny. The Oswald trail will be an international news story. The Prosecution has such a strong case that have no incentive to do anything unfair. The push for fairness effects the timing of the trail. After the assassination Wade predicted the trail would come in January 1964. The defense will want more time. They have to plan an insanity defense. It is their only option. I was on a murder jury. The trail took place on August 1-2, 1990. I can remember it because Saddam invaded Kuwait opening day.
The murder took place late June 1989. A lawyer told me that is typical time delay for a murder trail. The defense is going to want that type of time and they will get it. Some time would be eaten up by arguments over change of venue. It will also take Oswald time to pick a lawyer. He wanted John Abt. the Chief Counsel of the Communist Party USA. Abt said he was too busy to take Oswald’s case, I am sure that Gus Hall and Nikita Khrushchev would forbid him form defending the president’s killer. Oswald would have a number of volunteers to choose from. I think it would be early January, 1964, when he makes his decision. The trail will happen sometime in 1965.
This means that while Oswald gets the death penally, he will not be executed
His appeals will last at least until late 1967. Litigation stopped all executions from June 2, 1967 until January 19,1977. Appeals take time, Ruby was convicted on March 15, 1964 and the Texas Appeals Court overturned his conviction on October 5, 1966. If the case goes to the US Supreme Court it could drag on for years more. In addition to Oswald’s appeals, conspiracy theorists will file frivolous appeals. They will not go anywhere but will take up time.
The biggest delay could have come from a successful appeal of Oswald’s sentence. The Ruby case is instructive. I assume most of the same Appeals Court judges who made the Ruby decision would rule on Oswald’s case. The Appeals Court found that despite the press scrutiny the prosecution used illegal evidence in that they used statements Ruby made before he talked to a lawyer, which violated Texas law. Such statements had to put in writing and signed by the defendant. There was an exception made for spontaneous statements, but the appeals court ruled that because Ruby asked before the interrogation if what he said would be released to the media, that showed the statement was not spontaneous. The prosecution would be tempted to use lies Oswald told during interrogation. The prosecution would really want to use something Oswald said during his first interrogation on Friday November 22. He said that at the time of the assassination he was eating lunch on the first floor with a co worker named Junior Jarman. Jarman, who was one of the witnesses on the fifth floor, would testify that was false. The Prosecution would also be eager to use a statement he made on Sunday November 24, when he admitted he was on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination. Since Oswald was answering questions, these could not be ruled spontaneous. These stories would destroy Oswald’s credibility with the jury but get the conviction overturned.
In addition to the possibility of illegal evidence, if Oswald does not get change of venue his case probably would have gotten thrown out. The Texas Appeals Court ruled that Ruby could not get a fair trail in Dallas. Surely they would say that about Oswald also.
Another possible way to overturn Oswald’s conviction is an incompetent defense lawyer. Mark Lane, best known as a lying conspiracy theorist, was a lawyer by trade. Oswald’s mother hired him to represent her late son before the Warren Commission. Oswald did not get along with his mother and would not have accepted her choice, but what if Lane was able to win over Oswald? Lane represented James Earl Ray before the House Assassination Committee. He was in the same situation he would have been with Oswald. All the evidence pointed to his client’s guilt. What he did while representing Ray was manufacture evidence. He brought to the committee witnesses who were supposed to say they saw Ray at a gas station at the time of King’s murder. One of whom testified that he was not in Memphis the day of King’s assassination. Lane used a neighbor of Ray’s in the rooming house where he shot King. She said that after hearing the shots, she saw someone who did not resemble Ray leaving. In doing so, she was contradicting her earlier statements. After the assassination, she had told the Memphis Police and the FBI that she did not get out of bed. If Lane included unreliable witnesses in Oswald’s defense, the conviction could be overturned. If Lane or some other lawyer, used the Grassy Knoll shooter as a defense, that too would be an act of legal malpractice. No witness claimed to have seen an assassin at the Grassy Knoll until 1977. The majority of those saying the shots came from the Grassy Knoll did so by tracing the sound. Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber. The prosecution can easily refute their testimony. There would have been numerous rebuttal witnesses who did not see an assassin at the Grassy Knoll. A Grassy Knoll shooter would also contradict the autopsy. I believe the jury will accept the autopsy.
If Wade loses at the Texas Appeals Court, Wade may feel compelled to fight on to the Texas Supreme Court. In the Ruby case the appeals Court made a strong argument and if they make the same arguments with Oswald, I think it would have been upheld. If Wade takes it to the US Supreme court, If the appeals court ruling resembles the Ruby decision, I see Warren court agreeing the conviction should be overturned. Oswald would get a new trail circa 1970. He would be again found guilty and get the death penalty. The conviction would inspire new appeals and new litigation Depending on how well the prison security worked, he could still be alive in 1972, In that year the US Supreme Court, in the Fuhrman vs Georgia case, threw out all death sentences. So Oswald would have been spared execution. Depending on the effectiveness of prison security and his luck with bad prison health care, Oswald could still be living. Today he would turn 77.
Once when discussing this on the Ark, I found a guy who argued that Oswald would be found not guilty. I am hoping you or someone with the same views are reading this. I would love to have that debate again.
Read more: alternate-timelines.proboards.com/thread/893/bigger-crowd-western-union#ixzz4NRwY9rIn
13 In addition to the evidence tying Oswald to the two murders, Oswald acted like a guilty man. He hid from the police. As the police were coming down the street, Oswald hid in the lobby of a shoe store fifteen feet from the street. The manager of the shoe store thought he looked suspicious and watched him leave the store after the police were gone and run into a movie theater without buying a ticket. The shoe store manager walked across the street and spoke to women in the theater ticket booth and she called the police. When the police approached him, Oswald said “ It is all over now.” He then resisted arrest. Oswald punched the first police officer who came near him in the nose and reached for his pistol, before being tackled and arrested.
14 After his arrest, more physical evidence tied Oswald to the crime. The Dallas Police perfumed a paraffin test on Oswald’s hands. The tests showed Oswald has gunpowder residue on his hands. The autopsy showed that Kennedy had been shot from behind, Oswald was behind Kennedy. The autopsy has been criticized for being rushed and incomplete. The qualifications of the doctors who performed the autopsy have been unjustly criticized. An expert panel appointed by Attorney General Ramsey Clark backed up the findings of the autopsy in 1967. Another expert panel working for the Rockefeller Commission, in 1975, likewise agreed with the autopsy’s findings. In 1978, the expert panel hired by the House Committee on Assassinations was very critical of the autopsy but agreed with the it’s conclusions. So the prosecution would probably have used an expert panel to back up the autopsy. The autopsy also backs up the solid evidence against Oswald, so I think the jury will find it credible.
Oswald will be found guilty in a fair trail, There will be community pressure on the judge and the prosecutor to make sure things are fair. The image of Dallas took quite a beating with the assassination. The business community will not want their city to be know as the place where the President was killed and where his assassin was lynched, The judge and the prosecution will be under incredible scrutiny. The Oswald trail will be an international news story. The Prosecution has such a strong case that have no incentive to do anything unfair. The push for fairness effects the timing of the trail. In the days after the assassination Wade predicted the trail would come in January 1964. The defense will want more time. They have to plan an insanity defense. It is their only option. I was on a murder jury. The trail took place on August 1-2, 1990. I can remember it because Saddam invaded Kuwait opening day.
The murder took place late June 1989. A lawyer told me that is typical time delay for a murder trail. The defense is going to want that type of time and they will get it. Some time would be eaten up by arguments over change of venue. It will also take Oswald time to pick a lawyer. He wanted John Abt. the Chief Counsel of the Communist Party USA. Abt said he was too busy to take Oswald’s case, I am sure that Gus Hall and Nikita Khrushchev would forbid him form defending the president’s killer. Oswald would have a number of volunteers to choose from. I think it would be early January, 1964, when he makes his decision. The trail will happen sometime in 1965.
This means that while Oswald gets the death penally, he will not be executed
His appeals will last at least until late 1967. Litigation stopped all executions from June 2, 1967 until January 19,1977. Appeals take time, Ruby was convicted on March 15, 1964 and the Texas Appeals Court overturned his conviction on October 5, 1966. If the case goes to the US Supreme Court it could drag on for years more. In addition to Oswald’s appeals, conspiracy theorists will file frivolous appeals. They will not go anywhere but will take up time.
The biggest delay could have come from a successful appeal of Oswald’s sentence. The Ruby case is instructive. I assume most of the same Appeals Court judges who made the Ruby decision would rule on Oswald’s case. The Appeals Court found that despite the press scrutiny the prosecution used illegal evidence in that they used statements Ruby made before he talked to a lawyer, which violated Texas law. Such statements had to put in writing and signed by the defendant. There was an exception made for spontaneous statements, but the appeals court ruled that because Ruby and asked before the interrogation if what he said would be released to the media, that showed the statement was not spontaneous. The prosecution would be tempted to use lies Oswald told during interrogation. The prosecution would really want to use something Oswald said during his first interrogation on Friday November 22. He said that at the time of the assassination he was eating lunch on the first floor with a co worker named Junior Jarman. Jarman, who was one of the witnesses on the fifth floor, would testify that was false. The Prosecution would also be eager to use a statement he made on Sunday November 24, when he admitted he was on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination. Since Oswald was answering questions, these could not be ruled spontaneous. These stories would destroy Oswald’s credibility with the jury but get the conviction overturned.
In addition to the possibility of illegal evidence, if Oswald does not get change of venue his case probably would have gotten thrown out. The Texas Appeals Court ruled that Ruby could not get a fair trail in Dallas. Surely they would say that about Oswald also.
Another possible way to overturn Oswald’s conviction is an incompetent defense lawyer. Mark Lane, best known as a lying conspiracy theorist, was a lawyer by trade. Oswald’s mother hired him to represent her late son before the Warren Commission. Oswald did not get along with his mother and would not have accepted her choice, but what if Lane was able to win over Oswald? Lane represented James Earl Ray before the House Assassination Committee. He was in the same situation he would have been with Oswald. All the evidence pointed to his client’s guilt. What he did while representing Ray was manufacture evidence. He brought to the committee witnesses who were supposed to say they saw Ray at a gas station at the time of King’s murder. One of whom testified that he was not in Memphis the day of King’s assassination. Lane used a neighbor of Ray’s in the rooming house where he shot King. She said that after hearing the shots, she saw someone who did not resemble Ray leaving. In doing so, she was contradicting her earlier statements. After the assassination, she had told the Memphis Police and the FBI that she did not get out of bed. If Lane included unreliable witnesses in Oswald’s defense, the conviction could be overturned. If Lane or some other lawyer, used the Grassy Knoll shooter as a defense, that too would be an act of legal malpractice. No witness claimed to have seen an assassin at the Grassy Knoll until 1977. The majority of those saying the shots came from the Grassy Knoll did so by tracing the sound. Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber. The prosecution can easily refute their testimony. There would have been numerous rebuttal witnesses who did not see an assassin at the Grassy Knoll. A Grassy Knoll shooter would also contradict the autopsy. I believe the jury will accept the autopsy.
If Wade loses at the Texas Appeals Court, Wade may feel compelled to fight on to the Texas Supreme Court. In the Ruby case the appeals Court made a strong argument and if they make the same arguments with Oswald, I think it would have been upheld. If Wade takes it to the US Supreme court, If the appeals court ruling resembles the Ruby decision, I see Warren court agreeing the conviction should be overturned. Oswald would get a new trail circa 1970. He would be again found guilty and get the death penalty. The conviction would inspire new appeals and new litigation Depending on how well the prison security worked, he could still be alive in 1972, In that year the US Supreme Court, in the Fuhrman vs Georgia case, threw out all death sentences. So Oswald would have been spared execution. Depending on the effectiveness of prison security and his luck with bad prison health care, Oswald could still be living. Today he would turn 77.
Once when discussing this on the Ark, I found a guy who argued that Oswald would be found not guilty. I am hoping you or someone with the same views are reading this. I would love to have that debate again.
The first POD here is someone builds a church next to the Western Union office. The second POD is that during the 10 AM service on Sunday November 24, 1963, there was an inspiring sermon on Mathew 25: 35-40, the verses where Jesus says I was hungry and you fed me etc. Some members of the congregation are inspired to wire money to down and out relatives and friends. Ruby has to wait in a longer line. By the time he is finished Oswald is gone. He sees people leaving city hall and is frustrated that he missed something.
The third POD is Oswald’ is well protected during his trail and lives to be found guilty. He will be found guilty. The prosecution has an excellent case. Henry Wade. the Dallas County District Attorney at the time, said “I have sent people to the chair with less.” In case anyone is unfamiliar with the evidence against Oswald, here is a summary of the prosecution case:
1 The prosecution could have painted Oswald as angry at President Kennedy because he was a Marxist. He was a great admirer of Fidel Castro. if Oswald’s wife. Mariana, who for the first twenty five years after the assassination believed her husband was guilty, became a prosecution witness she could back up this point. Texas law forbid testifying against one’s spouse unless the witness was a victim of the crime the spouse committed. So she would have to get a divorce in order to testify. By the time of the trail, she would have known that she has no future with him. They did have a troubled marriage. If she does testify, she knew that two months before the assassination he traveled to Mexico City and went to the Cuban Embassy to unsuccessfully apply for a visa to move to Cuba and that he suggested hijacking a plane to Cuba. Oswald could help the prosecution by using the witness stand to make political speeches. Oswald was an intelligent man who know that would hurt him. He could take the advice of any decent lawyer to sit down and shut up. On the other hand he is smart enough to know that he is doomed. He might want to have his say before going to the chair.
2 In addition to his opposition to US government policies, Oswald was a violent man. As a teenager, he was seen hitting his mother. He also threatened his sister in law with a knife. The adult Oswald beat his wife. While a number of the Oswald’s friends knew about the abuse. Mariana could back up this point. He also controlled his Russian wife by refusing to teach her English after they moved to the United States. The police also found the note Oswald wrote to Mariana when he tried to kill Gen. Edwin Walker and the photos he took of General Walker’s house. Mariana could testify of how he told her about his attempt on Walker’s life.
3 Mariana could also offer other helpful testimony that would help the prosecution. Oswald was one to defend his rights. Mariana noted that, while visiting him in jail, Oswald said he was being treated “all right” by the police. She said that if he was innocent he would have screamed about the injustice. Oswald did complain while in jail. He said his rights as a citizen were being violated because he did not get a shower. When he was arraigned for killing Officer Tippit in the police office where he was being questioned. Oswald complained that he wasn’t arraigned in a court room.
4 Mariana was one of the people who could testify about Oswald’s big ego. People who knew him, were not surprised, when he was arrested for killing the president. Mariana, when asked by the Warren Commission about her husband’s motives said “from everything I know about my husband and the events that transpired, I can conclude that he wanted in any way, whether good or bad, to do something that make him outstanding, that make him known in history.” She could have said that at trail. Even if she does not testify, others could talk about Oswald’s ego to help establish a motive.
5 In addition to the witnesses who knew Oswald, the prosecution had witnesses who saw the crime. During the Kennedy Assassination, a witness named Howard Brennen looked up at the southeast corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and saw Oswald shooting at Kennedy. He gave a description of the assassin that matched Oswald. Oswald’s description went over the Dallas Police radio at 12:45 PM, fifteen minutes after the assassination. What could help the defense is the fact that after Brennen picked Oswald out of line up, he then said he was not sure. OTL Brennen went on to testify about seeing Oswald kill Kennedy to the Warren Commission. So I assume he would testify at the trail. He said when he was doubtful at the line up he was afraid of the safety of his family and himself. I think the jury would understand this. His testimony is also backed up by the testimony of the two police officers he talked to. There was another witness who saw Oswald shooting Kennedy but couldn’t give a description. They are backed up by three witnesses who saw a rifle pointing out of that same window and three witnesses who were on the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and heard the shootings right above them. Witnesses can make mistakes but this is five witnesses who place the assassin at the southeast corner of the School Book Depository and eight that put the killer on the sixth floor.
6 In addition to witnesses during the assassination, Oswald was at the scene of the crime before it happened. A group of Texas School Book Depository employees working on the fifth and sixth floors left at 11:45 AM to eat lunch and watch the president on the first floor, They remembered that Oswald stayed.
7 In addition to being at the crime scene, There were also obvious signs of his involvement in the crime. Police found boxes stacked up to create a sniper’s nest by window at the southeast corner of sixth floor of the School Book Depository. The boxes closed off the window, allowing Oswald privacy. There were also boxes by the window, that allowed Oswald to rest his rile. They found Oswald palm prints on the boxes by the window. There were three bullet casing lying in the sniper’s nest. Oswald also brought a gun to work. During those days, Oswald spent the work week in a rented room near his job. On Friday afternoon and Monday morning a co worker named Wesley Frazier would give him a ride to and from the home of Ruth Paine where his wife and children were staying. On Thursday afternoon November 21, 1963, Oswald asked his coworker for a special ride to Mrs Paine’s house. When he left for work Friday November 22, 1963, Oswald, did not bring his lunch and was carrying a long package. He said it was curtain rods. No one saw him carrying the package after the assassination, so he did not install the non existent curtain rods. The police went to Oswald’s rented room and found there was already curtain rods. A Life Magazine photographer took a picture of it. The police also found a bag with Oswald’s fingerprints in the sniper’s nest.
8 It became obvious that Oswald brought a gun not curtain rods, when police found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository a rifle that had been purchased by A. Hidell. The jury would hear testimony that when he was arrested Oswald had two ID cards one said Lee Harvey Oswald and the other said Aleck Hidell and that the three people who could receive mail at his PO box were Lee and Mariana Oswald and Aleck Hidell. The rifle also had Oswald’s fingerprints. Handwriting experts say the handwriting on the purchase order matched Oswald’s handwriting. The FBI tested the bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine and found that were fired from the rifle found on the sixth floor. When the police arrived at Mrs Paine’s house, Oswald’s wife told them that her husband owned a rifle. She took them to the garage to show them. A police officer unfolded the blanket the rifle was wrapped in and the blanket was empty.
9 In addition to what he took with him, what Oswald left behind is also an important sign of guilt. When he left Mrs Paine’s house that morning. Oswald left behind his wedding ring and
$ 170, almost all of his money. He told his wife to spend buying shoes for their new baby. He obviously thought he may never see her again. Since he might not survive the assassination. She found it strange, since the stingy Oswald normally opposed her spending money. Mariana’s testimony could be helpful here. If she does not testify, Ruth Paine probably knew about this and she would probably help the prosecution..
10 Oswald’s behavior also shows signs of guilt. When they got to work, normally Frazier and Oswald would walked together into the School Book Depository. On the day of the assassination, Oswald grabbed his package and rushed in. Oswald would always stop in a break room and read the day old newspaper. He did not do so on the day of assassination.
After the assassination, Oswald left work. I don’t know about jury instructions in Texas in the 1960s, but when I was on jury duty our instructions said that flight was a sign of guilt. Why would he leave work except to escape? He could get fired for leaving work. He needed his job. He had a family to support. He had a new born baby. New born babies are expensive. If Oswald testified, as he told his interrogators, that he thought that after the assassination there would be no more work, the prosecution can argue that Oswald was the only one who left. They can also show that since no one talked to Oswald as he left, he could not have been told to go home. Although there was a bus stop across the street from the School Book Depository, Oswald walked to a bus stop seven blocks away. He got on a bus. There was a bus that went right by his rooming house, he did not wait for that bus. He got on a bus that would only take him a five minute walk form his rooming house. When the bus got stuck in traffic, he got off the bus. That shows he was in a hurry. The stingy Oswald took a cab back to his rooming house. He never in his life taken a cab before. He had the cab drop him off a five minute walk from his rooming house. He obviously did not want a witness knowing where he stayed. The housekeeper at the rooming house testified that she saw Oswald at about 1 PM, a half hour after the assassination. She saw him rush in and then go to his room and then leave. He had changed his pants and put on a jacket. He admitted grabbing his pistol. Why would he need a pistol ?
11 Of all Oswald’s actions after the assassination, the most incriminating was killing a police officer. One witness would testify that she saw Oswald kill Dallas Police Officer JD Tippet. Three would testify that they heard the shots, saw Tippit fall and Oswald running away. Two would testify that they heard shots and saw Oswald running away. There were four shell casings found by Tippet’s body. Five witnesses, who were down the street, would testify that they saw Oswald running from the scene of the crime carrying a pistol. Ten witnesses tie Oswald to Tippit’s killing. A firearms expert of the Warren Commission tested the four bullets taken from Tippit’s body and said one of them was fired from Oswald’s revolver to exclusion of all weapons. Another experts said all four could have been fired from Oswald’s revolver. Both the Warren Commission and the House Assassination Committee’s experts said the four expended cartridge cases found near Tippit’s body were fired from Oswald’s revolver to exclusion of all weapons. Murdering a police officer shows how panicked Oswald was. He knew he was the most wanted criminal on the face of the earth. This is not only incriminating in the murder of John F Kennedy but more importantly will convict him for the murder of JD Tippit.
12 In addition to the evidence tying Oswald to Tippit’s murder, Oswald’s jacket was found along the route he took after the Tippit shooting. Mariana could help identify the jacket, but there were probably other people who saw him wearing the jacket.
13 In addition to the evidence tying Oswald to the two murders, Oswald acted like a guilty man. He hid from the police. As the police were coming down the street, Oswald hid in the lobby of a shoe store fifteen feet from the street. The manager of the shoe store thought he looked suspicious and watched him leave the store after the police were gone and run into a movie theater without buying a ticket. The shoe store manager walked across the street and spoke to women in the theater ticket booth and she called the police. When the police approached him, Oswald said “ It is all over now.” He then resisted arrest. Oswald punched the first police officer who came near him in the nose and reached for his pistol, before being tackled and arrested.
14 After his arrest, more physical evidence tied Oswald to the crime. The Dallas Police perfumed a paraffin test on Oswald’s hands. The tests showed Oswald has gunpowder residue on his hands. The autopsy showed that Kennedy had been shot from behind, Oswald was behind Kennedy. The autopsy has been criticized for being rushed and incomplete. The qualifications of the doctors who performed the autopsy have been unjustly criticized. An expert panel appointed by Attorney General Ramsey Clark backed up the findings of the autopsy in 1967. Another expert panel working for the Rockefeller Commission, in 1975, likewise agreed with the autopsy’s findings. In 1978, the expert panel hired by the House Committee on Assassinations was very critical of the autopsy but agreed with the it’s conclusions. So the prosecution would probably have used an expert panel to back up the autopsy. The autopsy also backs up the solid evidence against Oswald, so I think the jury will find it credible.
Oswald will be found guilty in a fair trail, There will be community pressure on the judge and the prosecutor to make sure things are fair. The image of Dallas took quite a beating with the assassination. The business community will not want their city to be know as the place where the President was killed and where his assassin was lynched, The judge and the prosecution will be under incredible scrutiny. The Oswald trail will be an international news story. The Prosecution has such a strong case that have no incentive to do anything unfair. The push for fairness effects the timing of the trail. After the assassination Wade predicted the trail would come in January 1964. The defense will want more time. They have to plan an insanity defense. It is their only option. I was on a murder jury. The trail took place on August 1-2, 1990. I can remember it because Saddam invaded Kuwait opening day.
The murder took place late June 1989. A lawyer told me that is typical time delay for a murder trail. The defense is going to want that type of time and they will get it. Some time would be eaten up by arguments over change of venue. It will also take Oswald time to pick a lawyer. He wanted John Abt. the Chief Counsel of the Communist Party USA. Abt said he was too busy to take Oswald’s case, I am sure that Gus Hall and Nikita Khrushchev would forbid him form defending the president’s killer. Oswald would have a number of volunteers to choose from. I think it would be early January, 1964, when he makes his decision. The trail will happen sometime in 1965.
This means that while Oswald gets the death penally, he will not be executed
His appeals will last at least until late 1967. Litigation stopped all executions from June 2, 1967 until January 19,1977. Appeals take time, Ruby was convicted on March 15, 1964 and the Texas Appeals Court overturned his conviction on October 5, 1966. If the case goes to the US Supreme Court it could drag on for years more. In addition to Oswald’s appeals, conspiracy theorists will file frivolous appeals. They will not go anywhere but will take up time.
The biggest delay could have come from a successful appeal of Oswald’s sentence. The Ruby case is instructive. I assume most of the same Appeals Court judges who made the Ruby decision would rule on Oswald’s case. The Appeals Court found that despite the press scrutiny the prosecution used illegal evidence in that they used statements Ruby made before he talked to a lawyer, which violated Texas law. Such statements had to put in writing and signed by the defendant. There was an exception made for spontaneous statements, but the appeals court ruled that because Ruby asked before the interrogation if what he said would be released to the media, that showed the statement was not spontaneous. The prosecution would be tempted to use lies Oswald told during interrogation. The prosecution would really want to use something Oswald said during his first interrogation on Friday November 22. He said that at the time of the assassination he was eating lunch on the first floor with a co worker named Junior Jarman. Jarman, who was one of the witnesses on the fifth floor, would testify that was false. The Prosecution would also be eager to use a statement he made on Sunday November 24, when he admitted he was on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination. Since Oswald was answering questions, these could not be ruled spontaneous. These stories would destroy Oswald’s credibility with the jury but get the conviction overturned.
In addition to the possibility of illegal evidence, if Oswald does not get change of venue his case probably would have gotten thrown out. The Texas Appeals Court ruled that Ruby could not get a fair trail in Dallas. Surely they would say that about Oswald also.
Another possible way to overturn Oswald’s conviction is an incompetent defense lawyer. Mark Lane, best known as a lying conspiracy theorist, was a lawyer by trade. Oswald’s mother hired him to represent her late son before the Warren Commission. Oswald did not get along with his mother and would not have accepted her choice, but what if Lane was able to win over Oswald? Lane represented James Earl Ray before the House Assassination Committee. He was in the same situation he would have been with Oswald. All the evidence pointed to his client’s guilt. What he did while representing Ray was manufacture evidence. He brought to the committee witnesses who were supposed to say they saw Ray at a gas station at the time of King’s murder. One of whom testified that he was not in Memphis the day of King’s assassination. Lane used a neighbor of Ray’s in the rooming house where he shot King. She said that after hearing the shots, she saw someone who did not resemble Ray leaving. In doing so, she was contradicting her earlier statements. After the assassination, she had told the Memphis Police and the FBI that she did not get out of bed. If Lane included unreliable witnesses in Oswald’s defense, the conviction could be overturned. If Lane or some other lawyer, used the Grassy Knoll shooter as a defense, that too would be an act of legal malpractice. No witness claimed to have seen an assassin at the Grassy Knoll until 1977. The majority of those saying the shots came from the Grassy Knoll did so by tracing the sound. Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber. The prosecution can easily refute their testimony. There would have been numerous rebuttal witnesses who did not see an assassin at the Grassy Knoll. A Grassy Knoll shooter would also contradict the autopsy. I believe the jury will accept the autopsy.
If Wade loses at the Texas Appeals Court, Wade may feel compelled to fight on to the Texas Supreme Court. In the Ruby case the appeals Court made a strong argument and if they make the same arguments with Oswald, I think it would have been upheld. If Wade takes it to the US Supreme court, If the appeals court ruling resembles the Ruby decision, I see Warren court agreeing the conviction should be overturned. Oswald would get a new trail circa 1970. He would be again found guilty and get the death penalty. The conviction would inspire new appeals and new litigation Depending on how well the prison security worked, he could still be alive in 1972, In that year the US Supreme Court, in the Fuhrman vs Georgia case, threw out all death sentences. So Oswald would have been spared execution. Depending on the effectiveness of prison security and his luck with bad prison health care, Oswald could still be living. Today he would turn 77.
Once when discussing this on the Ark, I found a guy who argued that Oswald would be found not guilty. I am hoping you or someone with the same views are reading this. I would love to have that debate again.
Read more: alternate-timelines.proboards.com/thread/893/bigger-crowd-western-union#ixzz4NRwY9rIn
13 In addition to the evidence tying Oswald to the two murders, Oswald acted like a guilty man. He hid from the police. As the police were coming down the street, Oswald hid in the lobby of a shoe store fifteen feet from the street. The manager of the shoe store thought he looked suspicious and watched him leave the store after the police were gone and run into a movie theater without buying a ticket. The shoe store manager walked across the street and spoke to women in the theater ticket booth and she called the police. When the police approached him, Oswald said “ It is all over now.” He then resisted arrest. Oswald punched the first police officer who came near him in the nose and reached for his pistol, before being tackled and arrested.
14 After his arrest, more physical evidence tied Oswald to the crime. The Dallas Police perfumed a paraffin test on Oswald’s hands. The tests showed Oswald has gunpowder residue on his hands. The autopsy showed that Kennedy had been shot from behind, Oswald was behind Kennedy. The autopsy has been criticized for being rushed and incomplete. The qualifications of the doctors who performed the autopsy have been unjustly criticized. An expert panel appointed by Attorney General Ramsey Clark backed up the findings of the autopsy in 1967. Another expert panel working for the Rockefeller Commission, in 1975, likewise agreed with the autopsy’s findings. In 1978, the expert panel hired by the House Committee on Assassinations was very critical of the autopsy but agreed with the it’s conclusions. So the prosecution would probably have used an expert panel to back up the autopsy. The autopsy also backs up the solid evidence against Oswald, so I think the jury will find it credible.
Oswald will be found guilty in a fair trail, There will be community pressure on the judge and the prosecutor to make sure things are fair. The image of Dallas took quite a beating with the assassination. The business community will not want their city to be know as the place where the President was killed and where his assassin was lynched, The judge and the prosecution will be under incredible scrutiny. The Oswald trail will be an international news story. The Prosecution has such a strong case that have no incentive to do anything unfair. The push for fairness effects the timing of the trail. In the days after the assassination Wade predicted the trail would come in January 1964. The defense will want more time. They have to plan an insanity defense. It is their only option. I was on a murder jury. The trail took place on August 1-2, 1990. I can remember it because Saddam invaded Kuwait opening day.
The murder took place late June 1989. A lawyer told me that is typical time delay for a murder trail. The defense is going to want that type of time and they will get it. Some time would be eaten up by arguments over change of venue. It will also take Oswald time to pick a lawyer. He wanted John Abt. the Chief Counsel of the Communist Party USA. Abt said he was too busy to take Oswald’s case, I am sure that Gus Hall and Nikita Khrushchev would forbid him form defending the president’s killer. Oswald would have a number of volunteers to choose from. I think it would be early January, 1964, when he makes his decision. The trail will happen sometime in 1965.
This means that while Oswald gets the death penally, he will not be executed
His appeals will last at least until late 1967. Litigation stopped all executions from June 2, 1967 until January 19,1977. Appeals take time, Ruby was convicted on March 15, 1964 and the Texas Appeals Court overturned his conviction on October 5, 1966. If the case goes to the US Supreme Court it could drag on for years more. In addition to Oswald’s appeals, conspiracy theorists will file frivolous appeals. They will not go anywhere but will take up time.
The biggest delay could have come from a successful appeal of Oswald’s sentence. The Ruby case is instructive. I assume most of the same Appeals Court judges who made the Ruby decision would rule on Oswald’s case. The Appeals Court found that despite the press scrutiny the prosecution used illegal evidence in that they used statements Ruby made before he talked to a lawyer, which violated Texas law. Such statements had to put in writing and signed by the defendant. There was an exception made for spontaneous statements, but the appeals court ruled that because Ruby and asked before the interrogation if what he said would be released to the media, that showed the statement was not spontaneous. The prosecution would be tempted to use lies Oswald told during interrogation. The prosecution would really want to use something Oswald said during his first interrogation on Friday November 22. He said that at the time of the assassination he was eating lunch on the first floor with a co worker named Junior Jarman. Jarman, who was one of the witnesses on the fifth floor, would testify that was false. The Prosecution would also be eager to use a statement he made on Sunday November 24, when he admitted he was on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination. Since Oswald was answering questions, these could not be ruled spontaneous. These stories would destroy Oswald’s credibility with the jury but get the conviction overturned.
In addition to the possibility of illegal evidence, if Oswald does not get change of venue his case probably would have gotten thrown out. The Texas Appeals Court ruled that Ruby could not get a fair trail in Dallas. Surely they would say that about Oswald also.
Another possible way to overturn Oswald’s conviction is an incompetent defense lawyer. Mark Lane, best known as a lying conspiracy theorist, was a lawyer by trade. Oswald’s mother hired him to represent her late son before the Warren Commission. Oswald did not get along with his mother and would not have accepted her choice, but what if Lane was able to win over Oswald? Lane represented James Earl Ray before the House Assassination Committee. He was in the same situation he would have been with Oswald. All the evidence pointed to his client’s guilt. What he did while representing Ray was manufacture evidence. He brought to the committee witnesses who were supposed to say they saw Ray at a gas station at the time of King’s murder. One of whom testified that he was not in Memphis the day of King’s assassination. Lane used a neighbor of Ray’s in the rooming house where he shot King. She said that after hearing the shots, she saw someone who did not resemble Ray leaving. In doing so, she was contradicting her earlier statements. After the assassination, she had told the Memphis Police and the FBI that she did not get out of bed. If Lane included unreliable witnesses in Oswald’s defense, the conviction could be overturned. If Lane or some other lawyer, used the Grassy Knoll shooter as a defense, that too would be an act of legal malpractice. No witness claimed to have seen an assassin at the Grassy Knoll until 1977. The majority of those saying the shots came from the Grassy Knoll did so by tracing the sound. Dealey Plaza was an echo chamber. The prosecution can easily refute their testimony. There would have been numerous rebuttal witnesses who did not see an assassin at the Grassy Knoll. A Grassy Knoll shooter would also contradict the autopsy. I believe the jury will accept the autopsy.
If Wade loses at the Texas Appeals Court, Wade may feel compelled to fight on to the Texas Supreme Court. In the Ruby case the appeals Court made a strong argument and if they make the same arguments with Oswald, I think it would have been upheld. If Wade takes it to the US Supreme court, If the appeals court ruling resembles the Ruby decision, I see Warren court agreeing the conviction should be overturned. Oswald would get a new trail circa 1970. He would be again found guilty and get the death penalty. The conviction would inspire new appeals and new litigation Depending on how well the prison security worked, he could still be alive in 1972, In that year the US Supreme Court, in the Fuhrman vs Georgia case, threw out all death sentences. So Oswald would have been spared execution. Depending on the effectiveness of prison security and his luck with bad prison health care, Oswald could still be living. Today he would turn 77.
Once when discussing this on the Ark, I found a guy who argued that Oswald would be found not guilty. I am hoping you or someone with the same views are reading this. I would love to have that debate again.
