Oswald’s Acquittal?

[Johnny Cairns]

I’m conducting a bit of an experiment to gather opinions on a historical what-if scenario:
 

If Lee Harvey Oswald had been allowed to stand trial in 1964 and been acquitted of assassinating President Kennedy, what would the implications of such a verdict have been? Specifically, how might this outcome have influenced the credibility and public perception of the U.S. government, particularly figures like J. Edgar Hoover and President Lyndon B. Johnson? Additionally, how might the Dallas Police and Wades Prosecutor’s Office have been perceived following a not guilty verdict? Lastly, what consequences might this acquittal have had for Lee Oswald himself?

[Ron Bulman]

Hi Johnny.  As no one has responded I thought I'd do so though I can't speak for others.

I wonder if many of us are not a little stunned at the thought.  Not of Oswald being acquitted, at a fair trial.  But that he would get one in Dallas or anywhere in Texas or the rest of the United States at the time.  I mean, he was convicted in the media within hours.

Further, even if they, however we define "them", had to abort the basement for any reason would have let him get to trial.  If he would have made it to the county jail, I don't trust Decker to protect him.  He was crooked himself from way back.

I also believe "they" would have continued to discouraged any attorney giving him "fair' representation from representing him.  They would have never let him talk publicly.

[Denny Zartman]

My two cents: The question is unanswerable. If Ruby had not killed Oswald, I feel almost certain that Oswald would have been found dead of "suicide" in his cell a day or two later. He was never going to see the inside of a courtroom. He would have been lucky to have had even one meeting with a lawyer.

[Greg Doudna]

It would depend on what defense Oswald made in court. If he claimed he had been working for an agency and could prove it or it was compelling as he told it even without proof, and was acquitted, that would be a game-changer, would shift the center of gravity toward a different direction to the case, depending on how sensational the specifics.

On the other hand, suppose he had no significant information to add other than what is already in the Warren Commission exhibits and documents, so he and his lawyers mount arguments along traditional lines of attempting to impeach evidence claimed against him, establish reasonable doubt and exculpation for reasons a,b,c. Suppose that was successful to the jury and the jury acquitted. No attempt to show in court an alternative solution or who did it, only that client Oswald either did not for arguments a,b,c, or there was reasonable doubt for arguments a,b,c. (This scenario works out the same whether or not Oswald was actually innocent or guilty.) 

In that case an acquittal of Oswald by a jury would be somewhat equivalent though in weaker form to the outcome of the O.J. Simpson case. Pretty much everybody thinks O.J. Simpson beat that conviction because he had better lawyers, not because he was actually innocent nor in most people's minds is there any reasonable doubt about that. In the case of Oswald there would be stronger grounds for perceived reasonable doubt to many people than for O.J. Simpson, but apart from the degrees of reasonable doubt, the analogy would be roughly the same--many would continue to think Oswald did it just had better lawyers, while others (more so than for O.J. Simpson) would support the jury's verdict as what they would personally judge too (of acquittal). And as is the case today, conspiracy theories would flourish as attempts to find alternative solution and closure, but different from today, there would be higher public opinion and elite opinion mobilization and legitimacy toward that being explored.

One thing (among others) that an Oswald defense would have to explain would be why, if he were innocent, he told a series of what the prosecution would set forth as a series of falsehoods under interrogation after his arrest. The defense would be in a seemingly no-win position on this. To deny that Oswald told some whoppers that weren't true under interrogation would be a very tough sell to a jury. But to concede that he did, well, any jury is going to have on its short list of important questions: then why?

There would be about only one way with a chance for winning for the defense on that that I can see: that in fact he did privately talk, as in privately told Fritz a name or two of who to call to vouch for him. But he was very quickly talked to privately and told to hang on with his persona, his cover, and that intervention would be on its way. His requests for attorney Abt, the famous defender of communists, would be part of continuing in persona. His willingness to talk at all and keep talking for ca. 12 hours of interrogation without simply going silent until he had a lawyer (and Oswald was smart enough to have done so if he had chosen to do so) would be in keeping with this. Going silent until having a lawyer would be the correct strategic thing for anyone in Oswald's position to do but Oswald did not do that, and it was not (I seriously doubt) because Oswald didn't know he could do that. Oswald was smart, not stupid. But still, he kept talking, 12 hours worth, no lawyer, never clammed up (apart from on certain specific questions). He should have, but didn't. Why?

And then something else occurs that I have not focused on before. Fritz had such a reputation, was legendary, for his interrogation successes, and was made to order for cracking a guilty Oswald, if that was the case here. But Fritz told the Warren Commission that he did not recall ever interrogating Oswald alone (or with another officer sitting in a corner of the room with him), not with federal agency representatives present, I believe in every single reported session without exception. And yet there were individual-alone questionings of Oswald--Clements of the FBI; Ellsworth of ATTU are two that come to mind. Why not Fritz himself, talking alone with Oswald? Fritz said that he was not effective with so many others present. What was stopping Fritz from doing the questioning in the way he was effective, questioning him himself?

It makes no sense, unless this: Oswald by agreement continued to maintain persona in those "public" interrogation sessions in which everyone present would write reports of what was said. Oswald's agreement was to do this (and not start blabbing names and secrets unwanted for him to blab) was obtained by a promise that if he would hang on, he would be out of there within a day or two. That was the carrot. The stick would be telling him if he did blab, all bets were off, there was nothing they could do to save him. Like in the James Bond movies, if this mission is blown, we will deny we knew you...

This then could be Oswald's defense in court: why he told the easily-shown false things in public questionings; why he talked at all without a lawyer, hour after hour; and why he did not say exculpatory things in his interrogations or to reporters in the hallways that he could have, apart from denials and the one time he said he was a patsy. Then they threw him under the bus. "Oswald who? Nobody our office had any dealings with him..." 

That could be Oswald's defense in court on that, if it was convincing, even better if it were true.

Excellent question by the way.

[Greg Doudna]

I forgot to add, you asked what would be the consequences for Oswald if he were acquitted (include of Tippit and Walker in that conditional). If he had been in some kind of undercover situation up to that point but all was now outed and over, and he was a free man acquitted by the jury ...

His financial problems would be over from lectures and media presence. He would enroll in an undergraduate degree program at a university, then continue right on through to a PhD, perhaps in political science. He would teach and (with the help of an editor on the spelling) write books. 

The Dallas Police Department and Wade the prosecutor would be embarrassed but it would be like the LA Police Department and DA after the OJ Simpson acquittal, you win some you lose some.

Edited August 12 by Greg Doudna

[Gil Jesus]

59 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

One thing (among others) that an Oswald defense would have to explain would be why, if he were innocent, he told a series of what the prosecution would set forth as a series of falsehoods under interrogation after his arrest. The defense would be in a seemingly no-win position on this. To deny that Oswald told some whoppers that weren't true under interrogation would be a very tough sell to a jury. But to concede that he did, well, any jury is going to have on its short list of important questions: then why?

 

Anything police alleged Oswald said during his interrogation sessions would have been inadmissible in court. You can't question a suspect after he's asked for a lawyer until the lawyer is present.

[Gil Jesus]

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

My two cents: The question is unanswerable. If Ruby had not killed Oswald, I feel almost certain that Oswald would have been found dead of "suicide" in his cell a day or two later. He was never going to see the inside of a courtroom. He would have been lucky to have had even one meeting with a lawyer.

Exactly. They would have "found" him hanging in his cell.

Edited August 12 by Gil Jesus

[Greg Doudna]

35 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Anything police alleged Oswald said during his interrogation sessions would have been inadmissible in court. You can't question a suspect after he's asked for a lawyer until the lawyer is present.

Gil I am no lawyer but wouldn't the Dallas Police (and prosecution's) position be that Oswald was not being denied a lawyer, that he was free to obtain one any time he wanted? Maybe it was comparable to the Escobido case (conviction overturned because confession obtained after he had requested a lawyer and was not permitted one), but since that wasn't decided until 1964 wouldn't this be a "gray" area in Dallas in 1963 or 1964, as opposed to cut and dried? But yes, if defense objected to admissability of anything Oswald said after he first requested a lawyer, and it was upheld by the judge, then defense would have no burden to rebut allegations of falsehoods told by Oswald in his questionings since they would not be entered in the first place. In other words, your point may be valid, but is it obvious that the police and prosecutors in Dallas would necessarily have known or agreed? And how a judge would rule when it was contested is sometimes hard to predict.  

[Johnny Cairns]

Hi Greg, 

Thanks for replying. Various members of the Dallas Police did actively keep Greg Olds of the ACLU away from Oswald on the 22nd, by giving him assurances that Oswald did not want a lawyer. Oswald was a member of the ACLU. They did permit a civil lawyer, Louis Nichols into see him on Saturday 23rd. Oswald told Nichols that he either wanted Apt or a lawyer from the ACLU, something Olds could have provided him on the night of the 22nd. 

[Greg Doudna]

25 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Hi Greg, 

Thanks for replying. Various members of the Dallas Police did actively keep Greg Olds of the ACLU away from Oswald on the 22nd, by giving him assurances that Oswald did not want a lawyer. Oswald was a member of the ACLU. They did permit a civil lawyer, Louis Nichols into see him on Saturday 23rd. Oswald told Nichols that he either wanted Apt or a lawyer from the ACLU, something Olds could have provided him on the night of the 22nd. 

Yes. A lawyer from Chicago sent a telegram addressed to Oswald that weekend, offering Oswald immediate counsel, and Fritz did not inform Oswald or pass it on to Oswald, on the grounds that since he had requested Abt, he therefore was not interested in any other lawyer's offer so Fritz would kindly not burden Oswald by bothering him with that unnecessary mail or information.

Hosty seems to have thought that anything Oswald said in the questionings could be used in court. 

Mr. HOSTY. We walked into the room. I immediately identified myself, told him I was with the FBI, and was a law-enforcement officer, and anything he said to me could be used against him. He did not have to talk to us.

 

Edited August 12 by Greg Doudna

[Johnny Cairns]

That in itself should raise serious questions regarding Oswald’s rights whilst in police custody. Also who gave Fritz the authority to with-hold such information from Oswald? I wrote an article on K&K about Oswald’s rights whilst in police custody, from first to last these were grossly violated. 
 

I know Jesse Curry testified that the Dallas Police had violated every rule in the book with regards to the interrogations Oswald was subjected to. I have also read from numerous lawyers on this point that since these interrogations were not recorded, through tape or stenographer, then whatever Oswald said would have been ruled as inadmissible. 

[Joe Bauer]

On 8/12/2024 at 3:47 AM, Greg Doudna said:

Gil I am no lawyer but wouldn't the Dallas Police (and prosecution's) position be that Oswald was not being denied a lawyer, that he was free to obtain one any time he wanted? Maybe it was comparable to the Escobido case (conviction overturned because confession obtained after he had requested a lawyer and was not permitted one), but since that wasn't decided until 1964 wouldn't this be a "gray" area in Dallas in 1963 or 1964, as opposed to cut and dried? But yes, if defense objected to admissability of anything Oswald said after he first requested a lawyer, and it was upheld by the judge, then defense would have no burden to rebut allegations of falsehoods told by Oswald in his questionings since they would not be entered in the first place. In other words, your point may be valid, but is it obvious that the police and prosecutors in Dallas would necessarily have known or agreed? And how a judge would rule when it was contested is sometimes hard to predict.  

When Oswald told "the entire world" late Friday night that he wasn't being allowed "any" legal representation in all the time of his hours of custody, processing, questioning and ridiculously skewed line-up appearances in the hands of the DPD, it really shook millions of people who were watching him state this.

Then, on top of that stunning statement he added...I would request "that someone come forward" to help him in this regards. Even 12 year olds like myself thought there was something very wrong there.

There are some earth shaking truths in our world now that have purposely been kept hidden, denied and/or dis-information corrupted from our own society and surely all other general population world societies.

The keepers of these hidden truths have typical general reasons for keeping these truths to themselves. Power, control, wealth ... you name it.

Every now and then these control groups will feed, through some connected media outlets, a vague benevolent excuse to assuage the suspicions of the general public that they are being kept in the dark about important truths that pop up a little too much from time to time.

That these truths would cause panic to the degree of total destabilization of our society and all others too.

And that the keepers of these truths are actually "our protectors" more than anything else.

I once read a personal sharing story that Hoover himself once told someone privately that if the American people knew the truth about the JFKA there would be riots in the street.

Yes, Oswald would have been eliminated in some way if the DPD basement hit didn't work. 

Sheriff Decker has always been portrayed as corrupt himself. 

Jeffrey Epstein had to be suicided. He had the goods on too many of our most powerful and wealthy icons. Goods that could have destroyed them. And nefarious connections to other nefarious international groups in our highest levels of government.

Edited August 13 by Joe Bauer

[Johnny Cairns]

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

When Oswald told " the entire world" Friday night that he wasn't being allowed any legal representation in all the time of his hours of custody, questioning and processing and ridiculously skewed line-up appearances it really shook millions of people who were watching him state this.

Then, on top of that stunning statement he added...I would request "that someone come forward" to help him in this regards... even 12 year olds like myself thought there is something very wrong there.

There are some earth shaking truths in our world now that have purposely been kept hidden, denied and/or dis-information corrupted from our own society and surely all other general population world societies.

The keepers of these hidden truths have typical general reasons for keeping these truths to themselves. Power, control, wealth ... you name it.

Every now and then these control groups will feed through some connected media outlets a vague benevolent excuse to assuage the suspicions of the general public that they are being kept in the dark about important truths that pop up a little too much from time to time.

That these truths would cause panic to the degree of total destabilization of our society and all others too.

And that the keepers of these truths are actually "our protectors" more than anything else.

I once read a personal sharing story that Hoover himself once told someone privately that if the American people knew the truth about the JFKA there would be riots in the street.

Yes, Oswald would have been eliminated in some way if the DPD basement hit didn't work soon thereafter imo.

Sheriff Decker has always been portrayed as corrupt himself. 

Jeffrey Epstein had to be suicided. He had the goods on too many of our most powerful and wealthy icons. Goods that could have destroyed them. And nefarious connections to other nefarious international groups in our highest levels of government. Just my life-time developed gut feeling of course.

I agree Joe. What do you think the ramifications of a not guilty verdict would have had on the Presidency of LBJ? 

[Gil Jesus]

23 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Gil I am no lawyer but wouldn't the Dallas Police (and prosecution's) position be that Oswald was not being denied a lawyer, that he was free to obtain one any time he wanted? Maybe it was comparable to the Escobido case (conviction overturned because confession obtained after he had requested a lawyer and was not permitted one), but since that wasn't decided until 1964 wouldn't this be a "gray" area in Dallas in 1963 or 1964, as opposed to cut and dried?

A lot of people don't understand that one's rights under the Constitution do not begin with a Supreme Court decision, but instead begin at birth. These are rights not afforded an individual by the state or any court but rather by his/her Creator. FWIW, Escobedo was a 1960 case that took 4 years to get to the Supreme Court. The court's ruling proves my point that Escobedo's rights were violated in 1960, not 1964. Likewise with the Miranda case, a 1963 case that took 3 years to get to the Court, Miranda's rights were violated in 1963, not 1966. Honestly, I don't find any gray area in this at all. IMO, had Oswald been convicted, his conviction would have been overturned on appeal. 

Edited August 13 by Gil Jesus

[Gil Jesus]

23 hours ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Hi Greg, 

Oswald told Nichols that he either wanted Apt or a lawyer from the ACLU

And Nichols mentioned that in his appearance before the press.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/abt-or-ACLU.mp4

But the ACLU was afraid of the Dallas Police and never pushed them to see Oswald.