Oswald’s Acquittal?

[Johnny Cairns]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

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.

I agree because Olds attended the Midnight Press Conference and heard from Oswald’s own mouth that he wanted legal assistance and done nothing about it. 

[Joe Bauer]

On 8/12/2024 at 10:33 AM, Johnny Cairns said:

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

Oswald would have easily and quickly been convicted of killing DPD officer J.D. Tippit. And he would have received the death sentence.

Would Oswald have ever been tried for killing JFK? 

Never.

If he had, we all know that this would not only have been an incredibly difficult case evidentially for the prosecution but even more it would have opened up so many impossibly revealing areas of sensitive secrets by our most powerful police and intel agencies they could never risk this. We all know this truth.

Could you imagine a court demanding all of the FBI files on Oswald going back years? Would the FBI have opened up their files on Oswald? Of course not. Heck the Dallas office burned at least some of their Oswald files and flushed them down their toilet the day after Oswald was whacked by Jack Ruby!

The Mexico City trip would have been opened up. Oswald's New Orleans activities and his probable connections to the FBI there as well as his connections to Camp Street. How about Oswald's proven trips to Clinton to register to vote and get a job in the hospital there. His visit to a state congressman there as well? And on and on and on.

The Secret Service would have been heavily questioned and reamed for their failure to protect JFK.

LBJ? Hoover?  This would have been a nightmare for them.

 

Edited August 13 by Joe Bauer

[Johnny Cairns]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Oswald would have easily and quickly been convicted of killing DPD officer J.D. Tippit. And he would have received the death sentence.

Would Oswald have ever been tried for killing JFK? 

Never.

If he had, we all know that this would not only have been an incredibly difficult case evidentially for the prosecution but even more it would have opened up so impossibly revealing areas of sensitive secrets sharing by our most powerful police and intel agencies they could never risk this. We all know this truth.

Could you imagine a court demanding all of the FBI files on Oswald going back years? Would the FBI have opened up their files on Oswald? Of course not. Heck the Dallas office burned at least some of their Oswald files and flushed this down their toilet the day after Oswald was whacked by Jack Ruby!

The Mexico City trip would have been opened up. Oswald's New Orleans activities and his probable connections to the FBI there as well as his connections to Camp Street. How about Oswald's proven trips to Clinton to register to vote and get a job in the hospital there. His visit to a state congressman there as well? And on and on and on.

The Secret Service would have been heavily questioned and reamed for their failure to protect JFK.

LBJ? Hoover?  This would have been a nightmare for them.

 

Hi Joe, 

Wade stated that he wanted Oswald before a grand jury in January 1964, for the Kennedy murder. That murder would almost definitely had been tried first. 
 

 

[Greg Doudna]

If he beat the conviction on the charge of murder of JFK on procedural or reasonable doubt grounds but did NOT give explosive new information going to either recognized airtight exculpation or alternative solution to the case, the end result could be most historians thinking he still did it and never any alternative solution established, as in the OJ Simpson case. 

He also if acquitted on JFK or conviction reversed on appeal for JFK would separately face trial for Tippit. (I doubt charges would have been brought on Walker, for reasons not necessarily obvious.) 

Tippit would be a tough charge to beat though a very strong defense counsel might do so with analogy to the Sam Sheppard case in Ohio which I remember as a sensational local case in national news as a kid. F Lee Bailey with the support of Kilgallen got Sheppard believed not guilty by many in America even though it started out looking slam dunk that Sheppard had killed his wife. 

But to beat a Tippit conviction would almost necessarily require presenting in court an alternative theory of the crime or suspect, enough to establish reasonable doubt that it was Oswald; also being able to successfully raise doubt on police framing with physical evidence chain of custody issues. 

There could easily be a rollout of Oswald found not guilty or hung jury on JFK or conviction reversed on appeal, but guilty of Tippit and executed for Tippit, with views on JFK believed by roughly the same numbers, constituencies, and similar reasons as Oswald is believed today by those who accept and reject the LN finding of the Warren Commission (even though if Oswald had gone to trial there would have been no Warren Commission).

In other words, whether Oswald was found guilty or not guilty at trial for JFK could have very little different outcome than the present situation on the JFK assassination today, UNLESS Oswald did bring out significant game-changing knowledge which sensationally changed the dynamics of perception. If he truly knew nothing more than he was being framed or stitched up without knowing why, even if he were truly innocent and even if the jury acquitted on reasonable doubt grounds, probably still not good enough to fundamentally change perceptions today on the case, apart from making it more acceptable in mainstream discourse to assume the case unsolved. And doubtful much significant impact politically on the LBJ presidency or policies thereof either. 

But suppose Oswald did have sensitive information. Then all bets off. In that case his life could even be in danger before coming to trial.

Oh wait…

[Gil Jesus]

On 8/12/2024 at 8:08 AM, Johnny Cairns said:

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. 

Exactly. Everything the police said he said is hearsay. 

The Commission's mandate as stated in the Katzenbach Memo was that "the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial." On this point the Commission failed miserably. While the Lone Nutters argue that the Commission's hearings were not a trial, the Katzenbach Memo held the hearings to the same standard.

But the Commission allowed a wife to testify against her husband, allowed hearsay evidence and refused to allow the cross examination of witnesses by counsel representing the Oswald family. It also accepted evidence whose chain of custody was either broken or never established at the point of discovery.

The Commission violated every rule of judicial proceeding and conduct. 

In short, the Commission acted as a prosecutor, in that it presented the prosecution's case. This wasn't an investigation. It was a collection of evidence against one suspect. Any reasonable, impartial and prudent juror would recognize the unfairness of convicting a defendant on the prosecution's case alone without hearing from the defense.

Unfortunately, there are people out there who believe that a defendant is guilty until proven innocent.

Edited August 14 by Gil Jesus

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

Exactly. Everything the police said he said is hearsay. 

The Commission's mandate as stated in the Katzenbach Memo was that "the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial." On this point the Commission failed miserably. While the Lone Nutters argue that the Commission's hearings were not a trial, the Katzenbach Memo held the hearings to the same standard.

But the Commission allowed a wife to testify against her husband, allowed hearsay evidence and refused to allow the cross examination of witnesses by counsel representing the Oswald family. It also accepted evidence whose chain of custody was either broken or never established at the point of discovery.

The Commission violated every rule of judicial proceeding and conduct. 

In short, the Commission acted as a prosecutor, in that it presented the prosecution's case. This wasn't an investigation. It was a collection of evidence against one suspect. Any reasonable, impartial and prudent juror would recognize the unfairness of convicting a defendant on the prosecution's case alone without hearing from the defense.

Unfortunately, there are people out there who believe that a defendant is guilty until proven innocent.

Exactly.