CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The indictment of Lee Harvey Oswald was for the murder of John F. Kennedy.

There was no Federal law regrading murdering the President of the United States.

The trial would have to be in Texas.

True, but there was (and is) a Federal law against murder. Here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

The question would be who had jurisdiction to prosecute Oswald. Since it was on Texas property it was a state crime. Had Oswald shot JFK on federal property - say at the White House - he would have been prosecuted for murder by the federal government.

Bugliosi also pointed out that if there was evidence that he conspired to murder JFK then the Federal government - not just Texas - would have had jurisdiction to charge him with conspiracy to murder. So he could have been charged with conspiracy to murder by the state of Texas AND conspiracy to murder by the Federal government. The Supreme Court just ruled that is allowed because they are two separate sovereigns (thus, double jeopardy does apply would not have applied if he was found innocent in Texas).

[Ross Lidell]

True, but there was (and is) a Federal law against murder. Here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

The question would be who had jurisdiction to prosecute Oswald. Since it was on Texas property it was a state crime. Had Oswald shot JFK on federal property - say at the White House - he would have been prosecuted for murder by the federal government.

And as Bugliosi pointed out, if there was evidence that he conspired to murder JFK then the Federal government - not just Texas - would have had jurisdiction to charge him with conspiracy to murder. So he could have been charged with conspiracy to murder by the state of Texas AND conspiracy to murder by the Federal government. The Supreme Court just ruled that is allowed because they are two separate sovereign (thus, double jeopardy does apply if he was found innocent in Texas).

Steve,

Would that law (1963) have been legislated to account for Washington DC which is not a State but is a separate part of the USA?

Military installations could also be subject to Federal Law not State's.

Was there any evidence (not speculation) discovered between November 22 - 24 November 1963 that would prove Lee Harvey Oswald conspired with a person or group to murder John F. Kennedy?

[Bill Chapman]

In a 1999 interview Robert Oswald told me Lee was looking forward to a trial and would have confessed.  I asked him how he knew this. He responded “I know my brother”.  For what it’s worth.

Yep.

Robert Oswald/ PBS interview
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/interview-robert-oswald/

[Ross Lidell]

Showing the residues from the muzzle blast of a rifle. Oswald's rifle did not have muzzle blast/baffle protection. The overpressure from a shorter barrel than the cartridge was designed for increases the effect.

This is way off-topic. Start a new SUBJECT: Muzzle blast etc.

[Martin Weidmann]

For your sake?   

No for your own

It seems a bit stupid to first make a claim and only later check if it's actually true

[Gary Craig]

I recently have been getting reacquainted with the OJ case and it left me wondering how would JFK CT's handle the Oswald conspiracy in court?

To win the OJ case the "Dream Team" capitalized on the alleged racist atmosphere of LA, so the "Dream Team" invented a reasonably plausible alternative narrative, whereas the JFK CT's have given us virtually nothing?

Who planted what and why? What did they have to gain?

The prosecution would be presenting evidence piled on evidence and eyewitness after eyewitness, and in return what would the JFK CT's present and where do your theories go?

JohnM

"In court how would you defend Oswald?"

Demand the autopsy materials be allowed in court.

Have the autopsy doctors explain in court their conclusions illustrated by the autopsy photos. (Assuming the autopsy photos of the inside of JFK's right lung, that would have shown the direction and path of the bullet that allegedly went through his neck, and the photo of the inside of the skull, after the brain was removed. that showed the wound near the EOP, were still amongst the autopsy materials.) Those photos are no longer in the archives.

Jerry Ford muddied the waters on the throat wound location that the photo of JFK's right lung could verify.
The Clark Panel moved the entrance wound in JFK's skull 4 inches.
The photo of the inside of the skull would verify it's location.
Jerry Ford's and the Clark Panel actions aligned the wounds with the official LN narrative of LHO shooting from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD.

I would have JBC and his wife testify in front of the jury that he was not hit by the same bullet that hit JFK.

I would have the railroad workers, who were on the triple overpass, who heard shots and saw smoke from the Grassy Knoll, testify.

Brennan would need to explain to a jury why his affidavit from 11/22/63 stated he could identify the person he allegedly saw fire from the

6th floor, yet he was unable to pick LHO from a police line up later that afternoon.

Expert testimony for the defense to counter government experts.

Cross examination of key eye witnesses and LE personal whose 1st day affidavit statements morphed into the official LN narrative.

 

[Jorn Frending]

[quote author

The paraffin test "alone" would not exonerate Oswald.

The suspect was apprehended an hour and a quarter after the assassination shots were fired. Oswald had an opportunity to wash his face and remove traces of nitrates.
[/quote]

The idea with applying a very "hot  vax" paraffin test was to actually get "under the skin" to find residues "despite" having watched the face ...

Just for the record regardless of legal implications.

Showing "positive" would make him guilty whereas showing "negative" would not exonerate him ...