Did Oswald smoke?

[John Iacoletti]

As it stood, when he died, the only hard evidence against Oswald (beyond his ownership of the rifle and his almost certain involvement in the Tippit killing) was the fibers on the rifle, the print on Box D and the prints on the bag.

There's not "hard evidence" of his ownership of the rifle or of his involvement in the Tippit killing either.

[John Iacoletti]

I am on the fence about the Tippit killing, but feel a Texas jury would not have been able to overlook Oswald's being found with the gun the police claimed killed Tippit

Not once the jury learned that there was no chain of custody for the gun that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours after Oswald's arrest.

and several eyewitnesses placing him at the scene.

Not once the jury learned how unfair and biased the lineups were.

If you're found with a gun that fired the fatal shots,

Except there's no way to match Hill's gun with the slugs that killed Tippit.

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald is linked solid to the rifle.  He lies about ownership.  He has no explanation for its presence on the 6th floor.  There are fired bullet casings from his rifle on the floor.  Witnesses saw a rifle in that window at the moment of the assassination.  Oswald has no alibi for the moment of the shooting.  He flees the scene and is implicated in another murder less than hour later.  He resists arrest.  He has a bizarre political background.   It's about as strong a case as could be imagined absent a time machine.  Some of the other evidence might be of lesser value but even the more questionable evidence points to Oswald.  He fries for both crimes.

Right.  Having a "bizarre political background" is totally solid evidence of murder.   

Oswald is not "linked solid" to anything.

[Ross Lidell]

Right.  Having a "bizarre political background" is totally solid evidence of murder.   

Oswald is not "linked solid" to anything.

Oswald is not "linked solid" to anything.

That's an assertion.

Having a "bizarre political background" is totally solid evidence of murder.   

Not that alone. However, it's probative circumstantial evidence when combined with:

-- Physical circumstantial evidence.

-- Behavioral circumstantial evidence.

You ignored the other evidence.

Staying "on topic":

Did Oswald smoke (cigarettes)?

--- Some smokers murder.

--- Some murderers smoke.

A nicotine habit is immaterial as to Oswald's guilt in two (2) murders: John F. Kennedy and JD Tippit.

[Jerry Freeman]

He would have been convicted before the Warren Commission Report could have been completed.

Completed? You mean released. The story was essentially in wraps before the shots were ever fired.
What in the Report was any different than the story that was told that weekend?

[Charles Collins]

Completed? You mean released. The story was essentially in wraps before the shots were ever fired.
What in the Report was any different than the story that was told that weekend?

That is a reply to Walt’s post:

You're being facetious of course , but if you were being serious I doubt that you'd bet any money on Lee being convicted if they hadn't lynched him, and he had his day in court.    The very fact that there are thousands of people who doubt that the Warren Report is the truth, would cause an intelligent person to  doubt that Lee would have been convicted.

Walt is contending that doubt of the Warren Report is evidence that LHO wouldn’t have been convicted. I was merely pointing out that the Warren Report would not have yet existed before they would have already convicted LHO (had he survived to stand trial).

All of this line of thought is conjecture. But if the state of Texas had put LHO on trial, the Warren Commission and its Report most likely would not have been created. The state of Texas would have most likely not released a lot of information that didn’t become public in the trial. And we wouldn’t have anything close to the amount of information that we do have from the Warren Commission to second guess the case with. For all these reasons Walt’s contention makes no sense. That is what I meant to convey.