The JFKA As A Whodunnit

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

Columbo:  There are a couple of loose ends I'd like to tie up, sir. Nothing important you understand.  Actually, so far, sir, we don’t have a thing.
Hickey:  Well, that’s heartening.
Columbo:  Officially, that is.
Hickey:  And unofficially?
Columbo:  Unofficially, we don’t have anything either.
Hickey:  So, when did you first suspect me?
Columbo: As it happens, sir… the first time i read the report.
Hickey: That can’t be possible.
Columbo:  Well sir, little things bother me.  Like when i was looking for the tests done on your AR15, & the bullets.  Especially your sworn witness testimony, sir.
Hickey:  There were no tests, & i wasn’t called as a witness.
Columbo:  Yes, that's what i mean sir.  It's just one of those things that got in my head and kept rolling around in there like a marble
Columbo:  My wife was a great fan of JFK sir.
Hickey:  Well, tell her it was just rotten luck.
Columbo:  Yes sir, u were just doing your job.

[Lance Payette]

Is there any legal reason Oswald couldn't have been tried for both murders in the same trial.

Serial killer John Wayne Gacy was tried and convicted for many murders over the span of years in one trial. They didn't have to try him for each one individually.

Gerry Spence was dealt a losing hand and tried to make the best of it. Oswald would have been easily convicted and sentenced to death had Jack Ruby not done us a huge favor. It's highly unlikely Oswald would have been executed in the Texas electric chair. That would have been the ideal outcome but one we wouldn't have got to enjoy. SCOTUS would have commuted his sentence in 1972 as they did for every other death row inmate including Sirhan Sirhan and Charles Manson.

In my humble opinion, in the real world the murders would have required bifurcated trials. It would be extremely prejudicial to Oswald and confusing as hell to have them at the same time. What an absolute mess if the jury had convicted him of Tippit and acquitted him of JFK! With Gacy, the crimes weren't connected - one wasn't supposedly showing consciousness of guilt of the other.

Speaking of Sirhan, Jim DiEugenio approvingly posted today Lisa Pease's diatribe against the LA Times for a program about the RFK murder, about which I know nothing other than that I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't do it:

This is ridiculous. You're ignoring all the evidence that has come out long after the official story and trial happened that not only exonerates Sirhan but shows he was hypnotically controlled by CIA operatives, including the one holding RFK at the moment of the shooting. Everything you say about Sirhan was part of the CIA's carefully constructed cover story, but it doesn't match the reality of what happened. It's no wonder conspiracy theories abound when the average conspiracy theorist knows that Sirhan was in front of Kennedy and that witnesses put his gun muzzle 3 feet from Kennedy, yet Kennedy was shot from behind at a distance of an inch. The eyewitnesses weren't wrong or random - the four people who saw them both at the moment of the shooting saw exactly the same thing, and it doesn't match the official story. I spent 30+ years studying this and wrote a detailed, heavily footnoted against the primary record book. How long did the LA Times team on this spend? Sheesh. Btw - the newly released files show the CIA was deeply involved with the LAPD's investigation and sort of shoved their way in there. The CIA released a "dummy" file on Sirhan because they are STILL HIDING WHAT THEY KNOW. The media has lost all credibility in this country by refusing to go beyond the official lies in all the assassinations of the sixties and even more recent ones. Sirhan had no motive. The defense team GAVE him that motive because they didn't think a jury would believe he really couldn't remember. But the CIA used hypnosis and drugs in experiments and were able to get people to do things they could not remember. There's so much to say and no one with the guts to follow where the truth actually leads. btw - I'm not MAGA. Can't stand Trump. Lifelong Democrat. But the truth matters!!!

[John Corbett]

In my humble opinion, in the real world the murders would have required bifurcated trials. It would be extremely prejudicial to Oswald and confusing as hell to have them at the same time. What an absolute mess if the jury had convicted him of Tippit and acquitted him of JFK! With Gacy, the crimes weren't connected - one wasn't supposedly showing consciousness of guilt of the other.

Speaking of Sirhan, Jim DiEugenio approvingly posted today Lisa Pease's diatribe against the LA Times for a program about the RFK murder, about which I know nothing other than that I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't do it:

Can you cite another case in which an individual was given separate trials for two murders committed a short time apart and in close proximity to each other. I'm not pretending to be a lawyer here. I've just never heard of such a case. I'm going from memory hear, but I believe Charles Manson and family were given a single trial for the the Tate and Labianca murders committed on separate nights. I didn't remember this but when I looked it up there were two other murders committed the previous month that Manson and his family were tried and convicted for. The spree has usually been called the Tate-Labianca  murders, ignoring the first two victims.

Nothing reveals the conspiracy mindset better than Sirhan's murder of RFK. He shot RFK and several other people in a crowded pantry infront of numerous witnesses and there are still people who insist he wasn't the lone gunman. They point to the factoid that there were more bullet holes than Sirhan's gun held (. This ignores the fact that a single bullet can make multiple strikes. The pantry had a drop ceiling with a concrete ceiling about it. A bullet could bounce off the concrete ceiling and come back through the drop ceiling. There is also some question as to whether some of the marks were actually bullet holes.

Another argument for a second gunman is that the head shot was fired at almost point blank range and witnesses (you gotta love 'em) said Sirhan never got closer than 3 feet from RFK with his gun. This begs the obvious question whether those witnesses saw another gunman fire a point blank shot into RFK's head. That means whoever fired the shot got close enough to RFK to shoot him at point blank without the witnesses seeing that shot. Given the other testimony, a reasonable reconstruction is that Sirhan fired the first shot into RFK's head before anyone was observing him. He was quickly push back but continued firing over the shoulders of his subduers. By the time the various witnesses turned toward the sound of the gunfire, Sirhan had been pushed back away from RFK.

In 1968, the Secret Service did not provide protection for presidential candidates. The RFK campaign employed form Olympic gold medal decathlete Rafer Johnson and form Rams/Giants defensive tackle Rosey Grier to be RFK's body guards. It was Grier who wrestled the gun from Sirhan's hand but not before he had enptied the gun into the crowd.

Ironically, Vincent Bugliosi was an early CT when it came to the RFKA. He was one who believed there were more than 8 shots fired. The source materials I found seem to suggest Bugliosi may have had a change of mind later but didn't say so explicitly.

[Lance Payette]

Can you cite another case in which an individual was given separate trials for two murders committed a short time apart and in close proximity to each other. I'm not pretending to be a lawyer here. I've just never heard of such a case. I'm going from memory hear, but I believe Charles Manson and family were given a single trial for the the Tate and Labianca murders committed on separate nights. I didn't remember this but when I looked it up there were two other murders committed the previous month that Manson and his family were tried and convicted for. The spree has usually been called the Tate-Labianca  murders, ignoring the first two victims.

It's impossible to really say. OJ was tried for both murders, but they were at the same scene at the same time. I would think that in Oswald's case if he were tried for JFK first the judge would allow evidence up to and including his visit to the room on Beckley and getting his revolver, as well as his arrest in the theater. Overlapping the two cases would be highly prejudicial to Oswald in the JFK case unless he had been convicted of the Tippit murder. I believe a judge would be extremely careful about not allowing that to happen. The most straightforward way would be to try him for Tippit first. AI agrees with me, which i'm not sure I should find comforting: "Under Texas criminal procedure, a defendant must be tried separately for each distinct, unrelated offense unless the charges stem from the exact same criminal act (e.g., a single bomb that kills two people). Because the Tippit shooting and the Kennedy assassination were two separate events involving different victims at different locations, they would have required two distinct trials."

Like it or not, the criminal justice system exists to protect the accused. The deck is heavily stacked in favor of the accused in almost every way. In the hands of a really skillful criminal defense team, Oswald's trial likely would have looked far different from how most LNers picture it looking - and the outcome, IMO, would have been far less certain.

[Zeon Mason]

In 1978, Oswald would  likely have been found not guilty.
In 1988, Oswald would likely be found guilty
In 1998 Oswald would likely be found not guilty after the Stone movie JFK and the early beginning of internet when the Z film was being seeing by millions of people for the 1st time.
In 2008, Oswald may have been found guilty because of the Beyond Conspiracy documentary and Dale Myers computer skills.
In 2016  Oswald would likely be considered a patsy set up by the Deep State globalists from the Alex Jones Infowars influence. Likely found not guilty by reason of insanity.
In 2026, the jury would be deadlocked due to smart phone AI consultation.

😆

[John Corbett]

It's impossible to really say. OJ was tried for both murders, but they were at the same scene at the same time. I would think that in Oswald's case if he were tried for JFK first the judge would allow evidence up to and including his visit to the room on Beckley and getting his revolver, as well as his arrest in the theater. Overlapping the two cases would be highly prejudicial to Oswald in the JFK case unless he had been convicted of the Tippit murder. I believe a judge would be extremely careful about not allowing that to happen. The most straightforward way would be to try him for Tippit first. AI agrees with me, which i'm not sure I should find comforting: "Under Texas criminal procedure, a defendant must be tried separately for each distinct, unrelated offense unless the charges stem from the exact same criminal act (e.g., a single bomb that kills two people). Because the Tippit shooting and the Kennedy assassination were two separate events involving different victims at different locations, they would have required two distinct trials."

If it's impossible to say, why would you think Oswald would have been tried separately for each murder. I can think of lot's of cases where someone charged with multiple homicides had them tried in a single trial. I can't think of one in which they were tried separately except in cases where the crimes were committed in different jurisdictions.

Like it or not, the criminal justice system exists to protect the accused. The deck is heavily stacked in favor of the accused in almost every way. In the hands of a really skillful criminal defense team, Oswald's trial likely would have looked far different from how most LNers picture it looking - and the outcome, IMO, would have been far less certain.

Yes that is true. Our criminal justice system has a duel purpose. Find the truth while protecting the rights of the accused and sometimes those two are at cross purposes. History doesn't have that problem. It's sole purpose is to find the truth. We do not have to be concerned with Oswald's rights because he no longer has any. He cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property because he has none of those either. That's why it always amuses me when CTs claim a particular piece of evidence would be inadmissible in court. Who freaking cares if it would have been inadmissible? If it helps tell us who killed JFK, that should be our only concern.

[Charles Collins]

If it's impossible to say, why would you think Oswald would have been tried separately for each murder. I can think of lot's of cases where someone charged with multiple homicides had them tried in a single trial. I can't think of one in which they were tried separately except in cases where the crimes were committed in different jurisdictions.
Yes that is true. Our criminal justice system has a duel purpose. Find the truth while protecting the rights of the accused and sometimes those two are at cross purposes. History doesn't have that problem. It's sole purpose is to find the truth. We do not have to be concerned with Oswald's rights because he no longer has any. He cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property because he has none of those either. That's why it always amuses me when CTs claim a particular piece of evidence would be inadmissible in court. Who freaking cares if it would have been inadmissible? If it helps tell us who killed JFK, that should be our only concern.

Snip from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 110:

The axiom “truth is our only client” had real-world consequences in the course of the commission’s investigation. First, it meant that nothing—no assertion by an investigative agency or individual—could be taken for granted. It required the development of sworn testimony on the basis of which a responsible and objective judgment could be made. Second, the judgments evaluating the evidence had to be based on a fair consideration of all the relevant testimony, recognizing that conflicts in the testimony of even well-intentioned and honest witnesses are inevitable on factual issues such as we faced.