The JFKA As A Whodunnit

[John Corbett]

I just noticed this. What is this even supposed to mean? If the two murders were tried together, there would be two verdicts as in the OJ case - guilty as to JFK, not guilty as to Tippit (or vice versa, or whatever). For a victory, the defense would have to convince the jury of reasonable doubt as to both murders. The only difference with separate trials is that there would be separate juries. The advantage to the defense would be eliminating the possibility of prejudice - with separate trials you wouldn't have the risk of the jury deciding Oswald "must have" killed JFK because he killed Tippit (or vice versa). If Oswald were first convicted of killing Tippit, then that conviction could possibly be used as showiing consciousness of guilt in the prosecution for killing JFK - but criminal work was about 0.00001% of my entire legal career, and I'm not going to pretend to know more than I do. (Generally, prior convictions are not admissible.)

Interesting: I just watched parts of the 1986 mock trial on DVP's YouTube channel. It appears that Callaway was the only "Tippit" witness called to testify. However, Bugliosi mentioned the Tippit murder in his opening statement and especially in his closing. In his closing, he emphasized that Oswald's murder of Tippit "explains" his murder of JFKA. But, of course, Oswald's murder of Tippit had not been established. This is exactly the prejudice I'm talking about and why separate trials would almost surely have been held.

If the cases are tried together and the defendant is acquitted, that's the ballgame. There can be no double jeopardy. If they are tried separately, an acquittal in the first trial gives the prosecution a mulligan. Double jeopardy would not apply.

[Lance Payette]

So your claim that the norm is for multiple homicides to be tried separately is just something you pulled out of your ass with nothing to back it up. That's what I thought.

You'll have to point me to where I said it was the "norm" because I am unable to find where I said that.  I believe I have said throughout that it's decided on a case-by-case basis and that, IMO, the likelihood of prejudice in Oswald's case would have required separate trials. I also said that since the murders would require entirely different evidence and witnesses, there is a likelihood they wouldn't be deemed the same episode. The defense certainly would have argued this, and I believe successfully.

"Pulled out of my ass"? If you want to play the snarky game with me, pal, you'd better bring your A game and wear a batting helmet.

The case against Oswald is black and white if one looks at the evidence and follows it to a logical conclusion. It couldn't be more obvious both in the JFKA and the murder of Tippit. There is no gray area. Most CTs don't seem to want a black and white answer to this case. So instead of focusing on the evidence they look at silly stuff to try to create doubt where none exists. They raise pointless questions like "Why did Oswald do this?" or "Why did Oswald do that?". That approach goes nowhere because no one can know why Oswald did anything because he never told anybody why he did it. The evidence is more than sufficient to conclude that he did kill JFK and he did kill J. D. Tippit.

Yes, we understand that you're a foaming-at-the-mouth LN zealot, but what does all of the above have to do with the issue of separate trials? Even though Oswald has been dead for more than 60 years, you apparently can't live with the thought that he might have received a fair trial. I'm beginning to think Martin has you pegged as having a bit of a psychological problem insofar as the JFKA is concerned.

I think back to what Vincent Bugliosi had to say about this case. Maybe you've heard of him. He went to law school too and I'm pretty sure he didn't finish at the bottom of his class. In fact, he had a pretty successful career as a trial lawyer both as a prosecutor and defense attorney. I don't have the exact quote exact word for word but essentially he said that anybody who doesn't believe Oswald killed JFK is either unaware of the evidence against him or they are a very silly person. Amen to that.

He didn't finish at the bottom of his class, but he didn't graduate magna cum laude, law review and Order of the Coif like certain people I could name. He was a famous and highly competent prosecutor as well as a relentless self-promoter and a bit of a huckster. He was no legal scholar, as most prosecutors aren't. His actual quote was pretty much to the effect that no sane person could think Oswald didn't kill JFK - which would mean thst an awful lot of seemingly sane, rational and intelligent people are insane, which I kind of doubt. Even in the numerous mock trials, apparently quite a significant number of the jurors were insane.

[Lance Payette]

If the cases are tried together and the defendant is acquitted, that's the ballgame. There can be no double jeopardy. If they are tried separately, an acquittal in the first trial gives the prosecution a mulligan. Double jeopardy would not apply.

This literally makes no sense. If there is one trial, there are TWO PROSECUTIONS and TWO VERDICTS within that trial. If there are two trials, the first one is OVER and the second one BEGINS. There is utterly no difference in the two procedures except that in the latter two juries are involved. Your statements about "a mulligan" and "double jeopardy" are literally nonsense. If the prosecution loses the trial of the Tippit murder, that case is over - there is no "mulligan" when the trial of the murder of JFK commences. The evidence and witnesses will be entirely different. OF COURSE double jeopardy would not apply - they are SEPARATE TRIALS for DIFFERENT MURDERS. I have no idea what you are talking about and am confident you don't either.

[John Corbett]

This literally makes no sense. If there is one trial, there are TWO PROSECUTIONS and TWO VERDICTS within that trial. If there are two trials, the first one is OVER and the second one BEGINS. There is utterly no difference in the two procedures except that in the latter two juries are involved. Your statements about "a mulligan" and "double jeopardy" are literally nonsense. If the prosecution loses the trial of the Tippit murder, that case is over - there is no "mulligan" when the trial of the murder of JFK commences. The evidence and witnesses will be entirely different. OF COURSE double jeopardy would not apply - they are SEPARATE TRIALS for DIFFERENT MURDERS. I have no idea what you are talking about and am confident you don't either.

Having one trial for both murders raises the possibility of one bombshell moment derailing the prosecution of both murders, like when OJ tried on the gloves. It was a stupid stunt by the prosecution that backfired terribly but had they had a separate trial for both murders, they could have avoided that blunder in a second trial. They could have also brought in expert testimony to explain why the leather gloves might have shrunk after being soaked with blood and then dried. Of course they weren't going to try OJ in separate trials. I can't think of any other case where someone charged with multiple homicides in the same jurisdiction was tried separately for each one. Apparently neither can you.

[Lance Payette]

Having one trial for both murders raises the possibility of one bombshell moment derailing the prosecution of both murders, like when OJ tried on the gloves. It was a stupid stunt by the prosecution that backfired terribly but had they had a separate trial for both murders, they could have avoided that blunder in a second trial. They could have also brought in expert testimony to explain why the leather gloves might have shrunk after being soaked with blood and then dried. Of course they weren't going to try OJ in separate trials. I can't think of any other case where someone charged with multiple homicides in the same jurisdiction was tried separately for each one. Apparently neither can you.

Keep digging because that hole is just getting deeper. The OJ trial was two murders at the same time, at the same scene, with the same weapon. The evidence in each case, including the bloody gloves, was exactly the same.

Perhaps you are not aware, but the prosecution in a criminal case is subject to rather strong ethical restrictions. The bloody gloves were an important piece of evidence in BOTH murders. The prosecution could not have failed to disclose them to the defense or omitted them from the second trial; if the prosecution had not introduced them, the defense would. What you call a "stupid stunt" by the prosecution was actually requested by the judge; Marcia Clark violently opposed the "stunt," but Christopher Darden went ahead both because the judge had requested it and Darden knew the defense would do it if he didn't. In any event, your notion that the gloves could have been omitted at a second trial (e.g., for the murder of Goldman) is just non-lawyerly nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

In your non-lawyerly way, you have identified why there would have been two trials with Tippit and JFK. In your scenario, the bloody gloves destroyed the prosecution's case in both murders. But it also cuts the other way: The potential prejudice to Oswald would have been the jury making a connection from the Tippit murder to the JFK murder, even though the evidence and witnesses in those cases would have been entirely different: "We think he killed Tippit; ergo, he must have killed JFK" - precisely the invalid connection that Bugliosi made in the mock trial.

I am having "Sandy Larsen flashbacks." Attempting to engage in a lawyerly discussion with a Perry Mason fan who thinks 20 episodes have made him a lawyer is something of a surreal experience. Give it up; you're making a fool of yourself.