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.

[John Corbett]

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.

I brought up the OJ trial to illustrate how a prosecution can be completely destroyed by one unfortunate gaffe, not because the circumstances parallelled
the JFKA. I would have referenced a case where a multiple homicide in the same jurisdiction resulted in separate trials for both but I couldn't find one. Apparently, you can't either.

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.

Now you're making a strawman argument. I never even suggested the gloves would not be part of a second trial. I specifically mentioned that the prosecution would be able to apply context to the ill fitting gloves and show why the leather gloves could have shrunk since the night of the murders.

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.

You continue to insist that there would have been separate trials for the JFK and Tippit murders despite not being able to cite a single case of multiple homicides in the same jurisdiction in which that was done. I have cited two high profile multiple homicides in which a single trial was held for multiple homicides, one of which also had multiple defendants. I'm sure if I eat my Wheaties I can find dozens more cases of multiple homicides resulting in a single trial. I doubt you can find one in which multiple homicides were committed in the same city on the same day which resulted in separate trials. It seems a rather ludicrous proposition to me.

[Lance Payette]

Jesus, "a dog with a bone," as Mark Urik said about someone not long ago. Apparently you simply cannot admit you are wrong and let it go. I am on the verge of suffering not merely "Sandy Larsen flashbacks" but "Sandy Larsen PTSD."

Look, booby, you cited (1) the Manson case, which was tried as a conspiracy case, and in fact the Tate and LaBianca murders were committed in the same manner by the same people on two successive nights, and (2) the OJ case, where the two murders were committed at the same time and place using the same weapon and obviously by the same perpetrator. Neither is the situation with JFK and Tippit.

Yes, obviously, crimes including murders are often tried together. This is why EVERY STATE has a statute or rule that crimes may be tried together if they are part of the "same criminal episode" (or words to that effect). DUH, YES? Likewise, EVERY STATE has a statute or rule that the crimes may be SEVERED, meaning SEPARATE TRIALS, if the defendant can show a single trial would result in unfair prejudice. DUH, YES? The very existence of these rules refutes the silly arguments you keep making. DUH, YES?

Because you are an "everything is black and white" know-it-all who has no clue how lawyers think - just like Sandy Larsen! - you seemingly can't grasp that every situation is different. What the hell was your career - IRS tax auditor? It can't have been anything requiring nuanced thinking.

Sometimes the prosecution would want separate trials, sometimes the defense would want one. Sometimes the prosecution would want one, the defense two. Often neither side cares one way or the other. It's always a matter of trial strategy. A simple Google search will generate multiple appellate cases where severance was an issue, with a defendant typically arguing that severance should have been granted and he was prejudiced because it was not.

For the last time: The JFK and Tippit murders are not inevitably connected, except in the mind of an LN zealot. The evidence and witnesses would be entirely different. There would be HUGE risk that a jury would connect the two and decide that Oswald "must have" killed Tippit if he killed JFK or "must have" killed JFK if he killed Tippit. This is the potential prejudice of trying both murders together, and it is precisely the invalid connection that Bugliosi made in the mock trial (where there obviously was not going to be a motion for severance because it was just a TV show).

I can GUARANTEE you that in a trial of Oswald the defense would be arguing both that (1) two trials were required because the murders were not part of the same episode, and (2) even if they were, severance should be granted because of the potential prejudice of trying them together. If the motion were denied, the defense would pursue what is called an interlocutory appeal, meaning an appeal before the trial even begins. If the interlocutory appeal were denied, the defense would preserve the severance issue as a major one on post-trial appeal. The correctness of the defense's position would be so clear in this case that I strongly doubt the prosecution would even oppose severance.

Apparently every forum has its Pretend Lawyers. At the Ed Forum, I not only had goofy Sandy, who was some sort of civil engineer, but even Jim DiEugenio lecturing me as to how I didn't understand the rules of evidence. Yeeesh ...