You can't be for real. Arraigning somebody before the evidence is even finished being gathered and analyzed is not a conclusion. It's just a decision to bring a case to trial.
So what? I'm sure he believed the same about the other 19 cases he prosecuted that were overturned.
Again you can't follow along. The relevant question as to whether this is an open case is not your subjective opinion of the strength of the case but whether the Dallas authorities who had the legal responsible for prosecuting it are satisfied of Oswald's guilt. They were satisfied and continue over 50 years later to be satisfied of Oswald's responsibility for the crime. That is the relevant point to this discussion. With Oswald's demise, the case is therefore considered a closed matter in their official view (i.e. the one that matters) because the responsible party is dead and beyond prosecution. The decision to charge Oswald for the crime is further confirmation of the position of the Dallas authorities that Oswald was the responsible party (as confirmed by Wade). That is not just a decision to "bring a case to trial" but based on their internal assessment of the case that the evidence is strong enough to convict in a criminal trial (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt). As a result, there is no doubt whatsoever that the official position of the Dallas authorities is that Oswald is responsible for murders of JFK and Tippit. Again, even if you disagree with that assessment, that is still the conclusion of the Dallas authorities making this a closed case from the perspective of the law enforcement entity with the legal responsibility for that case. Your opinion is not relevant in that context because lonely Internet fringe loons have no role in the official process. That is where your confusion apparently lies in believing your opinions are somehow relevant to whether the Dallas authorities consider the case open.
