JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Corbett on May 29, 2026, 05:27:07 PM
-
I remarked in another thread that if the JFKA was a whodunnit, it was the worst whodunnit ever written. The murderer was revealed at the bottom of page one. By the time I got home from school, they already had him in custody.
I think those who think it is a whodunnit view the JFKA like a Perry Mason episode. The standard formula was for a prime suspect to be identified early in the episode. That person would become Perry's client. Perry and his team would investigate the crime. The case would go to trial and against the efforts of Hamilton Burger, Perry would gradually unravel the case and typically would put the real killer on the stand and coerce a confession from him (or her).
CTs like to treat Oswald as one of Perry Mason's clients. Sure, it looks like he was the perp but they just know that if they keep working at it, they will prove the prime suspect didn't do it after all. I can't wait to find out who they are going to get to confess on the witness stand, although that will likely require a seance.
-
Is there a way to correct a typo in the Subject line?
When the Beatles would write songs, they would often plug in nonsense lyrics to be fixed later. This occurred with "Hey, Jude." When Paul demonstrated the song and came to the lyric "The movement you need is on your shoulder" he said "Don't worry, I'll fix that later." John replied "No, it's perfect, leave it." I have no idea what a shodunnit would be, but it's somehow perfect. "Oswald sho' dunnit, baby, of that I'm sure."
Your Perry Mason example is ironic. I laugh at the many, many episodes which are so complex that they end with Perry, Della and Drake sitting around a restaurant table. The plot has been almost impossible to follow, and the director knows it, so Della launches into her little summation for the benefit of the viewers: "And so, Perry, then Shirley was actually Ted wearing a latex mask ... and the dog in fact belonged to Bob ... and it all tied back into that confrontation between Shirley and Babs when they were on summer vaction in Istanbul back in college ... right?" Perry: "That's right, Della." Roll the credits.
There are two aspects to the JFKA: (1) Was Oswald the lone gunman in Dealey Plaza? and (2) Were Oswald and Dealey Plaza the whole story? It's almost absurd to suggest there is no whodunnit aspect to either of these. The WC, the HSCA, the Church Committee, the ARRB, the current legislative movement ... the vast number of technical medical, ballistic and forensic articles ... the 1000 or so books, ranging from the absurd to the definitely not absurd ... the concerted effort to keep the lid on the LN narrative ... yada yada yada - it all flies in the face of the JFKA being as cut-and-dried as you for some reason insist is the case.
As I've stated more than once, those who are clearly obsessed with the JFKA, but for no other reason than to keep hammering and hammering and hammering the LN narrative as though it were their religion and needed to be defended against any and all infidels, are a bigger mystery to me than any Harvey and Lee cultist.
-
When the Beatles would write songs, they would often plug in nonsense lyrics to be fixed later. This occurred with "Hey, Jude." When Paul demonstrated the song and came to the lyric "The movement you need is on your shoulder" he said "Don't worry, I'll fix that later." John replied "No, it's perfect, leave it." I have no idea what a shodunnit would be, but it's somehow perfect. "Oswald sho' dunnit, baby, of that I'm sure."
Your Perry Mason example is ironic. I laugh at the many, many episodes which are so complex that they end with Perry, Della and Drake sitting around a restaurant table. The plot has been almost impossible to follow, and the director knows it, so Della launches into her little summation for the benefit of the viewers: "And so, Perry, then Shirley was actually Ted wearing a latex mask ... and the dog in fact belonged to Bob ... and it all tied back into that confrontation between Shirley and Babs when they were on summer vaction in Istanbul back in college ... right?" Perry: "That's right, Della." Roll the credits.
There are two aspects to the JFKA: (1) Was Oswald the lone gunman in Dealey Plaza? and (2) Were Oswald and Dealey Plaza the whole story? It's almost absurd to suggest there is no whodunnit aspect to either of these. The WC, the HSCA, the Church Committee, the ARRB, the current legislative movement ... the vast number of technical medical, ballistic and forensic articles ... the 1000 or so books, ranging from the absurd to the definitely not absurd ... the concerted effort to keep the lid on the LN narrative ... yada yada yada - it all flies in the face of the JFKA being as cut-and-dried as you for some reason insist is the case.
As I've stated more than once, those who are clearly obsessed with the JFKA, but for no other reason than to keep hammering and hammering and hammering the LN narrative as though it were their religion and needed to be defended against any and all infidels, are a bigger mystery to me than any Harvey and Lee cultist.
Some of us think the truth is worth defending, even if our reach doesn't extend beyond the online forums. For decades, before online discussion groups became a reality, the CTs had the field to themselves. The two main avenues for one to express their opinions were writing books and appearing on electronic media programs. Few LNs were writing books defending the WC because there was no money in it and few appeared on radio or TV programs because there were no ratings in it. That allowed conspiracy theories to flourish like unattended weeds. With the popularization of the internet, some semblance of balance was restored to the discourse. The CTs were still in the majority, but the LN narrative was allowed to breathe. I don't know if it is reflective of public opinion but my very unscientific observation is the LNs make up a significantly higher percentage of the participants on the various forums than we did even 10 years ago. Has progress been made in shaping public opinion. I don't know. I haven't seen a recent poll on the subject but I would be there are still 60-65% who believe in conspiracy of some sort. I think if people were completely honest about it, a majority would say they don't give a rat's ass one way or another.
-
Some of us think the truth is worth defending, even if our reach doesn't extend beyond the online forums. For decades, before online discussion groups became a reality, the CTs had the field to themselves. The two main avenues for one to express their opinions were writing books and appearing on electronic media programs. Few LNs were writing books defending the WC because there was no money in it and few appeared on radio or TV programs because there were no ratings in it. That allowed conspiracy theories to flourish like unattended weeds. With the popularization of the internet, some semblance of balance was restored to the discourse. The CTs were still in the majority, but the LN narrative was allowed to breathe. I don't know if it is reflective of public opinion but my very unscientific observation is the LNs make up a significantly higher percentage of the participants on the various forums than we did even 10 years ago. Has progress been made in shaping public opinion. I don't know. I haven't seen a recent poll on the subject but I would be there are still 60-65% who believe in conspiracy of some sort. I think if people were completely honest about it, a majority would say they don't give a rat's ass one way or another.
Don't know what TV you have been watching. CBS, NBC, ABC have always put out Pro LN Specials. Cronkite, Huntley/Brinkley, Jennings, ALL of them were pushing this LN BS:. That was their job and they knew it. Even the relatively recent stuff we see on Smithsonian, Nat Geo, History Channel is Pro LN. Nat Geo gave Max Holland the platform to push his bullet dinging off the traffic signal support beam without a shred of evidence. The LN Tripe has been supported by the Fake News'ers since Day 1. If these guys were "on the square", they would release their Original Assassination Films. They refuse to do this. Their, "in the bag". And they have been dating back to WW 2. During WW 2, that news "stuff" that was shown in Movie Theaters along with the movies themselves was pure propaganda.
-
Some of us think the truth is worth defending, even if our reach doesn't extend beyond the online forums. For decades, before online discussion groups became a reality, the CTs had the field to themselves. The two main avenues for one to express their opinions were writing books and appearing on electronic media programs. Few LNs were writing books defending the WC because there was no money in it and few appeared on radio or TV programs because there were no ratings in it. That allowed conspiracy theories to flourish like unattended weeds. With the popularization of the internet, some semblance of balance was restored to the discourse. The CTs were still in the majority, but the LN narrative was allowed to breathe. I don't know if it is reflective of public opinion but my very unscientific observation is the LNs make up a significantly higher percentage of the participants on the various forums than we did even 10 years ago. Has progress been made in shaping public opinion. I don't know. I haven't seen a recent poll on the subject but I would be there are still 60-65% who believe in conspiracy of some sort. I think if people were completely honest about it, a majority would say they don't give a rat's ass one way or another.
Some of us think the truth is worth defending
There is nothing wrong with defending the truth, but that's not what you are doing. You defend what you believe is the truth and you can't understand that other people might not agree with you or even ask critical questions.
I think if people were completely honest about it, a majority would say they don't give a rat's ass one way or another.
I'm one of those. I couldn't care less if Oswald did it or not. The guy has been dead for decades, so what would be the purpose of defending him?
My only interest in this case is simply to find out if the evidence that was used to declare Oswald guilty actually holds up under scrutiny. But I can't say that to a die hard LN because he will nevertheless claim that I'm trying to defend Oswald.
-
Perry Mason would have a field day with this case. The 1960's version of OJ Simpson. There are so many holes in this case no jury would convict Oswald.
-
Perry Mason would have a field day with this case. The 1960's version of OJ Simpson. There are so many holes in this case no jury would convict Oswald.
There are so many holes in this case no jury would convict Oswald.
I agree there are all sorts of problems with the evidence, but I'm not so sure that Oswald wouldn't have been convicted.
Texas doesn't have a great track record and the innocence project has proven that many of the Wade convictions were unsafe.
A trial has it's own dynamic and there is no way of knowing what evidence would have been presented at court.
-
Perry Mason would have a field day with this case.
Ozzy would agree.
-
Ozzy also had the perfect motto for many CTers: "I'm going off the rails on a crazy train."
-
Perry Mason would have a field day with this case. The 1960's version of OJ Simpson. There are so many holes in this case no jury would convict Oswald.
I thought you said you were one of the handful of conspiracists who thought Oswald was guilty? But he had help from the Mafia?
You think Perry Mason would call Carlos Marcello as his mystery witness, the "Perry Mason moment", and that would somehow exonerate his client Oswald?
And Simpson was innocent?
-
Channeling the late Perry, I believe he would have laid the foundation I suggested: Oswald's complete lack of expressed animosity toward JFK and his inexplicably normal behavior the night before and morning of. With that foundation, he would have poked the holes that CTers always attempt to poke in the evidence. Obviously, a conspiracy that Oswald was knowingly part of would do him no good, so the focus would have had to be on his complete innocence. That would have been a very uphill battle. (For those who don't know, Raymond Burr was a weird guy. Apparently to conceal his homosexuality, he created an entire fabricated history about a wife who had died in an airplane crash and a son who had died of leukemia.)
Here is Larry Schnapf's substack article on the various mock trials that have been held, which is more than I had realized: https://larryschnapf.substack.com/p/what-do-the-jfk-assassination-mock.
An interesting question is to what extent the murder of Tippit could have been mentioned. Surprisingly, it was apparently a major feature of the famous 1986 made-for-TV mock trial. I am skeptical about this. The murder of Tippit could be used to show consciousness of guilt, but not unless Oswald were guilty of that murder. Possibly the trial of that murder would have been held first in real life. To try the two murders together would have been very confusing and prejudicial to Oswald. I have to believe Bugliosi and Spence stipulated to the use of the Tippit murder for dramatic effect for the TV show.
The 1986 mock trial was little more than a TV movie. Flamboyant showman Gerry Spence was probably the wrong choice and not reflective of how a serious defense would have been conducted, but even he complained that the rules of evidence were not followed and that what should have been a four-month trial was limited to four days. If Oswald had competent, serious counsel with adequate resources, the trial could have been much longer than four months.
I knew an attorney who litigated against Spence. He said that when Spence finished with a witness and turned him over to the opposing attorney, he would politely say "Your witness, counsel" for all to hear and then mutter under his breath as he walked back to the defense table something like "you stupid incompetent motherf***er" just to throw the attorney off his game. I also met his ex-son-in-law at a rock and mineral show in Quartzsite, which is as close to old Gerry as I ever got. My wife picked up a "pretty rock" and asked how much. When the guy said $25,000, she was literally trembling as she carefully put it back down.
-
I thought you said you were one of the handful of conspiracists who thought Oswald was guilty? But he had help from the Mafia?
You think Perry Mason would call Carlos Marcello as his mystery witness, the "Perry Mason moment", and that would somehow exonerate his client Oswald?
And Simpson was innocent?
Sorry, I was called away before I could finish. I meant witness testimony to help the defense. The secret service removing the body from Dallas, their drinking the night before. The Parkland doctors not agreeing with the Bethesda doctors, and the Bethesda doctors not agreeing with each other. Witness testimony over the number of shots, spacing of shots, etc. Secret Service imposters on the Knoll.
Oswald was 100% guilty of killing Tippit, and guilty of conspiring to kill JFK if he actually shot or not. Simpson was guilty as hell.
-
An interesting question is to what extent the murder of Tippit could have been mentioned. Surprisingly, it was apparently a major feature of the famous 1986 made-for-TV mock trial. I am skeptical about this. The murder of Tippit could be used to show consciousness of guilt, but not unless Oswald were guilty of that murder. Possibly the trial of that murder would have been held first in real life. To try the two murders together would have been very confusing and prejudicial to Oswald. I have to believe Bugliosi and Spence stipulated to the use of the Tippit murder for dramatic effect for the TV show.
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.
-
If President Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, had not himself been murdered just two days after JFK was killed in Dallas in November 1963, then many of the scenes we see played out in the 1964 fictional drama "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" (which can be viewed in its entirety below), just might have actually taken place inside a real courtroom in Dallas, Texas, in the year 1964.
Relying on eyewitness accounts of the tragedy and news reports available at the time the film was being put together, cult movie director Larry Buchanan has weaved a remarkably accurate portrayal of the events surrounding JFK's assassination. And it's all the more remarkable considering the fact that this film premiered in April of 1964, several months before the official investigation into the President's death had been completed by the Warren Commission.
[More comments about this 1964 Mock Trial HERE (https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/02/trial-of-lee-harvey-oswald-1964.html).]
-
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.
-
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!!!
-
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 (8). 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.
-
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.
-
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.
😆
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I was trying to be kind, as opposed to saying "I'm a former lawyer with 40 years of experience and you're a layman with no clue what you're talking about." :D I am now satisfied that for the reasons AI stated, which is pretty much the same as what I stated, two trials would have been held. These were two separate murders in different locations, and trying them together would have been both confusing to a jury and highly prejudicial to Oswald. Under the current Texas Penal Code, a prosecutor can combine offenses in one trial if they are part of the same "episode," which JFK and Tippit arguably (but not 100% clearly) were; however, the defendant can move for severance (i.e., two trials) if a joint trial would unfairly prejudice him. I have virtually no doubt Oswald would be successful with such a motion. This is not like "Oswald shot JFK and then turned and shot Tippit as he appeared in the doorway." The separation of time, location and circumstance, and the messiness of the Tippit case, would make one trial very difficult - I'm not even sure the prosecution would want to combine them.
-
I was trying to be kind, as opposed to saying "I'm a former lawyer with 40 years of experience and you're a layman with no clue what you're talking about." :D I am now satisfied that for the reasons AI stated, which is pretty much the same as what I stated, two trials would have been held. These were two separate murders in different locations, and trying them together would have been both confusing to a jury and highly prejudicial to Oswald. Under the current Texas Penal Code, a prosecutor can combine offenses in one trial if they are part of the same "episode," which JFK and Tippit arguably (but not 100% clearly) were; however, the defendant can move for severance (i.e., two trials) if a joint trial would unfairly prejudice him. I have virtually no doubt Oswald would be successful with such a motion. This is not like "Oswald shot JFK and then turned and shot Tippit as he appeared in the doorway." The separation of time, location and circumstance, and the messiness of the Tippit case, would make one trial very difficult - I'm not even sure the prosecution would want to combine them.
It seems to me a lawyer with 40 years of experience should be able to answer a layman's question as to what other case in which someone charged with multiple homicides in the same jurisdiction was given separate trials for each. I've already pointed to some where one trial covered multiple homicides. In these cases, the homicides were not in the same location nor on the same date. Based solely on anecdotal evidence, it seems to me separate trials would be the exception, not the rule.
It also seems like questionable strategy for the defense. Two trials means two chances for the prosecution to get a conviction. Also two chances to get a death sentence. Combining the trials means the defense only needs to convince one jury of reasonable doubt.
-
It seems to me a lawyer with 40 years of experience should be able to answer a layman's question as to what other case in which someone charged with multiple homicides in the same jurisdiction was given separate trials for each.
To be blunt, it seems that way to you because you are a know-it-all on almost every topic you know nothing about. Probably 97% of all cases, including murders, do not result in reported decisions. A reported decision is published only if the case is appealed and the appellate court believes its opinion is significant enough to publish. I have no idea, and am certainly not going to attempt to research, whether there are reported decisions involving the issue of whether a trial involving multiple murders should have been severed. Probably there are, but surely not many. The Texas Penal Code pretty much tells us the answer: One trial is permissible if two crimes are part of the same "episode," but the defense may object that trying the crimes together would be unfairly prejudicial. Hence, the determination is made on a case-by-case basis. It is highly unlikely that two murders separated in time, location and circumstance, requiring entirely different evidence and witnesses, would be tried together. The prejudice to Oswald would be exactly why an LN zealot like you would want them tried together - if he killed Tippit, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he must've killed JFK. It is highly unlikely that the prosecution would even want them tried together because this would be handing the defense an almost guaranteed grounds for appeal. In the case of the Tippit murder, I believe the defense would have a solid threshold argument that this was not even the same episode as the JFK murder.
Lawyers go to law school to learn to "think like a lawyer." Believe me, your nuance-free, black-and-white view of every issue would've put you at the bottom of the class.
-
To satisfy my own curiosity, I did 37 seconds of research on the issue of whether two crimes are part of the same "episode." A 2020 Tennessee case explained that "Offenses are part of the 'same criminal episode' when they 'occur simultaneously or in close sequence,' 'occur in the same place or in closely situated places,' and 'proof of one offense necessarily involves proof of the others.'" The JFK-Tippit murders arguably fail all three tests, but they definitely fail the third. There is no overlap of proof. The made-for-TV mock trial had to have involved a stipulation that the Tippit stuff could be included for dramatic effect, but that probably would not have been the case in a real-world trial of Oswald.
Let's see, 37 seconds at $500/hr. Someone here owes me $4.12, or would if I were still a lawyer, but since I'm not I'll settle for $2.12.
-
To be blunt, it seems that way to you because you are a know-it-all on almost every topic you know nothing about. Probably 97% of all cases, including murders, do not result in reported decisions. A reported decision is published only if the case is appealed and the appellate court believes its opinion is significant enough to publish. I have no idea, and am certainly not going to attempt to research, whether there are reported decisions involving the issue of whether a trial involving multiple murders should have been severed. Probably there are, but surely not many. The Texas Penal Code pretty much tells us the answer: One trial is permissible if two crimes are part of the same "episode," but the defense may object that trying the crimes together would be unfairly prejudicial. Hence, the determination is made on a case-by-case basis. It is highly unlikely that two murders separated in time, location and circumstance, requiring entirely different evidence and witnesses, would be tried together. The prejudice to Oswald would be exactly why an LN zealot like you would want them tried together - if he killed Tippit, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he must've killed JFK. It is highly unlikely that the prosecution would even want them tried together because this would be handing the defense an almost guaranteed grounds for appeal. In the case of the Tippit murder, I believe the defense would have a solid threshold argument that this was not even the same episode as the JFK murder.
Lawyers go to law school to learn to "think like a lawyer." Believe me, your nuance-free, black-and-white view of every issue would've put you at the bottom of the class.
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.
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.
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.
-
To satisfy my own curiosity, I did 37 seconds of research on the issue of whether two crimes are part of the same "episode." A 2020 Tennessee case explained that "Offenses are part of the 'same criminal episode' when they 'occur simultaneously or in close sequence,' 'occur in the same place or in closely situated places,' and 'proof of one offense necessarily involves proof of the others.'" The JFK-Tippit murders arguably fail all three tests, but they definitely fail the third. There is no overlap of proof. The made-for-TV mock trial had to have involved a stipulation that the Tippit stuff could be included for dramatic effect, but that probably would not have been the case in a real-world trial of Oswald.
Let's see, 37 seconds at $500/hr. Someone here owes me $4.12, or would if I were still a lawyer, but since I'm not I'll settle for $2.12.
Really. It seems to me two murders committed about 45 minutes apart are in close sequence. I would say Dealey Plaza and Oak Cliff are closely situated. Certainly, those two murders were committed in much closer sequence and much more closely situated than the Manson family murders or Gacy's murders which were prosecuted in a single trial.
-
It also seems like questionable strategy for the defense. Two trials means two chances for the prosecution to get a conviction. Also two chances to get a death sentence. Combining the trials means the defense only needs to convince one jury of reasonable doubt.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
I am perhaps the only person who will find this amusing ...
I was reviewing some of the threads at the Ed Forum where Lawyer Jimbo chided me for my lack of lawyerly knowledge and skills. I came upon his citation of an article at Kennedys & King as to "what a real trial of Oswald, with everything on the table, would have produced." Larry Schnapf, who actually is a lawyer, described it as "a nice piece."
Actually, it's nothing but a three-article litany of supposed problems with the physical evidence. Nothing about what would have been far more critical to the defense: (1) Oswald's puzzling, non-assassin-like behavior before the JFKA and (2) severing the Tippit murder as we've discussed here.
The humorous part is the author of this scholarly legal analysis: "Johnny Cairns, an Edinburgh electrician." Hey, next time you need your kitchen rewired, just call me, a "former Arizona lawyer." I'm pretty sure I could do it.
Another crazy episode was spooky Jon Tidd, a well-established regular and active CT zealot when I arrived. He repeatedly suggested I wasn't a lawyer at all and started posing non-JFKA legal questions to see if I could answer them - a veritable JFKA forum bar exam! The absurdity? Tidd was a FELLOW ARIZONA ATTORNEY and could have verified my bar membership in good standing at the Arizona State Bar site in 15 seconds! To his everlasting credit, at least as far as I'm concerned, James Gordon summarily banned him.
Hoot, here is Johnny my lad on a podcast. I must admit, not what I expected.
-
I watched about 2 minutes of the video and realized it would be an hour and 13 minutes out of my life that I would never get back.
-
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 ...
Rather than refute the above post point-by-point, I will simply say that you are the one that made the claim that the JFK and Tippit murders would have been tried separately yet you can't point to a single precedence that supports that claim. Just to refresh your memory, you made this exact statement:
"In my humble opinion, in the real world the murders would have required bifurcated trials."
You have offered nothing but your humble opinion to support that statement.
On the one hand we have the OJ murder case in which he killed two people in the same place at the same time in which the two murders were tried in a single trial. Then we have the Manson murders in which multiple people killed multiple other people in four different places on four different dates, also tried in a single trial. In between those two extremes we have Oswald killing two men on the same day less than an hour apart and in two locations that are about a 5 minute drive apart and you insist that would have required two separate trials. What was unique about Oswald's murders that would have required separate trials that wouldn't have applied to either of the two other cases.
-
(https://bullybunches.com/cdn/shop/files/QEUut4xRe_mid.jpg?v=1774647321&width=1445)
-
(https://bullybunches.com/cdn/shop/files/QEUut4xRe_mid.jpg?v=1774647321&width=1445)
I guess that's as articulate a response as any.