JFK Assassination Forum

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 test the location of the car either parked along the south (or north) curb of the Elm Extension, as seen in the Wiegman film, I plotted Wiegman’s position with test south curb versus north curb cars on a DP map. The plot showed the north curb car about twice the distance from the camera compared to a south curb car. Then for equal sized cars the north curb car would appear about one half the size of the south curb car to Wiegman’s camera.  I made a quick 3D view animation to demonstrate this and added a 5.5’ black suit man for comparison. It looks to me that the Wiegman car is nearer to the south curb. Note that I gave the test cars a steel-blue color (not white) for the 3D animation for modeling development use.

 

     For 62 years there has been a Smokescreen covering up this "getaway" car. Previously, the Wiegman Film that was available to the masses looked like something filmed inside a "House Of Mirrors". These "House Of Mirrors" images was foisted on the public because the Wiegman Film has always been a "smoking gun".  Advanced technology has Now removed these intentionally obscured images that previously shrouded the Wiegman Film. Now, we can see that this "getaway" car is CLEARLY NOT on the Wiegman Film. 20 seconds later, Couch and Darnell filmed this "getaway" car parked alongside the Island, just outside of the "wide open" Huge Gates. The JFK Assassination Films ALL need to be re-examined and compared to each other. Just as I did with the Wiegman Film vs Couch Film vs Darnell Film.
    I am still waiting for the last 1/2 of the Darnell Film to be released in High Definition. I believe that will reveal another "smoking gun" with respect to the Bogus Motorcycle Cop moving across the railroad yard and toward/down the Elm St Extension.   

duplicate

Excellent, excellent points, Steve.

Always nice to have a cheerleader. Do you have pom-poms to go with the outfit? (You aren't Jonathan Cohen, are you? He's famous for short, content-free, LN-cheerleading observations at the Ed Forum.)

As I think about this, and not intending to portray Oswald as an Eagle Scout:

1. The passage from Priscella Johnson's book is suspect at best. She "bonded" with Marina to an extent that was "just a bit" odd. Marina's WC and HSCA testimonies were not this dramatic. She described Oswald as a "good family man" who helped around the house and was a loving father. Yes, she said that he hit her and that he sometimes went into a state where he seemed like a stranger and became angry over trifles. On the other hand, Marina admitted that she was sometimes to blame, and observers of the couple said she was very sharp-tongued and went so far as impugning his manhood in public.

2. Robert Oswald and John Pic bailed out of the home at their earliest opportunity, which is exactly what my siblings did. They did not receive the full Marguerite treatment. Their childhoods were bad enough, but not the chaos of Oswald's.

3. Did Oswald have a significant history of violence, bullying or anything of the sort in school? Not really. One notable fight, but no indication of an out-of-control anger. Did he torture animals, anything like that? No. While he was truant, he went to the zoo and rode the subway; he didn't join a gang or otherwise wreak havoc. A social worker described "a rather pleasant, appealing quality about this emotionally starved, affectionless youngster which grows as one speaks to him."

4. The Marine incidents are closer to tomfoolery than anything suggestive of a serious problem. Was he a constant problem, detested by his superiors and fellow Marines? No.

5. Did he exhibit anything like violence during his time in Russia? No, he was generally well-liked, had friends and girlfriends. Lazy at work, but not a disciplinary problem.

6. When fired from jobs, did he become irate and threaten retribution? No, he was quite passive. Ditto in his encounter with Carlos Bringuier ("Go ahead, Carlos, hit me"). Ditto when he was sandbagged on the radio with the surprise revelation that he had defected to Russia.

7. The night before the JFKA, did he become angry and abusive when Marina rebuffed him? No. She said he was upset but not angry, and he went to bed early. She accepted his excuse that he had come to Irving to try to make peace after their tiff on the phone.

It seems to me that the main aspects of Oswald's personality were (1) he knew he was intelligent and could have done more than he would ever be able to do with his lack of education and opportunity, which had to be extremely frustrating; (2) he was idealistic and thought he had world-changing ideas if only he had a forum to express them; (3) he wanted to be, and thought he should be, taken seriously and placed in an important position; and (4) he had a very big chip on his shoulder in regard to all forms of authority and derived enjoyment from thumbing his nose. By the time of the JFKA, his big hopes and big ideas had hit rock bottom.

The willingness to simply leave his young family to fend for themselves, as he was apparently willing to do with both the Walker attempt and JFKA, is extremely puzzling since Marina and everyone who knew him emphaiszed his love for his children. It's a complex picture, but I think it's overly simplistic to try to portray Oswald as some evil character and the JFKA as the natural consequence of who he was. It makes the LN narrative more compelling, but I don't think it's the reality. I find the Walker attempt and the JFKA puzzling precisely because of who he was.

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."  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.