Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
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.
22

I think opening up a separate P.O. Box for Alek Hidell would have been much more prudent. However, one needs to keep LHO’s extreme frugality in mind….


Per Google AI:

“in 1963, the Post Office Department (the predecessor to the USPS) did not require a verifiable previous address or a street address to open a P.O. box. During this era, applicants simply needed to fill out an application and prove their identity to rent a box.The requirement for a physical street address and two forms of identification (one to verify the applicant's identity and one to verify their physical residence) was introduced much later, primarily as a security and anti-fraud measure.”

That would seem out of character for a frugal Oswald. Why pay for two PO boxes? Oswald wasn't planning to assassinate JFK when he ordered the rifle. He may or may not have ordered it with the intent to kill Walker. If it was to kill Walker, it doesn't seem he was expecting to get away with it. If that was the case, why would he be concerned about whether the PO Box could be traced to him?
23
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.
24
Where else could he have it sent?


I think opening up a separate P.O. Box for Alek Hidell would have been much more prudent. However, one needs to keep LHO’s extreme frugality in mind….


Per Google AI:

“in 1963, the Post Office Department (the predecessor to the USPS) did not require a verifiable previous address or a street address to open a P.O. box. During this era, applicants simply needed to fill out an application and prove their identity to rent a box.The requirement for a physical street address and two forms of identification (one to verify the applicant's identity and one to verify their physical residence) was introduced much later, primarily as a security and anti-fraud measure.”

25
Since Oswald bought the rifle in March, wouldn't it make more sense to check the ads back then.

Uh, no. Probably it would have made more sense right before the JFKA to ask himself "Shall I go to Irving and get the clunker rifle that is traceable to me out of Ruth Paine's garage, with all the risks that will entail, or should I check the classified ads for a better rifle that isn't traceable to me?" Indeed, in 1963 you could buy a gun in Texas or Arizona from a GUN DEALER with no ID at all.
26
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.
27

LHO’s employment at that point in time allowed him to learn some basic professional photograph processing techniques that he then apparently used to create a fake ID or two. LHO apparently used his newly fabricated fake ID name to order two very inexpensive firearms. He ordered the revolver first, on January 27th, 1963, then later he ordered the rifle on March 12, 1963.

Robert Oswald wrote in his book “Lee” that LHO enjoyed trying to “trick” the authorities. It appears to me that LHO was simply enjoying using his fake ID name to try to “trick” the gun sellers (and the shippers) into providing the guns to a fake person. LHO might have also thought that the fake name might make it harder for the authorities to trace the guns to LHO. However I will say that using his own P.O. Box as the shipping address does seem to me to be incredibly stupid.

Where else could he have it sent?
28
Oswald had agency, made his decisions (however limited they were) on his own, they weren't forced on him. He had two brothers who also grew up in the same (roughly) environment. They turned out not only to not be bad men they turned out to be good ones.

He disgraces himself in the Marines (among other things twice court-martialed), he defects to the Soviet Union and tells his family to get lost but then asks for help when he needs them. He brutally beats Marina. He prevents her from learning English so that she's dependent on him. He tries to kill Walker and in doing so would abandon his family on their own. He then tries to defect to Cuba and again is abandoning his family including a seven months pregnant Marina (he told Marina to find her way to Cuba on her own). Instead of providing for him family he thinks he's some type of historic figure. Then of course he kills JFK. And a police officer. Both men with families and small children.

That's just a partial list. He was a bad man who made decisions on his own. He had free will.

Excellent, excellent points, Steve.
29
Count me among those who don't give a shit about Oswald's feelings.
30
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.
Quote

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.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10