JFK Assassination Forum

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.

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.

In my experience, many CTers believe that those of us who conclude that Oswald is the lone shooter somehow have a vested interest in that outcome.  As though we have a vendetta against Oswald who died before most of us were born or just want to accept the "official" story without being open to their claims.  Nothing can be further from truth.  I believe that John Wilkes Booth WAS involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln.  I came to that conclusion based upon the evidence and nothing else.  I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK all by his lonesome and was not involved in a conspiracy because the evidence links Oswald to this crime beyond any doubt and there is no credible evidence that links him to any other person or organization.  There may be some things that can never be known about Oswald's motivation and actions because only he would know and took precautions not to be detect before committing this crime.  There can be reasoned conjecture based on common sense and known facts but we can't ever have perfect knowledge to explain every actions.  None of that, however, should be conflated with creating any doubt as to his guilt in light of the existing evidence that links him to this crime.  I've read all manner of explanations and conjecture by CTers on this forum and elsewhere and have never come across an iota of real evidence that gives me pause about Oswald's guilt.  Again, not because I'm not open to the possibility of conspiracies or hate Oswald or am programmed to accept the "official" story but because there is no such evidence.

I agree with pretty much all of that except for one. I do hate Oswald. Intensely. Maybe it's because I was alive when Oswald murdered JFK. It was 6 days before my 12th birthday. Those of my generation had a connection to JFK and know what was taken from us by one very evil little man. Even those who did not agree with him politically couldn't help recognizing his charisma.

In my experience, many CTers believe that those of us who conclude that Oswald is the lone shooter somehow have a vested interest in that outcome.  As though we have a vendetta against Oswald who died before most of us were born or just want to accept the "official" story without being open to their claims.  Nothing can be further from truth.  I believe that John Wilkes Booth WAS involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln.  I came to that conclusion based upon the evidence and nothing else.  I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK all by his lonesome and was not involved in a conspiracy because the evidence links Oswald to this crime beyond any doubt and there is no credible evidence that links him to any other person or organization.  There may be some things that can never be known about Oswald's motivation and actions because only he would know and took precautions not to be detect before committing this crime.  There can be reasoned conjecture based on common sense and known facts but we can't ever have perfect knowledge to explain every actions.  None of that, however, should be conflated with creating any doubt as to his guilt in light of the existing evidence that links him to this crime.  I've read all manner of explanations and conjecture by CTers on this forum and elsewhere and have never come across an iota of real evidence that gives me pause about Oswald's guilt.  Again, not because I'm not open to the possibility of conspiracies or hate Oswald or am programmed to accept the "official" story but because there is no such evidence.

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.