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.

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.

EUREKA!  This cop was the one who probably saw where the bullet that struck the manhole cover had buried into the grass and was going there to pick up that bullet lest it be discovered and found be a 7.65 bullet.

He was carrying the black flashlight ready to be used as a signaling device to signal the 2nd gunmans hit so he wouldn’t fire again and to recover any missed shot by this gunman because this gunman was using a different caliber bullet than the TSBD conspirator shooter trying to use the MC rifle that had been mail ordered to set up Oswald or had been stolen from Oswald.

  You're stealing my act, Zeon. It says right in my contract that no one is allowed to be sillier than me. Howver, since I have Royell on Ignore, I'll allow you to get away with it this time. (Royell is allowed to be sillier than me, of course, because he isn't knowingly trying to be silly. He's just naturally silly.)

I haven’t seen the footage that shows one glove missing from Michael Jackson

 

                                                          "THAT AIN'T HAYGOOD"

                                  (1) This Bogus Motorcycle Cop is missing a motorcycle glove

                                  (2) This Bogus Motorcycle Cop is missing Sun Glasses

                                  (3) This Bogus Motorcycle Cop is missing a Motorcycle

               

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.

Let’s consider the revolver since he ordered it about six weeks before he ordered the rifle. It does seem reasonable that if he intended to use the revolver to shoot Walker, he most likely wouldn’t expect to get away with it because using a revolver would typically need to be at a relatively close range with other people being present. Under those conditions using a separate P.O. Box makes less sense.

However, it seems to me that by March 12, 1963 LHO had probably devised his plan to shoot at Walker with the rifle at night from behind the backyard fence and his expectations of getting away with it would have been more reasonable. In fact it appears that he planned to do just that (get away with it). And he apparently delighted in learning from the news accounts that the DPD apparently didn’t even consider that anyone would try to make an escape from the scene via public transportation. Under these conditions, using a separate P.O. Box would seem to me to make more sense. He wouldn’t need to maintain the P.O. Box any longer than it took to obtain his rifle. So the expense would have been minimal and prudent in my opinion.

Let's try to make sense of the Walker shooting.

First of all, I've always wondered how it came to be that reporters started asking questions about the Walker shooting so quickly after Oswald's arrest. What was it that linked Oswald to that shooting that reporters could have know so quickly?

But beyond that, if we assume that Oswald did order the revolver later used to kill Tippit instead of, as he claimed, buying one in Fort Worth, and if we assume that he also ordered the rifle with the intention to try and kill Walker, how in the world does that compute with him being photographed with a revolver and a rifle prior to the attempt?

I mean, this is somebody who wasn't known to own weapons, who allegedly orders a revolver and a rifle, in a traceable manner, when he easily could have bought untraceable weapons. Even worse, he then shows George de Mohrenschildt and Micheal Paine the rifle at the Neeley Street address and he has his picture taken with them. Seems a weird way to prepare for an attempt to murder somebody.

But it gets worse, he carries a rifle allegedly used in an attempted murder to New Orleans on public transport and when Marina was picked up by Ruth Paine he decided to wrap that rifle in a blanket, with a piece of string around it, and risk that it could be easily discovered only to leave it stored in a garage for two months where it was moved several times.

How does any of this make any sense?