Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?  (Read 14623 times)

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 710
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2019, 07:52:07 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LHO would have most likely had his day in court relatively soon after the crime as compared to today's world. I watched the mock trial they produced in April of 1964 recently. In that one they stood mute (which legally meant he pleaded not guilty) and also plead the insanity plea. That was probably his only hope of avoiding the electric chair.

An insanity defense would not have worked for Oswald.  In a criminal law context, a defendant can be held culpable under the M'Naghten rule if they can distinguish right from wrong (i.e. cognitive insanity).  Even if they are otherwise nuts.  And the most basic way to determine if someone can distinguish right from wrong is whether they took measures to conceal their actions.   There are any number of actions that Oswald took to conceal his intended actions beforehand along with his flight from the crime scene afterward which are all highly indicative of someone who knew they were committing a criminal act.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2019, 07:52:07 PM »

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2019, 07:59:27 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL.  You would probably get a hung jury.  Half would want to hang Oswald and half would want to hang you.  A change of venue?  What for?  To find someone that didn't know about the assassination?  How about Mars?  That is comedy gold.

That is comedy gold.

Indeed. Your opinions usually are.

Online Charles Collins

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2019, 08:11:45 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
An insanity defense would not have worked for Oswald.  In a criminal law context, a defendant can be held culpable under the M'Naghten rule if they can distinguish right from wrong (i.e. cognitive insanity).  Even if they are otherwise nuts.  And the most basic way to determine if someone can distinguish right from wrong is whether they took measures to conceal their actions.   There are any number of actions that Oswald took to conceal his intended actions beforehand along with his flight from the crime scene afterward which are all highly indicative of someone who knew they were committing a criminal act.

Yes, I agree. But I think it was still his best chance at avoiding the death penalty, even if it was a very slim chance.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2019, 08:11:45 PM »

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 710
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2019, 10:12:02 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That is comedy gold.

Indeed. Your opinions usually are.

You didn't answer my question.  Where would Oswald stand a better chance of acquittal via your idiotic suggestion to change venue?  Did you see that on some TV crime show and thought it sounded good? LOL.  Didn't you once pretend to be an attorney when you first started posting here under a different name?   

Offline Denis Pointing

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2019, 10:20:54 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You didn't answer my question.  Where would Oswald stand a better chance of acquittal via your idiotic suggestion to change venue?  Did you see that on some TV crime show and thought it sounded good? LOL.  Didn't you once pretend to be an attorney when you first started posting here under a different name?

Is that right? You sure, Richard?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2019, 10:20:54 PM »

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2019, 10:28:47 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You didn't answer my question.  Where would Oswald stand a better chance of acquittal via your idiotic suggestion to change venue?  Did you see that on some TV crime show and thought it sounded good? LOL.  Didn't you once pretend to be an attorney when you first started posting here under a different name?

Where would Oswald stand a better chance of acquittal via your idiotic suggestion to change venue?

Better chance of a fair trial? ...... Anywhere but Texas, would be my bet. But you had to go and make up the acquittal angle to make a lame point, didn't you?

Didn't you once pretend to be an attorney when you first started posting here under a different name?

And you call my suggestions idiotic?


Let's face it, you have already made up your mind (as per usual) and this entire thread only serves the purpose that you and your ilk can dismiss and ridicule anything being suggested by anybody you, in your narrowmindedness, consider to be a CT.

Preach on, preacher man....
« Last Edit: June 21, 2019, 11:35:28 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 2197
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2019, 10:54:49 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I would subpoena the rifle out of evidence and prove you couldn't shoot it without depositing significant amounts of gunpowder residue on your cheek...

FFS... What country would send its army onto the battlefield with rifles that would spray them in what amounts to blackface?

Firearm Factoids
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

EISENBERG:    A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
CUNNINGHAM:   Yes.
EISENBERG:   Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
CUNNINGHAM:   No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.
To summarize, both false positives, from nitrates present in ordinary substances other than gunpowder, and false negatives, due to the sealed-chamber design of the C2766, arose in paraffin tests.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2019, 11:31:19 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2019, 10:54:49 PM »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****

  • This Member Has Made
    A Forum Donation!
  • Posts: 2197
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2019, 11:28:01 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Where would Oswald stand a better chance of acquittal via your idiotic suggestion to change venue?

Better chance of a fair trial? ...... Anywhere but Texas, would be my bet. But you had to go and make up the acquittal angle to make a lame point, didn't you?

Didn't you once pretend to be an attorney when you first started posting here under a different name?

And you call my suggestions idiotic?


Let's face it, you have already made up your mind (as per usual) and this entire tried only serves the purpose that you can dismiss and ridicule anything being suggested by anybody you, in your narrowmindedness, consider to be a CT.

Preach on, preacher man....

"Let's face it, you have already made up your mind (as per usual) and this entire tried only serves the purpose that you can dismiss and ridicule anything being suggested by anybody you, in your narrowmindedness, consider to be a CT"
>>> No, you face it: You've just characterized yourself perfectly.

In my view, you characters, more than anything, don't want to be seen as sheep in a 'nobody-can-tell-us-what-to-do-or-think' paranoid schtick. Can't make up your mind? Not our problem. Grow up.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2019, 11:35:51 PM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2019, 11:28:01 PM »

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1437
Re: CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2019, 11:33:30 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Let's face it, you have already made up your mind (as per usual) and this entire tried only serves the purpose that you can dismiss and ridicule anything being suggested by anybody you, in your narrowmindedness, consider to be a CT"
>>> No, you face it: You've just characterized yourself perfectly.

In my view, you characters, more than anything, don't want to be seen as sheep in a 'nobody-can-tell-us-what-to-do-or-think' paranoia.  Can't make up your mind? Not our problem. Grow up.

Pathetic reply. Could it be you haven't managed to resolve those anger issues yet?

Can't make up your mind?

But you "probably" can, right?
« Last Edit: June 22, 2019, 12:06:25 AM by Martin Weidmann »

Online Brian Doyle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2444
CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2019, 11:50:44 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
FFS... What country would send its army onto the battlefield with rifles that would spray them in what amounts to blackface?

Firearm Factoids
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

EISENBERG:    A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
CUNNINGHAM:   Yes.
EISENBERG:   Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
CUNNINGHAM:   No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.
To summarize, both false positives, from nitrates present in ordinary substances other than gunpowder, and false negatives, due to the sealed-chamber design of the C2766, arose in paraffin tests.


You must be unaware of the Turner tests where 7 out of 7 FBI volunteers who tested a Carcano had extensive gunpowder residue deposits on their cheeks after firing the poorly machined Italian rifle...

Cunningham is lying for the government and no Carcano could be fired without making extensive residue as Turner proved...

Very simple...If the actual rifle itself were test fired it would leak extensively...

JFK Assassination Forum

CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?
« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2019, 11:50:44 PM »

 

Mobile View