Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?

[Bill Chapman]

---------------------
CT WONDERLAND
BOOK OF OSWALD
---------------------

BOOK I: LUNATIC FRINGE
Nothing is Knowable
Nothing is Provable
Nothing is Believable

BOOK II: CULT OF OSWALD
Everything is a Lie
Everything is Sinister
Everything is Planted
Everything is Faked
Everything is Altered
Everything is a Hoax

BOOK III: MINUTIAE
Trivia writ Large:
The CT Rabbit Hole

[Michael Walton]

There are no cults about Oswald, Bill. Quite honestly, the man never got his day in court. Any good defense lawyer would have been able to reveal discrepancies in his case. I don't know where you're from, but here in the U.S., all people are innocent until proven guilty. The Warren Report is not a document that sprouted from a full-fledged courtroom trial with the living accused in attendance.

[Bill Chapman]

There are no cults about Oswald, Bill. Quite honestly, the man never got his day in court. Any good defense lawyer would have been able to reveal discrepancies in his case. I don't know where you're from, but here in the U.S., all people are innocent until proven guilty. The Warren Report is not a document that sprouted from a full-fledged courtroom trial with the living accused in attendance.

This forum is not a court of law, nor even a platform for formal debate. No ivory tower, this.

This case is a slam dunk. A good defense team would advise Oswald to plead out.

And what some call 'discrepancies', others might call minutia.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

This forum is not a court of law, nor even a platform for formal debate. No ivory tower, this.

This case is a slam dunk. A good defense team would advise Oswald to plead out.

And what some call 'discrepancies', others might call minutia.

It appears that the Oswald defenders think the WC shouldn't have conducted an investigation because they may have found someone culpable in the assassination. In this case Oswald. And that would have violated his (or others') non-existent, for the WC investigation, right to a presumption of innocence.

The presumption of innocence is, as you point out, for a court of law. It's for a criminal proceeding and for the jury to adhere to. The WC wasn't a criminal proceeding. It had no power to indict anyone; even for perjury.

So the Warren Commission was wrong because they accused Oswald of a crime. And that was a violation of what? His right to a presumption of innocence? But he was dead and he couldn't be prosecuted. So we can't have an investigation - that would violate his rights - and he couldn't be prosecuted - he was dead. What was supposed to happen?

This is why we call them Oswald cultists.

And just to note: Jim Garrison accused all sorts of people, including dead ones (Ferrie), of crimes. Murder, conspiracy to murder, perjury....and some (not all but some) of the same people upset at what happened to Oswald are largely silent. In fact, some are big Garrison defenders.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

There are no cults about Oswald, Bill. Quite honestly, the man never got his day in court. Any good defense lawyer would have been able to reveal discrepancies in his case. I don't know where you're from, but here in the U.S., all people are innocent until proven guilty. The Warren Report is not a document that sprouted from a full-fledged courtroom trial with the living accused in attendance.

Question, please: After the assassination, what should the government have done?

Oswald is dead. You can't prosecute him. And you say the WC was wrong because it wasn't a "full-fledged courtroom trial." But it was an investigation not a criminal prosecution. It had no power to indict anyone, not even for perjury. It didn't, because it couldn't, charge Oswald with any crimes. His "presumption of innocence" - which is for a trial - wasn't violated.

So what was there to do? If the government investigates the assassination and finds evidence indicating Oswald was the assassin should they not reveal that? What exactly could be done?

And the Dallas country prosecutor charged Oswald with the crimes - the murder of JFK and of Tippit. Was that wrong too? Every day the government accuses people of crimes. They are indicted. How is accusing or prosecuting a person a violation of their "presumption of innocence"?

[Michael Walton]

This forum is not a court of law, nor even a platform for formal debate. No ivory tower, this.

This case is a slam dunk. A good defense team would advise Oswald to plead out.

And what some call 'discrepancies', others might call minutia.

Never said it was a court of law, Bill. You're venturing into hyperbole here. Lee never got his day in court.

[Michael Walton]

Never said it was a court of law, Bill. You're venturing into hyperbole here. Lee never got his day in court.

The Katzenbach letter and the Hoover memo pretty much start off the Warren Commission with a foregone conclusion. From there, there was absolutely no chance their report would have been conducted in an honest manner. Not all the WC members supported the "conclusions" it came up with. The investigation was rotten from the start. So to answer your question, it would have helped tremendously if the investigation had been started from the get-go in an honest and forthright manner.