Sunday, December 20, 2015

I am going to post a response to my list of qualifications to be a real Oswald defender from JFK Assassination Forum. It's by Jim Ostrowski. I like what he wrote, but I want to report that I don't know him, and I don't claim that he is a supporter or mine or of the OIC. And I'll follow it with my response to him. I think Jim provided some real food for thought here. 

Jim Ostrowski:

 Hi Ralph,

I defend Oswald on the grounds that he was killed while in police custody after being accused by Will Fritz and others (Wade et al) with the co-operation of the mass media of being the criminal executor of two murders. Oz never had the chance to have even a fair open court, public preliminary hearing where he would have had the 6th Amendment right to have the assistance of counsel, and to question the people who were accusing him. Neither of these rights have anything to do with the veracity of any of the allegations as to the truthfulness the alleged occurrences on your list, the supposed "facts of the case"). 
When you look at it this way, in the sense of this case being a matter of Constitutional rights, it is un-American to further advocate Oswald's alleged guilt by presenting more and more supposed "facts" of this case that Oswald has been permanently silenced from responding to. All real Americans are obliged by simple morality to regard this case as a repudiation of and a threat to long established principles of Justice and fair play, set down long ago by the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America. 

Oswald's alleged activities in the few days prior to his death are irrelevant to the argument. Whatever misdeeds he or others involved may have committed have been paid for and further grinding of his face in the dirt does not advance the cause of justice one iota.

LBJ and Hoover, the Cabells, the Murchisons, Dulles et al are fair game on the other hand. These guys were rich and died in their beds at home or in other hospitable and friendly surroundings, Streets and Government buildings are named after them. Their names are honored when they were the ones who benefited most from the three murders...three (3) murders! Oswald was the last victim and nobody asks who benefited most. 

It sure wasn't Ruby, was it?     

Maybe we should make that 4 victims.

Ralph Cinque:

 I appreciate what Jim Ostrowski wrote. In fact, I'm going to put it up on my blog- with a disclaimer that it should not be taken as his endorsement of my work.

And what I like about it is that it expresses the idea even if we had none of the things I like to harp on, including Oswald in the doorway, there are still sufficient grounds to grant him the presumption of innocence, and I agree with that.

How many times did Oswald request legal counsel? He even used some of his brief moments to speak to the world to request legal assistance. I only found out recently that Texas lawyers did respond with offers to help, but they were told that Oswald only wanted John Abt. Now, how likely is that? If that were really true, would Oswald have asked the public "for someone to come forward to provide legal assistance"? I think it is fair and accurate to say that Oswald's constitutional right to an attorney was denied. 

As far as Oswald's alleged misdeeds in the days before the event, I don't even know what that refers to. What misdeeds do people accuse him of doing?   

But, I shall add one more thought. In the Oswald Innocence Campaign, we approach the work as if we are Oswald's lawyers, as if we are defending him in court. And that's why our two lawyers, Mark Lane and Vincent Salandria are featured on the top row of our members. We really, really value our lawyers. And if we get another lawyer or more lawyers, they are going to go high up on the list too, even though they're new. And that's because they are lawyers, and we are his legal defense.

Now, if Oswald had lived, and it had gone to court, no matter who his lawyer or lawyers were, his whereabouts during the shooting would have been central to the defense. That I can guarantee. In fact, I can guarantee you that if Oswald had been able to confer with an attorney, the first question the attorney would have asked is if he did it. And when Oswald said no, the second question the lawyer would have asked would have been, "Then where were you at the time of the shots?" And I got that directly from Vincent Salandria. So, kid yourself not: His alibi would have been just as important, just as central to Oswald's defense as it is to every innocent defendant's defense. I'm telling you: it would have come up in court. It would have been the centerpiece of his defense.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.