For the first time in my life, I served on a jury yesterday. And it made me realize something about the JFK assassination: that they absolutely HAD to kill Oswald because he would have made a great witness, and he would have devastated them in court.
But first, about this other case, it was a guy was contesting a speeding ticket. He was cited for driving 48 in a 35 in a rural subdivision. It wasn't far from where I live. He defended himself by challenging the accuracy of radar devices, which the officer used. He especially focused on whether the officer had calibrated the machine, which he said he did that day. The defendant wanted documentation of that, which the officer didn't have except for having checked off on the citation that his radar device had been calibrated that day. But, that wasn't good enough for the defendant.
As I listened to him, I kept wondering why the guy didn't profess his innocence to us, the jury. Why didn't he tell us that he was sure he wasn't speeding, that he had his eyes on the speedometer, and therefore, the radar had to be wrong? The officer had recorded the encounter on video, which we watched, and even at the time, the defendant never protested to the officer that he hadn't been speeding. "What? Speeding? Are you out of your mind? I wasn't speeding." There was nothing like that. The guy never protested at the time. He never declared his innocence- unlike another defendant we know.
Then, the defendant suggested that it was another car that the officer picked up on his radar or perhaps a deer. But again, we watched the video, and there were no other cars on the road at the time, and there were certainly no deer.
Then, the defendant challenged the officer's authority to write the ticket since he wasn't actually on duty as a Hays County Deputy Sheriff at the time. He was working overtime for the homeowner's association of that particular subdivision; they hired him to patrol their roads. But, that was perfectly legal, and it's a common practice in this area. My subdivision does the same thing. And, the officer was in his legal authority to write the ticket.
Then, the defendant made a big stink about the money, how much the officer was being paid by the homeowner's association (which was $40/hr) and where the money went from the ticket (which the officer didn't know).
As soon as we got into the jury deliberation room, we all agreed that this guy needed to pay his freakin' ticket and get on with his life. It took us less than one minute to find him guilty. It was just a matter of completing the form. The truth was: he made no case for why he should be acquitted. He didn't get close to establishing reasonable doubt.
Besides the facts of the case, which were simple and plain as day, there was the credibility of each of them: the defendant and the officer. The officer came across as extremely credible; he was reasonable, rational. He gave direct, thorough, knowledgeable answers to questions, and he came across as very honest and conscientious. The defendant came across as a slimeball who never once declared his innocence but who just wanted to get off on a litany of what-ifs and what-abouts. The case never should have gone to trial.
So, what does it say about Lee Harvey Oswald? Oswald would have made a great witness. We have him on tape declaring his innocence- passionately- 13 times! and that was just to reporters in the hall. And he did so with great credibility; with conviction, with certainty; and with courage. It would definitely have impressed a jury.
Yesterday, the defendant didn't even take the witness stand. I guess he didn't want to be cross-examined by the prosecutor. And he made no opening statement either. He just interrogated the officer- on his education, training, and motive for writing tickets- but he lost on every count. Then, he gave a very brief closing statement, saying things like: "He provided no documentation of having calibrated the radar, blah, blah, blah" but again, without ever declaring that he was certain he wasn't speeding. Shut up, you jerk, and just pay your efffin' ticket. That was my attitude. It even looked like he was speeding in the video. He certainly didn't look like he was going 35 the way he zoomed by. He was approaching the officer on the road- going the opposite direction. And, he really zoomed by. You could tell it was a a lot faster than 35.
And, it's easy to do. In my subdivision, the speed limit is only 25, and I'll admit that it's hard to drive that slow. I have to constantly watch myself.
But, Oswald DEFINITELY would have taken the witness stand. We know that he wanted to profess his innocence. He professed it over and over again, including at the Midnight Press Conference. And think about the so-called "evidence" that the prosecution would have tried to use against him. But first, consider that when Oswald was "tried" by the Warren Commission, that the most damaging witness against him was his own wife, Marina. But, in a real trial, she would NOT have testified against him. Just the technicality of "spousal privilege" would have prevented it. She would not have said ANY of the terrible things she said to the Warren Commission about him.
Be aware that I am convinced there was a whole brain-washing psychological process used against Marina, which can be likened to MK-ULTRA. If Oswald had lived, that never would have happened. I think we can safely assume that if Oswald had lived that Marina would have remained at his side, in support of him. It is foolish to think otherwise.
Likewise, if Oswald had lived, Marina would never have gone into forced detention by the FBI and Secret Service. How could the government prosecute a man for murder while detaining his wife? It would have been grounds for a mistrial in itself. They only got away with that because Oswald was dead.
The issue of the Walker shooting attempt would NEVER have made it into the trial. It made it into the Warren Commission trial, but that was different. In a real trial, you can't bring up prior bad acts because it's considered prejudicial. But wait! In this case, Oswald was never convicted or charged with anything concerning the Walker shooting incident. So, there would have been no chance that they could bring up.
Of course, as a separate matter, the Dallas Police could have initiated a criminal complaint against him for the Walker shooting attempt, but based on what? The whole case against Oswald was based on Marina saying that he did it, but again, she was his wife, so they couldn't use her that way with him living. Therefore, they had nothing on him. They could NOT have charged him. They could not have used it.
So, let's look at the evidence. The rifle? Oswald would have denied ordering it or owning it. The paper trail from Klein's would have been challenged. Oswald would have told the jury the same thing he told the police; that he didn't own a rifle.
Oswald would have had good lawyers. Mark Lane would surely have defended him, pro bono, and I suspect so would have Vincent Salandria. Oswald may have wound up with a whole dream team of great lawyers. But, take a look at how a non-lawyer, John Armstrong, took apart the paper evidence concerning the so-called rifle purchase, and then imagine what a competent lawyer like Mark Lane would have done with it.
What about Frazier and the bag? Frazier would have had to submit to cross examination. Oswald would have denied telling Frazier the curtain rod story, pointing out that his room on Beckley already had curtains and curtain rods. He would also have pointed out that the curtain rods in question belonged to Ruth Paine not him, and that it never would have occurred to him to steal her curtain rods or to make up such a story.
Oswald claimed to have brought a bag containing his lunch, which consisted of cheese sandwiches and an apple, which he brought from Mrs. Paine's house. He could have established that, in detail. "Mrs. Paine invited me to fix myself a lunch.." And his lawyers could have put Ruth Paine on the hot seat about it. And they could have put the Dallas PD on the hot seat about it too, pressing them about whether they looked for the remnants of his lunch in the first floor lunch room, the waste receptacle, which should have had the bag, the scraps, the apple core, the wax paper, etc. Note that we were never told anything about this, whether they looked for it, and you didn't have to be Lt. Columbo to think of it.
The cross examination of Frazier and his sister would have gone much worse for them than for Oswald. He would have come across as much more credible.
Of course, the most important thing would have been Oswald's alibi. If he wasn't up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, then he had to be somewhere else. Where he was, of course, was the TSBD doorway, and that would have been easily established. And, we can be certain that Oswald would have identified himself as the Doorway Man in the Altgens photo.
"Tell me, Mr. Oswald, who is this man standing next to the white column in the doorway of the Book Depository."
"That is me."
Now, think about it: Do you really think that prosecutors would have put Billy Lovelady on the witness stand to claim that it was him? BILLY LOVELADY? The guy who was so terrified about testifying that a chief lawyer for the HSCA quit his job just to defend him to keep him from testifying? You think Lovelady would have made a good witness? You think Lovelady would have held up on cross-examination? Billy Lovelady? Lovelady would have been a basket case.
The HSCA wasn't even going to hostily cross-examine Lovelady, yet, Lovelady was still terrified to talk to them. Imagine how a fearsome defense lawyer like Mark Lane would have handled him. He'd have made mincemeat of him.
Remember, since Oswald WAS in the doorway, he would have been able to testify about the specific details as to who was there, what happened, etc. Sights, sounds. He could testified about EVERYTHING; he would have named names. He would have provided details of what he saw and heard when Kennedy rode by. And he would have put Bill Shelley in the hot seat too. Was Shelley going to deny Oswald in the doorway with Oswald living? Was he going to look him in the eye and deny it? Believe me, Shelley would NOT have wanted to testify at a trial of the living Oswald.
Remember what I pointed out a few days ago, that the very act of eating one's lunch in the lunch room at work and then spotting the motorcade route in the newspaper and becoming murderous over it would constitute extreme insanity. Don't you think that Oswald could have convinced a jury that he was not extremely insane?
"I would have to be out of mind to be sitting there, at work, having lunch, and browsing through the newspaper, and seeing the President's motorcade route and deciding, from that, to kill him. Why on Earth would I want to kill him? Why would I want to kill anybody? This is nuts! However, the fact is that I didn't even see the motorcade route. I arrived at work that Friday without even knowing that the President would be passing the building that day. I had no idea. I asked Junior Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk outside. I honestly didn't know. And he told me. So, I just found out that very morning. I had no idea prior to that."
Can't you just picture Oswald looking at the jury and telling them that with conviction, with passion, and with the greatest sincerity? And all it would have taken was 1 person out of 12 to relate to him and pick up on his honesty and his sanity, and it would have precluded a conviction.
And just think, the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald would have overturned everything. I mean: officially, Oswald would have been on trial, but, in reality, so would have others. LBJ's own people, like Bill Moyers and Cliff Carter, who were directly involved in trying to influence the Dallas Police Department on the day of the murder to wrap up the case. "You've got your man" etc. They would have had to testify about their actions. And what about Lyndon Johnson, himself? He was their boss. He was the one who benefited from Kennedy's demise. You don't think that Mark Lane would have subpoenaed Lyndon Johnson? Johnson would have probably gotten out of it, and I think there are Constitutional grounds for the President to do so. But nevertheless, it would still have looked awfully bad for him, Johnson. There isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that they would have won a conviction against Oswald, and worse than that, a whole lot of incriminating of others would have resulted from the trial. It would have been a nightmare for the conspirators and for the establishment. It would have destabilized the whole country.
Oh good Lord, they HAD to kill Oswald. They had to kill him fast, before he even spoke to a lawyer, never mind before he went to trial.
I tell you, people, the fact that we live in a country in which the travesty of the case against Lee Harvey Oswald is still recognized at all by the leaders and institutions of our country is an appalling abomination of truth, honesty, decency, and justice. And it is going to be shattered. It is going to collapse. That is certain. And there is going to be Hell to pay.