I am please to announce that a prominent Hollywood celebrity who is associated with a TV program on NBC will be the keynote speaker for the dinner following the first day of the "State vs Lee Oswald" mock trial to be held in Houston this November. Details to follow.
Ralph Cinque Think about it. How can you defend Oswald without providing him an alibi? If he wasn't up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy, then where he was he? Surely and absolutely, if Oswald was alive, his lawyers would put him on the witness stand to tell the jury where he was and what he was doing at 12:30 when the motorcade drove by. Oswald is not alive, but we, his defenders, still have to do that for him and speak for him. And if he could speak, of course he would speak the truth: that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots. Now, what's the alternative? And I mean, what is the alternative today for his lawyers? To say that they don't know where Oswald was at the time of the shots? How is that going to go over with the jury? Aren't they going to think: "he's saying he doesn't know because Oswald was on the 6th floor"? And what if they say he was somewhere else at 12:30, such as the lunch room? Well, that would be false. Oswald made it clear when he ate lunch. He ate it early in the lunch break, at the beginning of the lunch break, at a time when James Jarman and Harold Norman were milling around on the 1st floor. So, that's when Oswald ate lunch- not at 12:30. And what Carolyn Arnold said in 1978 was completely untenable, and that was that she saw Oswald eating on the 2nd floor at 12:25. First, he never ate up there. NEVER. He always ate in the first floor lunch room called the Domino room. And, Carolyn Arnold didn't make her extraordinary new claim until more than 5000 days after the assassination. Why didn't she say so at the time? And what she said at the time was that she saw Oswald standing behind the glass at the doorway. And this reduces the credibility of her 1978 revision to zero. Then there is the fact that the photographic evidence supports that it was Oswald in the doorway- in great detail- and that applies to both the man and his clothing. The Man in the Doorway is wearing Oswald's clothes. Both the unusual shirt and the unusual t-shirt are a match to Oswald. There is also the fact that Oswald told police that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" and Will Fritz wrote it down. There is also the fact that Oswald's Marine buddy, Anthony Botelho recognized Oswald in the doorway from looking at the Altgens photo. And, I believe Anthony Botelho is still alive. So, if Robert Tanenbaum and Larry Schnapf try to defend Oswald without giving him an alibi or by giving him a false alibi (which means anywhere other than the doorway) it will be the ultimate betrayal of Lee Harvey Oswald, and another hung jury is the most they can expect to obtain. An acquittal requires that Oswald's alibi be presented, solidly and convincingly. And, his alibi is that he was standing in the doorway.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.