Attorney Larry Schnapf wrote an excellent article which summarized the results of all the mock trials of Lee Harvey Oswald. It is on the Kennedy and Kings, the website of Jim DiEugenio.
Note first that I am NOT a supporter of Jim DiEugenio. Although he disputes the official story of the JFK assassination, he does NOT do so effectively, in my opinion, and I do not consider him an asset to the cause of JFK truth.
The gist of it is that all the mock trials resulted in hung juries except the most lavish one, which was the 1984 trial in England which featured Vincent Bugliosi for the prosecution and Gerry Spence for the defense. It resulted in a conviction for Oswald. But, here is an intriguing statement by Larry:
It is generally agreed upon by lawyers that Spence was not prepared for this mock trial and that his performance made a mockery of the event.
In the immortal words of Ed McMahon, I did not know that.
There also was one in Michigan in 2016 where a grand jury deliberated whether Oswald should be charged as a lone gunman or not as a lone gunman. Oh, thanks a heap. They just presumed Oswald's guilt. What a disgrace. That one doesn't even count, in my opinion.
So, basically, all but one resulted in hung juries except the one in 1984.
I also gather from what Larry wrote that most of the defense lawyers focused on disputing the Single Bullet Theory. What a waste. I hope the lawyers in Houston don't make that mistake. What good does it do Oswald? If you dispute the Single Bullet Theory, even if you succeed, Oswald could be just as guilty. It doesn't exonerate him. If you're shooting at a man, and somebody else is also shooting at him, you're just as guilty of trying to kill him.
And do you know what it tells me? It tells me that there are a great many people who want to dispute the official story of the JFK assassination, but they don't really care about Oswald. Dr. Cyril Wecht, for instance, has never defended Oswald. His whole schtik is that there were multiple shooters. That's it. And if someone wants to think that Oswald was one of those shooters, it's fine with him.
So again, disputing the Single Bullet Theory does NOTHING to defend Oswald. And here's another reason why it's really foolish to harp on it; people are inured to it. If Jerry Seinfeld could devote a whole episode of his show to "The Magic Loogie", and people laughed, then you know that people are inured to it. It has no emotional impact on people any more. It's like a song they've heard too many times. I'm afraid it's even going to bore the jury. They're going to be looking at their watches.
So, what truly vindicates Oswald? What really matters? Well, obviously, his alibi matters. That matters more than anything. Imagine if you were a lawyer in 1963, and you were called in to represent Oswald. So, you get to the Dallas Police Department. You're taken up to the 3rd floor, and you're put into one of the small interrogation rooms alone with your client. (We'll put aside the issue of Tippit.) I presume the first thing you would ask him is if he did it. Oswald says, "No. I did not." What's the very next thing you are going to ask him? Isn't it, "Then, where were you when the crime occurred?" That's what you would want to know, isn't it? It's also what the jury would want to know.
You keep the focus on Oswald. Did he order and own the rifle? Well, he denied it. Now you're his lawyer. Do you believe him or not? I believe him. And that's why I put great stock in this article by John Armstrong which disputes the evidence that Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's Hardware in Chicago:
And, it follows from that that if Oswald didn't owned the rifle, then he didn't pose with it for the Backyard photos. So, as his lawyer, you attack the authenticity of the Backyard photos. But, think about it means: IT MEANS THAT YOU ARE ADVOCATING PHOTOGRAPHIC ALTERATION AS A FACTOR IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION. And the truth is that you can't defend Oswald without advocating photographic alteration.
Alright, so there is his alibi, which is that he was standing in the doorway during the shooting; there is his never having ordered or owned the rifle, as per the evidence laid out by John Armstrong; there is attacking the validity of the Backyard photos, including bringing in a photo expert to testify that the photo was faked. That's 3 things. What else? Again, the issue of whether a single bullet could have passed through the bodies of two men causing 7 wounds is obviously very important to assassination study- but not specifically to Oswald's defense. Here's something better: you bring in a professional sniper to testify on whether Oswald, with his known shooting record and experience- experience which included NOTHING comparable to the shooting conditions from the 6th floor- could have pulled off that shooting result: hitting the moving target twice in less than 6 seconds. And I know just who to call in: Former Army and Tulsa Police Department Sharpshooter Craig Roberts. And he'd do it too. I know him. He'll tell the jury that he got to size up the whole situation, and he realized instantly that he, Craig Roberts, could not have done it. And there is no way that Lee Harvey Oswald was a better shot than he is.
What else would truly vindicate Oswald? There is the issue of the flight time from the 6th floor after the last shot to the 2nd floor lunch room, in which Oswald arrived shortly before Officer Marrion Baker. According to Dr. David Wrone, there was a time span of 75 seconds between the last shot and the encounter. But, when you consider what Oswald would have had to do, were it him, which was, apparently, wipe down the rifle, since very little was found on it. He had to go hide the rifle and climb over a mountain of books to do it. Then he had to make his way to the stairs and proceed down. Dr. Wrone devotes a whole chapter in his book to it, and he points out that when the Warren Commission timed it, they just skipped the part about hiding the rifle. They just had the Oswald-surrogate hand it off to someone who was waiting at the stairs. Dr. Wrone, who is still living and could testify as an expert, is adamant that an honest reproduction of the trek would never get Oswald to the lunch room in time, nor would it get him there without being sweaty, winded, and ruffled, which Oswald wasn't. In reality, Oswald walked at a normal pace from the doorway, up the southeast staircase, and across the 2nd floor to the lunch room.
Impugning the testimony of Buell Frazier would also be valuable, specifically, his claim that Oswald carried a large bag into the building, holding it between his outstretched hand and his armpit. However, Frazier insists that the bag he saw was no more than 24 inches long. The disassembled rifle was 35 inches. So, if Frazier testifies, you first get him to assert very strongly that 24 inches was the maximum that he saw. But then, you find a way to bring in the testimony of Jack Dougherty, who claimed to see Oswald as he walked in the door at 8:05 AM, saying that he saw no such bag. He also saw no such unusual carry method.
I could keep going. There is plenty more. One mock trial included testimony from Bonnie Ray Williams that he was up on the 6th floor until close to 12:30, and he didn't see Oswald or anyone else. Now that was good! Is Bonnie Ray still alive? Then bring him in! Another good witness would be James Jarman who had to tell Oswald that the motorcade would be passing the building that afternoon. Oswald didn't know. He asked Jarman why people were gathering on the sidewalk. So, if Jarman is alive, you find him and bring him in.
That's more than there would be time for in a two day trial. I mainly wanted to make the point that there is no time to devote to whether there were shots from the front, multiple shooters, whether the Single Bullet Theory is nonsense. Just forget about all that because it can't help Oswald. Do you want to help Oswald or not? Do you want to get him acquitted? Or do you want to dispute the official story of the JFK assassination? Take your choice because you can't do both.