Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Disaster for Lee Harvey Oswald. His stupid, incompetent lawyers are completely blowing his defense.

Larry Schnapf began this morning by questioning Dr. Gary Aguilar, who is a longtime JFK disputer of some renown. He talked about JFK's head motion, the famous "back and to the left" claiming that it resulted from the impact of the bullet, its momentum, and not a neuromuscular reaction. 

What does this have to do with Oswald? The goal was to establish that there was a shooter shooting from the Grassy Knoll, but what does this have to do with Oswald? Even if there was, and even if it was proven, Oswald could still be in the 6th floor window shooting at Kennedy, and he would still get the death penalty for that. And as they were about to pull the switch on the Electric Chair, Larry Schnapf would have told him: 

"At least, we proved that you weren't the only shooter, so take that with you to paradise. Have a nice trip." 

Then, it was Bill Simpich's turn, and he was allowed to make another opening statement for the defense. He spoke for about an hour, and I'll give you the highlights. He said very little in defense of Oswald, and some of what he said was flat-out wrong.

Simpich began by comparing the JFK assassination with Obama's operation to kill Osama bin laden in 2011, and he said that JFK was similar. Except that Osama bin laden died of kidney failure in 2001 according to multiple reliable sources, and it isn't even medically credible that he could have survived until 2011 looking younger and more robust when he looked so close to death in 2001. But, I digress.

Like the lawyers who came before him, Simpich wasted a lot of time talking about the Single Bullet Theory, how the bullet wound up on the stretcher, the bullet fragments in the limo, etc. etc. which has nothing to do with defending Oswald. So, what did he say that actually pertained to defending Oswald?

He half-heartedly disputed Oswald's possession of the rifle. I say half-heartedly because he never said it wasn't Oswald's rifle. And he didn't dispute anything about the rifle being ordered. What he claimed was that there is no credible evidence that Oswald actually used the alias A. Hidell, that that name was not listed as an owner of the P.O. Box, and therefore that a rifle that was sent to A. Hidell would not have been put to Oswald's P.O. Box and given to him.

But, why didn't Simpich start at the beginning with what Oswald said, which is, that he didn't own that or any rifle? Simpich is supposed to be Oswald's lawyer. So, does he believe Oswald or not? And if he doesn't believe, what business does he have representing him? So, why didn't Simpich begin by informing the jury that Oswald denied owning the rifle? And then, he could have disputed the paper trail for the rifle work, as per the work of John Armstrong and Gil Jesus. You see what I mean about half-hearted? The jury isn't going to care about what he said. 

Simpich did say that Dallas Police did not test the rifle to see if it had been recently fired, that they didn't even do the sniff test.

Then, Simpich went into the claims of Frazier and sister about the large package, and he said something I have never heard before: that Linnie Mae Randle must have been lying when she said she saw Oswald with a large bag because she couldn't see him from the window. At the time, Simpich was showing a slide of the area to the jury, but we, at home, didn't see it. And he provided a motive for her to lie, which is that police were threatening to arrest her brother Wesley over the Enfield 303 rifle that he owned and had in possession at her house. What, was it illegal? 

Then, Simpich trashed Frazier a little bit, saying that his whereabouts were unknown from 2 pm to 6 pm that afternoon. He pointed out the well known fact that Fritz had a confession written out that he pressured Frazier to sign, but Frazier refused, and they almost got in a fist fight. Simpich said all that. And supposedly, that is why Frazier agreed to say that Oswald carried a large bag, although he limited his to 24 inches. Simpich did tell the jury that he thinks Oswald carried only his lunch, and he thinks that, most likely, he just held it in his lap. 

But, why didn't Simpich cite the testimony of Jack Dougherty that he saw Oswald coming in at 8:05 with no large bag? He could have also added that even though the building was well populated at that time, that no other witness could be found to confirm the claims of Frazier and his sister. And then, he could have done a little Math: 

"So, you had Frazier and his sister claiming one thing, although not in complete unison, and you had Oswald and Dougherty denying their claims. So, that's 2 against 2. How does that not lead to reasonable doubt?"

But no, Simpich didn't do that. He was ill-prepared, mis-informed, and incompetent. 

But next, he made what I believe is a mistake and went into the Tippit shooting. Why do that? I mean: Why do that before exhausting everything you want to say about Oswald's innocence in the JFK shooting? But, Simpich started talking about the wallet found at the Tippit crime scene, the multiple stories that arose about it, etc.   

Then, Simpich moved on to the theater, disputing whether Oswald really tried to shoot Officer Nick McDonald. He cited the FBI firearms examiner Cunningham who said that the gun did not misfire. Of course, McDonald changed his story after that, claiming that he shoved the web of his hand (which is the thinnest tissue on your external body) in the firing space, and that's what kept the gun from firing. But, Simpich didn't go into that.

Then, Simpich talked ever so briefly about the Backyard photos, claiming that there is no proof that Oswald even owned the Minox camera. Again, I say: why didn't he start with what Oswald said, which is that it wasn't him in the picture, that the photo was altered, that it was done in a photo lab, putting his face over the body of another man, and that he, Oswald, could do it himself and would gladly demonstrate it. 

Then, Simpich made the claim that the rifle in the Backyard photos is not the same rifle as the alleged murder weapon. But, he left it at that. He provided no explanation, no evidence, no nothing. So, why should the jury believe him? 

It's on lunch break right now, and I don't know if he is going to come back to the Backyard photos or not. But, if he doesn't, then his treatment of that issue was woefully inadequate as well. 

But, Simpich did raise the issue of Oswald's whereabouts during the shooting. However, he never used the word "alibi." Then, what he did was start citing various witnesses who claimed to have seen Oswald, but he NEVER made a definitive statement that "At 12:30 PM, when the Presidential motorcade passed the Texas Book Depository, Oswald was at X." Simpich cited times but never the time of 12:30. He did point out that a police officer saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room shortly after 12:30. But, the closest he got to that on the other side of 12:30 is to claim that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:15.

What???? That is an outrage. First, that is no part of the testimony in the case. It is not a piece of evidence in the case. What it is is hearsay by a Dallas reporter named Earl  Golz who claimed in 1978 that he spoke to Carolyn Arnold who told him that. Except that the time Golz reported that Carolyn Arnold said of seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room was 12:25, not 12:15. But, that was over 5000 days after the assassination, and what she said 4 days after the assassination to the FBI was that she saw Oswald at the doorway "between the double doors" after she had gone outside. In other words: AT THE DOORWAY. So, why didn't Simpich say that? 

OK, it's back on.