I have been listening to Larry Scnapf's interview on Black Op Radio about the mock trial. He revealed that the first vote tally of the jury was 8 to 3 to convict. How pathetic. Larry never claimed that they gave Oswald an alibi, rather, he claimed that they gave him a timeline which involved only "a 6 minute gap."
That gap was from 12:25 PM when Carolyn Arnold supposedly saw him in the 2nd floor lunch room to 12:31 when Officer Marrion Baker also saw him in the 2nd floor lunch room. But, BOTH STATEMENTS WERE FALSE. They gave false information to the jury, and it's just lucky for them that the prosecutors were inept.
The fact is that on November 26, 1963, twenty year old Carolyn Arnold told FBI Agent Richard E. Harrison that she saw Oswald at the doorway shortly before the shooting. That was the only claim she ever made in 1963. What Larry was referring to was just a newspaper article from 1978. A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE! That's all it was. And in the article, the author, who of course wasn't under oath, claimed to talk to Carolyn Arnold who told him that she saw Oswald eating in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25. First of all, that is hearsay and inadmissible in a real trial. And, I know the rules of evidence were suspended, but still, the prosecutors could have pointed it out. I had previously informed Larry Schnapf, at length, that that claim by reporter Earl Golz was highly suspect, citing the work of Professor Gerald McKnight, author of Breach of Trust. And the thing that gave it away was the claim that Oswald was eating there. It is extremely solid and well-established that Oswald ate in the 1st floor lunch room. For one thing, he said he did. Since when do lawyers not believe their own client? And, we know the practical reasons why Oswald always ate in the 1st floor lunch room: it was where the grunt workers like him ate; they had a shelf where you could store your lunch, which he used; and there was usually a newspaper in there which Oswald liked to read while he was eating. There was even a witness, Jack Dougherty, who said that Oswald always ate in there. There is simply no reason to doubt that Oswald ate in the 1st floor lunch room, and IT MAKES THE 1978 ARTICLE ALARMINGLY SUSPECT. Yet, that is the last sighting of Oswald before the assassination that Bill Simpich gave the jury.
And as for after the assassination, Simpich said that the police officer saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room a minute after, but it's not true. The officer saw Oswald just reaching the 2nd floor lunch room. Just getting there. Just arriving. Oswald wasn't even IN the 2nd floor lunch room when Baker first saw him, but rather, in the adjoining room. SO, IF OSWALD WAS JUST GETTING TO THE 2ND FLOOR LUNCH ROOM WHEN BAKER FIRST SAW HIM, HOW CAN ONE ASSUME THAT HE WAS THERE 6 MINUTES BEFORE?
Jim Fetzer: "They didn't need to prove conspiracy. All they had to do was prove Oswald to be innocent. So, they consumed a whole day with irrelevant information. I don't doubt that they proved that there were multiple gunmen, but that didn't thereby exclude Oswald from having been one of them. They could have just had Larry Rivera go up there and say, 'Hey, Oswald was in the doorway- look at these images. He didn't shoot anybody.' And the whole thing would have been over and done with."
And Jim is right because the standard was only "reasonable doubt." It means that if a juror only thought that, "You know, that might be Oswald. I'm not 100% sure, but I can't rule it out" he still had to acquit. And in Texas, jurors are allowed to take exhibits into the jury room, and those compelling images would have been staring them in the face as they deliberated.
This was the worst betrayal of Lee Harvey Oswald since his own wife betrayed him in February 1964 with the lies she told the Warren Commission. I don't know how these three lawyers got this gig, but obviously, they were ill-chosen.
The prosecutor was weak. He only put on one witness, a ballistics expert who vouched for all the shots being from the rear and who supported the Single Bullet Theory. So, the pluck what? That didn't hurt Oswald. It didn't matter to him. He didn't make any shots at all, so it didn't matter to his defense where the shots came from or how many there were. THE PROSECUTOR PUT ON NO WITNESSES AGAINST OSWALD, AND YET, THESE GUYS STILL LOST.