But, JD Alexander, a supporter of mine, made the interesting comment that Oswald's case is even more outrageous than that of most innocent defendants. And, he is right.
We'd like to think that most of the time, when it happens, that it's a mistake; that the DA and the Police are just mistaken and misled into thinking that the guy did it. But, in Oswald's case, it involved the direct malfeasance of the Dallas Police Department and the FBI. How could a rifle that was dusted for prints twice- by the Dallas Police and the FBI- resulting in a memo issued late on November 23 stating that no usable prints were found, then turn up a partial print, supposedly of Oswald's, on the trigger guard?
And how could it show up just there? You say Oswald wiped the rifle down? When? According to the story, he barely had time to get down to the lunch room ahead of Baker. (And he was ahead of Baker. Who got into the lunch room first? Oswald or Baker? Oswald. Therefore, Oswald was ahead of Baker.) According to Dr. David Wrone, the WC had to cheat in order to fit Oswald's flight down to the lunch room into the 75 second time frame from the last shot. They cheated by not having their runner stash the rifle the way it was supposedly stashed by Oswald, and that was in order to save time. But, they didn't have him wipe the rifle down either.
And then a palm print shows up but only after Oswald was dead? They couldn't find something as big as a palm print the first time?
But wait. If he wiped the rifle down to remove fingerprints (except for the one on the trigger guard) then how did the wiping not do away with the palm print?
And what about the paper bag? This is the bag that Detective Montgomery brandished in Dealey Plaza. And when has it ever happened before or since that a policeman walked around the site of a crime showcasing a piece of evidence? Who told him to do that?
How could Oswald have made that out of paper and tape? And when could he have made it? He was working all day on Thursday. It's wild enough to suggest that he could steal the paper and tape without being noticed and seen. But to actually build a bag? He did that, and nobody noticed? Nobody saw him doing it? And why WHY WHY would he make a bag at all? What did he need a bag for? Why not just grab some paper and tape, and when he got to the rifle, just put the rifle parts down on the paper and then fold the paper around it and tape it up? In other words, wrap it up, as you would a present. Why go to the trouble of actually making a bag? Who would do that? But, the worst thing is: How could he possibly make a bag that good? Does that look like something that Lee Harvey Oswald jimmied together on the spur of the moment from paper and tape? And remember: he didn't have any training in bag making. Who does? Would you know how to make one?
And consider Buell Frazier actually describing Oswald's alleged handiwork as looking like a bag from the grocery story. Frazier actually thought it was a commercial, manufactured bag- one from the grocery store. He never said that it looked like some paper Oswald used to jimmy a bag. It struck him to be a real bag- a real grocery bag- like one from the grocery store. But, how could Oswald do that? If I gave YOU some paper and tape, do you think YOU could produce a bag that was comparable to a grocery store bag? You know, one from the grocery store? And, you probably think you're smarter and handier than Oswald, don't you? So, let's assume you are. So, if you couldn't do it, then why assume that he could?
And look at that bag of Wes Montgomery again, and notice that it has a flat bottom. (he has it inverted) So, how could Oswald do that?
And notice that it's not even the slightest bit torn. Not even a little. We are talking about metal rifle parts in paper and then being jostled while carried. We are not talking about sandwiches in a bag. We are talking about pointed, jagged rifle parts, and the bag was made of paper. Don't you think one of those parts was going to tear through the paper? And what about when Oswald supposedly was ready to start assembling the rifle? What, was he careful not to tear the paper? To remove the parts from the bag without tearing it? Wouldn't he have been in a hurry? Doesn't it seem like he would have just ripped the bag open? So, what are they suggesting, that he carefully removed the tape and then removed the parts from the bag without tearing it? He didn't want to tear it, eh? Waste not; want not. His Mama taught him well.
By the way, the bag flaunted by Montgomery quickly got replaced with a much more crude and un-grocery store looking one.
Somebody with a higher pay grade must have realized that that other bag was too damn good for Oswald to have made it. So, they downsized. But this other "bag" which stuck doesn't even look like paper; it looks like cardboard.
So, how do you think all this would have played out at trial? Oh My God. Let me tell you: a real trial of the living Lee Harvey Oswald would have looked NOTHING like that circus in Houston by those clown lawyers. Oswald's real lawyers would have spent the whole time attacking the evidence against him. They wouldn't have given a shit about Kennedy's wounds and his movements and reactions. They would have attacked the evidence against Oswald. And they would have destroyed every last bit of it: the rifle, the bag, the prints, the paper trail, even the P.O. box. All of it, every single bit of it, would have been destroyed. They would have turned the case into a trial of the Dallas Police and the FBI.
And that's why they could never let it happen. They could never let Oswald be tried. They couldn't even let Oswald speak to a lawyer.
And then what? They got lucky with Jack Ruby? Did they? Is that what you think? Luck had nothing to do with it. And neither did Jack Ruby, except for being the witless patsy who was played. The Dallas Police killed Lee Harvey Oswald, and they framed the witless, hapless, hopeless Jack Ruby, poor man. May God have no mercy on their souls.