Friday, December 1, 2017

One more thing about the mock trial, I remember that another thing the lawyers, Larry Schnapf and Bill Simpton, were going to do is challenge the authenticity of the Backyard photos. And that would have been great for Oswald because, obviously, if they were foisting him into phony photos, then they were framing him. But, in the end, they did not do it at all. Larry Rivera sent them his great gifs on the Backyard photos. And I sent them some great analysis of them by Amy Joyce that is riveting. Such as that the ring is on one hand in one photo and the other hand in the other? As if Oswald moved his ring between takes? But, in the end, they did absolutely nothing with it. 

They told us they were going to discredit the authenticity of the paper bag. Larry Schnapf said they were going to do a whole big thing on it- like never before. But, they did absolutely nothing. They told us they were going to challenge and discredit the rifle belonging to Oswald. They said they were going to go into the post office situation and the problem of Lee Harvey Oswald picking up a rifle that was addressed to A. Hidell, whose name wasn't even listed as an owner of the box. In the end, they did nothing on that either.  

That they shafted me and Larry Rivera, well, they're lawyers, and we weren't their clients. I'm sure they can shrug us off in a nanosecond. But, Oswald was, supposedly, their client, and they shafted him too. And for that, frankly, I don't know how either one of them can sleep at night.

For instance, Bill Simpton said that Caroline Arnold saw Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room 5 minutes before the shooting, and then a minute after the shooting, a policeman also saw him there- implying that he was there throughout. But, there isn't the slightest chance of that being true. Officer Marrion Baker did not see Oswald IN the lunch room a minute later. He saw him just reaching, just getting to the lunch room a minute later; just entering it. So, if Oswald was just entering the lunch room a minute later, how could he be there 5 minutes before? And if you try to say that he was there, and then he left, and then he came back, you can't because that would be something you pulled out of your ass. You can't do that. If he's just getting there, he's just getting there. Period. 

Furthermore, Bill Simpon is a lawyer, and he knows that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. But, that's all that this was: hearsay. It was based on one newspaper article by someone named Earl Golz in 1978. And there are so many good reasons to doubt it. First, Oswald himself said that he ate in the first floor lunch room. Simpton even came up with the cockamamie explanation that Oswald ate there "to show solidarity with African-Americans." Therefore, Carolyn Arnold must have been wrong. Right, Bill? Second, other employees, such as Jack Dougherty, said that Oswald ALWAYS ate in the first floor lunch room, without exception. There is a list of reasons why Oswald always ate there, downstairs. 

a) it is where the grunt workers ate, as opposed to the clerical staff
b) there was a long window sill there where the grunt workers could put their lunch bags until lunch time. Oswald made use of that
c) there was always a newspaper put in there for the employees, which Oswald took full advantage of. 

So, even if Carolyn Arnold's 5000+ day revision could be verified as coming from her, which it never was, it contains a major anomaly of Oswald eating in the 2nd floor lunch room, and should be rejected for that reason alone. It was in conflict with Carolyn Arnold's earlier statements, one of which was signed by her. You don't get to change your story after 5000 days without being questioned about it. 

And Carolyn Arnold could have. She could have talked, not to a reporter, but to someone at the Dallas District Attorney's Office or to the Dallas FBI- to make a formal statement. But, she didn't. She never came forward at all. We never saw her or heard from her. The whole story has zero credibility. Of course, the baited buffs were going to run with it, but shouldn't a lawyer know better? 

And the thing is: Simpton saw the images of Oswald in the doorway, meaning, my collages and Larry Rivera's overlays. He also saw the Fritz Notes showing that Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." Since when do lawyers not believe their own client? 

These lawyers did not follow through with even ONE of the things they told Larry Rivera and I they were going to do to exonerate Oswald. Not one. They chucked everything.

If there is ever another mock trial, the most urgent need will be to vet the lawyers, to make sure Oswald has real advocates, who really believe in his innocence and who will really defend him in court. I mean lawyers who are smart enough to know that arguing about conspiracy and multiple shooters is useless to Oswald. You don't bring it up at all. I'm serious. The amount of time you spend disputing the Single Bullet Theory is zero. You don't even bring it up. You don't even broach the subject. What for? Oswald wasn't up on the 6th floor, so what difference does it make to him how many shooters there were? He wasn't one of them, so who cares?

I am still shaken by this. I never dreamt it could go this badly. Imagine if Oswald had been sitting there. He'd have been asking himself, "When are they going to get to me? When are they going to mention my name?" 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.