And if my opponent tried to change the subject by going off on all that JFKing stuff, about shots and wounds and reactions, etc., I would stop him and say, "That's irrelevant because my client was not on the Sixth Floor, and he had nothing to do with what happened on lower Elm Street." And, I would tell him that the only argumentative right he has is to argue something that pertains directly to Oswald.
At the recent mock trial in Houston, the prosecution put on a witness, a forensic guy, who claimed that all of the shots were taken from the 6th floor window and that they all could be forensically linked to the rifle found on the 6th floor. I don't believe that for a second, but regardless, even if it were true, Oswald didn't own a rifle and he wasn't on the 6th floor. So, it doesn't matter even if the guy is right, which he isn't.
It's only evidence against Oswald that matters. I'll say it again: it's only evidence against Oswald that matters.
So, what is the evidence against Oswald? There is Howard Brennan. But, Brennan said that the man he saw at the 6th floor window was in his early 30s, and Oswald was 24. And Brennan said that the man he saw weighed 165 to 170 pounds, and Oswald weighed 131. And note that this kind of "eye-witness" is notorious for being wrong. Most of the men that Barry Scheck and The Innocence Project have gotten off and saved from execution with DNA testing were put on Death Row by such an "eye witness".
There were other eye-witnesses but none of them were beyond reproach and all of them cited features that were in conflict with Oswald. I'm not going to go into them here and now, although I would in a formal debate. But, the idea that any or all of them rise in credibility beyond the threshold of reasonable doubt is preposterous.
You should realize that the very first question that police interrogators would have for a murder suspect, if he denied guilt, is: Where were you then at the time of the crime? And, do you realize that the official record provides no clear answer in Oswald's case? We have "out with Bill Shelley in front" from the Fritz Notes, but Fritz died without revealing the existence of those notes. And not only that, he denied even taking such notes. And what he told the Warren Commission was that Oswald gave for his alibi that he was eating lunch with "other employees" at the time of the shots. And, that is so preposterous, it is laughable. It is crystal-clear that Fritz lied through his teeth. He told them Oswald said he was eating lunch with other employees at the time of the shooting, but Oswald never said that, and he never did that. Oswald was anti-social at the TSBD. In Russia: social. At the TSBD: anti-social. Period. That's how he was. And, if you want to speculate as to why, go ahead; knock yourself out. But, he certainly didn't eat lunch with anybody on 11/22, nor on any other day that he worked there.
Plus, if Oswald used "other employees" as his alibi, then police would surely insist that he name them. You've watched Law and Order. But, Fritz didn't name them, and the WC interrogator (Joseph Ball) didn't ask him for them; he just moved on. Ball wasn't interested. Do you understand the significance of that?
According to Bookhout and Hosty, Oswald's alibi was that he was on the 1st floor at the time of the shots. But, the 1st floor was as big as a city block, and nobody would give an area that big as his alibi.
So, the fact is: THE TOP TWO OSWALD INTERROGATORS GAVE SUSPICIOUS AND DISINGENUOUS ANSWERS TO THE QUESTION OF OSWALD'S ALIBI. So you understand the significance of that?
The paper trail of Oswald supposedly ordering the rifle from Klein Hardware has been completely destroyed by John Armstrong.
And that means that you can't link the rifle to Oswald, and that in itself, forces an acquittal.
What about the print evidence against Oswald? There is no evidence. That is, there is nothing that rises to the level of evidence. The Dallas PD twice declared that they could find no prints of Oswald. It was after that the FBI claimed to find a partial fingerprint on the trigger-guard and a palm print on the butt of the rifle. But, do you know what a claim is? It's just a lip-wag; that's all. And those claims were never subjected to challenge by Oswald's attorneys and the forensic experts they would have brought in. And just think about how little we know. How many points of match did they claim to find on the trigger-guard? How come the details of the fingerprint examination and the conclusion drawn from it were never released? In this case, don't you think it was appropriate to give us the details? It's not as though in this case the FBI was beyond reproach. And why would something as large as a palm print on the flat surface of the rifle butt not have been found while Oswald was still alive? The fact that it was only "discovered" after he was killed in police custody screams out loud with doubt.
So, if anyone tried to cite that, the prints evidence, in a debate, I would tell them that it is "unestablished", that Oswald and his attorneys never had a chance to challenge it and refute it, and no evidence other than the mere claim of it has ever been presented. Therefore, it is not bankable, that is, it is NOT like money in the bank, in their account.
And actually, the claim is even more suspect and actually damaging to their case when paired with John Armstrong's case for why Oswald never ordered a rifle. You have to know what trumps what. If Oswald never ordered and owned a rifle, and then you claim his fingerprint was found on the rifle, that makes you look bad- not Oswald. Now, YOU have to explain why that fingerprint is there if he never owned the rifle.
So, this is like a game of rock/paper/scissors, and when they proffer the argument that Oswald's fingerprint was found on the rifle, the evidence that he never ordered or owned one is like the rock that smashes the scissors that is their argument.
The same thing applies to the Backyard photos. If Oswald never ordered or owned the rifle, how could he have posed with it? However, the Backyard photos can be discredited directly just by examining them. And that includes recent finds, such as by Amy Joyce, that in one Backyard Photo his ring is on his left hand, and in another, on the right. And, I hope you realize that it is preposterous to think that Oswald would have fiddled with his ring during the photo shoot.
"Wait a second, Marina. Let's try it with my ring on the other hand."
His shirt fibers clung to the butt of the rifle? Did you read the testimony, how the FBI expert hemmed and hawed, that you can't be sure, that it's not certain, etc. etc.? And when was that claim ever subjected to scrutiny and contest? What do you think Oswald's lawyers would have done with it? Don't you think they would have brought in their own forensic expert and their own clothing expert?
What else is there? There isn't anything else. And that's why I say that there is nothing at all. There is no case against Oswald. Plus, there are two photos of him standing in the doorway at the time of the shots. Not one; but two. And who knows how many others were destroyed.
It is really part of the sickness of 21st century America that the claim that Oswald shot Kennedy is still on the books and supported by both government and media. It is going to collapse; there is no doubt about that. It should have collapsed already. All we have in this country today is Pravda. The corporate (read: fascist) media does not challenge government decrees. It does not challenge official versions of history. And what is really disgusting is that sometimes they give air-time to some moron who says, "The government is hiding something because Oswald met with so-and-so in Mexico City, and they blah, blah, blah." Noise. Distraction. That's all it is. And it's all going to come crashing down. Let's hope we all live long enough to see it.