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

It is the night before the mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald in Houston, and not one mainstream media outlet has announced it. Why do you think that is? It's because they don't know the outcome. If Oswald is acquitted, then they'll never announce it. They just won't cover it. It will be like it never happened. However, if he's convicted, then it will be all over the place, they'll cover it big-time. I can just imagine the propaganda pieces they'll spew.

But, what if it's a hung jury? And frankly, there is a very good chance of that. It's the most likely outcome. And that's because it takes a unanimous verdict of 12 to convict or acquit. All but one of the previous mock trials of Oswald ended with a hung jury.

So, what will the media do then? It's hard to say. But first, I'll point out that in this case, since no one is actually going to be imprisoned or put to death, in other words, since no sentence is actually going to be carried out, the breakdown of the hung jury would matter more than it usually does. 

So, if it was a hung jury with say 11 voting to convict and only 1 voting to acquit, then the media would definitely latch on to that and spread it far and wide. And that's because they could easily claim that there was just one errant oddball who voted to acquit, but the overwhelming majority did the right thing. 

And likewise, if it was 11 voting to acquit and only 1 to convict, the media would ignore it because it would look very bad.

But, what if it was a hung jury that wasn't lopsided? Say it was 6 and 6. Or even 7 and 5. What would the mainstream media do then?

I maintain that a hung jury that was balanced or relatively balanced would look bad for the State. I contend that it would appear to be a partial victory for Oswald, and here's why: 

The State, with its unlimited resources, and the mass media, with its vast resources, have spent over 50 years selling the idea that Oswald did it alone. So, after all that time, effort, and spending, for the jury be evenly divided would mean that the dogged campaign to sell JFK officialdom has failed, that a great many people reject it. Furthermore, you would think that the solidity of the case against Oswald would only grow over time. That's because time provides opportunity: to discover more evidence, more witnesses, more testing, more researching, etc. So, if Oswald was guilty, you'd expect the case that could be mounted against him to be stronger today, much stronger, than it was in 1963 or 1964. So, a hung jury would look bad for the State, the only exception being if the proportion was highly lopsided towards conviction. 

So, whether the mass media is going to cover the outcome of the trial depends on what that outcome is. 

Of course, if Oswald got acquitted and the media ignored it, it doesn't mean the Internet would ignore it. It doesn't mean the Youtube community would ignore it. And vigorous coverage there might force the mainstream media to cover it, as happened in the Rafael Cruz case. But not necessarily because there is massive coverage of 9/11 truth on the internet, including Youtube, but no coverage at all by the mainstream media. 

So, what is going to happen? As Bud said in Kill Bill Vol. II, "I guess we'll just see."