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

The mock trial is essentially over, except for the jury deliberation and verdict. The final witness for the defense was Brian Edwards, who is a retired policeman from Kansas. He's the one who wrote a book with Kansas schoolteacher Casey Quinlin, but I previously lambasted Quinlin for falsely quoting Oswald and for falsely disputing the Altgens photo evidence showing Oswald in the doorway. You can read my critique of Quinlin here:

 http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-treachery-of-casey-quinlin-that-is.html

So, Bill Simpich questioned Brian Edwards, and I'll grant that a few good points were made by Edwards. In fact, there is no question that Brian Edwards was the best witness the defense brought forth in the case. But, that doesn't mean he did great; he just did OK. 

But first, Simpich made the ridiculous statement that Oswald ate in the first floor lunch room, the domino room, because that is where the African-American workers ate, and he wanted to show solidarity with them. What the hell is that based on? Oswald ate in the 1st floor lunch room because all the grunt workers ate there. Plus, a newspaper was placed in there, and he liked reading the newspaper during lunch. That's it. What Simpich said is bull shit.  

Next, they went over an early British report that a British 303 rifle was found, and Simpich alluded to the idea that they were going to say that that was Frazier's rifle and he did it. But, that is ridiculous because Frazier was in the doorway. Right? And weren't there witnesses there who would have attested that he was? Was there really any chance that police were going to say that Frazier was the shooter in the Sniper's Nest? Hell no! Bill Simpich is such an idiot. That wasn't it. They were just going go say that he was Oswald's accomplice, not that anyone but Oswald did the shooting from the Sniper's Nest. 

Then, they went over Cunningham's testimony about no hammer mark on the bullet in Oswald's pistol. Then Simpich had Edwards describe why the rifle in the Backyard photo was different from the rifle that Lt. Day brandished. But, what was Simpich implying? That Oswald posed with another rifle? He never did tell the jury that Oswald denied posing for the picture. He never did suggest that the photo was faked, that Oswald's face was put over the body of another man. 

You see, that's not being a polite, respectable CT. That's considered being a rogue, renegade Oswald defender. And, Bill Simpich is a polite, respectable CT, not a rogue, renegade Oswald defender, and that's why he got invited to do this.  

Then, Brian Edwards took out a Carcano rifle and demonstrated to the jury why he considers it unreliable, why the telescopic scope is so bad that he would actually prefer to use the iron sights. Then, he cited the testimony of Lt. Day that Captain Will Fritz rearranged the shells on the floor of the Sniper's Nest. 

Then, it was on to the Tippit murder again, and they went through the discrepancy of the two wallets and the strange idea that Oswald would have emptied the cartridges from the revolver at the crime scene.    

These are some good points, and as I said, Brian Edwards was, by far, the best witness.

However, he was very weak during the cross examination. It was done by the other prosecutor, who just happened to be a very attractive young woman. And he was very polite to her, very gentle, and very cooperative. And, he said "yes" to some things that shocked the hell out of me. 

For instance, she asked him if he agreed that Lee Harvey Oswald, from the 6th floor window, using a bolt-action rifle, took three shots at President John F. Kennedy and killed him. And Edwards, responded "Yes, to everything except that it was Oswald."

What? That is ridiculous. If you get rid of Oswald, why would you keep everything else? Does Brian Edwards really believe that SOMEONE ELSE was in the Sniper's Nest and took the 3 shots, as laid out by the Warren Commission? I have never, ever heard any Oswald defender claim that, that the crime occurred just as authorities claim except that the shooter was someone else other than Oswald. That is absurd. How could Brian Edwards agree with that?

The judge is now giving instructions to the jury. He's actually telling them that you can't hold it against Oswald for not testifying.  Oh really? Thanks for telling us.

No closing arguments from the attorneys because, according to the judge: "you've already heard them."

OK, so, here is my prediction: I think they are either going to convict OR it will be a hung jury in which the preponderance of votes go for conviction.

We'll see if I'm right.