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

I have stated that they were NEVER going to let Oswald go to trial. Although they spoke, with bravado, about wanting to try him and being confident of getting a conviction and a death sentence, it was all bluffing. They were, not only, never going to let Oswald go to trial, they were never going to let him see a lawyer. They couldn't because in minutes, Oswald would have established with his lawyer that a) he didn't kill Kennedy or Tippit, b) he didn't order or own a rifle, c) he didn't pose for the Backyard photos, d) he didn't build a bag out of paper and tape, e) he didn't bring a long object to work, f) he didn't go to Mexico City, g) he was standing in the doorway of the TSBD during the shooting, and more.  And this would have revealed to the lawyer that not only was Oswald innocent but that he was being framed, and the government was involved. And he would not have had to be that smart a lawyer to realize that if the government was framing Oswald for the murder of JFK then the government must be behind the murder. 

OSWALD'S LAWYER WOULD HAVE GLEANED ALL THAT FROM ONE MEETING!

Now, can you see why they couldn't let him see an attorney? 

And perhaps you will also understand now why I am 100% convinced that Attorney H. Louis Nichols never saw the real Oswald on Saturday afternoon. 

But, put Nichols aside for now. Just look at the fact that, on Friday, Oswald appealed to the public for legal assistance several times, culminating in his world appeal at the Midnight Press Conference, in which he started by saying that he complained to the judge that he was being denied counsel. Then, he said he was asking someone to come forward to provide legal assistance. 

Now, how does that mesh with "I want Abt and only Abt"? It doesn't.  Oswald may have brought up Abt, but the idea that he didn't want immediate local counsel is contradicted by his very words to us, which we can hear with our own ears.

So, no trial for Oswald. That was never going to happen. And no lawyer for Oswald either.  THE REALLY STRANGE THING IS THAT JACK RUBY NEVER ASKED FOR AN ATTORNEY, BUT HE WAS BROUGHT ONE IN JUST A FEW HOURS. So, why not one for Oswald? And why no cabana outfit for Oswald?

I am bringing this up again because I thought of a parallel: The United States demanded that the government of Afghanistan turn over Osama bin laden. We said he was responsible for 9/11. They asked for evidence; we said fuck you. But, WHAT WOULD WE HAVE DONE WITH BIN LADEN? I mean if they turned him over to us. Would we have tried him? 

Well, to answer that, you just have to look at the targeting of bin laden in 2011. Why didn't we just apprehend him then? Bin laden hadn't been tried in a court of law. He was never even formally charged with the crime of 9/11. So, what gave us the right to just kill him? 

Now, I'll point out that I am one who believes that bin laden died in 2001, as reported by many. And that raises the question: did they actually kill someone in 2011 at that compound in Pakistan? Reportedly, both bin laden and one of his sons were killed. But, I don't claim to know.  I am an agnostic about the whole thing.

But, let's just talk about it theoretically. Did we have the legal right to kill bin laden in 2011? He was never tried and convicted. And if you try to say that he wasn't a U.S. citizen and therefore was not entitled to U.S. Constitutional rights, I say bull shit. WE HAVE A SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND A SET OF VALUES WHICH SAY THAT ARBITRARY EXECUTIONS ARE FORBIDDEN. That's what the "rule of law" means. And in my movie, My Stretch of Texas Ground, I actually have the warmongering Senator Cruthers refer to the "rule of law" as something we are fighting for in Afghanistan. Like hell we are. 

So, we didn't bring bin laden back for trial in 2011. Therefore, if the Taliban had turned him over to us, what were we going to do with him? Just kill him outright? But wait. How could we? I mean: if they turned him over to us, he'd have probably been in handcuffs, right? Maybe his ankles shackled too? Such a man is not a threat. You really don't have any grounds to kill him. I would tell you that they didn't have any grounds to kill him 2011 either. 

But, I don't think they could have tried bin laden. I don't think they wanted to try bin laden. And I say that, first, because I don't believe for one second that he carried out 9/11. But, regardless of that, he was a former ally of the United States. We provided him with weapons and other support during the Mujahideen war with the Soviets in Afghanistan. And there are widely circulated reports that he was a CIA asset, and that he even had a Western name: Tim Osman. Here is a discussion of it on RT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbF5zt_i8D4  

Obviously, if all that came out at his trial, and his lawyers would have brought it out, it would have looked very bad for us. And that's why I say that they were never going to try bin laden. They were just bluffing. So, what would Bush have done if the Taliban had handed bin laden over, as demanded? I honestly don't know, but I sure do wonder about it. 

The same problem existed with Saddam Hussein. Was he really tried? I and a whole lot of others don't think so.  And that includes Saddam's wife. She said it wasn't him. Here's a report from the Columbia Journalism Review:

https://archives.cjr.org/blog_report/saddam_hussein_or_body_double.php

The Saddam who was tried had crooked teeth while the real Saddam had a Colgate smile. 

So, "Saddam Hussein" was tried but only for something that had happened many years earlier in which he executed some men who had tried to assassinate him. In other words: it had nothing to do with the United States and his ties to us. Why didn't they instead try him for gassing the Kurds? That was worse, wasn't it?  

But, my big question is: did they really hang a Saddam double? Nah, they couldn't have. Right? 

So, did they really kill the bin laden double at the compound in Abbattabad, Pakistan? 

Anyway, Lee Harvey Oswald and Osama bin laden had something in common: They were both accused of terrible crimes, but neither was ever going to be tried.