You see, there are two very separate and distinct things: there is the disputing of the official story of the JFK assassination to establish conspiracy; and there is the defending of Lee Harvey Oswald. You have to decide what you want to do. I want to defend Oswald. Establishing conspiracy is all well and good, but it's not what I'm in this for. I'm doing this for Oswald, as if he was my brother. So, don't call me a conspiracy theorist. Call me an Oswald defender.
So, I would leave out the disputing of the SBT completely and just focus on the the evidence that supports Oswald's innocence. So, what follows is a hypothetical start of such an inquest, and it covers the arguments that I would make to prove to the Court that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent; completely and totally innocent.
* * * * * * * * *
Defender: Your Honor, we are asking you to rule in favor of granting an inquest concerning Lee Harvey Oswald, whom we believe was wrongly found culpable in President Kennedy's murder.in two federal investigations We believe the evidence will show that Oswald could not possibly have done it. We think this is appropriate because, had he lived, Oswald would have been tried in the state of Texas.
Prosecutor: Your Honor, the killing of a President has been deemed a federal crime, and it does not fall within the jurisdiction of my office or the state of Texas.
Defender: Your Honor, it WAS not a federal crime in 1963, and plans were underway to prosecute Oswald in Texas. They were interrupted only by his death.
Prosecutor: Your Honor, those plans were never formalized nor filed. The fact is: you cannot reopen a case that was never opened.
Defender: Your Honor, there is a precedent for this in Texas. In 1985, a Texas State Judge ruled that the official cause of death of Ag Commissioner Henry Marshall in 1961 be changed from suicide to murder. No criminal charges were filed since the presumed culprit Lyndon Johnson, was dead. But, for the sake of history and the record, an inquest was conducted. :
Judge: Give me a moment.
He looks down, thinking.
Judge: OK, I am going to allow this to proceed. Mr. Prosecutor, your argument is duly noted. Now, let's get started.
Defender: Thank you, Your Honor. The Defense shall present multiple streams of evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent. It includes photographic evidence that Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas Book Depository at the time of the shooting, which means he could not have been up on the 6th floor shooting at the President. It will include written evidence of a statement made by Oswald to investigators that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" during the shooting. Hence, that was Oswald's alibi. And the very fact that he knew that Shelley was out in front at the time is evidence that he, Oswald, was there, because how else could he know that Shelley was there?
We will examine the fingerprint evidence against Oswald, showing how suspicious it is after the Dallas Police were unable to find any fingerprints. We will argue that his prints allegedly found on boxes of books mean nothing since handling such boxes was the nature of his work, and he worked on the 6th floor that morning. We will bring on an expert witness who will testify that the claim of finding a partial print on the trigger-guard of the rifle that was found on the 6th floor does not rise to the level of certainty, and that the palm print allegedly found on the butt of the rifle was not found until after his death, and therefore, is highly suspicious. The fact is that the print evidence is paltry and unpersuasive, and that is an understatement.
We will argue that the eye-witness testimony against Oswald, such as that of Mr. Bremer, involved pressure by police, and is fraught with doubtfulness. We will argue that the ballistics evidence will prove that there were multiple shooters, including a shooter from the front, while the case against Oswald was built around him being a lone gunman.
Prosecutor: Objection, Your Honor. A second federal investigation, that of the HSCA, found that there was a frontal shooter, that Oswald was NOT a lone gunman, and therefore, there is no need to revisit that issue.
Judge: Give me another moment....(he thinks) All right, I'll sustain that objection. The issue of whether there were other shooters besides Oswald will not be considered. I will not hear arguments about it since even if true, Oswald could still have been "a" shooter on the 6th floor, hence, his guilt would be the same. We shall only deal with the question of whether Oswald was on the 6th floor shooting at the President. Is that understood?
Defender: Yes, Your Honor.
Judge: Very well. You may continue.
Defender: Thank you, Your Honor. We shall provide evidence that Oswald came down from the 5th floor at the start of the lunch break, which began 11:45, and that there is no evidence that he ever went back upstairs to the upper floors. We will impugn the claims of the one witness who claimed to see Oswald back on the 6th floor, Charles Givens. We will impugn the claim of Buell Frazier that Oswald brought with him a large long package, presumably a rifle, and entered the building with it, which is contradicted by the testimony of Jack Dougherty, who saw Oswald when he came in. We will impugn the FBI claim that Oswald mail-ordered a rifle from Chicago, showing that the very timeline of Oswald's supposed actions on March 12, 1963 to obtain and mail a money order are impossible to rationalize ,as well as the impossibility of Oswald receiving a rifle mailed to his P.O. Box but addressed to A. Hidell. We will also argue that the very claim that Oswald had a P.O. box is highly suspect, as is all the testimony of Postal Inspector Harry Holmes.
We will argue that the testimony of Officer Marrion Baker is very exonerating of Oswald because Baker claimed to first see Oswald in the vestibule to the lunch room on the 2nd floor, entering it from the office side.
That is highly significant, Your Honor, because there was no access to the 6th floor from the office aide. There was only one flight of stairs on that side, which went from the first floor to the second floor at the southeast corner of the building, close to the doorway. We will argue that Oswald could not have come down the same stairs that Baker used, which were at the northwest corner, because Baker would likely have seen Oswald and surely would have heard him. Plus, the smallness of the vestibule and the extreme brevity of Oswald's passage through it, tell us that if Oswald had gone through the swinging door on Baker's side, through which Baker saw him, that that swinging door would still have been in motion. But, it was NOT in motion, and that proves that Oswald must have entered the vestibule from the office side, going through the door on the other side. And therefore, the argument that Oswald could not have come down from the 6th floor is valid.
Your Honor, we will cite the testimony of James Jarman which proves that Oswald had no knowledge that JFK's motorcade would be passing the building, that he only learned of it that very morning, at approximately 9 AM, when Jarman told him. There has been a longheld belief that Oswald must have learned about the motorcade route "somehow" but Jarman's testimony proves that Oswald did not know about it. And one cannot argue that Oswald was cunningly trying to establish an ignorance alibi because he didn't use it. He said nothing to the police about his conversation with Jarman. We learned about it from Jarman.
Your Honor, we will argue that the claim that Oswald stole wrapping paper from the TSBD to make a paper bag to transport the rifle is without merit, that there is no evidence that he did that. And since the rifle was allegedly brought into the building disassembled, we will demonstrate the impossibility of Oswald having had the time and means to disassemble it at the Paine household and also to reassemble it at the TSBD, not having so much as a screwdriver to do it, let alone not having the time to do it. Note that there were three persons who should have been aware of Oswald having brown wrapping paper: Frazier, Ruth Paine, and Marina Oswald. But, none were aware of it.
Your Honor, we will point to the fact that Oswald claimed to have brought with him only his lunch in a brown paper bag, consisting of a cheese sandwich and an apple, which he claimed to eat in the 1st floor lunch room prior to the motorcade. We will point to the fact that Dallas Police had the means and opportunity to look for the remnants of that lunch, which would have been easy to find in the lunch room, which either they did not do, which was negligent, or which they did but kept the results to themselves, presumably because they confirmed what Oswald said. Either way, it shows corruption on the part of Dallas Police.
Most importantly, Your Honor, we will cite the testimony of Carolyn Arnold on November 26, 1963, just 4 days after the assassination, in which she told an FBI agent, Richard Emberley, that she believed she saw Oswald standing at the doorway, looking through the glass, at approximately 12:15, which rules out any possibility that he had sufficient time to get up to the 6th floor, and reassemble the rifle, and build the Sniper's Nest, etc. And what is especially damning about it is that all the while, Bonnie Ray Williams claimed to be on the 6th floor, eating chicken and drinking a Dr. Pepper, his bottle from which was found.
And finally, Your Honor, we have a forensic expert who will testify that the Backyard photos of Oswald brandishing the murder weapon are crude forgeries, that it is Oswald's face but not his body, that the man holding the rifle and newspaper was several inches shorter than Oswald. And there are other problems with those photos indicating forgery, and since those photos were produced before the assassination, it means that the framing of Oswald began well before November 22, 1963. Thank you, Your Honor.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.