CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?

[Martin Weidmann]

The point is that I have given up trying to reason with unreasonable people.

Let me guess.... anybody who disagrees with you is unreasonable, right?

[Charles Collins]

Let me guess.... anybody who disagrees with you is unreasonable, right?

That is an unreasonable guess.

[Martin Weidmann]

That is an unreasonable guess.

But a correct one nevertheless

[Richard Smith]

Oh boy another armchair lawyer thinks he's on to something…..

Why don't you simply make the point your want to make instead of just posting a link and leave us all guessing what it is you want to convey?

JFK and Tippit were murdered in Texas. Oswald was arrested for those crimes in Texas.  He was held in custody in Texas.  The Texas authorities charged Oswald and only Oswald with those murders under Texas state law.   All of the overt acts relating to this crime took place in Texas.  See any theme?  Oswald was not charged with a conspiracy much less a conspiracy that took place in another state.  Oswald's defense team could not force the prosecution to charge him with conspiracy to change the venue to another state.  So that has no relevance to his situation in 1963.  His prosecution would have been under Texas laws for murders committed within its jurisdictional boundaries.  Similar to Jack Ruby.  A change of venue would be appropriate if there was some reason to believe Oswald could not get a fair trial in the Dallas court where it would be handled.  As in Jack Ruby's successful appeal.  Like Ruby, Oswald's trial would have been in Texas even if the venue was moved to a county outside of Dallas.  Thus, Oswald's trial for murder would have taken place in Texas even if the venue were changed.  Not as you stupidly suggested to another state but to another county in Texas.   Ruby's second trial was, for example, going to take place in Wichita Falls, Texas.  There would be no legal basis to move to another state.  I'm sure Roger Collins could clear much of this up for you.   

BTW; are you denying that you posted here as Roger Collins and claimed to be an attorney?  You have suggested this is a "fantasy" but have never confirmed or denied.  All you have to do to clear this up is say that you did not post as Roger Collins.  An honest person would just admit it.

[Charles Collins]

But a correct one nevertheless

In an unreasonable mind perhaps, but not in reality.

[Martin Weidmann]

JFK and Tippit were murdered in Texas. Oswald was arrested for those crimes in Texas.  He was held in custody in Texas.  The Texas authorities charged Oswald and only Oswald with those murders under Texas state law.   All of the overt acts relating to this crime took place in Texas.  See any theme?  Oswald was not charged with a conspiracy much less a conspiracy that took place in another state.  Oswald's defense team could not force the prosecution to charge him with conspiracy to change the venue to another state.  So that has no relevance to his situation in 1963.  His prosecution would have been under Texas laws for murders committed within its jurisdictional boundaries.  Similar to Jack Ruby.  A change of venue would be appropriate if there was some reason to believe Oswald could not get a fair trial in the Dallas court where it would be handled.  As in Jack Ruby's successful appeal.  Like Ruby, Oswald's trial would have been in Texas even if the venue was moved to a county outside of Dallas.  Thus, Oswald's trial for murder would have taken place in Texas even if the venue were changed.  Not as you stupidly suggested to another state but to another county in Texas.   Ruby's second trial was, for example, going to take place in Wichita Falls, Texas.  There would be no legal basis to move to another state.  I'm sure Roger Collins could clear much of this up for you.   

Wow, yet another rant with theoretical scenarios none of which answers the question I asked regarding the Clay Shaw trial.

BTW; are you denying that you posted here as Roger Collins and claimed to be an attorney?  You have suggested this is a "fantasy" but have never confirmed or denied.  All you have to do to clear this up is say that you did not post as Roger Collins.  An honest person would just admit it.

The obsession of some LNs with Roger Collins has surfaced several times before. It is of no interest or concern to me whatsoever. There is nothing for me to confirm or deny.

[Richard Smith]

Wow, yet another rant with theoretical scenarios none of which answers the question I asked regarding the Clay Shaw trial.

The obsession of some LNs with Roger Collins has surfaced several times before. It is of no interest or concern to me whatsoever. There is nothing for me to confirm or deny.

I answered your question.  So has Denis.  It's not that complicated.  If there were any doubt, we have the example of how Jack Ruby's trial was handled.  Ruby was charged with a highly publicized murder in Texas.  Just like Oswald.  He requested a change of venue.  On appeal that was granted.  His change of venue was to another county in Texas because he was charged with a Texas crime (murder) committed in Texas.  Texas had sole jurisdiction over the crime. Ruby's trial was not moved to a different state because it was a crime committed in Texas in violation of Texas law.  What other state would you move the Ruby or Oswald trials under those conditions?  You still can't understand why the Shaw trial taking place in Louisiana is not relevant to Oswald's situation?  Denis has explained it to you and so have I.  Shaw was charged with a crime (conspiracy) that allegedly took place in Louisiana.  The Texas authorities charged Oswald with a murder that occurred in Texas.  Oswald was not charged in Texas with a conspiracy or any other crime that may taken place in another state.  Why that is so difficult for you to understand is perplexing.  Jack Ruby's trial is the more relevant comparison.  Not Shaw.

You can clear up the Roger Collins business by just confirming it wasn't you.  Perhaps the fact that you won't answer is all we need to know.  It highlights your dishonest nature to refuse to answer while implying that it wasn't you.   

[Martin Weidmann]

You can clear up the Roger Collins business by just confirming it wasn't you.  Perhaps the fact that you won't answer is all we need to know.  It highlights your dishonest nature to refuse to answer while implying that it wasn't you.   

No, I can't clear it up. This idiotic claim has surfaced several times in the past and it doesn't matter what I say, there will always be clowns like you who don't accept what I say and bring it up again. There is no need for me to defend myself or to do what you want me to do and so I won't. You just keep on living in your fantasy world, but I won't respond anymore to this nonsense.