Did Oswald smoke?

[Gerry Down]

I think he would have been convicted because he would have gone to trial in early 1964.   At that time there was no information available to contradict the DPD and FBI opinion that he acted alone.    Back in those days it didn't take years for a case to get to trial.

And then probably a re-trial like Ruby.

[Richard Smith]

You're being facetious of course , but if you were being serious I doubt that you'd bet any money on Lee being convicted if they hadn't lynched him, and he had his day in court.    The very fact that there are thousands of people who doubt that the Warren Report is the truth, would cause an intelligent person to  doubt that Lee would have been convicted.

The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming.  He left the murder weapon at the scene of the crime.   The probability of his conviction is about 99.9%.  The kinds of nutty claims that most CTers have relied upon to create false doubt of his guilt are not persuasive given the dubious and often outlandishly laughable nature of such claims.  Even after 50 plus years to trying.  The tolerance for such kookery in Texas during the 1960s would have been much less than today.  Any nut can blame the JFK assassination on UFOs or people hiding in the bushes on the Internet, but imagine what a 1960's era Texas judge would have done with that nonsense. 

[Walt Cakebread]

The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming.  He left the murder weapon at the scene of the crime.   The probability of his conviction is about 99.9%.  The kinds of nutty claims that most CTers have relied upon to create false doubt of his guilt are not persuasive given the dubious and often outlandishly laughable nature of such claims.  Even after 50 plus years to trying.  The tolerance for such kookery in Texas during the 1960s would have been much less than today.  Any nut can blame the JFK assassination on UFOs or people hiding in the bushes on the Internet, but imagine what a 1960's era Texas judge would have done with that nonsense.

He left the murder weapon at the scene of the crime.

A 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano was in fact found in the TSBD. It had been carefully hidden under a pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it.

The story says that JFK was killed by a 6.5mm  FULL METAL JACKET bullet that literally blew the BACK of his head off.  This is simply BS!.....   Full metal Jacketed bullets  DO NOT inflict the damage of a hollow point bullet .  And if the bullet that blew JFK's head apart had been fired from the rear there would have been a tiny entrance wound an a bigger exit wound., on THE FRONT of JFK's head.

Conclusion:....... The murder weapon WAS NOT a 6.5mm Carcano nor was the bullet a FULL METAL JACKETED bullet.

[Richard Smith]

He left the murder weapon at the scene of the crime.

A 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano was in fact found in the TSBD. It had been carefully hidden under a pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it.

The story says that JFK was killed by a 6.5mm  FULL METAL JACKET bullet that literally blew the BACK of his head off.  This is simply BS!.....   Full metal Jacketed bullets  DO NOT inflict the damage of a hollow point bullet .  And if the bullet that blew JFK's head apart had been fired from the rear there would have been a tiny entrance wound an a bigger exit wound., on THE FRONT of JFK's head.

Conclusion:....... The murder weapon WAS NOT a 6.5mm Carcano nor was the bullet a FULL METAL JACKETED bullet.

You changed my mind.   If you were Oswald's lawyer, there would have been a hung jury.  Half the jury would want to hang him and the other half would want to hang you. 

[Walt Cakebread]

You changed my mind.   If you were Oswald's lawyer, there would have been a hung jury.  Half the jury would want to hang him and the other half would want to hang you.

In a way you're right......  Back in the months following the coup d e'tat I would have been extremely unpopular, because most people still worshipped J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI.   But.....    being popular falls far short of being truthful and honest.

[Richard Smith]

In a way you're right......  Back in the months following the coup d e'tat I would have been extremely unpopular, because most people still worshipped J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI.   But.....    being popular falls far short of being truthful and honest.

Don't flatter yourself.  No one ever worshipped J. Edgar.  You would be unpopular then for the same reason you are unpopular today.  You are a kook who peddles false and baseless claims.

[Walt Cakebread]

Don't flatter yourself.  No one ever worshipped J. Edgar.  You would be unpopular then for the same reason you are unpopular today.  You are a kook who peddles false and baseless claims.

Since you clearly are a bit SLOW......  I'll repeat..... "being popular falls far short of being truthful and honest ".

[Pat Speer]

The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming.  He left the murder weapon at the scene of the crime.   The probability of his conviction is about 99.9%.  The kinds of nutty claims that most CTers have relied upon to create false doubt of his guilt are not persuasive given the dubious and often outlandishly laughable nature of such claims.  Even after 50 plus years to trying.  The tolerance for such kookery in Texas during the 1960s would have been much less than today.  Any nut can blame the JFK assassination on UFOs or people hiding in the bushes on the Internet, but imagine what a 1960's era Texas judge would have done with that nonsense.

I agree that Oswald would probably have been convicted, but only if the evidence presented against him was constrained to it being his rifle, and his having no one who could vouch for his whereabouts at the exact moment of the shooting.

If the prosecutor over-played his hand, and brought in stuff like the fibers supposedly found on the rifle, the palm print supposedly found on the rifle, the gsr found on Oswald's hands, and a reluctant eyewitness who later changed his mind, it could have collapsed, IMO.