Did Oswald smoke?

[Pat Speer]

Imagine Buell on the stand saying 'I wasn't really paying attention to the bag'

And let's see an Oswald motive for shooting Tippit if he hadn't also shot Kennedy.

So you're guessing Frazier would have caved under the pressure of the prosecution--with his friend Oswald sitting there in the courtroom? I'm guessing the opposite. That Frazier--who has been consistent in his belief the bag he saw was roughly 1/2 the size of the bag placed into evidence--would have been even more solid on this point.

As far as the Tippit killing...we really don't know what would have happened. For all we know his defense team would have gone right after Tippit--and perhaps even tied him into the plot. In such case, Oswald's defense team may very well have been able to mount a convincing case for self-defense. It's far too gray.

As stated, it seems probable Oswald would have been convicted should the prosecution not pile on. The more they piled on--by, for example, presenting evidence about the noble character of Officer Tippit, who may have had all sorts of skeletons in his closet--the more they risked losing the jury, IMO.

I mean, can you imagine the prosecution putting Tippit's widow on the stand to testify to her husband's integrity, only to have the defense whip out that he'd been unfaithful to her? (Which may or may not be true--which is kinda the point). The bottom line is that with probing enough questions about Tippit's character and behavior may have been raised to sway a jury away from what might otherwise seem obvious--that Oswald killed Tippit in the first degree.

[Walt Cakebread]

I am on the fence about the Tippit killing, but feel a Texas jury would not have been able to overlook Oswald's being found with the gun the police claimed killed Tippit, and several eyewitnesses placing him at the scene.

If you're found with a gun that fired the fatal shots, and some eyewitnesses--even weak ones--place you at the scene, well, that's usually all she wrote. I doubt you could find one case in U.S. history where someone walked away from that.

I will acknowledge, however, that a really smart lawyer like Mark Lane may have been able to use some of the problems with the evidence to convince a jury something was wrong, especially if the Kennedy and Tippit cases were tried at the same time, and with the same jury.

If you're found with a gun that fired the fatal shots, and some eyewitnesses--even weak ones--place you at the scene, well, that's usually all she wrote

Please provide the solid proof that the S&W that allegedly was taken from Lee in the Theater was in fact the gun that killed Tippit.

According to several witnesses who saw the killer leaving the scene , the killer removed ONE SPENT SHELL AT A TIME from the revolver that he had used to shoot Tippit.    A S&W REVOLVER EJECTS ALL SHELLS IN THE GUN IN ONE FELSWOPE... You cannot remove one shell at a time from the S&W revolver that allegedly was taken from Lee in the theater because the shells expand in the cylinder when they are fired and they buldge out tightly against the cylinder walls.......Thus the extractor MUST be used to remove the spent shells.    In fact the FBI technician who testified about the S&W revolver involved said that he had a difficult time removing the spent shells after he fired the gun.

I am totally convinced that the gun that the killer used to kill Tippit WAS NOT a S&W revolver!!

[Bill Chapman]

So you're guessing Frazier would have caved under the pressure of the prosecution--with his friend Oswald sitting there in the courtroom? I'm guessing the opposite. That Frazier--who has been consistent in his belief the bag he saw was roughly 1/2 the size of the bag placed into evidence--would have been even more solid on this point.

As far as the Tippit killing...we really don't know what would have happened. For all we know his defense team would have gone right after Tippit--and perhaps even tied him into the plot. In such case, Oswald's defense team may very well have been able to mount a convincing case for self-defense. It's far too gray.

As stated, it seems probable Oswald would have been convicted should the prosecution not pile on. The more they piled on--by, for example, presenting evidence about the noble character of Officer Tippit, who may have had all sorts of skeletons in his closet--the more they risked losing the jury, IMO.

I mean, can you imagine the prosecution putting Tippit's widow on the stand to testify to her husband's integrity, only to have the defense whip out that he'd been unfaithful to her? (Which may or may not be true--which is kinda the point). The bottom line is that with probing enough questions about Tippit's character and behavior may have been raised to sway a jury away from what might otherwise seem obvious--that Oswald killed Tippit in the first degree.

No guessing necessary: I'll go with the fact that Buell stated—in fact volunteered—several times that he wasn't really paying attention to the bag.

Any tell us how much 'character' is needed to get oneself shot at close range.

[Richard Smith]

Should Oswald have survived that weekend, there's every possibility bits like Brennan, the prints on Box A, and the palm print on the rifle never would have appeared.

As it stood, when he died, the only hard evidence against Oswald (beyond his ownership of the rifle and his almost certain involvement in the Tippit killing) was the fibers on the rifle, the print on Box D and the prints on the bag.

These were all problematic.

The fibers came from a shirt he had not been wearing, and are much more damaging to the DPD and FBI than Oswald.
The print on Box D was not photographed in situ, and was not properly documented. (I mean, to this day, no one knows who found it. Was it Studebaker, or Day?)
And the bag prints were found on a bag which was not photographed in situ, or at any time on the night of the shooting, and which the only people to see a bag in Oswald's possession on 11-22 said was not the bag they saw in Oswald's possession.

I mean, can you imagine, Buell Frazier being asked, on the stand, if that was the bag he saw in Oswald's possession and his saying "Nope."

A Texas jury may very well have smelled a rat, and convicted Oswald of killing Tippit, while acquitting him of killing Kennedy.

Oswald is linked solid to the rifle.  He lies about ownership.  He has no explanation for its presence on the 6th floor.  There are fired bullet casings from his rifle on the floor.  Witnesses saw a rifle in that window at the moment of the assassination.  Oswald has no alibi for the moment of the shooting.  He flees the scene and is implicated in another murder less than hour later.  He resists arrest.  He has a bizarre political background.   It's about as strong a case as could be imagined absent a time machine.  Some of the other evidence might be of lesser value but even the more questionable evidence points to Oswald.  He fries for both crimes. 

[John Iacoletti]

As it stood, when he died, the only hard evidence against Oswald (beyond his ownership of the rifle and his almost certain involvement in the Tippit killing) was the fibers on the rifle, the print on Box D and the prints on the bag.

There's not "hard evidence" of his ownership of the rifle or of his involvement in the Tippit killing either.

[John Iacoletti]

I am on the fence about the Tippit killing, but feel a Texas jury would not have been able to overlook Oswald's being found with the gun the police claimed killed Tippit

Not once the jury learned that there was no chain of custody for the gun that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours after Oswald's arrest.

and several eyewitnesses placing him at the scene.

Not once the jury learned how unfair and biased the lineups were.

If you're found with a gun that fired the fatal shots,

Except there's no way to match Hill's gun with the slugs that killed Tippit.

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald is linked solid to the rifle.  He lies about ownership.  He has no explanation for its presence on the 6th floor.  There are fired bullet casings from his rifle on the floor.  Witnesses saw a rifle in that window at the moment of the assassination.  Oswald has no alibi for the moment of the shooting.  He flees the scene and is implicated in another murder less than hour later.  He resists arrest.  He has a bizarre political background.   It's about as strong a case as could be imagined absent a time machine.  Some of the other evidence might be of lesser value but even the more questionable evidence points to Oswald.  He fries for both crimes.

Right.  Having a "bizarre political background" is totally solid evidence of murder.   

Oswald is not "linked solid" to anything.

[Ross Lidell]

Right.  Having a "bizarre political background" is totally solid evidence of murder.   

Oswald is not "linked solid" to anything.

Oswald is not "linked solid" to anything.

That's an assertion.

Having a "bizarre political background" is totally solid evidence of murder.   

Not that alone. However, it's probative circumstantial evidence when combined with:

-- Physical circumstantial evidence.

-- Behavioral circumstantial evidence.

You ignored the other evidence.

Staying "on topic":

Did Oswald smoke (cigarettes)?

--- Some smokers murder.

--- Some murderers smoke.

A nicotine habit is immaterial as to Oswald's guilt in two (2) murders: John F. Kennedy and JD Tippit.