Hello Tom, thank you for your post. I am using the evidence of the trial at which Ray Crump was rightly found innocent. I believe in the US justice system and the case against Crump was hardly a case when you look at the prosecution evidence. I believe Ray Crump was a patsy just like Oswald.
What are your comments id any on the Skull and Bones and Ralph Geb?
I would enjoy reading some specifics. Crump had no unambiguous alibi, was identified as being in the vicinity of the victim shortly
before her death, did not, according to a neighbor, leave home that morning carrying any fishing gear, jumped in the canal near the
scene of the crime, and gave several conflicting versions of where he was and what he was doing at the time of the murder, or even
whether he was asleep or awake at the time, alone or with someone else, or heard shots, or not. There was a strong circumstantial
case justifying his prosecution. He was not found innocent by the jury. His lawyer, Ms. Roundtree's conflicting accounts of the points
I touched on above are troubling, not persuasive. So was author Peter Janney's cherry picking of her differing accounts.
Ralph Geb was 20 years older than Oswald. Who would plan a scenario of a 44 year old attempting to impersonate a 24 year old?