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

[Richard Smith]

LHO would have most likely had his day in court relatively soon after the crime as compared to today's world. I watched the mock trial they produced in April of 1964 recently. In that one they stood mute (which legally meant he pleaded not guilty) and also plead the insanity plea. That was probably his only hope of avoiding the electric chair.

An insanity defense would not have worked for Oswald.  In a criminal law context, a defendant can be held culpable under the M'Naghten rule if they can distinguish right from wrong (i.e. cognitive insanity).  Even if they are otherwise nuts.  And the most basic way to determine if someone can distinguish right from wrong is whether they took measures to conceal their actions.   There are any number of actions that Oswald took to conceal his intended actions beforehand along with his flight from the crime scene afterward which are all highly indicative of someone who knew they were committing a criminal act.

[Martin Weidmann]

LOL.  You would probably get a hung jury.  Half would want to hang Oswald and half would want to hang you.  A change of venue?  What for?  To find someone that didn't know about the assassination?  How about Mars?  That is comedy gold.

That is comedy gold.

Indeed. Your opinions usually are.

[Charles Collins]

An insanity defense would not have worked for Oswald.  In a criminal law context, a defendant can be held culpable under the M'Naghten rule if they can distinguish right from wrong (i.e. cognitive insanity).  Even if they are otherwise nuts.  And the most basic way to determine if someone can distinguish right from wrong is whether they took measures to conceal their actions.   There are any number of actions that Oswald took to conceal his intended actions beforehand along with his flight from the crime scene afterward which are all highly indicative of someone who knew they were committing a criminal act.

Yes, I agree. But I think it was still his best chance at avoiding the death penalty, even if it was a very slim chance.

[Richard Smith]

That is comedy gold.

Indeed. Your opinions usually are.

You didn't answer my question.  Where would Oswald stand a better chance of acquittal via your idiotic suggestion to change venue?  Did you see that on some TV crime show and thought it sounded good? LOL.  Didn't you once pretend to be an attorney when you first started posting here under a different name?   

[Denis Pointing]

You didn't answer my question.  Where would Oswald stand a better chance of acquittal via your idiotic suggestion to change venue?  Did you see that on some TV crime show and thought it sounded good? LOL.  Didn't you once pretend to be an attorney when you first started posting here under a different name?

Is that right? You sure, Richard?

[Martin Weidmann]

You didn't answer my question.  Where would Oswald stand a better chance of acquittal via your idiotic suggestion to change venue?  Did you see that on some TV crime show and thought it sounded good? LOL.  Didn't you once pretend to be an attorney when you first started posting here under a different name?

Where would Oswald stand a better chance of acquittal via your idiotic suggestion to change venue?

Better chance of a fair trial? ...... Anywhere but Texas, would be my bet. But you had to go and make up the acquittal angle to make a lame point, didn't you?

Didn't you once pretend to be an attorney when you first started posting here under a different name?

And you call my suggestions idiotic?


Let's face it, you have already made up your mind (as per usual) and this entire thread only serves the purpose that you and your ilk can dismiss and ridicule anything being suggested by anybody you, in your narrowmindedness, consider to be a CT.

Preach on, preacher man....

[Bill Chapman]

Where would Oswald stand a better chance of acquittal via your idiotic suggestion to change venue?

Better chance of a fair trial? ...... Anywhere but Texas, would be my bet. But you had to go and make up the acquittal angle to make a lame point, didn't you?

Didn't you once pretend to be an attorney when you first started posting here under a different name?

And you call my suggestions idiotic?


Let's face it, you have already made up your mind (as per usual) and this entire tried only serves the purpose that you can dismiss and ridicule anything being suggested by anybody you, in your narrowmindedness, consider to be a CT.

Preach on, preacher man....

"Let's face it, you have already made up your mind (as per usual) and this entire tried only serves the purpose that you can dismiss and ridicule anything being suggested by anybody you, in your narrowmindedness, consider to be a CT"
>>> No, you face it: You've just characterized yourself perfectly.

In my view, you characters, more than anything, don't want to be seen as sheep in a 'nobody-can-tell-us-what-to-do-or-think' paranoid schtick. Can't make up your mind? Not our problem. Grow up.

[Martin Weidmann]

"Let's face it, you have already made up your mind (as per usual) and this entire tried only serves the purpose that you can dismiss and ridicule anything being suggested by anybody you, in your narrowmindedness, consider to be a CT"
>>> No, you face it: You've just characterized yourself perfectly.

In my view, you characters, more than anything, don't want to be seen as sheep in a 'nobody-can-tell-us-what-to-do-or-think' paranoia.  Can't make up your mind? Not our problem. Grow up.

Pathetic reply. Could it be you haven't managed to resolve those anger issues yet?

Can't make up your mind?

But you "probably" can, right?