Lee Harvery Oswald takes the stand

[Johnrankins]

Lee Harvey Oswald is takes the stand he
1) Denies everything even easily verified information
2) Although he denies killing JFK he calls him a "Capitalist tool"
3) Declares Fidel Castro as the "true hero of the working man"
4) Spouts off a lot of Marxist rhetoric on the stand

BTW I think this is the most likely scenario.

now
5) How quickly is Oswald convicted?
6) Can his lawyer successfully plead NGI?
7) How quickly does he get executed?
8) Is there a new Red Scare?
9) Does a war break out between the US and Cuba?
10) Does Moscow throw Havana under the bridge or does WWIII break out?

 

[Lost Freeway]

Dude, you posted the same thread twice.

 

[loneranger]

How early did the "Grassy Knoll" theory come into play? Perhaps Oswald's lawyer could use that to his advantage - cast doubt on the absolute certainty that Oswald did it.

 

[Johnrankins]

Dude, you posted the same thread twice.

I know, I did so by mistake and asked for a mod to close the other one.

 

[CarribeanViking]

My favourite Kennedy conspiracy theory, which I actually believe, is that there are so many conspiracy theories because most of them were started deliberately to muddy the waters, by people who had absolutely no interest in clarity.

Assassination of a serving president by an agent of a foreign power comes damned close to being an act of war. An accusation of doing the same could easily- Johnson thought, apparently- have pushed Khrushchev over the edge, same result.

It was much better for everyone who might otherwise find themselves dissolving in nuclear fireballs that the truth, whatever it was, disappear behind an impenetrable layer of gibberish and bullshit.

Equally, it serves no rational interest to have Oswald talk. To anyone. About anything. Having him quietly shanked by a patriotic fellow inmate is far the neatest solution- doubt he would live to see the stand.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

How early did the "Grassy Knoll" theory come into play? Perhaps Oswald's lawyer could use that to his advantage - cast doubt on the absolute certainty that Oswald did it.

That would be legal malpractice. None of the Grassy Knoll witnesses who came forward at the time of the assassination saw a gun or a rifle. There would be plenty of rebuttal witnesses. Vincent Bugliosi in Reclaiming History talks about the witnesses who were on the railroad bridge who saw the Grassy Knoll and did not see anyone. Gary Posner in Case Closed, interviews postal workers who saw the Grassy Knoll from across Dealey Plaza and did not see anyone. There is the autopsy that showed JFK was killed from behind.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

Lee Harvey Oswald is takes the stand he
1) Denies everything even easily verified information
2) Although he denies killing JFK he calls him a "Capitalist tool"
3) Declares Fidel Castro as the "true hero of the working man"
4) Spouts off a lot of Marxist rhetoric on the stand

BTW I think this is the most likely scenario.

He won't testify. He could be asked about leaving work and killing a policeman,

now
5) How quickly is Oswald convicted?
Quickly there is so much evidence against Oswald. I think the jury would be out for an hour.

6) Can his lawyer successfully plead NGI?
It would be a hard sell. Oswald was organized and rational.

7) How quickly does he get executed?

He does not get executed. The trail does not happen until 1965, The appeals drag on until late 1968. Change of venue probably brings a successful appeal. Starting in 1967, litigation stopped all executions. He is spared by Fuhrman vs Georgia in 1972. He could still be in prison at the age of 76. If he is not shanked or does not die from bad prison health care.

8) Is there a new Red Scare?
9) Does a war break out between the US and Cuba?
10) Does Moscow throw Havana under the bridge or does WWIII break out?

There is no evidence of a conspiracy.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

My favourite Kennedy conspiracy theory, which I actually believe, is that there are so many conspiracy theories because most of them were started deliberately to muddy the waters, by people who had absolutely no interest in clarity.

Assassination of a serving president by an agent of a foreign power comes damned close to being an act of war. An accusation of doing the same could easily- Johnson thought, apparently- have pushed Khrushchev over the edge, same result.

It was much better for everyone who might otherwise find themselves dissolving in nuclear fireballs that the truth, whatever it was, disappear behind an impenetrable layer of gibberish and bullshit.

Equally, it serves no rational interest to have Oswald talk. To anyone. About anything. Having him quietly shanked by a patriotic fellow inmate is far the neatest solution- doubt he would live to see the stand.

There is no evidence of a conspiracy.

 

[Coiler]

Nothing changes in foreign policy because of it. A lot (but not all) of the conspiracy theories will be suppressed because of the conviction, but that's basically it.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

Oswald was not an idiort. He is not going to testify. There is soooo much evidence against him. I think the defense only option is insanity.

 

[Major Major]

Oswald was not an idiort. He is not going to testify. There is soooo much evidence against him. I think the defense only option is insanity.

Oswald would have wanted to testify.

He would have denied everything. He never owned a gun. The picture was of someone else with his face pasted on to it. He had not been on the sixth floor. He had not shot a policeman.

And most important of all:

"I'm just a patsy."

He would use his time on the stand to praise Castro, denounce the American Establishment, and paint himself as a historic figure and victim of persecution. None of this would work -- then. (Nowadays it would be another matter.)

If some of the people who later got involved jump in, e.g. Mark Lane, there would be abundant attempts to drag in conspirators. The witnesses who saw that there was no one on the Grassy Knoll, the Dal-Tex Building, the storm drain, that neither the driver of the presidential limo nor the Secret Service agent in the security vehicle could have done it would be labeled as "shills" and paid perjurers. This effort would be aided and abetted by many of the bi-coastal elite, who would love nothing better than to pin it on those evil anti-Kennedy people of the Texas elite.

Not that any of these legal maneuvers would work, and it would lead to the salutary end of Mark Lane being disbarred and discredited in court (but he would blame it all on The Conspiracy), but it would drag the case out for some time.

Conviction would be followed by appeals and more appeals, dividing the country even further. Oswald turns into the Mumia Abu-Jamal of the sixties. Eventually Fuhrman vs. Georgia goes through.

 

[xxmagex]

Lee Harvey Oswald is takes the stand he
1) Denies everything even easily verified information
2) Although he denies killing JFK he calls him a "Capitalist tool"
3) Declares Fidel Castro as the "true hero of the working man"
4) Spouts off a lot of Marxist rhetoric on the stand

BTW I think this is the most likely scenario.

now
5) How quickly is Oswald convicted?
6) Can his lawyer successfully plead NGI?
7) How quickly does he get executed?
8) Is there a new Red Scare?
9) Does a war break out between the US and Cuba?
10) Does Moscow throw Havana under the bridge or does WWIII break out?

5- Quickly, very quickly. I suspect the Jury would be out about one or two hours. (Although that might change if they do the sentencing at the same time, nowadays they break it down into separate phases of the trial. Does anyone know? If they combine the two phases of the trial it will probably be longer, say 4-6 hours.)

6- Unlikely as Oswald would oppose that and so would Henry Wade, the Dallas DA. Oswald's behavior never struck me as something that would rise to the level of legal insanity.

7- Guessing the trial sometime in 1964 or 1965, (I personally believe it would be in late 1964 as the Powers that Be in Dallas would want a quick trial.) the appeals Courts probably putting his case in the front of the line and not dawdling on making a decision- I guess we are looking at an execution in 1967 or 1968. There was some discussion in another thread earlier on this where the question of whether or not Fuhrman v Georgia would act to halt his execution. I take the position that it would not for Oswald personally. I think if the Fuhrman decision happened in TTL, it could very well be decided in such a way that Oswald is not helped or delayed until after his execution. Illinois has a similar situation with William Gacy as the attempts to repeal the death penalty there never gained traction until he had been executed.

8- Maybe. Nothing as bad as what happened in the 1919-1920s or 1946- 1950s time frame, but I think there would have to be some fallout from Oswald actions.

9- Probably not, LBJ was scared that the situation could spiral out of control if foreign involvement was proven/believed to be involved in the assassination. I think he would keep a tight lid and prevent any steps that would lead to World War 3. Of course if some concrete evidence emerged of ACTUAL Cuban involvement in the murder, well Katie bar the Door then.

10- Moscow only throws Havana under the bus if concrete evidence emerges of ACTUAL Cuban involvement in the murder. Otherwise, Moscow might keep a tighter leash on what Castor does, but no real change from OTL.

 

[Johnrankins]

There is no evidence of a conspiracy.

Of course not, I am more talking about the paranoid reaction of the US public to an admitted Communist and admirer of Castro being convicted of killing the POUS. If that were to happen a lot of people would be figuring he did so under Castro's orders. It wouldn't mater if Castro was really behind it as people react to that they think happened not what actually happened.

I think the evidence is overwhelming that LHO was a three time loser who no one would trust with sticking up the local grocery store , let alone being a key player in a conspiracy to murder the POUS.

 

[Johnrankins]

5- Quickly, very quickly. I suspect the Jury would be out about one or two hours. (Although that might change if they do the sentencing at the same time, nowadays they break it down into separate phases of the trial. Does anyone know? If they combine the two phases of the trial it will probably be longer, say 4-6 hours.)

6- Unlikely as Oswald would oppose that and so would Henry Wade, the Dallas DA. Oswald's behavior never struck me as something that would rise to the level of legal insanity.

7- Guessing the trial sometime in 1964 or 1965, (I personally believe it would be in late 1964 as the Powers that Be in Dallas would want a quick trial.) the appeals Courts probably putting his case in the front of the line and not dawdling on making a decision- I guess we are looking at an execution in 1967 or 1968. There was some discussion in another thread earlier on this where the question of whether or not Fuhrman v Georgia would act to halt his execution. I take the position that it would not for Oswald personally. I think if the Fuhrman decision happened in TTL, it could very well be decided in such a way that Oswald is not helped or delayed until after his execution. Illinois has a similar situation with William Gacy as the attempts to repeal the death penalty there never gained traction until he had been executed.

8- Maybe. Nothing as bad as what happened in the 1919-1920s or 1946- 1950s time frame, but I think there would have to be some fallout from Oswald actions.

9- Probably not, LBJ was scared that the situation could spiral out of control if foreign involvement was proven/believed to be involved in the assassination. I think he would keep a tight lid and prevent any steps that would lead to World War 3. Of course if some concrete evidence emerged of ACTUAL Cuban involvement in the murder, well Katie bar the Door then.

10- Moscow only throws Havana under the bus if concrete evidence emerges of ACTUAL Cuban involvement in the murder. Otherwise, Moscow might keep a tighter leash on what Castor does, but no real change from OTL.

Makes sense, actual concrete evidence of Castro's involvement would not be forthcoming as he had nothing to do with it. If he has planning to have JFK assassinated he would have used someone more professional than LHO, probably someone involved in the revolution. Someone he could trust not to blab to the CIA or the press or both.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

Oswald will testify only if he has an incompetent lawyer. That incompetent lawyer could have been Mark Lane. Lane was incompetent when he represented James Earl Ray before the Assassinations Committee. He said he had witnesses that saw Ray at a gas station at the time of King's assassination. One of them testified he was not in Memphis that day. He also brought forward a witness who was a neighbor of Ray in the rooming house. She said that after the shooting. She saw someone who did not resemble Ray leaving the rooming house. In doing so, she was contradicting what she had told the police and FBI. She had told them, she had not gotten out of bed. If Oswald testifies, he can be asked about the curtain rods, leaving work and shooting Officer Tippit. So it would be an act of incompetence to let him testify. Maybe that could lead to a successful appeal. Oswald would get a new trail sometime 1969 -1970. He is found guilty again. There are new appeals and litigation. So he is more assured to avoid execution and have his death sentence overturned in 1972.

 

[xxmagex]

The problem you get is that an attorney can not prohibit his client from testifying. One can suggest, counsel, urge and any other means of persuasion but the final call comes to the Defendant as to whether or not he will testify.

The question is will Lee Harvey Oswald want to testify? Everything I have seen about him makes me convinced that he would think he was smarter than everyone and could talk his way out of his troubles. Prisons are full of people who thought like that in OTL.

As long as the attorney documented that Oswald testified against legal advice, I do not think the conviction could be reversed on IAC grounds for that.

 

[Johnrankins]

Oswald will testify only if he has an incompetent lawyer. That incompetent lawyer could have been Mark Lane. Lane was incompetent when he represented James Earl Ray before the Assassinations Committee. He said he had witnesses that saw Ray at a gas station at the time of King's assassination. One of them testified he was not in Memphis that day. He also brought forward a witness who was a neighbor of Ray in the rooming house. She said that after the shooting. She saw someone who did not resemble Ray leaving the rooming house. In doing so, she was contradicting what she had told the police and FBI. She had told them. She had not gotten out of bed. If Oswald testifies, he can be asked about the curtain rods, leaving work and shooting Officer Tippit. So it would be an act of incompetence to let him testify. Maybe that could lead to a successful appeal. Oswald would get a new trail sometime 1969 -1970. He is found guilty again. There are new appeals and litigation. So he is more assured to avoid execution and have his death sentence overturned in 1972.

Not if Oswald insists on testifying and I think he would. He would want to go on the stand to express his political views. He probably thought killing JFK was step one in "The great proletariat revolt" and he would want credit for that.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

I can see that Oswald would want to make a speech. Let me introduce another idea. Oswald was an intelligent guy. Maybe his lawyer can talk him out of testifying. Oswald knows that he can not explain his leaving work, killing a policeman or make a convincing case that he brought a curtain rod to work. Maybe that his lawyer can convince him that the insanity defense is his only defense and he should not mess it up. True, Oswald would want to take the stand but maybe he could see that it is not in his best interest to do so.

 

[Johnrankins]

I can see that Oswald would want to make a speech. Let me introduce another idea. Oswald was an intelligent guy. Maybe his lawyer can talk him out of testifying. Oswald knows that he can not explain his leaving work, killing a policeman or make a convincing case that he brought a curtain rod to work. Maybe that his lawyer can convince him that the insanity defense is his only defense and he should not mess it up. True, Oswald would want to take the stand but maybe he could see that it is not in his best interest to do so.

Maybe, but most likely not. Oswald was a fanatical Communist, he wouldn't have assassinated JFK if he wasn't. I don't think anything will stop him from testifying. He would hope his speech would inspire others to the revolutionary cause.

 

[Johnrankins]

Oswald would have wanted to testify.

He would have denied everything. He never owned a gun. The picture was of someone else with his face pasted on to it. He had not been on the sixth floor. He had not shot a policeman.

And most important of all:

"I'm just a patsy."

He would use his time on the stand to praise Castro, denounce the American Establishment, and paint himself as a historic figure and victim of persecution. None of this would work -- then. (Nowadays it would be another matter.)

If some of the people who later got involved jump in, e.g. Mark Lane, there would be abundant attempts to drag in conspirators. The witnesses who saw that there was no one on the Grassy Knoll, the Dal-Tex Building, the storm drain, that neither the driver of the presidential limo nor the Secret Service agent in the security vehicle could have done it would be labeled as "shills" and paid perjurers. This effort would be aided and abetted by many of the bi-coastal elite, who would love nothing better than to pin it on those evil anti-Kennedy people of the Texas elite.

Not that any of these legal maneuvers would work, and it would lead to the salutary end of Mark Lane being disbarred and discredited in court (but he would blame it all on The Conspiracy), but it would drag the case out for some time.

Conviction would be followed by appeals and more appeals, dividing the country even further. Oswald turns into the Mumia Abu-Jamal of the sixties. Eventually Fuhrman vs. Georgia goes through.

I doubt Mark Lane would have been his lawyer, he would have made more money just selling books and not jeopardize his license. I doubt Mark Lane believes a single word he wrote. He got into it because he saw there was money to be made in it. He is just a sleazy money hungry lawyer.