Could Oswald have received a fair trial?

[Bruce]

Had Oswald survived, I wonder if he could have gotten a fair trial. It's an interesting counterfactual. How possible would it have been to empanel an impartial jury in Texas given the victim and media environment? What do you all think?

[Ben Holmes]

I think that the constant attempt to spout & debate speculation
instead of the actual evidence in this case shows cowardice.

[Bruce]

???

[Steven Galbraith]

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:04:58 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> Had Oswald survived, I wonder if he could have gotten a fair trial. It's an interesting counterfactual. How possible would it have been to empanel an impartial jury in Texas given the victim and media environment? What do you all think?

Recall that Jack Ruby's conviction was overturned, in large part, because the appeals court ruled he didn't get a fair trial. His request for a change of venue was improperly denied.
This was of course 1963. I'm guessing that there were people, and not a small number, in Texas, especially the rural areas, who didn't own televisions. And didn't follow the news much. They heard on the radio that the president was killed but little about the details.
Shorter: Yes, for JFK but outside of Dallas. As to Tippit: I would guess a change of venue would not be needed.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:07:52 -0800 (PST), Bruce

<errese...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:07:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:04:57 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Had Oswald survived, I wonder if he could have gotten a fair trial.
>>> It's an interesting counterfactual. How possible would it have been to
>>> empanel an impartial jury in Texas given the victim and media
>>> environment? What do you all think?
>>
>> I think that the constant attempt to spout & debate speculation
>> instead of the actual evidence in this case shows cowardice.
>
>???

What part didn't you understand?

Instead of evidence, testimony and facts... you prefer to deal with
speculation

I consider that to be nothing other than cowardice.

Shall I explain it in any more detail?

[Bud]

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:28:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:07:52 -0800 (PST), Bruce
> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:07:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:04:57 -0800 (PST), Bruce
> >> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Had Oswald survived, I wonder if he could have gotten a fair trial.
> >>> It's an interesting counterfactual. How possible would it have been to
> >>> empanel an impartial jury in Texas given the victim and media
> >>> environment? What do you all think?
> >>
> >> I think that the constant attempt to spout & debate speculation
> >> instead of the actual evidence in this case shows cowardice.
> >
> >???
> What part didn't you understand?
>
> Instead of evidence, testimony and facts... you prefer to deal with
> speculation

Aren`t you only speculating that when a witness says they think the shots came from a particular location that this was in fact trustworthy information?

> I consider that to be nothing other than cowardice.

Then you must consider yourself a coward.

[Bruce]

I suppose if you weren't being dishonest you might have a point, but what you said is just a lie, Ben.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/0DDZgTBgqBc/m/-2b3FWVcAAAJ
Discussion on facts.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/8EPjO5UilFE/m/lUv7dKeLBwAJ

Discussion on evidence.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/AMjbVtLMimw/m/VgEBBhBCBgAJ

Discussion on testimony.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/gA8cXdH7cCw/m/a7KW0hTHAwAJ

More discussion on evidence/testimony.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/O-Lm3FCyy1k/m/-NQf8prfAwAJ

Even more discussion on testimony.

I think I've made my point, Ben. Or is disagreeing with you a logical fallacy?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 12:00:50 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

wrote:

>On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:28:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:07:52 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:07:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:04:57 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>>>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Had Oswald survived, I wonder if he could have gotten a fair trial.
>>>>> It's an interesting counterfactual. How possible would it have been to
>>>>> empanel an impartial jury in Texas given the victim and media
>>>>> environment? What do you all think?
>>>>
>>>> I think that the constant attempt to spout & debate speculation
>>>> instead of the actual evidence in this case shows cowardice.
>>>
>>>???
>> What part didn't you understand?
>>
>> Instead of evidence, testimony and facts... you prefer to deal with
>> speculation

LFD.

>> I consider that to be nothing other than cowardice.
>>

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 12:33:17 -0800 (PST), Bruce

<errese...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:28:42 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:07:52 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:07:06 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 11:04:57 -0800 (PST), Bruce
>>>> <errese...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Had Oswald survived, I wonder if he could have gotten a fair trial.
>>>>> It's an interesting counterfactual. How possible would it have been to
>>>>> empanel an impartial jury in Texas given the victim and media
>>>>> environment? What do you all think?
>>>>
>>>> I think that the constant attempt to spout & debate speculation
>>>> instead of the actual evidence in this case shows cowardice.
>>>
>>>???
>> What part didn't you understand?
>>
>> Instead of evidence, testimony and facts... you prefer to deal with
>> speculation
>>
>> I consider that to be nothing other than cowardice.
>>
>> Shall I explain it in any more detail?

The only other person besides Kantor who recalled seeing Ruby at the
hospital did not make known her observation until April 1964, had
never seen Ruby before, allegedly saw him only briefly then, had an
obstructed view, and was uncertain of the time. (WCR 336)

But, let's take a look at Mrs. Tice's actual testimony - to see if the
WC was telling the truth or not:

Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did this man that you think was Jack Ruby, how
long did he stand out there next to you?
Mrs. TICE. I was standing about 3 feet from them.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Where was he standing in relation to you. Was he in front
of you or behind you, or off to the side, or where was he?
Mrs. TICE. I was standing about like this, and they were standing
there, but I was being nosey and listening.
Mr. GRIFFIN. In other words, this man was off to the side 4 or 5 feet
distant from you, the distance from you to me?
Mrs. TICE. This man that I say was Jack Ruby was about 3 feet from me,
I guess, about as far as you are from me.
Mr. GRIFFIN. You could only see the side of his face, I take it?
Mrs. TICE. Jack Ruby's?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes. (15H 392)

Mr. GRIFFIN. So Jack actually was a little bit in front of you?
Mrs. TICE. Yes; I guess.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you put an R where Ruby was?
(Mrs. Tice marks.)
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, a man walked up to him and tapped him on the
shoulder?
Mrs. TICE. The man came right down this way, over this way and slapped
him on the shoulder and asked him how he was doing.
Mr. GRIFFIN. And at that point Jack turned around?
Mrs. TICE. At that point Jack turned around and started talking to
him. At the time, he was facing right toward me. (15H 394)

The Warren Commission simply lied about Mrs. Tice's view of Ruby -
attempting to state that it was obstructed, when the actual testimony
shows that Ruby was just 3 feet away, and at one point, *facing* Mrs.
Tice. The WC *cited* her testimony, so they couldn't have been unaware
that their own evidence contradicted their assertion. Amusing that the
WC would argue that Mrs. Tice had never seen Jack Ruby before... they
didn't appear to be embarrassed that Brennan had never seen Oswald
before...

Another lie of the WC that believers can't refute... Interestingly,
the last time I posted this - not a single believer responded. It's a
little hard when the facts go against you, isn't it?

[Bud]

You should worry about your own lies. Did Oswald have any bullets on him when he was arrested?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 13:08:24 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

LFD.

[Bruce]

Care to explain how linking threads that contradict your claim is a logical fallacy? Or is asking that question a fallacy in itself?

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 13:10:26 -0800 (PST), Bruce

You deleted too much ... no-one can tell what you're referring to now.

Care to try again without the deletions?

[John Corbett]

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:04:58 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

> Had Oswald survived, I wonder if he could have gotten a fair trial. It's an interesting counterfactual. How possible would it have been to empanel an impartial jury in Texas given the victim and media environment? What do you all think?

I have never heard of a case that could not be tried because of pretrial publicity. In rare cases, a change of venue is granted, but one way or another, a jury will be seated. The courts will not look for jurors who have not heard of the case or even ones who hadn't formed an opinion. Instead jurors will be asked if they can set aside their prejudices and decide the case solely on the evidence presented at trial and the applicable laws as explained by the judge. Most people are capable and willing to do that. I have sat on four juries, two criminal and two civil. My experience is that people take their oath very seriously and do their best to reach what they believe is a fair verdict based on the evidence. None of the cases were high profile but I have no doubt I could have set any pretrial opinions aside and focused solely
on the evidence presented at trial.

The recent Rittenhouse and Arbery trials are perfect examples. Public opinion was sharply divided, especially in the Rittenhouse case. It's reasonable to assume the jurors cane to the trial with divided opinions as well. In both cases, people put aside their pretrial opinions and reached a unanimous verdict. I don't think that would have been possible if people weren't willing to set aside their prejudices.

Oswald would have been tried and easily convicted based on the evidence gathered and presented by the WC. A prosecutor would have done the same. The defense would have been playing a losing hand. It's anybody's guess what the strategy would have been, but they would have lost. There was just too much evidence of Oswald's guilt.

[John Corbett]

Ben Holmes is complaining about other people deleting things. That is just too much. My irony meter just went up in smoke. I think I fried the motherboard.

[Hank Sienzant]

bpBen has one set of rules for Ben. A different set of rules for anyone disagreeing with Ben.

Witnessed daily on this board.

[Ben Holmes]

LFD.