01-12-2017, 08:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2017, 09:11 PM by Jim DiEugenio.)
To the rational and objective people still left on this thread and forum:
There are four outcomes to a criminal trial: conviction, acquittal, and a hung jury or mistrial. (If I am wrong in any of this, Dawn should correct me.)
In the first instance, the prosecution won, in the second instance, the defense won, the third instance there was no verdict since the jury was undecided, and in the last some procedure was upset so seriously that the trial was called off and will be done again. In Houston, there was no triumph for either side since it was the third alternative. In other words, if it had been a real trial, Oswald would not have been convicted. The prosecution would have had the option of trying him again. If they chose not to, then the defendant would have been released. But if they did, it would have been good for our side since they would have been much better the second time around.
Attorney Larry Schnapf noted in his fine article that in the whole history of doing this case in mock trials, and there were 8 instances he found, there has been only one acquittal. Two ended in convictions, and the rest were hung juries. So, in the real world, that is the real history of these mock trials.( https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/798)
The last thing in the world the JFK case is is an open and shut case. And no responsible party who knows the case would make such an asinine comment. There is a circumstantial case against Oswald. And in addition to the WR, there have been several books written defending that view: Belin, Johnson, Moore, Posner, Bugliosi etc. Anyone who watched the Livestream or who attended the mock trial would know that this is what the prosecution relied upon. In fact they displayed quotes by Bugliosi and relied upon a writer who wrote a book inspired by Bugliosi.
The idea that the JFK case is a simple case is so silly, its ludicrous. Its something that an axe grinder or provocateur would say. It takes several years to master this case. And in the purest sense, as Harold Weisberg once said, no one can master it. It would take an exceptional polymath to do so since it takes up so many disciplines and so much material. Plus it is necessary to expose so much suborned testimony and flawed evidence. Hands down, the JFK case is one of the most complex murder cases in the annals of crime. That is why Bugliosi spent 2600 pages trying to explicate his case for conviction. To say otherwise is pure bunk.
There are four outcomes to a criminal trial: conviction, acquittal, and a hung jury or mistrial. (If I am wrong in any of this, Dawn should correct me.)
In the first instance, the prosecution won, in the second instance, the defense won, the third instance there was no verdict since the jury was undecided, and in the last some procedure was upset so seriously that the trial was called off and will be done again. In Houston, there was no triumph for either side since it was the third alternative. In other words, if it had been a real trial, Oswald would not have been convicted. The prosecution would have had the option of trying him again. If they chose not to, then the defendant would have been released. But if they did, it would have been good for our side since they would have been much better the second time around.
Attorney Larry Schnapf noted in his fine article that in the whole history of doing this case in mock trials, and there were 8 instances he found, there has been only one acquittal. Two ended in convictions, and the rest were hung juries. So, in the real world, that is the real history of these mock trials.( https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/798)
The last thing in the world the JFK case is is an open and shut case. And no responsible party who knows the case would make such an asinine comment. There is a circumstantial case against Oswald. And in addition to the WR, there have been several books written defending that view: Belin, Johnson, Moore, Posner, Bugliosi etc. Anyone who watched the Livestream or who attended the mock trial would know that this is what the prosecution relied upon. In fact they displayed quotes by Bugliosi and relied upon a writer who wrote a book inspired by Bugliosi.
The idea that the JFK case is a simple case is so silly, its ludicrous. Its something that an axe grinder or provocateur would say. It takes several years to master this case. And in the purest sense, as Harold Weisberg once said, no one can master it. It would take an exceptional polymath to do so since it takes up so many disciplines and so much material. Plus it is necessary to expose so much suborned testimony and flawed evidence. Hands down, the JFK case is one of the most complex murder cases in the annals of crime. That is why Bugliosi spent 2600 pages trying to explicate his case for conviction. To say otherwise is pure bunk.