Post by RICLANDPost by BudPost by RICLANDWith LHO on the stand as much as 90% of the SBT evidence would be
rendered worthless.
For example, if LHO could show he was a CIA operative everything
pertaining to Fair Play for Cuba, Russia, Gen. Walker, Trips to Mexico,
etc, would be of no value to the government's case.
Or maybe, if he could show himself to be an angel, and above the
laws of mortal men. Maybe.
You miss the point ... or maybe you don't.
Bugliosi thought the question was important enough to base half his
summation on.
Had persausive evidence been produced by the defense that Oz was
CIA, perhaps Bugs would have used a different summary.
Post by RICLANDPost by BudPost by RICLANDIf LHO could prove he knew Ferrie, members of the New Orleans
underworld, Clay Shaw, et al., the conspiracy is easily established.
Like the "Kevin Bacon" game, right?
You're obviously so clever mere words don't transmit your incredible wit
well.
I mix in the wise cracks. No proof of a connection to those people
has been produced, despite a great effort. Nothing found amongst his
possessions at the Paines or the boardinghouse indicates a connection.
Where would he get this proof from?
Post by RICLANDPost by BudPost by RICLANDIf LHO named his handlers, told how he got into and out of Russia, why
he was taught Russian at the military language school, what his mission
in Russia was, etc., vast parts of the case against go up in smoke.
Not the important part, him shooting JFK.
Him shooting JFK is not fact. There was never a trial. We don't say a
person is guilty in this country if he hasn't been found guilty at trial.
Your point was that if evidence about Oz being some kind of
operative would harm the case against him some. My counterpoint was
that a jury wouldn`t be trying to determine if he was an operative,
only whether he killed JFK.
Post by RICLANDWhat part of this don't you understand?
I understood the exchange well enough, I think. As far as being
unable to declare Oz guilty because he died before a trial, since when
is a trial necessary to establish a historical event? We can`t say the
Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because there wasn`t a trial to
determine it?
Post by RICLANDPost by BudPost by RICLANDAssassins don't proclaim they're innocence. Look at the history of
assassination in the U.S., not one assassin has ever said he didn't do
it.
Out of the thousands of assassins? Hundreds? Dozens?
And here you're fishing.
You have a very sparse data base from which to work. To say "they"
do this, or "they" do that, when you only have a few is weak, in my
estimation. Except for JW Booth, all the assassins and would be
assassins are caught on the spot, making a claim to innocence under
those conditions is pretty weak.
Post by RICLANDPost by BudPost by RICLANDThe whole point of assassination is to make a political point, to
become a martyr.
The whole point of killing a person is to fulfill the desires of
the person doing the killing.
What are the "desires" of riflemen in a firing squad?
Not being punished for refusing to follow orders, I would think.
Perhaps a dislike for the person being executed, and their cause.
Post by RICLANDPost by BudPost by RICLANDYet Oswald seemed not to even be aware he was charged with killing Kennedy.
Based on what he said only.
DUH ...
You`re point, not mine. You are basing an argument on the words of
a known liar.
Post by RICLANDPost by BudPost by RICLAND"I'm not being charged with that."
Isn`t it "I`ve not been charged with that."?
Isn't the period superfluous?
No.
Post by RICLANDThe quote is part of your sentence. Why then did you insert period?
The period denotes the end of Oz`s utterance. My question mark
denote that I was asking a question about that utterance. I phrased it
as a question because I`m unsure whther my rememberance of what Oz
said is correct.
Post by RICLANDPost by BudPost by RICLANDMore the reason why Bugliosi's prosecution in "The Trial of Oswald" was
inferior lawyering meant to appeal to a jury of inferior intelligence.
Why do you expect to get a jury of smart people? I`ve been on jury
duty. It wasn`t a box of hundred watts.
Please re-read my comment again. I merely characterized his prosecution
of the case.
And the jury`s intellegence. My point was that Bugs might talk down
to the jury for a reason.
Post by RICLANDPost by BudPost by RICLANDBug presented a profile of Oswald completely at odds with everything we
know about assassins.
But consistant with what was known about Oz.
Are you just commenting to see your words on the screen? My observation
is tells us something; yours is masturbatory.
I think there was a point in what I said, and your point is
meaningless. Bugs wasn`t trying all the assassins in history, he was
trying the individual LHO. So, Bugs presents a profile that is
specific to a relevant person, the person he is prosecuting, and
neglects to address the people who are irrelevant to his arguments,
all the other assassins in recorded history.
Also, since you think all assassins are consistant in their
motives, perhaps you can explain Hinkely. He was unsucessful, but not
from want of trying. He is unique in claiming his assassination
attempt was to impress a girl. Isn`t this completely at odds with
everything we know about assassins? Does this make Hinkley (I know I`m
spelling the name wrong) innocent?
Post by RICLANDPost by BudPost by RICLANDNobody in criminology was familiar with the
profile Bug used to describe Oswald which, of course, explains why Bug
added the element of "insanity."
Worked against Manson. Don`t care for that label myself. Oswald
wasn`t insane, he knew the consequences of his actions.
Are you aware of one person who thinks Manson is innocent?
Manson didn`t kill anyone that I`m aware of.
Post by RICLANDAre you aware
millions think Oswald is innocent?
Has what to do with my point that Bugs used a tactic that had
served him well in the past? The average person has a hard time with
the concept of a murder of a popular person like this, they can see
themsselves doing it, so they have a hard time imagining someone else
doing it. Labeling the person who does something out of the norm like
this a "nut" makes it easier for the average Joe Blow to get a handle
on it. Call the guy a nut, and then the ordinary person doesn`t have
to get a firm explaination for the suspect`s actions, because being
normal themselves, a nut`s actions would be inscrutable.
Post by RICLANDDo you know what "cognitive dissonance" means?
Can you use it in a sentence?
Post by RICLANDPost by BudPost by RICLAND"Oswald was crazy!"
But the problem with this is two-fold: first, if the Oswald we know from
radio interviews was on the witness stand, the jury would hear and see a
highly sane and intelligent young man; and second, nothing in Oswald's
resume even hints at insanity.
Calling Oswald crazy is a device to reach the ordinary person. A
normal person wouldn`t dream of doing what Oz did, so his actions
would appear crazy to them. And having a person listen to Oz espouse
Marxist viewpoints on the radio isn`t going to help Oz`s case, no
matter how articulate he is.
More childish reasoning. Assassins are rarely "crazy" which is why I
characterize Bugliosi's lawyering as inferior. His argument that Oswald
was "crazy" would have been rejected by informed jury members.
As I explained above, it is an easily understood rational. Of
course a normal person wouldn`t commit an act like this, so Bugs
declares the suspect "nuts". Makes it more understandable to the jury,
they don`t have to think hard about why Oz did what he did, and they
can focus on the act itself.
Post by RICLANDPost by BudPost by RICLANDResult: the pillars of Bug's case -- Oswald's "craziness" and his
supposed pinko commie hatred for the U.S, Kennedy, dissolve before his
eyes. Bug is left with nothing to explain why a sane, CIA operative
killed the President.
I see no reason for him to explain either of those things. He only
had to show that Oz killed JFK, not explain why he did.
Yet Bugliosi's entire summation was (a) Oswald was crazy,
To steer the jury away from any troubling thoughts about Bug`s
failure to provide a definite motivation. But, Bug`s failure to
produce a motive was more a product of the kind of tight-lipped person
Oz was. He didn`t confide in people, tell them his business, and
enjoyed keeping people in the dark in order to feel superior to them.
Post by RICLANDand, (b).
Oswald was not a CIA operative.
I don`t know why Bugs would use a sledgehammer to kill that flea.
There isn`t enough persausive information that Oz was CIA to need that
much countering.
Post by RICLANDI rest my case.
Let the reader decide, then.