But you also have to say that about Bugliosi--he had an impressive track record, of winning 100 out of 101 cases as an LA prosecutor...His mind was laser sharp, when sorting out the facts of a case.
I’ve never seen these before. Been up all night binge watching these!! Very interesting, thanks for sharing!! But ok…can anybody else Jeff Daniels playing Gerry Spence if a movie was made of this trial..Haha. 🤣🤷🏻♂️
Outstanding video's and thank you for your work and you have a great channel,As to the court case,there is ALOT of evidence and witnesses etc that isn't used in this case so this isn't an truley accurate case but gives us a little more education on the subject and opens up everyone's doors to new possibilities and theories in the assassination.
Spence could’ve written a book like Bugliosi to address the evidence in its totality. Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History builds out a case with 53 key points of evidence that point to Oswald being the sole shooter, while also addressing each conspiracy theory individually.
The verdict and closing statement of the jury, was of course preset, since this is a "mock trial". Never the less, over 75% of the American public disagree with this verdict and closing statement! Sadly, this fake trial only helped to perpetuate the myth of a sole assassin while pretty much everyone with a brain knows better. Many prominent attorneys at the time shortly after the shooting, went on the record saying NO court could have found Oswald guilty of the charges. They know it now and they knew it then. And that's part of the reason Oswald was killed even on live TV. They could NOT let any chance of Oswald testifying happen. Because he would have blown the lid off the entire secret, and set up of the conspiracy, implicating elements of of own US government. He HAD to die. And Jack Ruby, being the flake and YES man to his buddies in high places, believed them when they told him "If you shoot Oswald, no ones going to care. You'll be a national hero"... Not to mention Ruby was so deep into illegal activity including murder, to blackmail him was an easy task for those that represent "Justice"... But Ruby soon learned different as he sat in jail, and he started talking. Requesting to be moved to Washington for his safety, then he would "tell all". Obviously, his request to move to a Washington prison was denied. Soon after, Ruby died a rapid death in prison, and all his secrets went with him. This case from beginning to end, is a textbook "cover-up". Anyone who's studied the case and has half a brain cam clearly see that. And if anyone is still in doubt after that? The fact that the records and paper trail are sealed until 2029 and 2039, should confirm to everyone, that they are not going to tell you what really happened! Their waiting until everyone is dead to release any of that info. And you can be sure, when those dates come, that generation will have little care for what those documents say, and also, those documents even when they ARE released, will be heavily redacted, concealing all the names of individuals directly related to the shootings.
up to 80% of the American People believe that Oswald was ‘just a patsy’ & the entire fiasco was a cover up & you can read that statistic anywhere. google it it’s easy.
It would be stupid of Oswald to pick up the spent cartridges and put them in his pocket because if he was stopped trying to exit the building, he could have been frisked. Those empty shells would tie him directly to the rifle and the assassination. Spence's argument that a sniper would scoop them up and put them in his pocket was ridiculous.
Has anyone noticed not 1 person has ever mentioned the smell of gunpowder In the 6th floor!! And a 6.5 fmj projectile going thru a skull wld not explode..head shot was from more than likely a hollow point high velocity bullet and that explains all the fragments that were present in what was left of the brain
@@vincentfalsaperla -- Sure. Fact. Uh huh. Do you know how many statements people have made in relation to the JFK assassination that they are convinced are fact? And how many facts contradict other facts.
Bugliosi should have mentioned Howard Brennan. He saw saw Oswald fire the killing shot out the window, and said later that it was him. He didn't really nail down Oswald at the lineup when he saw him there, but it was kind of a mixiture of fearing that the whole thing was a conspiracy and he had seen Oswald's face on TV after the killing, but before the lineup, and wanted to be conservative because he wanted to be sure he wasn't just saying it was Oswald because he saw his face on the news. He later said he was sure it was Oswald.
That's part true & false, the gunman was kneeling down so all of him couldn't be seen. That's why Brennan didn't ID Oswald in the police lineup. He ID'd him after he was shot. Nobody saw Oswald on the 6th floor, more than a dozen witnesses saw 2 men on the 6th floor before & after the shooting. Neither fit Oswald & they heard 4 shots.
@@shaundawson4707 Yes...if anyone wants to learn just about all there is left to learn about that awful day, read Bugliosi's book!...It is extremely detailed, with nearly 1700 pages of factual, and common sense, information...I think, years from now, his book will be regarded as THE textbook to read about this matter...Thank you,Vincent Bugliosi, for your 20 years of research, and your attention detail. You were a true patriot!
He was sure it was Oswald. He just didn't want to positively ID him at the time because he was worried about his family's safety if word got out he was the only one who could ID the assassin.
Lee Harvey Oswald remains the most enigmatic personality of my lifetime. From inept husband to weaving an intricate , layered persona about him, it's easy to see why so many think there must have been an imposter duplicate.
When all is said and done the fact remains that Jack Ruby who had considerable underworld ties throughout his entire life killed Oswald on television in front of millions of people and knew he'd never see the light of day again. Why did he do that? Was he a patriot? Did he want to be cited in a history book? Or was he the only person who would be able to get close enough to Oswald to silence him once he was in police custody. If Oswald survived the manhunt and was caught by law enforcement Ruby was waiting in the wings to silence him. Ruby was a tool forced to kill Oswald and his history as a volatile personality would serve to underscore that he was also a "lone nut" like Oswald and not to be taken seriously. How many "lone nuts" make a conspiracy? Two is just the tip of the iceberg.
Listen up!...Ruby had slept in the morning that Oswald was being transferred...and, he stopped by the local Post Office, to obtain a money order...only after he did that, did he notice the commotion down at the police headquarters....he impulsively walked the hundred yards or so to the basement area, sneaked past a cop who was distracted, and arrived maybe 30 seconds before Oswald showed up....Ruby was not a "tool"...he was an impetuous fool!
Oh yeah right! I'm sure the assassins, if it were a conspiracy would allow their "hitman" to be apprehended. Why did Ruby, then wait so long to kill Oswald? Ruby was not a mafia associate or anything like it; he owned a few night clubs in dowtown Dallas. Jack Ruby's sister Eva said he cried more when the president was killed than when his own parents died. Jack Ruby LOVED President Kennedy thinking he was the greatest man who had ever lived past or present. After he shot Oswald he said, "Did I get the son-of-a-bitch."
So Jack Ruby, knowing he'd "never see the light of day again," spent his last moments of precious freedom standing around in line in a Western Union office on a minor errand...
If you believe Ruby was the only person who could get close enough to Oswald to take him out, then you must also believe that the police weren’t in on it. The police certainly didn’t need Ruby to come kill a double murderer who was in their custody. So if they weren’t in on it and didn’t deliberately parade Oswald in front of his assassin, where do you get the idea that it was a conspiracy? It would’ve been much simpler for police to spin a narrative that Oswald got one of their guns so they had to shoot or something along those lines and they had a much better opportunity than Ruby had. So if they weren’t in on it and Ruby was their “only” hope, what about that situation makes it look like a conspiracy?
All I can say is that if I was involved in an elaborate plan to frame someone in 1963 and had access to CIA or mob resources, I'd set the patsy up with a modern weapon of the era like an M14 or a Mauser M59, not a WWII era Carcano with 20 year old surplus ammo. And it wasn't just Ruby that deprived Oswald and the American people of a trial. it was the Dallas PD and the FBI. The second he was in custody the FBI should have been down there within hours with every available resource to ensure his safety. How they could parade a prisoner of his import in front of all those people on multiple occasions still boggles my mind.
It's sheer emotional appeal without any substance, and if you're trying to watch this mock trial for the evidence, it's not going to be persuasive. If your mind is made up and you're a conspiracy theorist, it'll speak to you. I think Spence's problem though is that he didn't take this very seriously. He brings up again and again "I've never met you before, have I?" "I've never spoken to you before, have I?" as though it's a plus, as though he's mocking Bugliosi for behaving like a lawyer and interviewing the witnesses so he knows what they'll be saying. Between the purely emotional drama and his buckshot approach to a defense (even Ruth Paine is implied to be an FBI/CIA operative), it just doesn't land well.
Agree. Spence is a total pompous ass. Total Good Ole Boy approach with the Jury. That ass CA attorney for Jack Ruby, Melvin Beli, tried the same condescending jury approach. They both acted like the jury members had no brains. Bugliosi ate Spence alive.
this has been amazing,,,im shocked and impressed at all the information contained in this trial.and even though i do not agree with the verdict,,.im gonna watch it again..!
I was hoping Spence would persuasively explain how a conspiracy framing Oswald would have known: - exactly where both of his guns were kept - he would show up at the Paine house Nov 21 otherwise they can't pretend he smuggled the rifle - he wouldn't simply stand out on the sidewalk during the parade - no bullets or fragments would ever turn up that did not match to his rifle - he would obligingly help frame himself trying to shoot a cop inside the theater - he would act so smug in custody he would even convince his own brother he's guilty - his response to being asked point-blank on live TV if he shot the President would not be shock or horror but instead just a hollow, rambling reply that all but dodges the question Etc.
In that case we look forward to you explaining how the people framing this poor innocent man knew: - exactly where both of his guns were - Oswald would show up unexpectedly at the Paine house Nov 21, otherwise they can't pretend he smuggled the rifle - Oswald wouldn't simply stand out on the sidewalk during the parade - nobody would ever find any bullets or fragments that do not match to Oswald's rifle - Oswald would immediately flee the plaza - Oswald would definitely go specifically to Oak Cliff - they guy planting a bogus bullet on the hospital stretcher could possibly have know a bullet needed planting at all or that he wasn't simply planting one bullet too many into evidence and blowing the whole plot - an Oswald imposter who looks so much like him he can fool multiple witnesses needs to be hanging around 10th and Patton, armed - Officer Tippit won't simply outdraw and capture his attacker - Oswald will agree to help frame himself by getting caught red-handed trying to shoot a second officer minutes later with the gun used on Tippit - Oswald will agree to lie to police and refuse to cooperate with investigators - Oswald will turn down offers of help from the President of the Dallas Bar Association pending finding whether he can get his first choice, John Abt, a lawyer he'd never met who specialized in left-wing causes - Oswald, asked point blank on live TV if he shot the President, would not panic, express any particular surprise, no horror, no empathy, would not scream a tearful denial, would not beg protection for his family, or make the slightest attempt to blurt out anything about any conspiracy, and instead would just give a hollow, rambling reply that all but dodges the question - Oswald would agree to act so smug when his family visits he'll even convince his own brother he is guilty... Thanks in advance for clearing all this up.
Garry Spence better hope I don't ever sit on a jury he's trying. I mean, who could buy that cornpone routine of his? He's like a bad acting version of Andy Griffith. Anyway, one thing that confuses me is why Bugliosi never mentioned that the rifle that is proven to be the murder weapon (to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world) had Oswald's palm print on it.
And if I may reply to my own comment. Why didn't Bugliosi also point out that the boxes that created the sniper's nest had Oswald's fingerprints on them?
@apointofinterest85, thanks for the follow up but he mentions neither Oswald's palm print nor Oswald's fingerprints on the boxes that made up the sniper's nest.
@@adamredfield I don't know if that's true (I did not view the entire trial), but assuming Vince didn't bring up the print biz, it's perhaps because, having so much other incriminating evidence, Vince didn't want to appear like he was piling on. What he did mention (and 'twas plenty)was obviously enough to win.
26:20 at that time in the US, if you defected from the Soviet Union into the states, the US government would protect you and i think that's why he did that
After 54 years I have to believe that if anyone else was involved then someone would have said something, proof would have arisen. It is impossible to keep a secret this long.
There have been plenty of people who have come forward with testimony that the WC ignored, there are plenty of people with damning knowledge that put the commissions conclusions in dispute that met untimely deaths, see Forgive my Grief, several volume book.
Read about a man Loy Factor. He can forward. Was paid $10,000 by a man named Wallace for a job. It turned out that job was shooting the president and it was organized by Jack Ruby and "Oswald". Except the Oswald that Ruby was running around with was actually a man named Larry Crafard.
@@alrifr5786 Yes, the man who screams "Paine and Marina were lesbian lovers!!!" under another video is advising us to read about some clown he lectures is some credible source of information....
That close-up of the window in the Hughes footage is mighty persuasive to a cynic like me. Guy with a white top at the window, 2 to 3 seconds before the first shot is fired, and a rifle barrel-shaped image appears there for an instant. If it isn't what I think it is, someone tell me what it is. As regards this mock trial, Spence could have done a lot more with the "reasonable doubt" principle. Instead, he used a tired old analogy to get absolutely nowhere. If I was Lee (as he kept referring to him as), I'd be livid. Spence never mentioned anything from Dr.Wecht, Mr.Lopez or Mr.Kantor in his summation. Just tried to play on the heartstrings of the jurors. Embarrassing misjudgement.
Spence's desire to put on some folklore style show, is to his clients detriment. A terrific Attorney, however he believes that you can manipulate people into disregarding facts, by employing emotional manipulation. This tactic often works as a supplement, but it cannot be the foundation that your case is built on.He's made a career as book writer advocating these tactics, and is prepared to die on this hill.
@@scotth9857 No, "Abdul..." didn't watch any of it. He's operating from the perspective of a pre-conceived opinion. Again, as I said weeks ago, there's no evidence to support anything Abdul wrote. He just likes to write it because it sounds good to him.
Powerful summation from Bugliosi. He ties together all of the facts into an inescapable conclusion - Oswald killed Kennedy with the rifle that he owned, and he committed the murder alone. No rambling stories about birds can change that.
In attempting to assess the criminal responsibility of murderers, the law tries to divide them (as it does all offenders) into two groups, the ‘sane’ and the ‘insane.’ The ‘sane’ murderer is thought of as acting upon rational motives that can be understood, though condemned, and the ‘insane’ one as being driven by irrational senseless motives. When rational motives are conspicuous (for example, when a man kills for personal gain) or when the irrational motives are accompanied by delusions or hallucinations (for example, a paranoid patient who kills his fantasied persecutor), the situation presents little problem to the psychiatrist. But murderers who seem rational, coherent, and controlled and yet whose homicidal acts have a bizarre apparently senseless quality, pose a difficult problem, if courtroom disagreements and contradictory reports about the same offender are an index. It is our thesis that the psychopathology of such murderers forms at least one specific syndrome which we shall describe. In general, these individuals are pre-disposed to severe lapses in ego-control which makes possible the open expression of primitive violence born out of previous, and now unconscious, traumatic experiences.”
I assume because this was on TV, the closing arguments were severely truncated. I don’t think it fair to call these “closing arguments”. So many arguments are missing. Spence’s closing had a flair of manufactured drama with faux emotion. His old man bird in hand story is a tired story often used by him regardless of the kind of case. Furthermore, I fail to see what the message is to the jury, how that would persuade them to his side. My assumption that the smart allec kid is the prosection? In sum, the arguments were so superficial as to not stand as a true representation of what a trial would sound like if Oswald was still alive.
Guilty beyond reasonable doubt, people love the conspiracy theory, wow Oswald’s rifle is there,his finger/palm prints are there, he’s in the building, he’s the last person witnessed on the 6th floor,the empty cartridges are there, the means of getting his rifle is there (curtain rods my ass), three bullets fired from the TSDB, 88% of the witnesses heard 3 shots, only 2% said another location, he’s goes to visit his wife on Thursday night where the rifle is stored, wouldn’t normally stay that night, the empty bag of so called curtain rods is there, but at the staff roll call who’s not there, Oswald of course, he’s on the run, back to his rooming house to collect a gun.
Wonder if any defense says proof on zapruder film last 2 shots were so close together had to be more than 1 shooter. Love to have seen limo driver Greer on witness stand an ask him why after 1st shot he didn't speed away an after 2nd shot he slows way down for last awful shot looks back again an then speeds away to hospital. After watching many of these videos an reading countless research comments no way you convince me it was just a LONE WOLF Oswald 3 shots 6 floor.
@Jack D yes i got a degree in Rubyology i graduated in top of my class seems there were 34 conspiracy buffs and me lol on a serious not Why are you so jealous of my expertise on this case?
12:29 Bugliosi might have said: "Objection your honor. Spence has just misstated the law; we can doubt anything, even what's certain; the standard is reasonable doubt not 'one single doubt.'"
@@arefamini8559 Ha, are you so infatuated with the 'appeal to authority' fallacy that you can't think for yourself, but only defer to others mindlessly? Do you enjoy being an intellectual slave and non-thinker? It looks stupid and fawning. Instead, try to stick to the the facts and make a substantive point, if you can. My point stands correct as is.
Spence is making the sneaky, illicit trick of changing the legal standard of "reasonable doubt", which qualifies the set of doubts to one kind and limits it to 'reasonable' ones, jerky, and trying change it to any old doubt with "one single doubt," the way someone can doubt their age or gender like a whim that is ungrounded in fact. The DA must always object to that; the judge would sustain it too.
@@DexterHaven first of all mr.spence said reasonable doubts many many times during the possess and he just wanted to make connections with the jury and that is not out of ordinary way thats why DA did not objects .... and second of all when you are defending in closing argument u try to impac and so u gotta talk from your heart ... u do not perform a roll of a feelingless robot. And people understand what reasonable doubt is...
The defence was a windbag, and a disgracefull summing up of 'if you have one single piece of doubt you should say not guilty' if that was the case no one would ever be convicted...... GUILTY.
They say a lawyer only looks as good as the evidence he has. Bugliosi is great but a rookie lawyer could have gotten a conviction with so much evidence. Spence did a great job and managed to leave a strong impression despite the fact that he had almost no facts on his side. At the end of the day it was an impossible task.
@@patrickbushong7028 Spence was a fine lawyer...but he also clearly enjoyed being in the limelight a little too much...that is why he took on a defense that did not have much to offer in the way of redemption for his client.
@@AMC2283 No Mauser was ever found: A) Deputy Weitzman freely owned up to his goof in misidentifying the gun after only a cursory look at it B) news film obviously proves the gun to be a Mannlicher-Carcano, Oswald's, to which all bullets and fragments ever found were matched C) don't bother quoting serial liar Roger Craig: everything that ever came out of his mouth was flatly contradicted by every other witness present, by hard evidence, and frequently by himself as he kept changing his stories, including his 1968 interview where he assures the L.A. Free Press he couldn't ID the gun because he "didn't know foreign rifles" D) the idea somebody left multiple guns, or the wrong kind of guns, much less curtain rods, behind at the crime scene to be immediately found is laughable.
I think there was only one logical outcome to this and that is what came out. Even a brilliant defence lawyer like Spence could get out of this on the winning side. Of course Oswald did it and did so alone. The loads of evidence is just too overwhelming to seriously believe in anything else.
Why is it that the "Oswald did it alone" prosecution attorney had 2 summation sessions, 1 before & 1 after, the Defense attorney????? THAT does seem very fair, but little in this business has been done fairly!!!
+Wombah 0070 That's the way it's always done at a court trial. Didn't you know that? Just watch the O.J. Simpson closing arguments --- the prosecution leads off, followed by the defense argument, and then the prosecution gets the final "rebuttal" argument.
The reasoning behind giving the prosecution that advantage is that the prosecution has the burden of proof, the judge mentions this about the 50-60 sec mark
@Baronarx V omg name calling.. First of all the scene is cut and stuttered so gun flash would be wiped out. Driver does not respond to shooters from behind, it's the business of the secret service following car. Third and final he should have speeded up and not slowed down. There's my spanner in your works. Obviously you are too slow.
Correct: Agent Greer, knowing he was surrounded by witnesses and at least two people pointing cameras right at him in broad daylight, decided to turn around into the faces of a carful of passengers inches away from him, pull out his gun and shoot his President in the face, that's brilliant.
@@aaronz7056 that's the thing. The film is edited after the first shot. Then it stutters until the car speeds up. Every other film was confiscated so we're pictures. You can clearly see the agent slow down and turn with his gun, facing offset to JFK, stutter and the head is blown out.
If it was 11 to 1 it would have at least been a mistrial. 12 to 0 is almost the only way to convict. People have been convicted 11 to 0 after a juror has been excused but very rare. All you have to have his 1 NO vote and it's not a conviction but a mistrial.
Spence seemed a trifle drunk to me, but Bugliosi, IMHO, really bungled his passionate grilling of O'Connor, whom was a strong witness IMHO. I mean he seemed so very nervous and not the type who'd volunteer ANYTHING unless he was specifically asked by anyone. But when he told Bugliosi this very thing, well Vincent just essentially threw in the towel, I thought, very oddly.
OSWALD was considered dyslexic, how could he have typed that letter to the Russian Embassy and why did he mispell his daughter's name and his wife's maiden name as Micheleyevna from its proper spelling of Nikolayevna. In Russia a woman's name includes her father's name in it in Marina's case (Nikolay). And to this date February, 2019 the US government has not released Lee Harvey Oswald's Tax Returns or banking records to deduce his sources of income. Oswald earned $1.25 an hour, a very basic day rate. Motorcycle cop Sgt. Stavis Ellis recommended that someone should interview a Cuban named Martino or Marino who actually employed Lee Harvey Oswald, not Roy Truly. Maybe this Cuban guy was John Martino who admitted he was involved in a plot as a planner but not a shooter and that when an FBI first introduced Oswald to Martino in Miami, that Martino stated Oswald didn't know his arm from his ass (meaning totally ignorant of his role as a patsy). Who was this Cuban Dallas Cop Sgt Stavis Ellis said was second in charge of the Texas School Book Depository? None of this evidence was known or introduced to the Jury. Martino said the plan was for Oswald as Patsy to meet someone in the Texas Theater who was to have him flown out of Dallas and killed later. Martino also said that another Cuban gunman was sitting in the Texas Theatre among the 20 moviegoers but was released. Dallas Police compiled a list of all moviegoers with names and addresses but lost it somewhere. Don't forget that Butch Burroughs from the Texas Theater prior to his employment at TexasnTheatre failed his enlistment for armed service on mental deficiency grounds, he was physically fit but not mentally fit. Aussie Researcher......Oswald was guilty of knowing something was afoot, he was not aware that he was being set up to be a Patsy if captured. JD Tippit was killed for one reason only, the real conspirators needed Police to kill Oswald rather then capture him for the death of brother-cop for which Oswald had nothing to do with. Domingo Benevidez should have been questioned why he ducked up the laneway to his mother's house (between Tenth Street & Jefferson Boulevard) for a couple of minutes then return shortly after to try call police on Tippit's car radio shortly after the after Tippit's shooting. Domingo's dad worked for a nightclub owner and Dallas businessman who had given financial assistance to Jack Ruby in the past. One of Tippit's girlfriends, Helen Markham coincidently was standing right there on the corner of Tenth and Patton Ave when Tippit was shot, no wonder she became so hysterical. Tippit's wife one month later in company of Tippit's sister went to Helen Markham's home to confront her about this alleged affair, substantiated by Markham's neighbor a few doors up the road. Friday night, 22nd November, 1963. Why did Jack Ruby go to Helen Markham's place of employment at the diner where she worked in the early evening to talk to her? Markham was at the police station lineup about 7:00pm so Ruby went to the police station immediately after. I could go on and on. How Did Ruby know Markham was a witness to Tippit's murder, how did he know where she even worked? Markham's fellow employee told Ruby Markham was sick and went home early, he paid for his coffee and meal which he didn't eat and rushed out of the cafe.
@Jack D they did not let Oswald and Ruby kill it just happened the only person who knew that assassanation was going down was Oswald and he could not have been sure it would happen Hostee said Oswald made no direct threat and it was impossible to cover all those windows hell there were 3 people in the 5th floor windows and we know Ruby was lucky to get down in that basement hinesight is 20/20
@Jack D Jack the security could have not been as good as it could have because they promised the press would able to see Oswald Leavell and a couple other wanted to transport him in secret but their biggest mistake was having only one guard on that ramp that is what Leavell said
There have been many, many documentaries made & witnesses come forward since this aired because much, much more information has come forward since this mock trial. It’s entirely possible/probable the outcome of this trial would be very much different if this went to trial today.
Has there been one solid piece of irrefutable evidence to emerge over the subsequent 37 years which might even open the door to proving a conspiracy? You would have thought there would be.
Wow, Gerry Spence really had no real case so has to end his closing argument with a story about a boy and a bird in his hand and trying to fool a wise old man. Desperate stuff.
When the law is on your side you pound the law. When the facts are on your side you pound the facts. When neither the facts or the law are on your side you pound the table. Now, why did I suddenly think of that old saying?
spencers approach in this case was less then enthiastic he simply didn't present his case. and failed to do his homework. what Spencer should have pointed out were the obvious. that 4 policeman found a mauser on the 6th floor and lost it. the fact that oswald was exonerated from a nitrates examination proving that he didn't fire a rifle on that day or any other day! there were no nitrates present on oswald face and cheek making it impossible for man to accurately fire a bolt action rifle at his hip! the fact that the FBI found no palm prints of anything until the rifle was delivered back to the Dallas police department, and miraculously a palm print appears. the fact that the 3 Carcano shells were found side, by side, by side of one other in fantastic fashion. did anyone actually see oswald come down the steps??? nope. was oswald cool and calm drinking a Coke at the 2nd floor room?? Marion baker says. yup. the fact that in the tippet murder. 4 shells casings were from a 32 automatic and not coming from a revolver! the fact the police department submitted false evidence to the FBI. revealing the shells found at the scene 2 were winchester shells, and 2 were Remington shells! but the bullets pulled from tippets body reveal that 3 were winchester bullets, while one was remington! the bullets and shell casings simply do not add up! that an fbi ballestics expert cortland cunningham testify to the warren report that he simply "could not determine that the bullets came from oswalds revolver." it's also important to note that revolvers simply do not eject shell casings! so why on earth would oswald take the time and effort to implicate himself by emptying his revolver??? Spencer simply didn't present his case. have to give the bug man some credit despite the lack of evidence. he presented his case.
I still think Oswald Didn't just do it he was coached .So Guilty in a sense but Not guilty of pulling the trigger .Nobody has proved that Yet . Verdict has to be NOT Guilty .. right ?
Ok, I’ll bite. What about the attending Drs at Parkland who refer to entrance wound in the front of neck, what about the physics of the single bullet theory, what about in the govts recreation not getting Oswald down from his supposed snipers nest, without leaving any fingerprints, on the boxes(60lbs) that covered the hidden rifle, to 2nd floor where the officer said he saw LHO drinking coke, or later in killing Tippett, can’t get Oswald to murder scene in time from his rooming house, or LHOs record of being a poor shot. So no, the evidence suggests actually no one was killed that day by LHO. So unfortunately we are left with the implication of CIA/FBI covering up a job that they may or may not have been involved in carrying out.
@@jayinspiredyogi8215 what in God's name are you talking about? single bullet physics? The Drs at Parkland (who were trying to save JFK's life, not perform an autopsy)... Nothing you said is accurate in the least.
The facts or evidence in this case didn't matter. If the jury were a genuine one, it would impossible for all 12 jurors to agree that Lee Oswald was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a mountain of facts and evidence establishing reasonable doubt. But that was irrelevant to the jury's decision. The jury members were paid $2,000 each by the producers to give a guilty verdict. The producers considered those payments to be a good investment and it earned them some favors from the IRS and the FBI for their support in promoting the coverup of the murder conspiracy. When the TV judge later found out about the payments to jurors, he got pissed that the producers didn't offer him any money. But they told him they didn't need positive rulings in their favor because they essentially owned the jury. However, just to keep things calm, the producers did send the judge and his wife on a cruise to the Caribbean Islands, which the judge appreciated. They assured the judge that it wasn't a bribe because they already secured the guilty verdict that they paid for. They said it was just a gift. The judge felt better about it after that.
@@aaronz7056 There is zero evidence that Oswald committed any crime. What you call "evidence" was entirely manufactured. For example, the FBI originally determined from forensic tests that Oswald had not fired any firearm that day, even though the tests were performed within hours of the assassination. Nor did the FBI originally find any palm prints or fingerprints on the rifle that the FBI claimed Oswald used. Paul Groody, the funeral director for Oswald, said that government agents came to take finger and palm prints of Oswald at the funeral home. Only a day or two after that did a palm print magically appear for the first time on the purported assassination weapon. th-cam.com/video/tUMC3VmRXmo/w-d-xo.html I could go on and on and on with the fake evidence you call "overwhelming evidence," but I know that you couldn't care less about the truth.
@@ralphadamo1857 In that case I presume we can look forward to you explaining how some conspiracy knew it could safely approach scores and scores of police, FBI, Secret Service, military personnel, doctors, witnesses, x-ray technicians, ballistics experts, family members of Oswald, cab drivers, suburban housewives, shoe store clerks, photo experts, staffs at embassies in another country, journalists, reporters, news editors, anchors, network honchos, whole commissions, the Chief Justice, senators, lawyers, congressmen, counsels, and persuade them all to obey illegal orders to commit crimes, falsify evidence, perjure themselves by the dozens, seize and alter films, steal bodies, alter wounds, fake x-rays, forge photos, frame patsies, lie about what happened as long as they live, commit more murders, threaten people, make up bogus theories, plant fake bullets, switch guns around, pile cover-ups atop cover-ups, and make themselves all loyal accessories to murder and treason....
@@ralphadamo1857 I also assume you can explain how the people framing an innocent Oswald, assuming they didn't want to completely blow this frame-up, knew: - exactly where his guns were - he would show up at the Paine house Nov 21 otherwise they can't pretend he smuggled the rifle - he won't simply stand out on the sidewalk during the parade - no bullets or fragments will ever be found that don't match to his weapons - he will immediately flee the TSBD - he would successfully escape Dealey Plaza - he would obtain his revolver - he would retain his revolver - his movements will make it possible to plausibly place him at the Tippit crime scene exactly when Tippit is killed - nobody will ever see Oswald anywhere else when Tippit is killed - an imposter who looks so much like Oswald he can fool witnesses needs to be hanging around 10th and Patton - the imposter needs to be wearing a jacket just as Oswald decides at the last minute to put one on - a cop will be driving at 10th and Patton at exactly the right moment to be shot and Oswald blamed for it - the cop won't outdraw and capture the imposter - Oswald will obligingly help frame himself being caught red-handed trying to shoot a second cop minutes later and fighting so violently 3 officers will be injured disarming him - all those cops lying about Oswald's behavior in the theater and helping frame him will be on board for helping in the murder of a brother police officer with a wife and 3 children - Oswald will lie to police - Oswald will act so smug he'll even convince his own brother he's guilty - Oswald, like all innocent people, will ask his family and the President of the Dallas Bar Association to specifically get him the services of a lawyer he's never met who specializes in left-wing causes - Oswald, asked point-blank on live television if he shot the President, will not recoil in horror, or gasp out an indignant and shocked denial, or beg protection for his family, or make the slightest attempt to blurt out anything about any conspiracy, and instead will just not even blink in surprise as he gives a hollow, rambling reply that all but dodges the question....
@@aaronz7056 You really like to believe the CIA's load of crap, don't you? The CIA loves dupes like you. I'll make it simple for you. The official story was that Oswald wanted to make a name for himself. And all political assassins who were zealots (as opposed to paid professional assassins) have always been proud of their acts. Recall, for example, John Wilkes Booth and his triumphant "Sic semper tyrannis" proclamation as he jumped on the stage. But Oswald was the exact opposite. He said "I'm just a patsy." And when he was shown the backyard photo he immediately said that the face was his but it was pasted onto another person's body. Oswald, by the way, was an expert in photography. And he told the police that he could prove exactly how this photographic trick was done. No political assassin in history has behaved anything like this. All of your so-called "evidence" is just manufactured poppycock with no connection to reality.
Let's not forget the HSCA which was created due to nagging doubts about the WC, no doubt perpetuated by that jealous Mark Lane. Well lets also not forget that except for the since thoroughly debunked acoustical evidence, they agreed with the WC's conclusions.
@@curbozerboomer1773 Not something I was expecting to hear. Thanks CB. Bugliosi, I can't totally blame him. If I had to guess, he was told what to say to clear the name of those in power. Most likely didn't want to be eliminated himself.
Both closing arguments were a bit weak. But of the two, Pence was the worse. No central argument to negate the prosecution's case. Sticking with Mrs. Paine might be his best chance. Stick to one conspiracy with Paine as the connection to make Oswald a patsy. One thing to remember is that Lee Harvey isn't there. That could make a difference. Jury might not be so willing to bring back a guilty verdict knowing the person they will give a death penalty is right there. However, the prosecution's case is incredibly strong. The gun. The shots. The book depository building. Lee Harvey is right there. He is everywhere in the assassination. His only motive would be his own delusions and anger at the world and Bugliosi showed that. Guilty all the way.
Paraffin test actually positive, and the only person to put Oswald on the 2nd floor during the shooting was Oswald, while the people he said were there flatly denied every seeing him.
"Acquit..." Oswald owned the rifle. Oswald smuggled the rifle. Oswald's print was on the rifle. Oswald's prints were on the sniper nest boxes in the right spots. A man was seen in the window who could plausibly have been Oswald. Witnesses under the window firmly stated the shots all came from directly overhead. No unidentified persons were ever seen or caught in the TSBD. No unidentified persons were ever seen coming down the stairs. Nobody ever affirmed seeing Oswald anywhere else during the shooting. Nobody ever found any bullets or fragments that didn't match to his gun. Oswald was the only employee inside the TSBD during the assassination to immediately flee. Oswald took evasive action to get to his room, and his revolver. Oswald ignored his cab driver and landlady when they tried to talk to him. Oswald was seen shooting Tippit. Oswald smiled at one witness. Oswald locked eyes with another witness. Oswald exchanged words with a third witness. Oswald was seen reloading, fleeing, hiding out, and ducking into the theater. The bullets from Tippit's body were matched to Oswald's revolver. Oswald was caught red-handed trying to shoot a second cop minutes later and fought so violently 3 officers were injured just disarming him. Oswald lied to police. Oswald refused to cooperate with investigators. Oswald slept like a baby in his cell. Oswald turned down offers of help from the President of the Dallas Bar Association pending learning whether he could get his first choice for attorney, John Abt, a lawyer in another state he'd never met who specialized in left-wing causes. Oswald, asked point blank on live TV if he shot the President, expresses no particular surprise, no horror, no empathy, no panic, doesn't scream a tearful and appalled denial, doesn't beg protection for his family, doesn't make the slightest attempt to blurt out one word about any conspiracy, and instead just gives a hollow, rambling reply that all but dodges the question. Oswald was so smug when his family visited him in jail he even convinced his own brother he was guilty. But, have it your way: not guilty!
“It would not be a very difficult job to shoot the president of the United States,” he says to nobody in particular. “All you’d have to do is get up in a high building with a high-powered rifle with a telescopic sight, and there’s nothing anybody could do.” JFK 10:15 am Nov 22,1963
Gerry Spence, legitimately fucked this up, He's great against these stiff corporate lawyers, but against a straight forward Prosecutor he got smoked. He thinks this is a drama play, this disillusionment he has with reality isn't helpful.The truth is his performance is distracting, he's putting the spotlight on himself not on his client and the issues at hand. You have to advocate for facts and what is right. This man thinks this is a Broadway production. What a truly spectacular performance, too bad he forgot he's representing a client. He made no real arguments. Bugliosi mopped the floor with him, he was probably shocked it was so easy. Remember when you are selecting a trial attorney for something serious you want a serious man, not someone playing games, someone who will go forward with facts, and attack not sit back and play some child's game of subtlety. There's no room for theories and subtlety, you want a winner not a clown. Remember it's easy to build a great record when you fight bums.
You do not know what u are saying... this man is a legend. His defence was fabulous. You think could u be in front of him standing? U would be vanished. Look closely all things he had presented in to the court; was a damn collection of 'facts' which had made the reasonable doubt.... all coincidence he did mentioned was true ... and if are trying to be a blind man who does not want see the truth, you are betraying to yourself. The Truth is this case was really shady ... damn shady
He Parroted , the " Warren Commission , lone gunmen puts the Americian people at ease , it gives them a sense of closure but it's not the truth , it was refuted by Senate Committee on assassinations which concluded it was a " conspiracy ".
Not sure how any juror could come up with the verdict of guilty in this case. Even though (as others have stated here) there was an incredible amount of evidence that could have been brought up that was left out. The defense I felt countered every point the prosecutor brought up. I would have brought Roger Craigs account into evidence. Also, Seymour Weitzmans affidavit that the gun found was without a doubt a 7.65 Mauser. Also - Walter Cronkites broadcast that the gun was a 7.65 Mauser for the first 24+ hours until the government made him correct himself that it was in fact a Mannlicher Carcano rifle.
No Mauser was found, Deputy Weitzman freely owned up to his goof in misidentifying the gun at first and carelessly letting that slip to reporters, who understandably ran with it before it was corrected. Obviously news film shows the gun to be a Mannlicher-Carcano, Oswald's gun, to which all bullets and fragments ever found were matched. The idea some villains would leave multiple guns, or the wrong kinds of guns, lying around the crime scene for police to find is laughable. Did they *want* this "conspiracy" to be immediately exposed?
Oswald owned the rifle. Oswald smuggled the rifle. Oswald's print was on the rifle. Oswald's prints were on the sniper nest boxes as though he had used the nest. No bullets or fragments were ever found that did not match to Oswald's gun. A man was seen in the window who could plausibly have been Oswald. No unidentified persons were ever seen or caught inside the building, and certainly never came down the stairs. Oswald was the one and only employee inside the building to immediately flee. Oswald took evasive action to get to his other gun. Oswald ignored his cab driver and landlady when they spoke to him. Oswald was seen by a long line of witnesses shooting Tippit, fleeing, reloading, hiding out and ducking into the theater. Oswald smiled at one witness. Oswald exchanged words with another witness. Oswald was caught red-handed trying to shoot a second cop minutes later with the gun used on Tippit and fought so violently 3 officers were injured just disarming him. Oswald lied to police. Oswald refused to cooperate with investigators. Oswald slept like a baby in his cell. Oswald turned down offers of help from the President of the Dallas Bar Association pending learning if he get his first choice for attorney, John Abt, a lawyer he'd never met who specialized in left-wing causes. Oswald, asked point blank on live TV if he shot the President, doesn't panic, express any particular surprise, doesn't beg protection for his family, doesn't make the slightest attempt to blurt out anything about any conspiracy, instead just warbles a hollow, rambling reply that all but dodges the question. Oswald was so smug when his family visited he even convinced his own brother he was guilty. And you are not sure how any jury could have come up with a verdict of guilty in this case?
I'd also have loved to have seen Roger Craig's account brought into evidence: A) He was with Deputy Mooney when they discovered the sniper nest. Flatly contradicted by his own WC testimony. B) He saw 3 shells lined up in a neat row in the nest. Flatly contradicted by officers who actually discovered the nest and photographed the scattered shells where they fell. C) He saw "Mauser" on the recovered rifle. Flatly contradicted by other officers present, by news film, and by himself in his 1968 interview where he assures the L.A. Free Press he couldn't ID the gun because he "didn't know foreign rifles. D) He saw it was only six past one when he heard Tippit was killed Flatly contradicted by other witnesses and evidence. E) He saw a .45 slug recovered from the plaza grass. Flatly contradicted by every other officer present, and by his own WC testimony. F) He saw Oswald flee the plaza in a Rambler station wagon. Flatly contradicted by other witnesses and evidence demonstrating Oswald's true escape route, by bus (where he was recognized by his ex-landlady) and by cab. Oswald still had the bus transfer in his pocket when arrested. G) Oswald told him in Captain Fritz's office the Rambler belonged to Mrs. Paine. Flatly contradicted by every other officer present and by FBI and Dallas PD documents that prove Mrs. Paine's car was a Chevrolet. H) There were attempts on his life. No supporting evidence exists, nor is there any explanation of why it would be necessary to "silence" this guy when his credibility would have been shredded on the stand by any competent lawyer....
is there really any doubt oswald shot JFK? i mean, really? was there another shooter? was he the only shooter but acting in concert with others?.... i don't think we'll ever know. i would say that he acted completely alone but that is just my opinion and it is NOT OBVIOUS that this is the truth unlike the fact that oswald did in fact shoot the president. one thing i think is very interesting - although i guess it in fact does lead very weak credence to oswald being a patsy - is that very very few witnesses heard shots from more than one direction....... tells me oswald is a patsy or FAR MORE likely there was echo effect or witnesses can't accurately detect where sound came from.
The rational explanation for understanding Oswald's claim for being a patsy...is in what he said just before shouting out that word..."the police are just bringing me in, because they know that I spent time in the Soviet Union!"....He clearly was not referring to any conspiracy situation at all!
This is a competition between two skilled wordsmithes and their spin on events. Not the best evidence. Ignore what makes your case look bad and hope you get away with it.
Far outnumbered by the number of witnesses who firmly ID'd Oswald as he killed Tippit, fled, hid, ducked into the theater and tried to shoot a second cop minutes later with the same gun.
@@aaronz7056 You cannot name any witnesses that had “firmly ID’d Oswald shooting Tippitt. You are puffing. Likely his doppelganger was used to pick up a light jacket at his home; then thrown down under a car; then he went to a shoe store to deliberately be tracked to the theater. The shoe store manager could be part of this plot. There are “two Oswalds” in the theater. The gun man who shot Tippitt was a chunky mobster who quickly disappeared. The gun could not be traced to the bullets that killed Tippitt because the barrel had been machined. And why would the shooter leave empty shells on the ground to be traced to the Oswald gun. ANSWER: to provide a false lead to the Oswald pistol. A revolver keeps all the empty shells-it doesnt eject them. It is a set-up; just as putting a jacket under a car is a set up. Oswald’s “twin” arrives at the theater about 1;25 pm. The doppelgänger name is Lee Oswald. Tippitt is parked in front of his girlfriend’s house. See this: th-cam.com/video/SpxxR2hRSI0/w-d-xo.html Tippet’s girlfriend worked at the Carousel Bar. So Jack Ruby knows her address and knows she is connected to Tippett. A meeting is arranged for her and Tippett, arranged by the mob. The killer is a mob hit man who looks chunky. Actors: Lee Harvey Oswald Lee Oswald ( doppelgänger) Chunky mobster hit man Shoe store manager 2 policemen who waited in driveway 3 theater employees 1 Witness who saw chunky man shoot There were 2 more partial witnesses, nothing substantial.
@@timberrr1126 I love it when I'm advised to see paranoid, crackpot conspiracy garbage videos like that one. I repeat, many witnesses ID'd Oswald and this "twin Oswalds" idiocy belongs in a re-run of "Mission: Impossible."
@@timberrr1126 If Oswald was not Tippit's killer, he has to have been framed, yes? I look forward to you explaining how the people framing him knew: - Oswald owned a revolver - exactly where the revolver was - Oswald would immediately flee the TSBD - Oswald would successfully escape Dealey Plaza - Oswald would specifically go to Oak Cliff - Oswald would obtain his revolver - Oswald would keep his revolver on him - an Oswald imposter who looks so much like him multiple witnesses will firmly ID him as the real Oswald needs to be hanging around 10th and Patton in Oak Cliff - the imposter will be certain Oswald is somewhere nearby so they can plausibly place him at the Tippit crime scene during Tippit's shooting - the imposter needs to be wearing a jacket just as Oswald decides at the last minute to put one on - alternately, they can frame this on Oswald as they shoot Tippit with a gunman who looks nothing like Oswald - there is any point to taking all the risky chances gunning down a cop on a public street in broad daylight in the first place since if anything goes wrong they just end up confirming a conspiracy - either they can get Oswald's revolver off him, shoot Tippit with it, and plant it back on him before his arrest, or: - they are guaranteed to safely count on exactly the right ballistics experts on both the Dallas PD and the FBI to obey illegal orders to falsify evidence and make themselves accessories to murder and treason - every witnesses in this quiet suburb suddenly thrown into this horror show can be safely counted on to perjure themselves and lie about what really happened as long as they all live, never spilling the truth - every witness who can't can be counted on to play ball as a conspiracy goes around threatening them, thereby confirming to each and every one of them a conspiracy exists - either Oswald will obligingly help frame himself by being caught red-handed trying to shoot a second cop minutes later and fighting so violently 3 officers will be injured just disarming him, or: - every officer who is among those who are first to arrive at the theater can be safely counted on to perjure themselves regarding what really happened, happily lie about what happened as long as they all live, and presumably be on board for helping a conspiracy murder a brother officer with a wife and 3 children - nobody will ever seen the imposter before the shooting, on his escape from Oak Cliff, or, indeed, ever again - nobody will ever see Oswald anywhere other than at the crime scene during Tippit's death Thanks in advance for clearing each one of these points up.
Oswald did the shooting, he was no different than any other political assassin in history, stop watching hollywood fiction and come back to reality please?
Well Gerry was sort of at a big disadvantage because he could not bring in his own experts on ballistics, autopsy, alteration of the Zapruder film, the backyard photo etc. I thought he did a great job!
Film was in custody, processed and copied way to fast to have been screwed with. Extensive analysis of the backyard photos found no evidence of tampering and Oswald's wife always affirmed she took the photos and they were genuine anyway. How does some "conspiracy" approach and recruit scores of police, FBI, Secret Service, military personnel, doctors, x-ray techs, ballistics experts, witnesses, etc. and persuade them all to obey illegal orders to falsify evidence, perjure themselves by the dozen, and make themselves all loyal accessories to murder and treason anyway?
Keeping this simple... Zapruder filming location was alongside the GRASSY KNOLL; so there would be no ZAPRUDER FILM, because he would had taken cover, over his wife, because the bullets would had passed by him.
oswwald knew he was screwed as far as getting cought as soon as he took the shots the fact he made it out of the building was only because secret service men where all on their way to parkland. i'm sure oswald was surprised he made it out of the building.
28:14 pretty much sums the whole thing up. Good closing argument by Bugliosi. Spence was pretty good as well but its pretty hard with a client like LHO
The rifle that was planted was not the rifle Oswald owned. Sharp shooters couldn't match the so called shots that Oswald was supposed to have accomplished. Who gained from his Murder,, Johnson, the exporters of Arms to Vietnam, the Oil Barons that Kennedy was putting a tax on there enormous profits. There was too many things that went on,, the limousine s route was changed,, the car was not covered on top,, it slowed down to a crawl, why did hundreds of people run towards the Grassy Knoll.the so called magic bullet was utterly impossible. His brain was blown out. The autopsy was a shambles. There was a lot that can not be just ignored.
Why was Oswald Shot,, because he knew too much, how about Ruth Payne,, she worked for the CI A she got him a job in the Book Depository was that all just a coincidence,, she was having an affair with Oswald s Wife,,,Ruby was an FBI informer,, and had connections with the Mob.
@JeremiahLong-b7r It wasn't ignored. All of that shit has been studied to death. Read the HSCA report, all of those points are covered in detail and they're all a load of rubbish. Believe what you want but don't be ignorant to the mountains of information out there countering all your theories.
Two excellent lawyers. But Bugliosi "always gets his man". That goes back to the Manson trial where he was DA and put the "Manson Family" away. But there was no question of guilt in that case. This case there is certainly evidence that Oswald did not act alone (Zepruder film) and all the irregularities of Kennedy's autopcy etc. So I would conclude that yes, Oswald did shoot President Kennedy but did not act alone. There was a second shooter in front.
respectfully disagree past paraffin test the FBI concluded that package did not contain a rifle he was on the second floor thatvrifle was so bad it inspired jokers. the scope was not aligned poor shot yet expert marksman could not duplicate.I can't believe Spencer lost
I believe, LHO, was one of the shooters, however, this trial didn’t prove whether or not, he acted alone. I wish Jack Ruby never shot Oswald. There may still be a lot more to this story.
Oh my Vince told the jury that Oswald killed Tippit so of course he killed JFK. He lied. No one saw Oswald kill Tippit. Witnesses saw 2 men kill Tippit. One short heavy and dark. Other tall. Neither was Oswald. The pistol that killed Tippit was an automatic. Oswald owned a revolver with a firing pin which was bent and did not work. Oswald tested negative for cordite. Thus he had not fired any gun that day. NO fingerprints of Oswald were found on the gun. The rifle was not bore sighted which means it did not work. Vince said the brain matter sprayed to the front...but in fact it sprayed backwards. Thus the shot came from the front. numerous witnesses said the headshot came from the front. the back of the head was blown out and the motorcycle cops behind the limo were sprayed with bone and brain with such force it almost knocked them over He lied again. Fraizer later said the package that Osward carried was too small to be a rifle. Even if the rifle was broke down. Vince lied again. A police officer and other witnesses place Oswald on the 2nd floor at the time of the shooting. There is no evidence that points to Oswald. There is now a ton more evidence the shows there were two shooters from the front and side. Today Oswald would be easily found not guilty. HOWEVER he probably did know who killed JFK. He said I am a patsy. Not I know nothing.
henochparks let’s remember that this “trial” was conducted in 1986, Oliver Stone who I deeply admire came out with his movie “JFK” in 1991 and a year later President George H.W. Bush signed the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. So, we can both agree the lone nut case is dead.
Whilst I found the whole trial fascinating, does anybody in their right mind actually believe that a gargantuan 23 years following the assassination and with the Government's own official stance being that LHO was guilty (Warren Report) and the infinite speculation etc, that a verdict other than 'guilty' would be the outcome? The defence was always guaranteed to lose this case, that is obvious for any sensible person to see. However, as I mentioned, still a truly fascinating case and Gerry Spence did amazingly well, considering he had zero chance of winning - well done to him.
I'm wondering why attourney spence didnt call the doctors at parkland hospital who have testified that the throat wound was one of entry not exit? why he didnt read some of the testimony of people like lee bowers who swore there were people by the picket fence acting strangely. why he didnt call the dallas poliuceman who operated the switchboard who told that ruby called and said if you dont move oswald WE are gonna get him. Why the dallas policeman who was bringing oswald through the basement said he saw ruby standing there with a pistol by his side and he still continued to bring him out until ruby shot him . its just too idiotic
You idiot because the drs knew the next day they were wrong about the frontal entry wound..You dont know that much you shouldn't even be in a intelligent conversation.
After listening to Spenser closing arguments, I can see why he is one of America's outstanding attorneys!
But you also have to say that about Bugliosi--he had an impressive track record, of winning 100 out of 101 cases as an LA prosecutor...His mind was laser sharp, when sorting out the facts of a case.
He's an ignorant F
He talked in circles with no evidence to prove his case. Remember, he thought O J Simpson was innocent
Bugliosi made the whole bunch of them look ridiculous
@@Heroball299True.
I’ve never seen these before. Been up all night binge watching these!! Very interesting, thanks for sharing!!
But ok…can anybody else Jeff Daniels playing Gerry Spence if a movie was made of this trial..Haha. 🤣🤷🏻♂️
This is what happens when you have a jury that knows nothing about firearms, ballistics,,bullets etc
@@berniehayes8425 lol
Wow!gerry Spence is a very powerful lawyer !he gives me goosebumps!
Over 50% of Americans still aren't sure Oswald was a lone assassin.
They schould be if they watch this trial.
Over 50% of Americans stayed home on Election Day 2016 and made no attempt from stopping a madman from being elected President, what's your point?
@@joes31000 they should read the warren report. Lazy lazy lazy
You can even listen to it free on TH-cam.
So?
Better than any movie
Vincent was one of Americas greatest lawyers. Spence was great as well but wasn’t well prepared for this.
Bug was CIA.
@ lol
@@syourke3Dumb.
Outstanding video's and thank you for your work and you have a great channel,As to the court case,there is ALOT of evidence and witnesses etc that isn't used in this case so this isn't an truley accurate case but gives us a little more education on the subject and opens up everyone's doors to new possibilities and theories in the assassination.
Spence could’ve written a book like Bugliosi to address the evidence in its totality. Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History builds out a case with 53 key points of evidence that point to Oswald being the sole shooter, while also addressing each conspiracy theory individually.
@@BumpyHumpyDumpy I guess he's wrong now
The verdict and closing statement of the jury, was of course preset, since this is a "mock trial". Never the less, over 75% of the American public disagree with this verdict and closing statement!
Sadly, this fake trial only helped to perpetuate the myth of a sole assassin while pretty much everyone with a brain knows better.
Many prominent attorneys at the time shortly after the shooting, went on the record saying NO court could have found Oswald guilty of the charges. They know it now and they knew it then. And that's part of the reason Oswald was killed even on live TV. They could NOT let any chance of Oswald testifying happen. Because he would have blown the lid off the entire secret, and set up of the conspiracy, implicating elements of of own US government. He HAD to die.
And Jack Ruby, being the flake and YES man to his buddies in high places, believed them when they told him "If you shoot Oswald, no ones going to care. You'll be a national hero"... Not to mention Ruby was so deep into illegal activity including murder, to blackmail him was an easy task for those that represent "Justice"... But Ruby soon learned different as he sat in jail, and he started talking. Requesting to be moved to Washington for his safety, then he would "tell all". Obviously, his request to move to a Washington prison was denied. Soon after, Ruby died a rapid death in prison, and all his secrets went with him.
This case from beginning to end, is a textbook "cover-up". Anyone who's studied the case and has half a brain cam clearly see that. And if anyone is still in doubt after that? The fact that the records and paper trail are sealed until 2029 and 2039, should confirm to everyone, that they are not going to tell you what really happened! Their waiting until everyone is dead to release any of that info. And you can be sure, when those dates come, that generation will have little care for what those documents say, and also, those documents even when they ARE released, will be heavily redacted, concealing all the names of individuals directly related to the shootings.
Ruby lived for 4 years after killing Oswald . The guy was a loon like Oswald who did it alone . Not a complicated case
@@barryirvin2417 you are wrong
Where do you get your “over 75% of Americans disagree” stat?
up to 80% of the American People believe that Oswald was ‘just a patsy’ & the entire fiasco was a cover up & you can read that statistic anywhere. google it it’s easy.
Do you have all of the video for this case?
Yes he does and alot of JFK content as well
The world lost a great deal when Bugliosi died..Minds like his are as rare as Unicorns.
"For there is nothing hidden that will not be exposed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out in the open" Luke 8:17
You must be joking right?
He's just repeating the " Warren Commission findings , he's a parrot not a mind !
@@georgenedelkoffnedelkoffu833 Facts are facts...speculation is just guessing.
They weren't actors on that jury. Didn't you even watch part one?
It would be stupid of Oswald to pick up the spent cartridges and put them in his pocket because if he was stopped trying to exit the building, he could have been frisked. Those empty shells would tie him directly to the rifle and the assassination. Spence's argument that a sniper would scoop them up and put them in his pocket was ridiculous.
Especially if they were having to get their erse oot of there pronto before the Polis arrived & felt his collar! Runawaaaaaaaaaaaay! 🤣
Has anyone noticed not 1 person has ever mentioned the smell of gunpowder In the 6th floor!! And a 6.5 fmj projectile going thru a skull wld not explode..head shot was from more than likely a hollow point high velocity bullet and that explains all the fragments that were present in what was left of the brain
the problem with those cartridges was it did not belong to that specic rifle...FACT
@@vincentfalsaperla -- Sure. Fact. Uh huh. Do you know how many statements people have made in relation to the JFK assassination that they are convinced are fact? And how many facts contradict other facts.
@@Dr.Pepper001 SHUt the the F>>K up i have studied the case for years and i stated a fact....F OFF
Nkrum almost everything in your summation is nonsense no proof ruby knew Oswald dont believe everything a stripper says
@Jack D youre not serious about this subject are you ?
Spence began his closing argument very similarly when he represented Randy Weaver.
Bugliosi should have mentioned Howard Brennan. He saw saw Oswald fire the killing shot out the window, and said later that it was him. He didn't really nail down Oswald at the lineup when he saw him there, but it was kind of a mixiture of fearing that the whole thing was a conspiracy and he had seen Oswald's face on TV after the killing, but before the lineup, and wanted to be conservative because he wanted to be sure he wasn't just saying it was Oswald because he saw his face on the news. He later said he was sure it was Oswald.
RonaldReaganRocks1 Bugliosi covers this (and everything else) pretty well in his book “Reclaiming History”
That's part true & false, the gunman was kneeling down so all of him couldn't be seen. That's why Brennan didn't ID Oswald in the police lineup. He ID'd him after he was shot. Nobody saw Oswald on the 6th floor, more than a dozen witnesses saw 2 men on the 6th floor before & after the shooting. Neither fit Oswald & they heard 4 shots.
@@winggullseagull1230 he did I.d oswald
@@shaundawson4707 Yes...if anyone wants to learn just about all there is left to learn about that awful day, read Bugliosi's book!...It is extremely detailed, with nearly 1700 pages of factual, and common sense, information...I think, years from now, his book will be regarded as THE textbook to read about this matter...Thank you,Vincent Bugliosi, for your 20 years of research, and your attention detail. You were a true patriot!
He was sure it was Oswald. He just didn't want to positively ID him at the time because he was worried about his family's safety if word got out he was the only one who could ID the assassin.
Lee Harvey Oswald remains the most enigmatic personality of my lifetime. From inept husband to weaving an intricate , layered persona about him, it's easy to see why so many think there must have been an imposter duplicate.
+Mr5thWave I also think there were 2 LHO's.
No, there were 1,245 Oswalds.
Of course, there is that memo from JE Hoover that states his concerns about others using Oswald's identity. 🤔 You might even call them imposters.
Just look at his mother. The nut doesn't fall far from the tree
@@Mr5thWave that’s silly
When all is said and done the fact remains that Jack Ruby who had
considerable underworld ties throughout his entire life killed Oswald on television in front of millions of people and knew he'd
never see the light of day again.
Why did he do that? Was he a patriot? Did he want to be cited in
a history book? Or was he the only
person who would be able to get
close enough to Oswald to silence him once he was in police custody.
If Oswald survived the manhunt and
was caught by law enforcement Ruby was waiting in the wings to silence him. Ruby was a tool forced
to kill Oswald and his history as a
volatile personality would serve to
underscore that he was also a "lone
nut" like Oswald and not to be taken seriously. How many "lone nuts" make a conspiracy? Two is just the
tip of the iceberg.
Listen up!...Ruby had slept in the morning that Oswald was being transferred...and, he stopped by the local Post Office, to obtain a money order...only after he did that, did he notice the commotion down at the police headquarters....he impulsively walked the hundred yards or so to the basement area, sneaked past a cop who was distracted, and arrived maybe 30 seconds before Oswald showed up....Ruby was not a "tool"...he was an impetuous fool!
Oh yeah right! I'm sure the assassins, if it were a conspiracy would allow their "hitman" to be apprehended. Why did Ruby, then wait so long to kill Oswald? Ruby was not a mafia associate or anything like it; he owned a few night clubs in dowtown Dallas. Jack Ruby's sister Eva said he cried more when the president was killed than when his own parents died. Jack Ruby LOVED President Kennedy thinking he was the greatest man who had ever lived past or present. After he shot Oswald he said, "Did I get the son-of-a-bitch."
So Jack Ruby, knowing he'd "never see the light of day again," spent his last moments of precious freedom standing around in line in a Western Union office on a minor errand...
If you believe Ruby was the only person who could get close enough to Oswald to take him out, then you must also believe that the police weren’t in on it. The police certainly didn’t need Ruby to come kill a double murderer who was in their custody. So if they weren’t in on it and didn’t deliberately parade Oswald in front of his assassin, where do you get the idea that it was a conspiracy? It would’ve been much simpler for police to spin a narrative that Oswald got one of their guns so they had to shoot or something along those lines and they had a much better opportunity than Ruby had. So if they weren’t in on it and Ruby was their “only” hope, what about that situation makes it look like a conspiracy?
People who know Jack Ruby, as in his close friends and family laugh whenever they hear someone say Jack was in the mob. That should tell you something
All I can say is that if I was involved in an elaborate plan to frame someone in 1963 and had access to CIA or mob resources, I'd set the patsy up with a modern weapon of the era like an M14 or a Mauser M59, not a WWII era Carcano with 20 year old surplus ammo. And it wasn't just Ruby that deprived Oswald and the American people of a trial. it was the Dallas PD and the FBI. The second he was in custody the FBI should have been down there within hours with every available resource to ensure his safety. How they could parade a prisoner of his import in front of all those people on multiple occasions still boggles my mind.
Judge Buntin's voice sounded so familiar. Was he an actor also?
He was not an actor--but he had the demeanor of a typical "Texas Judge".
Anyone else completely unimpressed and unmoved by the defense attorneys closing arguments and story?
It's sheer emotional appeal without any substance, and if you're trying to watch this mock trial for the evidence, it's not going to be persuasive. If your mind is made up and you're a conspiracy theorist, it'll speak to you. I think Spence's problem though is that he didn't take this very seriously. He brings up again and again "I've never met you before, have I?" "I've never spoken to you before, have I?" as though it's a plus, as though he's mocking Bugliosi for behaving like a lawyer and interviewing the witnesses so he knows what they'll be saying. Between the purely emotional drama and his buckshot approach to a defense (even Ruth Paine is implied to be an FBI/CIA operative), it just doesn't land well.
Agree. Spence is a total pompous ass. Total Good Ole Boy approach with the Jury. That ass CA attorney for Jack Ruby, Melvin Beli, tried the same condescending jury approach. They both acted like the jury members had no brains. Bugliosi ate Spence alive.
Spence was a very overrated attorney. Lots of BS to the nth degree with that "I'm just a country lawyer" tactic. Never worked for me.
Me. I thought it was awful.
Who picked the jury
this has been amazing,,,im shocked and impressed at all the information contained in this trial.and even though i do not agree with the verdict,,.im gonna watch it again..!
I was hoping Spence would persuasively explain how a conspiracy framing Oswald would have known:
- exactly where both of his guns were kept
- he would show up at the Paine house Nov 21 otherwise they can't pretend he smuggled the rifle
- he wouldn't simply stand out on the sidewalk during the parade
- no bullets or fragments would ever turn up that did not match to his rifle
- he would obligingly help frame himself trying to shoot a cop inside the theater
- he would act so smug in custody he would even convince his own brother he's guilty
- his response to being asked point-blank on live TV if he shot the President would not be shock or horror but instead just a hollow, rambling reply that all but dodges the question
Etc.
Shaaaaaaaaaat aaaaaaaaaaaap!!!!
@@KeithWilliamMacHendry In that case I openly challenge *you* to explain how a conspiracy would have known all of those things, Mr. Charm.
I'm sorry for Mr. Oswald. That jury was wrong. I'm thankful Mr. Oswald was not there. That jury would have sent an innocent man to prison.
In that case we look forward to you explaining how the people framing this poor innocent man knew:
- exactly where both of his guns were
- Oswald would show up unexpectedly at the Paine house Nov 21, otherwise they can't pretend he smuggled the rifle
- Oswald wouldn't simply stand out on the sidewalk during the parade
- nobody would ever find any bullets or fragments that do not match to Oswald's rifle
- Oswald would immediately flee the plaza
- Oswald would definitely go specifically to Oak Cliff
- they guy planting a bogus bullet on the hospital stretcher could possibly have know a bullet needed planting at all or that he wasn't simply planting one bullet too many into evidence and blowing the whole plot
- an Oswald imposter who looks so much like him he can fool multiple witnesses needs to be hanging around 10th and Patton, armed
- Officer Tippit won't simply outdraw and capture his attacker
- Oswald will agree to help frame himself by getting caught red-handed trying to shoot a second officer minutes later with the gun used on Tippit
- Oswald will agree to lie to police and refuse to cooperate with investigators
- Oswald will turn down offers of help from the President of the Dallas Bar Association pending finding whether he can get his first choice, John Abt, a lawyer he'd never met who specialized in left-wing causes
- Oswald, asked point blank on live TV if he shot the President, would not panic, express any particular surprise, no horror, no empathy, would not scream a tearful denial, would not beg protection for his family, or make the slightest attempt to blurt out anything about any conspiracy, and instead would just give a hollow, rambling reply that all but dodges the question
- Oswald would agree to act so smug when his family visits he'll even convince his own brother he is guilty...
Thanks in advance for clearing all this up.
@@aaronz7056 No thank you
@@aaronz7056reminds me of "nope".😂
@@Rick.jarmin Thank you for freely admitting you can't answer those questions and thus confessing you haven't got a leg to stand on.
@@franclin0 You know, I'm still wondering why "the jury was wrong..." lol
I have no legal experience and I could have defended Oswald better than Gerry Spence did.
I thought the same thing he could've done better mega times better.
His final speech want great, but his cross examinations were good
Garry Spence better hope I don't ever sit on a jury he's trying. I mean, who could buy that cornpone routine of his? He's like a bad acting version of Andy Griffith. Anyway, one thing that confuses me is why Bugliosi never mentioned that the rifle that is proven to be the murder weapon (to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world) had Oswald's palm print on it.
And if I may reply to my own comment. Why didn't Bugliosi also point out that the boxes that created the sniper's nest had Oswald's fingerprints on them?
I was wondering that myself.
@Adam Redfield: Bugliosi did indeed mention what you say he didn't, at 4:50.
@apointofinterest85, thanks for the follow up but he mentions neither Oswald's palm print nor Oswald's fingerprints on the boxes that made up the sniper's nest.
@@adamredfield I don't know if that's true (I did not view the entire trial), but assuming Vince didn't bring up the print biz, it's perhaps because, having so much other incriminating evidence, Vince didn't want to appear like he was piling on. What he did mention (and 'twas plenty)was obviously enough to win.
26:20 at that time in the US, if you defected from the Soviet Union into the states, the US government would protect you and i think that's why he did that
After 54 years I have to believe that if anyone else was involved then someone would have said something, proof would have arisen. It is impossible to keep a secret this long.
There have been plenty of people who have come forward with testimony that the WC ignored, there are plenty of people with damning knowledge that put the commissions conclusions in dispute that met untimely deaths, see Forgive my Grief, several volume book.
Yes...that is just common sense...but many conspiracy types throw common sense out the window.
@@jayinspiredyogi8215 Who? Who has "come forward?"
Read about a man Loy Factor. He can forward. Was paid $10,000 by a man named Wallace for a job. It turned out that job was shooting the president and it was organized by Jack Ruby and "Oswald". Except the Oswald that Ruby was running around with was actually a man named Larry Crafard.
@@alrifr5786 Yes, the man who screams "Paine and Marina were lesbian lovers!!!" under another video is advising us to read about some clown he lectures is some credible source of information....
That close-up of the window in the Hughes footage is mighty persuasive to a cynic like me. Guy with a white top at the window, 2 to 3 seconds before the first shot is fired, and a rifle barrel-shaped image appears there for an instant. If it isn't what I think it is, someone tell me what it is. As regards this mock trial, Spence could have done a lot more with the "reasonable doubt" principle. Instead, he used a tired old analogy to get absolutely nowhere. If I was Lee (as he kept referring to him as), I'd be livid. Spence never mentioned anything from Dr.Wecht, Mr.Lopez or Mr.Kantor in his summation. Just tried to play on the heartstrings of the jurors. Embarrassing misjudgement.
Wow. Spence made Oswald seem even more guilty with that closing.
Spence's desire to put on some folklore style show, is to his clients detriment. A terrific Attorney, however he believes that you can manipulate people into disregarding facts, by employing emotional manipulation. This tactic often works as a supplement, but it cannot be the foundation that your case is built on.He's made a career as book writer advocating these tactics, and is prepared to die on this hill.
@@CobraAquinas you know very well that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't commit the murder but someone else.He is just a cover up
@@abduljabbarmohammed4188 After 57+ years, there's still no evidence to support what you wrote.
@abduljabbar mohammed Did you bother to watch any of this?
@@scotth9857 No, "Abdul..." didn't watch any of it. He's operating from the perspective of a pre-conceived opinion. Again, as I said weeks ago, there's no evidence to support anything Abdul wrote. He just likes to write it because it sounds good to him.
Did LHO sell the gun to some one at the TSBD = Warren Caster
Powerful summation from Bugliosi. He ties together all of the facts into an inescapable conclusion - Oswald killed Kennedy with the rifle that he owned, and he committed the murder alone. No rambling stories about birds can change that.
He was not alone, but delivered it with a smash.
In attempting to assess the criminal responsibility of murderers, the law tries to divide them (as it does all offenders) into two groups, the ‘sane’ and the ‘insane.’ The ‘sane’ murderer is thought of as acting upon rational motives that can be understood, though condemned, and the ‘insane’ one as being driven by irrational senseless motives. When rational motives are conspicuous (for example, when a man kills for personal gain) or when the irrational motives are accompanied by delusions or hallucinations (for example, a paranoid patient who kills his fantasied persecutor), the situation presents little problem to the psychiatrist. But murderers who seem rational, coherent, and controlled and yet whose homicidal acts have a bizarre apparently senseless quality, pose a difficult problem, if courtroom disagreements and contradictory reports about the same offender are an index. It is our thesis that the psychopathology of such murderers forms at least one specific syndrome which we shall describe. In general, these individuals are pre-disposed to severe lapses in ego-control which makes possible the open expression of primitive violence born out of previous, and now unconscious, traumatic experiences.”
I assume because this was on TV, the closing arguments were severely truncated. I don’t think it fair to call these “closing arguments”. So many arguments are missing. Spence’s closing had a flair of manufactured drama with faux emotion. His old man bird in hand story is a tired story often used by him regardless of the kind of case. Furthermore, I fail to see what the message is to the jury, how that would persuade them to his side. My assumption that the smart allec kid is the prosection?
In sum, the arguments were so superficial as to not stand as a true representation of what a trial would sound like if Oswald was still alive.
Guilty beyond reasonable doubt, people love the conspiracy theory, wow Oswald’s rifle is there,his finger/palm prints are there, he’s in the building, he’s the last person witnessed on the 6th floor,the empty cartridges are there, the means of getting his rifle is there (curtain rods my ass), three bullets fired from the TSDB, 88% of the witnesses heard 3 shots, only 2% said another location, he’s goes to visit his wife on Thursday night where the rifle is stored, wouldn’t normally stay that night, the empty bag of so called curtain rods is there, but at the staff roll call who’s not there, Oswald of course, he’s on the run, back to his rooming house to collect a gun.
I have a good question: what was the average IQ of the jury?
As usual, not very high.
Wonder if any defense says proof on zapruder film last 2 shots were so close together had to be more than 1 shooter. Love to have seen limo driver Greer on witness stand an ask him why after 1st shot he didn't speed away an after 2nd shot he slows way down for last awful shot looks back again an then speeds away to hospital. After watching many of these videos an reading countless research comments no way you convince me it was just a LONE WOLF Oswald 3 shots 6 floor.
Jack ruby wanted to be involved with this case biggest case in dallas history American history he was close to the cops thats all it was
@Jack D yes i got a degree in Rubyology i graduated in top of my class seems there were 34 conspiracy buffs and me lol on a serious not Why are you so jealous of my expertise on this case?
For good or evil good or bad it seems both Ruby and Oswald wanted to do something BIG they would be remembered for
@@lifetimes2983 I agree 100 percent that were two weird people.
SPENCE THINKS HE IS SPENCER TRACY !! HA HA
Was this judge in The Godfather?
12:29 Bugliosi might have said: "Objection your honor. Spence has just misstated the law; we can doubt anything, even what's certain; the standard is reasonable doubt not 'one single doubt.'"
Are you serous? You are teaching law to mr.Spence? I meam u should do better!
@@arefamini8559 Ha, are you so infatuated with the 'appeal to authority' fallacy that you can't think for yourself, but only defer to others mindlessly? Do you enjoy being an intellectual slave and non-thinker? It looks stupid and fawning. Instead, try to stick to the the facts and make a substantive point, if you can. My point stands correct as is.
Spence is making the sneaky, illicit trick of changing the legal standard of "reasonable doubt", which qualifies the set of doubts to one kind and limits it to 'reasonable' ones, jerky, and trying change it to any old doubt with "one single doubt," the way someone can doubt their age or gender like a whim that is ungrounded in fact. The DA must always object to that; the judge would sustain it too.
@@DexterHaven first of all mr.spence said reasonable doubts many many times during the possess and he just wanted to make connections with the jury and that is not out of ordinary way thats why DA did not objects .... and second of all when you are defending in closing argument u try to impac and so u gotta talk from your heart ... u do not perform a roll of a feelingless robot. And people understand what reasonable doubt is...
@@DexterHaven just out of curiosity you've commented about 9 years ago... how old are you and are u a lawyer ?
The defence was a windbag, and a disgracefull summing up of 'if you have one single piece of doubt you should say not guilty' if that was the case no one would ever be convicted...... GUILTY.
Hard to have a trial without the person who did it. He was silenced he was robbed of his day in court.
or Supposedly did it
They say a lawyer only looks as good as the evidence he has. Bugliosi is great but a rookie lawyer could have gotten a conviction with so much evidence. Spence did a great job and managed to leave a strong impression despite the fact that he had almost no facts on his side. At the end of the day it was an impossible task.
Yes,but it's HOW you present it.
@@patrickbushong7028 Spence was a fine lawyer...but he also clearly enjoyed being in the limelight a little too much...that is why he took on a defense that did not have much to offer in the way of redemption for his client.
A rifle was discovered but no curtain rods. Where are the fricking curtain rods?
Probably with the Mauser rifle they found before the carcano
@@AMC2283 No Mauser was ever found:
A) Deputy Weitzman freely owned up to his goof in misidentifying the gun after only a cursory look at it
B) news film obviously proves the gun to be a Mannlicher-Carcano, Oswald's, to which all bullets and fragments ever found were matched
C) don't bother quoting serial liar Roger Craig: everything that ever came out of his mouth was flatly contradicted by every other witness present, by hard evidence, and frequently by himself as he kept changing his stories, including his 1968 interview where he assures the L.A. Free Press he couldn't ID the gun because he "didn't know foreign rifles"
D) the idea somebody left multiple guns, or the wrong kind of guns, much less curtain rods, behind at the crime scene to be immediately found is laughable.
I think there was only one logical outcome to this and that is what came out. Even a brilliant defence lawyer like Spence could get out of this on the winning side. Of course Oswald did it and did so alone. The loads of evidence is just too overwhelming to seriously believe in anything else.
Why is it that the "Oswald did it alone" prosecution attorney had 2 summation sessions, 1 before & 1 after, the Defense attorney????? THAT does seem very fair, but little in this business has been done fairly!!!
+Wombah 0070
That's the way it's always done at a court trial. Didn't you know that? Just watch the O.J. Simpson closing arguments --- the prosecution leads off, followed by the defense argument, and then the prosecution gets the final "rebuttal" argument.
Not here in Oz- the prosecution sums up & then the defense - not 2 to 1 as you do it!
The reasoning behind giving the prosecution that advantage is that the prosecution has the burden of proof, the judge mentions this about the 50-60 sec mark
Having served as a juror 3 times, this is exactly how it happens!
This mock trial was crap anyway, as they deliberately left critical facts out!
The driver can be seen clearly raising his gun while slowing down and turning after the first shot. He is the shooter that killed JFK.
@Baronarx V omg name calling.. First of all the scene is cut and stuttered so gun flash would be wiped out. Driver does not respond to shooters from behind, it's the business of the secret service following car. Third and final he should have speeded up and not slowed down. There's my spanner in your works. Obviously you are too slow.
Correct: Agent Greer, knowing he was surrounded by witnesses and at least two people pointing cameras right at him in broad daylight, decided to turn around into the faces of a carful of passengers inches away from him, pull out his gun and shoot his President in the face, that's brilliant.
@@aaronz7056 that's the thing. The film is edited after the first shot. Then it stutters until the car speeds up. Every other film was confiscated so we're pictures. You can clearly see the agent slow down and turn with his gun, facing offset to JFK, stutter and the head is blown out.
if the two blacks were discounted not the white guy and woman it would have been 12-0
"...and so ladies and gentlemen I give you the bird."
librazone the bird is in your hand.
He should have popped a Hopper to make that point!
Two things.WERE THEY ALL FRIGHTENED TO DEATH?
WHAT WAS THE NUMBER I WONDER 12-0 ?
If it was 11 to 1 it would have at least been a mistrial. 12 to 0 is almost the only way to convict. People have been convicted 11 to 0 after a juror has been excused but very rare. All you have to have his 1 NO vote and it's not a conviction but a mistrial.
Spence seemed a trifle drunk to me, but Bugliosi, IMHO, really bungled his passionate grilling of O'Connor, whom was a strong witness IMHO. I mean he seemed so very nervous and not the type who'd volunteer ANYTHING unless he was specifically asked by anyone. But when he told Bugliosi this very thing, well Vincent just essentially threw in the towel, I thought, very oddly.
Personally I like The 1977 made for TV Movie Trial Lee Harvey Oswald much better.
Sorry if you didn't like my comment.
I saw that too. It was so long ago I will have to watch again
Of course...drama adds to the scenario...but truth then takes a backseat!
OSWALD was considered dyslexic, how could he have typed that letter to the Russian Embassy and why did he mispell his daughter's name and his wife's maiden name as Micheleyevna from its proper spelling of Nikolayevna. In Russia a woman's name includes her father's name in it in Marina's case (Nikolay). And to this date February, 2019 the US government has not released Lee Harvey Oswald's Tax Returns or banking records to deduce his sources of income. Oswald earned $1.25 an hour, a very basic day rate.
Motorcycle cop Sgt. Stavis Ellis recommended that someone should interview a Cuban named Martino or Marino who actually employed Lee Harvey Oswald, not Roy Truly.
Maybe this Cuban guy was John Martino who admitted he was involved in a plot as a planner but not a shooter and that when an FBI first introduced Oswald to Martino in Miami, that Martino stated Oswald didn't know his arm from his ass (meaning totally ignorant of his role as a patsy).
Who was this Cuban Dallas Cop Sgt Stavis Ellis said was second in charge of the Texas School Book Depository?
None of this evidence was known or introduced to the Jury. Martino said the plan was for Oswald as Patsy to meet someone in the Texas Theater who was to have him flown out of Dallas and killed later. Martino also said that another Cuban gunman was sitting in the Texas Theatre among the 20 moviegoers but was released. Dallas Police compiled a list of all moviegoers with names and addresses but lost it somewhere.
Don't forget that Butch Burroughs from the Texas Theater prior to his employment at TexasnTheatre failed his enlistment for armed service on mental deficiency grounds, he was physically fit but not mentally fit.
Aussie Researcher......Oswald was guilty of knowing something was afoot, he was not aware that he was being set up to be a Patsy if captured. JD Tippit was killed for one reason only, the real conspirators needed Police to kill Oswald rather then capture him for the death of brother-cop for which Oswald had nothing to do with. Domingo Benevidez should have been questioned why he ducked up the laneway to his mother's house (between Tenth Street & Jefferson Boulevard) for a couple of minutes then return shortly after to try call police on Tippit's car radio shortly after the after Tippit's shooting.
Domingo's dad worked for a nightclub owner and Dallas businessman who had given financial assistance to Jack Ruby in the past.
One of Tippit's girlfriends, Helen Markham coincidently was standing right there on the corner of Tenth and Patton Ave when Tippit was shot, no wonder she became so hysterical. Tippit's wife one month later in company of Tippit's sister went to Helen Markham's home to confront her about this alleged affair, substantiated by Markham's neighbor a few doors up the road.
Friday night, 22nd November, 1963. Why did Jack Ruby go to Helen Markham's place of employment at the diner where she worked in the early evening to talk to her? Markham was at the police station lineup about 7:00pm so Ruby went to the police station immediately after. I could go on and on. How Did Ruby know Markham was a witness to Tippit's murder, how did he know where she even worked? Markham's fellow employee told Ruby Markham was sick and went home early, he paid for his coffee and meal which he didn't eat and rushed out of the cafe.
Thsts the biggest bunch of bullshit I e ever hesrd.
Hey mark ruby's brother said he was crazy about Kennedy he said he shot Kennedy because he had a smirk on his face
@Jack D there is no coverup Jack its all between your ears.
@Jack D they did not let Oswald and Ruby kill it just happened the only person who knew that assassanation was going down was Oswald and he could not have been sure it would happen Hostee said Oswald made no direct threat and it was impossible to cover all those windows hell there were 3 people in the 5th floor windows and we know Ruby was lucky to get down in that basement hinesight is 20/20
@Jack D they did not know Oswald had tried to Shoot walker before the assassanation
@Jack D Jack the security could have not been as good as it could have because they promised the press would able to see Oswald Leavell and a couple other wanted to transport him in secret but their biggest mistake was having only one guard on that ramp that is what Leavell said
As Castro himself said, a political assassin does one of two things: admit to the crime or have a planned escape. Oswald did neither.
Now your taking your cues from that fount of sage wisdom Fidel Castro....
Spence done an amazing job as the defense but at the end of the day the evidence is so overwhelming against Oswald that he undoubtedly guilty
There have been many, many documentaries made & witnesses come forward since this aired because much, much more information has come forward since this mock trial. It’s entirely possible/probable the outcome of this trial would be very much different if this went to trial today.
Has there been one solid piece of irrefutable evidence to emerge over the subsequent 37 years which might even open the door to proving a conspiracy? You would have thought there would be.
Wow, Gerry Spence really had no real case so has to end his closing argument with a story about a boy and a bird in his hand and trying to fool a wise old man. Desperate stuff.
When the law is on your side you pound the law. When the facts are on your side you pound the facts. When neither the facts or the law are on your side you pound the table.
Now, why did I suddenly think of that old saying?
Because, you are a BawBag!
spencers approach in this case was less then enthiastic he simply didn't present his case. and failed to do his homework. what Spencer should have pointed out were the obvious. that 4 policeman found a mauser on the 6th floor and lost it. the fact that oswald was exonerated from a nitrates examination proving that he didn't fire a rifle on that day or any other day! there were no nitrates present on oswald face and cheek making it impossible for man to accurately fire a bolt action rifle at his hip! the fact that the FBI found no palm prints of anything until the rifle was delivered back to the Dallas police department, and miraculously a palm print appears. the fact that the 3 Carcano shells were found side, by side, by side of one other in fantastic fashion. did anyone actually see oswald come down the steps??? nope. was oswald cool and calm drinking a Coke at the 2nd floor room?? Marion baker says. yup. the fact that in the tippet murder. 4 shells casings were from a 32 automatic and not coming from a revolver! the fact the police department submitted false evidence to the FBI. revealing the shells found at the scene 2 were winchester shells, and 2 were Remington shells! but the bullets pulled from tippets body reveal that 3 were winchester bullets, while one was remington! the bullets and shell casings simply do not add up! that an fbi ballestics expert cortland cunningham testify to the warren report that he simply "could not determine that the bullets came from oswalds revolver." it's also important to note that revolvers simply do not eject shell casings! so why on earth would oswald take the time and effort to implicate himself by emptying his revolver??? Spencer simply didn't present his case. have to give the bug man some credit despite the lack of evidence. he presented his case.
The defense attorney is a such a clown , I can do a better job. No doubt Oswald was no part of any conspiracy but I expected more from Mr Spence.
He was a clown wasn't he.
You might want to check Mr. Spence's track record. He's a legend. Both lawyers in this mock trial are highly decorated.
You couldn't do half of what Mr. Spence did in this trial, let alone his life
I still think Oswald Didn't just do it he was coached .So Guilty in a sense but Not guilty of pulling the trigger .Nobody has proved that Yet . Verdict has to be NOT Guilty .. right ?
Guilty is the obvious verdict after all innuendo and "what if" fairy tales are discarded. The evidence points to the sole assassin, Oswald.
Even if Oswald was the lone shooter that does not mean he was the lone assassin.
@@colonelreb1014 The other assassins (besides Oswald) plainly reside up yours....
Oswald acted alone
Ok, I’ll bite. What about the attending Drs at Parkland who refer to entrance wound in the front of neck, what about the physics of the single bullet theory, what about in the govts recreation not getting Oswald down from his supposed snipers nest, without leaving any fingerprints, on the boxes(60lbs) that covered the hidden rifle, to 2nd floor where the officer said he saw LHO drinking coke, or later in killing Tippett, can’t get Oswald to murder scene in time from his rooming house, or LHOs record of being a poor shot. So no, the evidence suggests actually no one was killed that day by LHO. So unfortunately we are left with the implication of CIA/FBI covering up a job that they may or may not have been involved in carrying out.
@@jayinspiredyogi8215 what in God's name are you talking about? single bullet physics? The Drs at Parkland (who were trying to save JFK's life, not perform an autopsy)... Nothing you said is accurate in the least.
28:00 spence gives bugliosi with a silent g the finger
The facts or evidence in this case didn't matter. If the jury were a genuine one, it would impossible for all 12 jurors to agree that Lee Oswald was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There was a mountain of facts and evidence establishing reasonable doubt. But that was irrelevant to the jury's decision. The jury members were paid $2,000 each by the producers to give a guilty verdict. The producers considered those payments to be a good investment and it earned them some favors from the IRS and the FBI for their support in promoting the coverup of the murder conspiracy. When the TV judge later found out about the payments to jurors, he got pissed that the producers didn't offer him any money. But they told him they didn't need positive rulings in their favor because they essentially owned the jury. However, just to keep things calm, the producers did send the judge and his wife on a cruise to the Caribbean Islands, which the judge appreciated. They assured the judge that it wasn't a bribe because they already secured the guilty verdict that they paid for. They said it was just a gift. The judge felt better about it after that.
The evidence of Oswald's guilt is overwhelming.
@@aaronz7056 There is zero evidence that Oswald committed any crime. What you call "evidence" was entirely manufactured. For example, the FBI originally determined from forensic tests that Oswald had not fired any firearm that day, even though the tests were performed within hours of the assassination. Nor did the FBI originally find any palm prints or fingerprints on the rifle that the FBI claimed Oswald used. Paul Groody, the funeral director for Oswald, said that government agents came to take finger and palm prints of Oswald at the funeral home. Only a day or two after that did a palm print magically appear for the first time on the purported assassination weapon. th-cam.com/video/tUMC3VmRXmo/w-d-xo.html I could go on and on and on with the fake evidence you call "overwhelming evidence," but I know that you couldn't care less about the truth.
@@ralphadamo1857 In that case I presume we can look forward to you explaining how some conspiracy knew it could safely approach scores and scores of police, FBI, Secret Service, military personnel, doctors, witnesses, x-ray technicians, ballistics experts, family members of Oswald, cab drivers, suburban housewives, shoe store clerks, photo experts, staffs at embassies in another country, journalists, reporters, news editors, anchors, network honchos, whole commissions, the Chief Justice, senators, lawyers, congressmen, counsels, and persuade them all to obey illegal orders to commit crimes, falsify evidence, perjure themselves by the dozens, seize and alter films, steal bodies, alter wounds, fake x-rays, forge photos, frame patsies, lie about what happened as long as they live, commit more murders, threaten people, make up bogus theories, plant fake bullets, switch guns around, pile cover-ups atop cover-ups, and make themselves all loyal accessories to murder and treason....
@@ralphadamo1857 I also assume you can explain how the people framing an innocent Oswald, assuming they didn't want to completely blow this frame-up, knew:
- exactly where his guns were
- he would show up at the Paine house Nov 21 otherwise they can't pretend he smuggled the rifle
- he won't simply stand out on the sidewalk during the parade
- no bullets or fragments will ever be found that don't match to his weapons
- he will immediately flee the TSBD
- he would successfully escape Dealey Plaza
- he would obtain his revolver
- he would retain his revolver
- his movements will make it possible to plausibly place him at the Tippit crime scene exactly when Tippit is killed
- nobody will ever see Oswald anywhere else when Tippit is killed
- an imposter who looks so much like Oswald he can fool witnesses needs to be hanging around 10th and Patton
- the imposter needs to be wearing a jacket just as Oswald decides at the last minute to put one on
- a cop will be driving at 10th and Patton at exactly the right moment to be shot and Oswald blamed for it
- the cop won't outdraw and capture the imposter
- Oswald will obligingly help frame himself being caught red-handed trying to shoot a second cop minutes later and fighting so violently 3 officers will be injured disarming him
- all those cops lying about Oswald's behavior in the theater and helping frame him will be on board for helping in the murder of a brother police officer with a wife and 3 children
- Oswald will lie to police
- Oswald will act so smug he'll even convince his own brother he's guilty
- Oswald, like all innocent people, will ask his family and the President of the Dallas Bar Association to specifically get him the services of a lawyer he's never met who specializes in left-wing causes
- Oswald, asked point-blank on live television if he shot the President, will not recoil in horror, or gasp out an indignant and shocked denial, or beg protection for his family, or make the slightest attempt to blurt out anything about any conspiracy, and instead will just not even blink in surprise as he gives a hollow, rambling reply that all but dodges the question....
@@aaronz7056 You really like to believe the CIA's load of crap, don't you? The CIA loves dupes like you. I'll make it simple for you. The official story was that Oswald wanted to make a name for himself. And all political assassins who were zealots (as opposed to paid professional assassins) have always been proud of their acts. Recall, for example, John Wilkes Booth and his triumphant "Sic semper tyrannis" proclamation as he jumped on the stage. But Oswald was the exact opposite. He said "I'm just a patsy." And when he was shown the backyard photo he immediately said that the face was his but it was pasted onto another person's body. Oswald, by the way, was an expert in photography. And he told the police that he could prove exactly how this photographic trick was done. No political assassin in history has behaved anything like this. All of your so-called "evidence" is just manufactured poppycock with no connection to reality.
They got it right! Spence had nothing to work with from the outset. Bugliosi just laid out point after irrefutable point. Oswald was alone and guilty.
Bugliosi did? I thought the warren commission did. Something wrong with their work?
@@AMC2283 Pay attention: Both the Warren Commission and Bugliosi got it right. AMC283 did not. There's something wrong with his work.
Let's not forget the HSCA which was created due to nagging doubts about the WC, no doubt perpetuated by that jealous Mark Lane. Well lets also not forget that except for the since thoroughly debunked acoustical evidence, they agreed with the WC's conclusions.
Bugliosi is wrong about quite a bit...
We are all sure that you are smarter than VB.
@@curbozerboomer1773 Not something I was expecting to hear. Thanks CB. Bugliosi, I can't totally blame him. If I had to guess, he was told what to say to clear the name of those in power. Most likely didn't want to be eliminated himself.
@@swankybutters8371 "If I had to guess...." "Most likely...." LOL
Both closing arguments were a bit weak. But of the two, Pence was the worse. No central argument to negate the prosecution's case. Sticking with Mrs. Paine might be his best chance. Stick to one conspiracy with Paine as the connection to make Oswald a patsy. One thing to remember is that Lee Harvey isn't there. That could make a difference. Jury might not be so willing to bring back a guilty verdict knowing the person they will give a death penalty is right there. However, the prosecution's case is incredibly strong. The gun. The shots. The book depository building. Lee Harvey is right there. He is everywhere in the assassination. His only motive would be his own delusions and anger at the world and Bugliosi showed that. Guilty all the way.
Paraffin test negative . Acquit . Not on 6 floor at time of shooting.. Not guilty
Paraffin test actually positive, and the only person to put Oswald on the 2nd floor during the shooting was Oswald, while the people he said were there flatly denied every seeing him.
"Acquit..."
Oswald owned the rifle.
Oswald smuggled the rifle.
Oswald's print was on the rifle.
Oswald's prints were on the sniper nest boxes in the right spots.
A man was seen in the window who could plausibly have been Oswald.
Witnesses under the window firmly stated the shots all came from directly overhead.
No unidentified persons were ever seen or caught in the TSBD.
No unidentified persons were ever seen coming down the stairs.
Nobody ever affirmed seeing Oswald anywhere else during the shooting.
Nobody ever found any bullets or fragments that didn't match to his gun.
Oswald was the only employee inside the TSBD during the assassination to immediately flee.
Oswald took evasive action to get to his room, and his revolver.
Oswald ignored his cab driver and landlady when they tried to talk to him.
Oswald was seen shooting Tippit.
Oswald smiled at one witness.
Oswald locked eyes with another witness.
Oswald exchanged words with a third witness.
Oswald was seen reloading, fleeing, hiding out, and ducking into the theater.
The bullets from Tippit's body were matched to Oswald's revolver.
Oswald was caught red-handed trying to shoot a second cop minutes later and fought so violently 3 officers were injured just disarming him.
Oswald lied to police.
Oswald refused to cooperate with investigators.
Oswald slept like a baby in his cell.
Oswald turned down offers of help from the President of the Dallas Bar Association pending learning whether he could get his first choice for attorney, John Abt, a lawyer in another state he'd never met who specialized in left-wing causes.
Oswald, asked point blank on live TV if he shot the President, expresses no particular surprise, no horror, no empathy, no panic, doesn't scream a tearful and appalled denial, doesn't beg protection for his family, doesn't make the slightest attempt to blurt out one word about any conspiracy, and instead just gives a hollow, rambling reply that all but dodges the question.
Oswald was so smug when his family visited him in jail he even convinced his own brother he was guilty.
But, have it your way: not guilty!
“It would not be a very difficult job to shoot the president of the United States,” he says to nobody in particular. “All you’d have to do is get up in a high building with a high-powered rifle with a telescopic sight, and there’s nothing anybody could do.”
JFK 10:15 am Nov 22,1963
I'm gonna need to see a source for this 😂🤡
Gerry Spence, legitimately fucked this up, He's great against these stiff corporate lawyers, but against a straight forward Prosecutor he got smoked. He thinks this is a drama play, this disillusionment he has with reality isn't helpful.The truth is his performance is distracting, he's putting the spotlight on himself not on his client and the issues at hand. You have to advocate for facts and what is right. This man thinks this is a Broadway production. What a truly spectacular performance, too bad he forgot he's representing a client. He made no real arguments. Bugliosi mopped the floor with him, he was probably shocked it was so easy. Remember when you are selecting a trial attorney for something serious you want a serious man, not someone playing games, someone who will go forward with facts, and attack not sit back and play some child's game of subtlety. There's no room for theories and subtlety, you want a winner not a clown. Remember it's easy to build a great record when you fight bums.
what else could he do? its so blatantly obvious that oswald is 100% guilty
@@NC-ck5oj lmao he was CI
He was great at cross examining though
@Christopher Strimbu you are one jealous dude.
You do not know what u are saying... this man is a legend. His defence was fabulous. You think could u be in front of him standing? U would be vanished. Look closely all things he had presented in to the court; was a damn collection of 'facts' which had made the reasonable doubt.... all coincidence he did mentioned was true ... and if are trying to be a blind man who does not want see the truth, you are betraying to yourself. The Truth is this case was really shady ... damn shady
If Bugliosi was still around ; without doubt he’d be prosecuting trump for MASS NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE.
For what??
Joe Biden has the death of more American citizens on his hands than any President in US history.
Spence does a Hollywood final summation because he had ZERO evidence
His best witnesses were all dead.
Vince Bugliosi is so good,he actually makes a great lawyer like Spence look like an average attorney.
He Parroted , the " Warren Commission , lone gunmen puts the Americian people at ease , it gives them a sense of closure but it's not the truth , it was refuted by Senate Committee on assassinations which concluded it was a " conspiracy ".
@Christopher Strimbu any evidence that doesnt suit the warren commision is bad evidence
I wouldn't say that. He did a good job with the case he was given.
Agreed!...Spence relies on emotion...Vincent relied on factual information.
@@curbozerboomer1773 You pinned the tail on the donkey with that one.
Take a look to
1:07:40
th-cam.com/video/e8i-R3saBBs/w-d-xo.html
YOU ARE FREE TO GO!!!!!!! STRAIT TO JAIL LOL
Spence was right. The only thing silent about Bugliosi is the "g" in his name.
So what?
Not sure how any juror could come up with the verdict of guilty in this case. Even though (as others have stated here) there was an incredible amount of evidence that could have been brought up that was left out. The defense I felt countered every point the prosecutor brought up.
I would have brought Roger Craigs account into evidence. Also, Seymour Weitzmans affidavit that the gun found was without a doubt a 7.65 Mauser. Also - Walter Cronkites broadcast that the gun was a 7.65 Mauser for the first 24+ hours until the government made him correct himself that it was in fact a Mannlicher Carcano rifle.
No Mauser was found, Deputy Weitzman freely owned up to his goof in misidentifying the gun at first and carelessly letting that slip to reporters, who understandably ran with it before it was corrected. Obviously news film shows the gun to be a Mannlicher-Carcano, Oswald's gun, to which all bullets and fragments ever found were matched. The idea some villains would leave multiple guns, or the wrong kinds of guns, lying around the crime scene for police to find is laughable. Did they *want* this "conspiracy" to be immediately exposed?
Oswald owned the rifle.
Oswald smuggled the rifle.
Oswald's print was on the rifle.
Oswald's prints were on the sniper nest boxes as though he had used the nest.
No bullets or fragments were ever found that did not match to Oswald's gun.
A man was seen in the window who could plausibly have been Oswald.
No unidentified persons were ever seen or caught inside the building, and certainly never came down the stairs.
Oswald was the one and only employee inside the building to immediately flee.
Oswald took evasive action to get to his other gun.
Oswald ignored his cab driver and landlady when they spoke to him.
Oswald was seen by a long line of witnesses shooting Tippit, fleeing, reloading, hiding out and ducking into the theater.
Oswald smiled at one witness.
Oswald exchanged words with another witness.
Oswald was caught red-handed trying to shoot a second cop minutes later with the gun used on Tippit and fought so violently 3 officers were injured just disarming him.
Oswald lied to police.
Oswald refused to cooperate with investigators.
Oswald slept like a baby in his cell.
Oswald turned down offers of help from the President of the Dallas Bar Association pending learning if he get his first choice for attorney, John Abt, a lawyer he'd never met who specialized in left-wing causes.
Oswald, asked point blank on live TV if he shot the President, doesn't panic, express any particular surprise, doesn't beg protection for his family, doesn't make the slightest attempt to blurt out anything about any conspiracy, instead just warbles a hollow, rambling reply that all but dodges the question.
Oswald was so smug when his family visited he even convinced his own brother he was guilty.
And you are not sure how any jury could have come up with a verdict of guilty in this case?
I'd also have loved to have seen Roger Craig's account brought into evidence:
A) He was with Deputy Mooney when they discovered the sniper nest.
Flatly contradicted by his own WC testimony.
B) He saw 3 shells lined up in a neat row in the nest.
Flatly contradicted by officers who actually discovered the nest and photographed the scattered shells where they fell.
C) He saw "Mauser" on the recovered rifle.
Flatly contradicted by other officers present, by news film, and by himself in his 1968 interview where he assures the L.A. Free Press he couldn't ID the gun because he "didn't know foreign rifles.
D) He saw it was only six past one when he heard Tippit was killed
Flatly contradicted by other witnesses and evidence.
E) He saw a .45 slug recovered from the plaza grass.
Flatly contradicted by every other officer present, and by his own WC testimony.
F) He saw Oswald flee the plaza in a Rambler station wagon.
Flatly contradicted by other witnesses and evidence demonstrating Oswald's true escape route, by bus (where he was recognized by his ex-landlady) and by cab. Oswald still had the bus transfer in his pocket when arrested.
G) Oswald told him in Captain Fritz's office the Rambler belonged to Mrs. Paine.
Flatly contradicted by every other officer present and by FBI and Dallas PD documents that prove Mrs. Paine's car was a Chevrolet.
H) There were attempts on his life.
No supporting evidence exists, nor is there any explanation of why it would be necessary to "silence" this guy when his credibility would have been shredded on the stand by any competent lawyer....
is there really any doubt oswald shot JFK? i mean, really?
was there another shooter? was he the only shooter but acting in concert with others?.... i don't think we'll ever know. i would say that he acted completely alone but that is just my opinion and it is NOT OBVIOUS that this is the truth unlike the fact that oswald did in fact shoot the president.
one thing i think is very interesting - although i guess it in fact does lead very weak credence to oswald being a patsy - is that very very few witnesses heard shots from more than one direction....... tells me oswald is a patsy or FAR MORE likely there was echo effect or witnesses can't accurately detect where sound came from.
The rational explanation for understanding Oswald's claim for being a patsy...is in what he said just before shouting out that word..."the police are just bringing me in, because they know that I spent time in the Soviet Union!"....He clearly was not referring to any conspiracy situation at all!
LET"S stamp out once and for all the phrase, overwhelming weight of the evidence - I do not judge evidence by quantity, by volume, by mass, by inertia
Spence is probably a better lawyer. Impressive. Oswald really was guilty, though.
Spence was a fine Civil Court lawyer, going up against corporation, etc.
This is a competition between two skilled wordsmithes and their spin on events. Not the best evidence. Ignore what makes your case look bad and hope you get away with it.
Two great lawyers but any descent lawyer should of won lone nut case easily.
Tons of proof.
Oswald was at the theater while Tippitt was shot. 3 witnesses saw him at the theater.
Far outnumbered by the number of witnesses who firmly ID'd Oswald as he killed Tippit, fled, hid, ducked into the theater and tried to shoot a second cop minutes later with the same gun.
@@aaronz7056 You cannot name any witnesses that had “firmly ID’d Oswald shooting Tippitt.
You are puffing.
Likely his doppelganger was used to pick up a light jacket at his home; then thrown down under a car; then he went to a shoe store to deliberately be tracked to the theater. The shoe store manager could be part of this plot.
There are “two Oswalds” in the theater.
The gun man who shot Tippitt was a chunky mobster who quickly disappeared. The gun could not be traced to the bullets that killed Tippitt because the barrel had been machined. And why would the shooter leave empty shells on the ground to be traced to the Oswald gun. ANSWER: to provide a false lead to the Oswald pistol. A revolver keeps all the empty shells-it doesnt eject them. It is a set-up; just as putting a jacket under a car is a set up.
Oswald’s “twin” arrives at the theater about 1;25 pm. The doppelgänger name is Lee Oswald.
Tippitt is parked in front of his girlfriend’s house. See this: th-cam.com/video/SpxxR2hRSI0/w-d-xo.html
Tippet’s girlfriend worked at the Carousel Bar. So Jack Ruby knows her address and knows she is connected to Tippett. A meeting is arranged for her and Tippett, arranged by the mob. The killer is a mob hit man who looks chunky.
Actors:
Lee Harvey Oswald
Lee Oswald ( doppelgänger)
Chunky mobster hit man
Shoe store manager
2 policemen who waited in driveway
3 theater employees
1 Witness who saw chunky man shoot
There were 2 more partial witnesses, nothing substantial.
@@timberrr1126 I love it when I'm advised to see paranoid, crackpot conspiracy garbage videos like that one.
I repeat, many witnesses ID'd Oswald and this "twin Oswalds" idiocy belongs in a re-run of "Mission: Impossible."
@@timberrr1126 "Likely..." LOL
Oswald was seen manually ejecting the shells, have you done *any* reading on this case, regarding the actual evidence?
@@timberrr1126 If Oswald was not Tippit's killer, he has to have been framed, yes? I look forward to you explaining how the people framing him knew:
- Oswald owned a revolver
- exactly where the revolver was
- Oswald would immediately flee the TSBD
- Oswald would successfully escape Dealey Plaza
- Oswald would specifically go to Oak Cliff
- Oswald would obtain his revolver
- Oswald would keep his revolver on him
- an Oswald imposter who looks so much like him multiple witnesses will firmly ID him as the real Oswald needs to be hanging around 10th and Patton in Oak Cliff
- the imposter will be certain Oswald is somewhere nearby so they can plausibly place him at the Tippit crime scene during Tippit's shooting
- the imposter needs to be wearing a jacket just as Oswald decides at the last minute to put one on
- alternately, they can frame this on Oswald as they shoot Tippit with a gunman who looks nothing like Oswald
- there is any point to taking all the risky chances gunning down a cop on a public street in broad daylight in the first place since if anything goes wrong they just end up confirming a conspiracy
- either they can get Oswald's revolver off him, shoot Tippit with it, and plant it back on him before his arrest, or:
- they are guaranteed to safely count on exactly the right ballistics experts on both the Dallas PD and the FBI to obey illegal orders to falsify evidence and make themselves accessories to murder and treason
- every witnesses in this quiet suburb suddenly thrown into this horror show can be safely counted on to perjure themselves and lie about what really happened as long as they all live, never spilling the truth
- every witness who can't can be counted on to play ball as a conspiracy goes around threatening them, thereby confirming to each and every one of them a conspiracy exists
- either Oswald will obligingly help frame himself by being caught red-handed trying to shoot a second cop minutes later and fighting so violently 3 officers will be injured just disarming him, or:
- every officer who is among those who are first to arrive at the theater can be safely counted on to perjure themselves regarding what really happened, happily lie about what happened as long as they all live, and presumably be on board for helping a conspiracy murder a brother officer with a wife and 3 children
- nobody will ever seen the imposter before the shooting, on his escape from Oak Cliff, or, indeed, ever again
- nobody will ever see Oswald anywhere other than at the crime scene during Tippit's death
Thanks in advance for clearing each one of these points up.
Open and shut....Oswald was the only killer that day.
Oswald did the shooting, he was no different than any other political assassin in history, stop watching hollywood fiction and come back to reality please?
Well Gerry was sort of at a big disadvantage because he could not bring in his own experts on ballistics, autopsy, alteration of the Zapruder film, the backyard photo etc. I thought he did a great job!
Film was in custody, processed and copied way to fast to have been screwed with.
Extensive analysis of the backyard photos found no evidence of tampering and Oswald's wife always affirmed she took the photos and they were genuine anyway.
How does some "conspiracy" approach and recruit scores of police, FBI, Secret Service, military personnel, doctors, x-ray techs, ballistics experts, witnesses, etc. and persuade them all to obey illegal orders to falsify evidence, perjure themselves by the dozen, and make themselves all loyal accessories to murder and treason anyway?
Keeping this simple... Zapruder filming location was alongside the GRASSY KNOLL; so there would be no ZAPRUDER FILM, because he would had taken cover, over his wife, because the bullets would had passed by him.
oswwald knew he was screwed as far as getting cought as soon as he took the shots the fact he made it out of the building was only because secret service men where all on their way to parkland. i'm sure oswald was surprised he made it out of the building.
28:14 pretty much sums the whole thing up. Good closing argument by Bugliosi. Spence was pretty good as well but its pretty hard with a client like LHO
The rifle that was planted was not the rifle Oswald owned. Sharp shooters couldn't match the so called shots that Oswald was supposed to have accomplished. Who gained from his Murder,, Johnson, the exporters of Arms to Vietnam, the Oil Barons that Kennedy was putting a tax on there enormous profits. There was too many things that went on,, the limousine s route was changed,, the car was not covered on top,, it slowed down to a crawl, why did hundreds of people run towards the Grassy Knoll.the so called magic bullet was utterly impossible. His brain was blown out. The autopsy was a shambles. There was a lot that can not be just ignored.
Why was Oswald Shot,, because he knew too much, how about Ruth Payne,, she worked for the CI A she got him a job in the Book Depository was that all just a coincidence,, she was having an affair with Oswald s Wife,,,Ruby was an FBI informer,, and had connections with the Mob.
@JeremiahLong-b7r It wasn't ignored. All of that shit has been studied to death. Read the HSCA report, all of those points are covered in detail and they're all a load of rubbish. Believe what you want but don't be ignorant to the mountains of information out there countering all your theories.
Hey driver3596 he wasnt too swift if you know what I mean
Unbelievable! What piece of evidence did Bugliosi produced??!
lonenut740 nothing this was just a mock trial. and thats all it was.
I know but had Oswald lived, he would been convicted.
Two excellent lawyers. But Bugliosi "always gets his man". That goes back to the Manson trial where he was DA and put the "Manson Family" away. But there was no question of guilt in that case. This case there is certainly evidence that Oswald did not act alone (Zepruder film) and all the irregularities of Kennedy's autopcy etc. So I would conclude that yes, Oswald did shoot President Kennedy but did not act alone. There was a second shooter in front.
respectfully disagree past paraffin test the FBI concluded that package did not contain a rifle he was on the second floor thatvrifle was so bad it inspired jokers. the scope was not aligned poor shot yet expert marksman could not duplicate.I can't believe Spencer lost
Proven wrong, over and over again!
I believe, LHO, was one of the shooters, however, this trial didn’t prove whether or not, he acted alone. I wish Jack Ruby never shot Oswald. There may still be a lot more to this story.
Oh my Vince told the jury that Oswald killed Tippit so of course he killed JFK. He lied. No one saw Oswald kill Tippit. Witnesses saw 2 men kill Tippit. One short heavy and dark. Other tall. Neither was Oswald. The pistol that killed Tippit was an automatic. Oswald owned a revolver with a firing pin which was bent and did not work. Oswald tested negative for cordite. Thus he had not fired any gun that day. NO fingerprints of Oswald were found on the gun. The rifle was not bore sighted which means it did not work. Vince said the brain matter sprayed to the front...but in fact it sprayed backwards. Thus the shot came from the front. numerous witnesses said the headshot came from the front. the back of the head was blown out and the motorcycle cops behind the limo were sprayed with bone and brain with such force it almost knocked them over He lied again. Fraizer later said the package that Osward carried was too small to be a rifle. Even if the rifle was broke down. Vince lied again. A police officer and other witnesses place Oswald on the 2nd floor at the time of the shooting. There is no evidence that points to Oswald. There is now a ton more evidence the shows there were two shooters from the front and side. Today Oswald would be easily found not guilty. HOWEVER he probably did know who killed JFK. He said I am a patsy. Not I know nothing.
henochparks let’s remember that this “trial” was conducted in 1986, Oliver Stone who I deeply admire came out with his movie “JFK” in 1991 and a year later President George H.W. Bush signed the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. So, we can both agree the lone nut case is dead.
@@matthewpetruzziello8202 Nope...you are agreeing to false info.
Whilst I found the whole trial fascinating, does anybody in their right mind actually believe that a gargantuan 23 years following the assassination and with the Government's own official stance being that LHO was guilty (Warren Report) and the infinite speculation etc, that a verdict other than 'guilty' would be the outcome? The defence was always guaranteed to lose this case, that is obvious for any sensible person to see. However, as I mentioned, still a truly fascinating case and Gerry Spence did amazingly well, considering he had zero chance of winning - well done to him.
Plus the minor detail that all credible evidence points right at Oswald.
( 50 reasons for 50 years ) hosted by Len Osanic check out these video's.
I'm wondering why attourney spence didnt call the doctors at parkland hospital who have testified that the throat wound was one of entry not exit? why he didnt read some of the testimony of people like lee bowers who swore there were people by the picket fence acting strangely. why he didnt call the dallas poliuceman who operated the switchboard who told that ruby called and said if you dont move oswald WE are gonna get him. Why the dallas policeman who was bringing oswald through the basement said he saw ruby standing there with a pistol by his side and he still continued to bring him out until ruby shot him . its just too idiotic
You idiot because the drs knew the next day they were wrong about the frontal entry wound..You dont know that much you shouldn't even be in a intelligent conversation.
Your observations are incorrect.
Two rifles one in the TSBD first i dentified as a mauser? Then the manlicare concarno in the Ruth Pains garage?😊