Oswald\'s Innocence President John F.

Oswald's Innocence

President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, at 12:30 PM on November 22nd, 1963. Within ninety minutes of the killing, a twenty-four-year-old former marine and alleged Communist was arrested by the Dallas police from a local movie theater and charged with the killing of a Dallas police officer and the President. Just two days later, on the morning of Sunday, November 24th Oswald was shot and killed in the basement of the Dallas police headquarters by Jack Ruby, a local nightclub owner. As Oswald never confessed to the murder during the short time of his custody and was killed before his trial, many questions about Kennedy's assassination still remain unanswered. The key one is "would Lee Harvey Oswald have been found guilty in a fair trial if he had lived?" This brief essay shall attempt to answer the question.

Innocent until Proven Guilty

Before proceeding further in examining the evidence against Oswald, one must remember the basis of the American justice system: an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of doubt. Hence, instead of describing the numerous 'conspiracy theories' that have been written and discussed about Oswald and the President's assassination, I shall examine the evidence available against Oswald and then see whether it proves his guilt "beyond a shadow of doubt." Let us look at the "evidence."

The Evidence

The Dallas District Attorney General at the time, Henry Wade, held a press conference after Oswald was killed and presented "irrefutable" evidence that Oswald had indeed killed Kennedy. It included:

Palm Prints on the Murder Weapon: Oswald is alleged to have killed Kennedy by firing shots from an Italian-made rifle, which he had purchased through mail-order service along with a revolver in March 1963. Wade stated in his press conference that Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle. The FBI later said, "no palm prints were found on the rifle." (Quoted by Lane, 1963). Why did Wade deliver this 'misstatement' at the press conference? Because he knew that any evidence 'presented' in a press conference would not be subject to exhaustive cross examination. Would he have presented such 'evidence' in a murder trial? The answer is obvious.

Paraffin Tests on Both Hands: Wade stated that paraffin tests on Oswald showed that Oswald had fired a gun recently. When asked by a reporter at the conference whether Oswald had fired a rifle. Wade repeated "a gun." The district attorney neglected to state that tests had been conducted on Oswald's face as well, which showed no traces of gunpowder on Oswald's face. So much for the paraffin 'evidence.'

The Murder Weapon: Wade informed the press conference that the murder weapon was a rifle (an Italian carbine, Mannlicher-Carcano) which Oswald had purchased through mail-order under an assumed name. A short time earlier Wade had said that the murder weapon was a "German Mouser." This was before Wade learnt the next day from FBI files about Oswald having purchased a rifle and promptly changed his statement.

The number of witnesses: Wade told the press that "a number of witnesses saw Oswald at the window of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository." The 'number' of witnesses later turned out to be a single witness who was not even sure about who he saw at the window.

Palm prints on the cardboard box: Similarly Oswald's palm prints were said to have been found on a cardboard box found at the window of the depository building from which Oswald allegedly shot Kennedy. Oswald's prints were not found anywhere else in the room except on a 'convenient' carton that could easily find its way to the police station where Oswald was kept in custody. (Lane,

Rifle Capability

Apart from these, not insignificant, inconsistencies in the "evidence" presented by the Dallas Attorney General, it is highly unlikely that Oswald, using the Carcano, could have shot with the accuracy and speed required at a moving target.