Rebuttal arguments by Alvin Oser


THE COURT: I wish to make one announcement before we bring the Jury down. What is going to happen now I understand is that Mr. Oser, Mr. Alcock, and Mr. Garrison are going to close the rebuttal closing argument for the State, and after they are finished I intend to take a five-minute recess. I am going to charge the Jury, and I have some extra copies that I wish to re-check just one more time for any spelling errors, subject matter errors, and what I propose to do, after the Jury gets the case for their decision, if they do bring a verdict of guilty in the foreseeable future, we are going to lock the outside door so that nobody can get out, because I know whatever the verdict may be there is a strong probability that either the State or the Defense will ask that the Jury be polled. Although a verdict, whatever it may be, be read, that does not wind up the case. The Jury in all probability will be polled, that is, each one will be asked is this your verdict, and after we have a legal verdict and it is recorded, I am going to ask everybody to remain in court until the jurors leave out safely, and the doors will be locked outside where the Sheriff has deputies to enforce this, and after the Jury leaves, then the Press may leave and do whatever they are supposed to do. I just want to make this announcement so you will understand, so you will have an idea of what is going to happen.
All right. Bring the Jury in.
(Whereupon, the Jury returned to the box.)
THE COURT: All right, gentlemen. Let's keep a little order, because it is very distracting to the jurors that are trying to pay attention. When someone is speaking or someone else misbehaving in the audience, it distracts the attention of the Jury. That is what we are trying to defend.
Are the State and the Defense ready to proceed?
MR. ALCOCK: The State is ready.
MR. DYMOND: We are ready, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We will now hear the closing arguments by the State.

MR. OSER: Gentlemen, I am only going to have a few remarks to you in the area of what happened in Dealey Plaza, and possibly a few remarks about Mr. Dymond's remarks. You know, gentlemen, there are several ways for a defense attorneys to defend a case, and one of the classic ways is that of setting up a smokescreen, talking about everything else except what the evidence was from the witness stand, talking about how I am un-American, how my fellow lawyers sitting at the table are un-American, but not one word did Mr. Dymond say about what the evidence was that came from that witness stand involving Dealey Plaza.

Oh, he talked about Dr. Nichols' copyright, but not one word did he take about the 28-degree angle that Dr. Nichols testified about. He talked about Dr. Nichols' copyright, which is a privilege you and I and everybody has to protect their rights. Did he say that Dr. Nichols lied to you? Did he say that one witness involved in what happened November 22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza lied to you? No. He says that we presented to you a figment, or a copy rather, of RUSH TO JUDGMENT. Mr. Robert West wasn't in RUSH TO JUDGMENT; Mr. Phil Willis wasn't in RUSH TO JUDGMENT; Abraham Zapruder wasn't in RUSH TO JUDGMENT; Roger Craig wasn't in RUSH TO JUDGMENT; Mrs. Carolyn Walther wasn't in RUSH TO JUDGMENT; Officer Billy Joe Martin wasn't in RUSH TO JUDGMENT; Mrs. Mary Moorman wasn't either, nor was Mrs. Wilma Bond.

Listening to Mr. Dymond on our presentation of what happened in Dealey Plaza when the President of the United States was killed, it was that we picked a handful of mercenaries, some of them wanting to get their names in the paper. Do you really believe that Mr. and Mrs. Newman are this type, or are Mr. and Mrs. Newman more like you and I? Are they mercenaries? He talks about the State subpoenaing Robert Frazier and not putting him on the stand. That's right, gentlemen. We subpoenaed him. We had to file a subpoena where he is from -- Virginia, I believe -- to get him down here, and when he came down here Mr. Alford and I couldn't talk to him unless two United States attorneys were sitting there. We didn't even know where he was staying.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we object, Counsel himself is now getting out of the record.
THE COURT: I didn't hear the statement. What was the statement, Mr. Dymond? Maybe I will have Mrs. Dietrich read it back.
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, we may as well have him argue it to the Jury as do that. I think Mr. Oser knows he is out of the record.
THE COURT: I didn't hear it. What was it?
MR. OSER: Mr. Dymond opened the door in arguing --
THE COURT: No such thing. In argument you must stay within the record. You don't open the door in argument, you must stay in the record in addressing the Jury, although you are given quite a bit of latitude in forming your deductions, what you think you can deduce from the record, but neither side can go out of the record. That is my ruling.

MR. OSER: Let me read to you, gentlemen, what Mr. Dymond has done. Mr. Dymond talked about Robert Frazier, saying the possibility that one bullet could have entered President Kennedy and Governor Connally, and I cite to you on page 185 of Mr. Frazier's testimony an answer to a question exactly on that point. Mr. Frazier said -- and he said it in front of the Warren Commission, "I myself don't have any technical evidence which would permit me to say one way or the other."

I wonder if Mr. Dymond, if some unfortunate thing happened either to he or a member of his family, would want his case investigated the way the President's case was investigated in Dealey Plaza. He would be knocking our doors down wanting something done about it. That is what would happen, and yet he has the gall to stand up here in front of you gentlemen and state that I and my fellow lawyers, counselors, are un-American. And how we treated poor Dr. Finck on the stand.

You know, gentlemen, this is what I am talking about in reference to a smokescreen. He talked about everything but what came from this witness stand. Mr. Dymond didn't make reference to one witness, about his testimony or their testimony in regard to the 28-degree angulation. Second, that it was mathematically impossible for the gun to have shot that fast, using the Zapruder film. Number three, that the bullets or one bullet --
MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, I object to this. The purpose of rebuttal is to answer what I did say. Here Counsel is getting up and arguing about what I didn't say.
THE COURT: The position is well taken. You can rebut argument of Counsel. You are restricted in that to rebutting his argument.
MR. OSER: Gentlemen, the State has presented to you from this witness stand that what happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, was that there was a triangulation of fire, and because we present our case, which we are sworn to do by the oath that I take as an Officer of the Court and as a lawyer to present the evidence, and because we do, he says we are un-American, because we show you from the witness stand what the facts were and what happened resulting in this triangulation of fire. We are un-American. You know what he said, I guess insinuating about whether or not -- if you don't like the country, you can leave it.

Well, in answer to that statement, gentlemen, let me tell you what came from this witness stand about triangulation of fire, and if Mr. Dymond doesn't like it, then he can lump it, because what came from that witness stand is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a triangulation of fire in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. We shoed it to you on the blackboard with the 28-degree angulation. I showed you on the blackboard that it was impossible for that gun to fire that fast and get off two shots, using the Zapruder film. I showed you on the blackboard that the Governor and the President could not have been hit by the same shot, and you saw this Zapruder film and you saw the reaction of the President when he was hit by a frontal shot in the head, and that was that.

So, as I said before, gentlemen, a lot of defense lawyers put this smokescreen up about whether or not the State presented all its cases, whether or not the witnesses lied, and in this particular case he wants you to forget all about Dealey Plaza. That has no part in this case whatsoever. Well, it does. The State does have a right to show what the culmination or the end results were of a conspiracy that was hatched in New Orleans, and you know what that culmination was -- (demonstrating) the triangulation of fire.

And who said it better, what happened November 22, 1963, than Mrs. Gayle Newman? And she stated that they were caught in a cross-fire.