Each witness testimony was more shocking than the last, and each new revelation brought the jury one step closer to the truth. Jeff Borden, Chief Innovation Officer, thanked the jurors for their participation
Disclaimer: The following story, photos, and accompanying items are fictionalized and are part of Saint Leo University’s Alternate Reality Learning Experience (ARLE). The events described did not occur. The characters are fictional, and any resemblance to any person living or dead is purely coincidental.
On Nov. 3, a highly anticipated verdict was reached in the trial of the century: the case of the Estate of Lee Harvey Oswald vs. ACME Insurance.
In a heated debate, the plaintiff fought for Lee Harvey Oswald and his family. ACME Insurance refused benefits to Oswald’s wife, Marina, due to her husband’s alleged murder of President John F. Kennedy. The trial brought with it sad memories and high emotions as participants were asked to relive that horrific day to search for the truth. The two-day trial began with a voir dire where jurors were questioned so that the defense could select the best fit for their jury. Day two began with opening statements from both sides.
The trial was a passionate battle for justice between the plaintiff and defense. In the plaintiff’s opening statement, lawyer Brother Lucius proclaimed, “Sadly, we are here to talk to you about greed and pain. ACME is withholding benefits to Marina Oswald, accusing her late husband of being responsible for the death of John F. Kennedy. We are asking you to relive this day [of the assassination of JFK on November 22, 1963]so that you may see the truth in this case. We would like to give peace of mind and heart to Marina Oswald. Let’s move forward to the truth.”
The defense’s opening statement was made by Matthew Clime, the Council Defendant of ACME Insurance Company.
“We will show evidence that Oswald planned and executed this assassination because he did not like our president or this country. The plaintiffs will give you conspiracies and hearsay rather than true evidence,” argued Klein. “The bullet from the rifle owned by Oswald [and used in the assassination of our president]was custom ordered under an alias. We want you to find that Oswald is guilty and that he acted alone.”
There were many witnesses brought forward including law enforcement agents, experts on ballistics, and Oswald’s widowed wife. Witness reports’ evidence included that there were at least three shots fired, Oswald traveled to the USSR during the Cold War, and that he had interviews with the FBI regarding his ties to Russia. There were discrepancies in the witness testimonies, such as which type of gun was used, where the fatal shot came from, and whether the bullet in evidence had even been fired.
During Mark Saunders’ testimony, who represented the Soviet Union, we learned that Oswald had traveled to the Soviet Union on Oct.16, 1959, in the midst of the Cold War. Upon entry, he was granted six days of asylum, then was denied citizenship due to lack of adherence to their ideals of Communism and Marxism. When Oswald was asked to leave the Soviet Union, he attempted suicide, indicative of mental instability and violent tendencies. He claimed to be Marxist and denounced his United States citizenship, but was never granted USSR citizenship. He returned to the U.S. in 1969 with his new wife, Marina, after an eighteen-month stay.
During his testimony, Hunter Banes, a CSI witness for the defense, declared that Oswald had two interviews with the FBI, in June and August, because of his travels to Russia during the Cold War. Banes also taught us that Oswald went under the alias Alex Hill to lead the Fair Play Cuba Committee and to order money to purchase the gun that killed JFK. While Oswald denied ownership of a gun, his wife confirmed that he did own one, and had a picture of him holding it.
Though Marina would be gaining benefits with Oswald’s innocence, she acknowledged that Oswald was very politically radical, and brought to the jury’s attention that he had attempted to murder a General – General Edwin.
“He looked guilty, I saw it in his eyes,” she said of Oswald following the assassination.
The jury was sent to deliberate which side had stronger evidence. If the evidence proved that Oswald committed the unthinkable, they were to be in favor of the defense. If he were in fact not responsible for JFK’s death, thereby releasing to Marina his life insurance benefits, the jury would vote in favor of the plaintiff.
In the end, the jury sided with the defense and Oswald was found guilty. American citizens can now rest at ease knowing that our beloved president’s assassin is no longer out in the world or continuing to pose a threat.
