Wednesday, November 20, 2013

What's Been Overlooked About Oswald for the Last 50 Years.

No crime in history has undergone the scrutiny of the Kennedy assassination. And no assassin, accused assassin or would be assassin ( depending on your point of view) has undergone more scrutiny than Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet for all the books written, all the studies done,all the articles written, all the forensic experiments and re-enactments created to help find the truth,  there are two glaring facts about Oswald and the assassination that has never before been mentioned much less undergone the same kind of scrutiny.

The original conclusion of the Warren Report, as everyone knows,  was that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, as a lone nut assassin, killed president John F. Kennedy. But something doesn't fit, something that doesn't necessarily point to innocence, but it does debunk the idea of Oswald as a "lone nut assassin".

History is littered with lone nut assassins. It's never been a one of a kind occurrence. Going back to John Wilkes Booth, Lincoln's assassin, Charles Guiteau the assassin of president James Garfield in 1881, the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand, the  assassination of Ghandi,  attempted assassinations of  FDR, Pope John, two attempts on Gerald Ford by Squeaky From and Sarah Jane Moore, president Reagan by John Hinkley, John Lennon by John David Chapman,  Robert Kennedy by Sirhan, George Wallace by Arthur Bremer,  all of them were considered "lone nut assassins" and all shared at least one common trait and most shared two. Neither of them applied to Oswald.

First, except for John Wilkes Booth,  none tried to escape. In fact their method of  assassination or attempted assassination ensured they couldn't escape since they carried out their assassinations in a crowd in front of hundreds or even thousands of witnesses.And that also  includes Booth who carried out his assassination in a crowded theater.

None, except for Booth, even contemplated escape.  And except for Booth all were apprehended on the spot. In fact, in the case of Chapman, he actually remained at the scene and waited for the police to arrive to arrest him. And what better example of the profile of the lone nut assassin than Jack Ruby himself who shot and killed Oswald in a crowd, in front of TV cameras and in a police station no less,  packed with cops and reporters with no hope,possibility or even a contemplation of escape.

And though Booth did plan his escape, Booth let it be known that he was the assassin by leaping to the stage, waving his gun, and shouting the words "sic semper tyrannis ", Latin for "thus be to tyrants". It was an act for which Booth made a point of taking credit.

Which brings us to the second characteristic shared by all of the worlds previously known "lone nut assassins" except for Oswald.  None ever denied or even attempted to deny or even wanted  to deny, their crime.

And in all cases, including Booth's they all willingly gave their bizarre or twisted motives,  whether it was Chapman's accusing Lennon of "being a phony" after reading Catcher in the Rye, or Hinkley's desire to impress Jodi Foster, or the political motives behind the assassinations of Lincoln,  the Archduke Ferdinand, William McKinley,and James Garfield, or the attempts on the life of Gerald Ford by the bizarre  Squeaky From and Sarah Jane Moore. Even James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King confessed to the killing ( though he was never categorized as a "the lone nut assassin" and in fact many still believe he was a hired killer).? Even Ruby gave his motive for killing Oswald.  They all had their reasons and all freely expressed them. Except for Lee Harvey Oswald.

And the irony of that, if irony is what it is, is that  no one was more politically motivated or carried more political baggage than Oswald.

Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union, had learned Russian and married a Russian. He was also suspected of being a double agent by the Soviets. He returned to the United States and while living in Dallas had gone to Mexico and tried to gain entrance to the Soviet embassy in Mexico who refused him.  And he was well  known in New Orleans for his support of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. He was an avowed Marxist and anyone who has heard his radio interviews explaining his political positions about Marxism and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee will hear Oswald as articulate and with well thought out,  firmly held positions. His was not the rambling incoherent ravings of a mad man. He had  firm, radical political beliefs and he knew how to express them.  And he expressed them without fear even though his views were completely incompatible with America and America's ideals.

It is hard to imagine that Oswald, given his political background, his motives,  and his demonstrable ability in handling radio interviews, his ability to communicate and his lack of fear of espousing his unpopular political views, that with the eyes and ears of the entire world  focused only on him,  knowing every word he uttered before the cameras would be taken down, shown, broadcast and repeated all over the world, not just for that time but for all time, that in this moment when he had the opportunity to espouse his radical Marxist philosophy and sympathy for Cuba to the world, and that these were the political views that motivated him to carry out the assassination, all that came out of his mouth was " No sir, I didn't shoot anybody" and in response to " did you shoot the president", said, " no, I didn't know anything about that until a reporter asked me about it".

He also said " I'm just a patsy". Not exactly the kind of grandiose statement one might expect from a highly motivated and deranged radical political  presidential assassin.   He also complained that he wasn't allowed to take a shower, that a police officer hit him and requested that "someone come forward to give me legal assistance".

Not the actions, statements or behavior of any of the well documented "lone nut assassins" of the past.

Which, again, is not to say that Oswald is innocent.  His actions are proof enough that he was no innocent bystander. He knew something.  But  it is to say that the facts are the facts. And they don't add up. Lone nut assassins do not try and escape. Lone nut assassins do not deny their crime.

The Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone nut assassin and after decades of  scrutiny and re-examination of physical evidence and without any better of an explanation,  this is now the accepted truth.  Yet all of Oswald's  actions, statements and behavior post assassination, from leaving the scene and trying to escape without an escape plan, to denying any role in the assassination,  is completely out of step with the well established profile of the lone nut assassin since 1865.

Given Oswald's well documented radical political and anti-American views,that he assassinated president Kennedy motivated by those views and then didn't take the opportunity to disseminate those views to a waiting world wide audience or to use those views to justify his actions still needs to be explained.
It will have to be up to others to try to explain it.


Alessandro Machi said...

I didn't know that Oswald apparently or allegedly killed a police officer a short while later that same day. Were the gun casings from both murders matched up?

Or did Oswald have more than one gun?

Marc Rubin said...

"I didn't know that Oswald apparently or allegedly killed a police officer a short while later that same day. Were the gun casings from both murders matched up?"

They did in the sense that the forensic reports show that but we are all a bit more cynical now in terms of physical evidence. One thing I didnt write about in the piece is how strange it is that Oswald, after assassinating a president would go HOME of all places. And go home to get his handgun and to change his jacket. If he was going to need the gun to help escape and wanted to change his jacket, why didnt he bring them with him? He forgot?

Anonymous said...

Oswald used a rifle to fire shots from the School Book Depository building. The shell casings found there matched his rifle. A test showed gunpowder residue on one of his palms..
The bullets found at the hospital match that gun.
Oswald used a pistol to kill the cop. The bullets the recovered match up to that gun.
The evidence is pretty strong

Marc Rubin said...

"Oswald used a pistol to kill the cop. The bullets the recovered match up to that gun.
The evidence is pretty strong"

Youre missing all the crucial points. No one said Oswald was innocent and knew nothing. But his actions on that day not only defy logic and common sense but fly in the face of every known "lone nut" assasin of which there have been many who committed similar acts. It didnt happen in a vacuum.

Are you going to tell me Oswald planned to assassinate the President of the United States and had enough sense of survival to run from the scene but didnt have enough sense to figure out an escape plan or where he was going to go the day before? Are you going to tell me he planned the assasination, knew he would want his hand gun afterwards but simply forgot to bring it with him with the rifle when it was the easiest thing he could have brought with him by simply putting it in his pocket but instead had to run home after the assasination to get it? Does that make sense?

Does it make sense that after assassinating the president felt he needed a change of clothes and went home to get a jacket when he could have brought it with him?

And with the eyes of the world on him, a world stage like no one has ever had before this avowed Marxist who had appeared on local TV and radio and articulated the Marxist cause and now had an audience of hundreds of millions only said " Im just a patsy. I didnt kill anyone"? Does that make sense? If he assassainated JFK for ideological reasons he had the best platform anyone could have had to espouse his Marxist philosophy and didnt take it.

The other thing that makes no sense is the cops description of Oswalds arrest in the movie theater with Oswald surrounded by cops, pulling out his gun and yelling "this is it".

It sounds like bad made up B movie dialogue. And aside from that on what planet can a guy who is wanted for assassinating the President of the U.S. AND the murder of a police officer be surrounded by cops, pull a gun, yell "this is it" and not get shot 150 times? In the real world a cop killer pulling a gun surrounded by police doesnt live to tell about it. Thats true anywhere but especially in Texas.

The whole story of Oswalds arrest doesnt ring true. Did he shoot Tippit? Definitely. There were eyewitnesses. But it seems at that point he didnt know who to trust, felt set up and if he felt threatend by Tippit it says something about who he was afraid of and why.

Oswald was no innocent bystander, there is no doubt about that but I think he was used and set up by people and was told one thing was going to happen when another thing happened. His actions say he was taken by surprise,,maybe even double crossed by the assasination when he thought it was going to be about something else, didnt know what to do next, didnt know who to trust and thats why he ran home, changed his jacket and took his gun, all things he could have brought with him if he had planned the aassassination the day before but the actions he took suggest he didnt plan it but was surprised by what happened. But unless someone does more digging we will probably never know