Oswald's Motive

[Richard Smith]

We can only speculate about Oswald’s guilt or motive because one or more persons made sure that he didn’t live long enough to talk.

There would always have been a necessity to speculate about Oswald's motives.  His act was not a rational one.  Therefore, it is unlikely that even Oswald himself could explain it in any way that makes sense to a rational person.  He may not have even fully understood himself why he did it.   Oswald lived in some type of fantasy world.  He may have thought that he was going to escape to Cuba and become a revolutionary hero.   That sounds ridiculous to reasonable people but maybe Oswald entertained that possibility.  James Earl Ray got to Canada and Europe after assassinating MLK.  If Oswald had made it to Mexico perhaps there was a chance in his mind that the Cubans would have given him asylum.  I don't think they would have but in Oswald's demented mind maybe he thought it was a risk he was willing to take.  Castro took in other cop killers and Americans who managed to get to Cuba in the 60s and 70s.  In addition, nothing Oswald would have said could be taken as truthful.  He had a real struggle with veracity even in his ordinary life.  He would have lied as necessary to assist himself in custody as most criminals do after arrest.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, it's the same tired song and dance from our contrarians.  Someone asks a question that by necessity calls for speculation.  And, of course, a question about Oswald's "motive" by necessity must implicitly assume that Oswald assassinated JFK. Otherwise, there is no motive to speculate about.   They then dismiss the answer because it contains speculation.  Suggesting, of all things, that no one can even speculate about Oswald's motives unless they personally knew him! HA HA HA.  The time machine argument.  Of course, motive is not necessary to prove Oswald's responsibility for the crime.  The evidence does that.  There is no doubt that Oswald assassinated JFK based upon the evidence.   We do, however, know a great deal about Oswald himself from his family and acquaintance and there is an amazingly consistent pattern to his life.  He was a malcontent who acted up from childhood on for attention.  So, the "speculation" here is well grounded in facts that support that speculation.  Unlike the nutty contrarian theories that imply all manner of thing that is not only implausible but completely baseless.

Of course, motive is not necessary to prove Oswald's responsibility for the crime.  The evidence does that.  There is no doubt that Oswald assassinated JFK based upon the evidence. 

For the umpteenth time; show us the evidence you're constantly talking about but never produce. If the evidence is such that there is indeed no doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy, why don't you simply shut us up by simply producing the conclusive evidence you must be talking about. You have no reason not to, or to hide behind "the WC said so and I have nothing to add" cop out, unless of course you don't really have any evidence to present.

[Martin Weidmann]

In which we learn that Oswald's own family was in on his frame up to "sell a book."  Ironically, a conclusion based entirely on "speculation" for which there is no supporting evidence.  How much money did Robert Oswald even make on this book?  I bet he didn't sell many copies.  But he must be a bad guy who betrayed his own brother because he dared to suggest Oswald was guilty.  The sole standard to attack an individual in the contrarian fantasy world.  They mock and attribute the worst motives to many ordinary people just because they dare to suggest Oswald was guilty.  But keep in mind these kooks are just neutral arbiters of the truth.  They post day and night only to nitpick any evidence of Oswald's guilt, but they are not CTers!  Just ask them.  Remember Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination.   LOL.

In which we learn that Oswald's own family was in on his frame up to "sell a book." 

Such utter nonsense. Nobody ever claimed that Oswald's relatives were "in on his frame up". Stop making up stuff!

But he must be a bad guy who betrayed his own brother because he dared to suggest Oswald was guilty.

Before Oswald died, Robert did not have a clue if he was guilty or not, so there was nothing to betray. Some time after Oswald was killed, Robert did not suggest he was guilty. Instead he simply accepted the findings of the WC. Just like Marina did until she later changed her mind.

They mock and attribute the worst motives to many ordinary people just because they dare to suggest Oswald was guilty.

Hipocrisy on full display. When Jesse Curry said they never had any evidence that put Oswald on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting, guys like you dismissed it because he was merely trying to sell a book.

Remember Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination.   LOL.

I understand that it is a foreign concept to you, but the actual available evidence does indeed support the conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs after the assassination. You can laugh all you want, but for some four months now you haven't been able to substantiate your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds of the last shot.

This leaves the readers with two possibilities; they either follow the evidence and come to an inevitable conclusion or they just accept the word of a known liar who is making claims he can not support with actual evidence. An easy choice indeed.....
 

[Richard Smith]

Of course, motive is not necessary to prove Oswald's responsibility for the crime.  The evidence does that.  There is no doubt that Oswald assassinated JFK based upon the evidence. 

For the umpteenth time; so us the evidence you're constantly talking about but never produce. If the evidence is such that there is indeed no doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy, why don't you simply shut us up by simply producing the conclusive evidence you must be talking about. You have no reason not to, or to hide behind "the WC said so and I have nothing to add" cop out, unless of course you don't really have any evidence to present.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report

[Martin Weidmann]

There would always have been a necessity to speculate about Oswald's motives.  His act was not a rational one.  Therefore, it is unlikely that even Oswald himself could explain it in any way that makes sense to a rational person.  He may not have even fully understood himself why he did it.   Oswald lived in some type of fantasy world.  He may have thought that he was going to escape to Cuba and become a revolutionary hero.   That sounds ridiculous to reasonable people but maybe Oswald entertained that possibility.  James Earl Ray got to Canada and Europe after assassinating MLK.  If Oswald had made it to Mexico perhaps there was a chance in his mind that the Cubans would have given him asylum.  I don't think they would have but in Oswald's demented mind maybe he thought it was a risk he was willing to take.  Castro took in other cop killers and Americans who managed to get to Cuba in the 60s and 70s.  In addition, nothing Oswald would have said could be taken as truthful.  He had a real struggle with veracity even in his ordinary life.  He would have lied as necessary to assist himself in custody as most criminals do after arrest.

Oswald lived in some type of fantasy world.

Really? That would have made him highly susceptible to manipulation, don't you think?

That sounds ridiculous to reasonable people but maybe Oswald entertained that possibility.  James Earl Ray got to Canada and Europe after assassinating MLK.  If Oswald had made it to Mexico perhaps there was a chance in his mind that the Cubans would have given him asylum.  I don't think they would have but in Oswald's demented mind maybe he thought it was a risk he was willing to take.

Wait, what happened to the LN "Oswald did not expect to survive and get out of the building" claim? Want to have you cake and eat it too?

In addition, nothing Oswald would have said could be taken as truthful.  He had a real struggle with veracity even in his ordinary life.  He would have lied as necessary to assist himself in custody as most criminals do after arrest.

Sound like you know the man pretty well   

Oh wait, you don't know him at all of course and are just making up stuff as usual....

[Steve M. Galbraith]

In which we learn that Oswald's own family was in on his frame up to "sell a book."  Ironically, a conclusion based entirely on "speculation" for which there is no supporting evidence.  How much money did Robert Oswald even make on this book?  I bet he didn't sell many copies.  But he must be a bad guy who betrayed his own brother because he dared to suggest Oswald was guilty.  The sole standard to attack an individual in the contrarian fantasy world.  They mock and attribute the worst motives to many ordinary people just because they dare to suggest Oswald was guilty.  But keep in mind these kooks are just neutral arbiters of the truth.  They post day and night only to nitpick any evidence of Oswald's guilt, but they are not CTers!  Just ask them.  Remember Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination.   LOL.

Everything - every person, every institution - that is critical of Oswald, that says or points to his guilt, is corrupt. All of them. Even his family, his brother (his mother gets a pass). The only pure person here is one Lee Harvey Oswald. Every one of his acts is characterized as innocent, as the ordinary behavior of "lots of people."

Speculating that he was framed, that the evidence was planted, that the investigations were rigged, that a conspiracy occurred that set him up, is fine to these neutral observers. But any speculation about Oswald is attacked.

It's like an Amber alert, a bat signal goes off when someone says something critical about Oswald. They rush to rescue him. You can smear and defame everyone else - the Paines for example - and that's fine, you won't be challenged. But don't go after Oswald.

[Richard Smith]

In which we learn that Oswald's own family was in on his frame up to "sell a book." 

Such utter nonsense. Nobody ever claimed that Oswald's relatives were "in on his frame up". Stop making up stuff!

LOL.  This is a keeper.  No one here has ever claimed that people like family members like Oswald's own wife Marina Oswald were involved in framing Oswald?  I can't remember how many times I've read CTers like yourself claim that Marina's testimony couldn't be accepted because she was a liar under coercion or actively involved in an effort to frame Oswald.  In this thread, we have also been told that Robert Oswald's account should be disimissed because he was trying to sell a book.  And that doesn't even get into the many ordinary citizens who Oswald encountered including Tippit, Brewer, Paine, Brennan, Postal, Markham and many others who have been mocked and even accused of being complicit in the conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination.  But it's "nonsense."  You are just a neutral arbiter of the truth who just happens to believe Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor after the assassination.  Thereby eliminating him as the 6th floor assassin, but you deny being a CTer.   What a bizarre Inspector Clouseau fantasy world you live in.   You don't believe Oswald was on the 6th floor but also won't acknowledge that you are a CTer.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

LOL.  This is a keeper.  No one here has ever claimed that people like family members like Oswald's own wife Marina Oswald were involved in framing Oswald?  I can't remember how many times I've read CTers like yourself claim that Marina's testimony couldn't be accepted because she was a liar under coercion or actively involved in an effort to frame Oswald.  In this thread, we have also been told that Robert Oswald's account should be disimissed because he was trying to sell a book.  And that doesn't even get into the many ordinary citizens who Oswald encountered including Tippit, Brewer, Paine, Brennan, Postal, Markham and many others who have been mocked and even accused of being complicit in the conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination.  But it's "nonsense."  You are just a neutral arbiter of the truth who just happens to believe Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor after the assassination.  Thereby eliminating him as the 6th floor assassin, but you deny being a CTer.   What a bizarre Inspector Clouseau fantasy world you live in.   You don't believe Oswald was on the 6th floor but also won't acknowledge that you are a CTer.

He actually wrote that nobody claimed that Marina was coerced/coached into framing Oswald? This is his claim? Nobody has made this allegation?

I don't think I've read a single conspiracy book that referred to Marina's testimony that didn't make this claim. Is there one?