A question about Oswald

[Dickie Felder]

I've been lurking on this forum for a while, and finally decided to participate. I've read numerous threads, read a lot of comments from LNs claiming that LHO was a loner seeking fame, wanted to make a name for himself, wanted to go down in history, would have shot any president given the chance, etc. etc.

If this was the case, then why would he deny his involvement? Why not just come right out and say "Yep, I did it." Why all the denials on camera and in the supposed interrogations?

I'm not saying this proves he's innocent or anything, it just doesn't make any sense to me for this given theory. Any thoughts?

[Bill Brown]

I don't believe Oswald assassinated Kennedy simply because he wanted to be famous and/or make a name for himself.

Oswald's motive for shooting at General Walker was the same as he had for assassinating the President.  Marxism and Cuba.  Oswald wanted the United States Government to keep it's hands off of Cuba.

Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he was a Marxist, that he belonged to the Fair Play For Cuba organization and that he was in favor of Fidel Castro's revolution.

Before the revolution, Castro, with his Marxist beliefs, condemned social and economic inequality in Cuba.  He adopted the Marxist view that meaningful political change could only be brought about by proletariat revolution.

While Castro was imprisoned for the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Cuba, his wife took employment with the Ministry of the Interior.  Castro was enraged and insulted.  His Marxist beliefs were so strong that filed for divorce.  Mirta (Castro's wife) took custody of their son Fidelito.  The thought of his son growing up in a bourgeois environment further enraged Castro.

Oswald agreed strongly with the Marxist beliefs of Castro.

During the revolution, the U.S. Government feared that Castro was a socialist.

In early January of 1959, Batista was overthrown by the rebels and he fled.

The revolution was a crucial turning point in relations between the U.S. and Cuba.  Originally, the U.S. government was willing to recognize Castro's new government.  However, the U.S. government would eventually fear that Communist insurgencies would spread through Latin America, as they had in Southeast Asia.

On March 5, 1963, Major General Edwin Walker gave a speech where he called on the White House to "liquidate the (communist) scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba."  Walker was obviously referring to Fidel Castro.   Oswald ordered his rifle seven days later.

Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission:

"I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution.

I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing.

I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that."

[Richard Smith]

I've been lurking on this forum for a while, and finally decided to participate. I've read numerous threads, read a lot of comments from LNs claiming that LHO was a loner seeking fame, wanted to make a name for himself, wanted to go down in history, would have shot any president given the chance, etc. etc.

If this was the case, then why would he deny his involvement? Why not just come right out and say "Yep, I did it." Why all the denials on camera and in the supposed interrogations?

I'm not saying this proves he's innocent or anything, it just doesn't make any sense to me for this given theory. Any thoughts?

There is a distinction between historical credit and legal responsibility.  Oswald was getting all the attention that he desired as the suspected assassin.  Oswald was not going to assist the authorities in sending him to the electric chair.  He also had no idea that he would only have a couple of days to live.  For all he knew, he had months or even years to bargain a confession with the authorities.  The only card that he had left to play was his confession and the details of his crime which had historical implications.  He was not going to give that away on the first weekend.  He likely would have followed the James Earl Ray model by confessing to save his skin and then playing conspiracy theorists for suckers for the rest of his life in return for attention and sympathy.   Also keep in mind that assassinating the president as Oswald did is not a rational act.  Therefore, there can never be any neat and tidy explanation for everything that he did. 

[Jon Banks]

I've been lurking on this forum for a while, and finally decided to participate. I've read numerous threads, read a lot of comments from LNs claiming that LHO was a loner seeking fame, wanted to make a name for himself, wanted to go down in history, would have shot any president given the chance, etc. etc.

If this was the case, then why would he deny his involvement? Why not just come right out and say "Yep, I did it." Why all the denials on camera and in the supposed interrogations?

I'm not saying this proves he's innocent or anything, it just doesn't make any sense to me for this given theory. Any thoughts?

Welcome to the forum.

No one knows what Oswald’s motive was (assuming he was involved).

Like you, I’ve also wondered why he would deny responsibility if he was allegedly motivated by fame or politics. The pattern of most politically motivated assassins or terrorists is that they proudly claim responsibility for their actions. Oswald didn’t do that at all. He even went further by claiming to be a patsy.

I don’t think we’ll ever know why…

[Michael Walton]

I've been lurking on this forum for a while, and finally decided to participate. I've read numerous threads, read a lot of comments from LNs claiming that LHO was a loner seeking fame, wanted to make a name for himself, wanted to go down in history, would have shot any president given the chance, etc. etc.

If this was the case, then why would he deny his involvement? Why not just come right out and say "Yep, I did it." Why all the denials on camera and in the supposed interrogations?

I'm not saying this proves he's innocent or anything, it just doesn't make any sense to me for this given theory. Any thoughts?

Hi Dickie,

I advise you to look up Bill Simpich's State Secret. There, you'll find how it all went down for Lee Oswald. He was "in the system." Doesn't mean he was like a top-level James Bond. But they used him to dangle some Commie stuff when he did his fake defection to Russia. Only to be welcomed back with literally open arms. Do you realize how hot the Cold War was back then? It was very hot, indeed. Yet, he waltzed right back to America with a Russian wife to boot.

When he came back, and because he was doing low-level "intel" stuff, he made a perfect foil. Very, very easy to manipulate him around. He already had the legend built from his fake defection. And he thought he was doing "something" useful. All they needed to do was steer him around here and there, get him a job in the building, set up some fake photos [he himself said he knew how to do it when they showed him the photos], throw some shells down on the 6th floor and PRESTO - they had their man.

That's why he was genuinely pissed all weekend until he was shot. Denying everything, saying "the only reason why they have me is because I lived in Russia" and on and on. Of course the usual people here want it both ways - they'll say he was rabid, a wife beater, wanted attention, etc. But when you ask them directly, they'll then play innocent and go all "Well, we really don't know." Ridiculous.

And by the way, the Kennedys were absolutely loathed by DC insiders. They hated the father, the brothers, the whole fucking family. These insiders really believed that the Kennedys were going to "ruin" America as they knew it. So there's the real motive for the insiders who planned his murder out.

So who were the "insiders?" LBJ? Hoover? Nixon? Dulles? The Cubans? The Mafia? Who cares. The larger point is that the murder was a conspiracy and Oswald was the perfect foil for it.

[Bill Brown]

There is a distinction between historical credit and legal responsibility.  Oswald was getting all the attention that he desired as the suspected assassin.  Oswald was not going to assist the authorities in sending him to the electric chair.  He also had no idea that he would only have a couple of days to live.  For all he knew, he had months or even years to bargain a confession with the authorities.  The only card that he had left to play was his confession and the details of his crime which had historical implications.  He was not going to give that away on the first weekend.  He likely would have followed the James Earl Ray model by confessing to save his skin and then playing conspiracy theorists for suckers for the rest of his life in return for attention and sympathy.   Also keep in mind that assassinating the president as Oswald did is not a rational act.  Therefore, there can never be any neat and tidy explanation for everything that he did.

Also keep in mind that assassinating the president as Oswald did is not a rational act.  Therefore, there can never be any neat and tidy explanation for everything that he did.

Well said.  This is quite often forgotten.

[Jon Banks]

There is a distinction between historical credit and legal responsibility.  Oswald was getting all the attention that he desired as the suspected assassin.  Oswald was not going to assist the authorities in sending him to the electric chair.  He also had no idea that he would only have a couple of days to live.  For all he knew, he had months or even years to bargain a confession with the authorities.  The only card that he had left to play was his confession and the details of his crime which had historical implications.  He was not going to give that away on the first weekend.  He likely would have followed the James Earl Ray model by confessing to save his skin and then playing conspiracy theorists for suckers for the rest of his life in return for attention and sympathy.  Also keep in mind that assassinating the president as Oswald did is not a rational act.  Therefore, there can never be any neat and tidy explanation for everything that he did.

Well that solves the problem of trying to pin down a motive.

When all else fails, fall back on the "lone-nut" defense.

Jack Ruby was a "lone-nut" too apparently.

Maybe something was in the water in Dallas that week... 

[Richard Smith]

Well that solves the problem of trying to pin down a motive.

When all else fails, fall back on the "lone-nut" defense.

Jack Ruby was a "lone-nut" too apparently.

Maybe something was in the water in Dallas that week... 

It's not necessary to prove motive.  Particularly in crimes committed by nut jobs like Oswald.  The evidence confirms beyond any doubt that LHO assassinated JFK.  It is almost impossible to contemplate how there could be more evidence.  After nearly 60 years of CTers beating the bushes, there is no credible evidence of the involvement of any other person.  Oswald did it.  We don't have to understand why to reach this conclusion because the evidence proves it.  State of mind as some contrarian loons remind us can't be known with certainty.  But we don't have to understand the motivations of murders to conclude that they are guilty when they leave ample evidence to reach that conclusion.