Why did Oswald kill JFK?

[Tom Mahon]

Why did Oswald kill JFK?

To become famous?

Because he was angry at Marina?

Because he was a Marxist and wanted to "advance the Dialectic" (which it now appears that he did)?

[Charles Collins]

Why did Oswald kill JFK?

To become famous?

Because he was angry at Marina?

Because he was a Marxist and wanted to "advance the Dialectic" (which it now appears that he did)?

We will never know why with any certainty. But I think that recent news reports had indicated to LHO that JFK was a threat to Castro. General Walker had also spoken out against Castro. And the opportunity to take a shot at JFK from the TSBD was just too tempting for him to resist.

[Richard Smith]

Oswald was a malcontent who blamed others for his marginalized life.  He thought he was smarter than others who he viewed as sheep accepting their pathetic roles in life.  That created resentment and a desire to show them who he was.  He turned to Marxism for attention as a counterpoint to the mainstream American political establishment and to stick it to those who had ignored him.  The assassination was a giant middle finger to those he held in contempt.  His own personal resentment fueled an anti-hero perspective of himself in which he could be someone important.  That much worked.  What he didn't bargain on was someone else with a similar mentality who would gun him down.

[Jim Hawthorn]

Oswald was a malcontent who blamed others for his marginalized life.  He thought he was smarter than others who he viewed as sheep accepting their pathetic roles in life.  That created resentment and a desire to show them who he was.  He turned to Marxism for attention as a counterpoint to the mainstream American political establishment and to stick it to those who had ignored him.  The assassination was a giant middle finger to those he held in contempt.  His own personal resentment fueled an anti-hero perspective of himself in which he could be someone important.  That much worked.  What he didn't bargain on was someone else with a similar mentality who would gun him down.

If he wanted to "show them who he was" or give "a giant middle finger to those he held in contempt", why the hell would he flatly deny having shot anyone and shout out that he was just "the patsy"?

[Richard Smith]

If he wanted to "show them who he was" or give "a giant middle finger to those he held in contempt", why the hell would he flatly deny having shot anyone and shout out that he was just "the patsy"?

That's obvious.  Oswald didn't know that he was going to be killed within 48 hours of the assassination.  He thought he had months or even years to play this game and bargain his confession to avoid the death penalty.  Admitting his guilt was the one card he still had to play in the legal context.  It is also consistent with his malcontent personality.  Oswald was a pathological liar during his life.  He probably got a kick out of making the police "figure it out."  He wasn't going to help them.  Oswald wanted historical credit for the assassination, but he wasn't going to help the police send him to the electric chair.  He knew he had assassinated the president.  That alone made him a person of significance whether he confessed or not.   He also knew that the police had the evidence to link him to the crime.  So he could milk this for attention.  Play the victim. Once he confessed, he would be thrown in a cage and no longer be of as much interest.  Had Oswald lived, he likely would have gone the James Earl Ray direction of trading his confession to avoid the death penalty and then spending the rest of his life suggesting there was something more to the story to con gullible conspiracy theorists into paying attention to him.

[Lance Payette]

I believe it is explainable as a perfect storm of factors.

It's clear from Oswald's own writings and statements to Marina that he had an exalted view of himself. Yet he found himself a complete nobody in the USSR (to his great surprise) and a complete nobody upon his return to the US (to his great surprise), now working at a demeaning, dead-end, temporary, minimum-wage job in the TSBD. At every turn, his life had been failure upon failure.

I believe his last hope was what he expressed to Marina: He would be a hero to Castro and the Cuban people in the "Marxist utopia" of Cuba. All of his activities in the months preceding the assassination suggest a concerted effort to establish his Marxist credentials for presentation to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. Alas, his trip to Mexico City was yet another failure.

To top it all off, his marriage was failing and Marina rebuffed his attempt at reconciliation. Had Marina given him another chance that Thursday evening, I dont't believe the assassination would have occurred. I believe the Thursday visit was a last-ditch attempt at a normal life, and Marina's rejection was the last straw. When Oswald saw the route of JFK's motorcade, and realized it would pass right in front of the building where he happened to be working, it must have seemed that Fate was speaking to him, but I believe it was Marina's rejection that sealed the deal.

It is not at all difficult to believe that he would have viewed the assassination of JFK as his ticket to Cuba or at least as validating his authenticity as a genuine Marxist revolutionary. My guess is that he expected the assassination to be the proverbial "suicide by cop" and was astounded to find himself surviving the lunch room encounter and boarding a bus outside the TSBD. Nothing in the immediate pre- or post-assassination events suggests serious, careful planning. Finding himself outside the TSBD must have seemed almost too good to be true, and I believe his objective was probably to get back to the Cuban consulate in MC.

His silence after his arrest demands an explanation. He was quite politically savvy, and having survived the assassination I believe his objective was to maximize the theatrical aspect. He realized that by denying everything he would ensure a lengthy, high-publicity trial in which his Marxist political genius (in his own mind, anyway) could be expressed for all the world to see. Hence his hope for John Abt to represent him.

I don't completely discount any possibiity of a conspiracy. If there was one, however, it would have related to events in Mexico City. Someone may have promised safe passage if he made it across the border or even safe haven in Cuba. Any such conspiracy would have been so small and ill-defined as to scarcely qualify as a conspiracy - certainly nothing that would satisfy the conspiracy theorists who demand an elaborate, high-level conspiracy involving numerous agencies, organizations and individuals. In every conspiracy scenario I've studied, Oswald is a cardboard figure who bears no resemblance to the real Oswald of history.

Oswald's "patsy" statement is surely the most misused statement in history. If he'd been suggesting he was an innocent patsy in someone else's conspiracy, he would've blabbed his head off to anyone who would listen, including the press. His actual statement that he was a patsy of the DPD, arrested only because he had lived in the USSR, does not even vaguely suggest an assassination conspiracy and fits perfectly with what I believe to have been his actual objective of turning the future trial into Marxist theater. I'd be fascinated - I'd love it - if the JFKA was the product of a massive conspiracy involving LBJ, the CIA, FBI, Army Intelligence, DPD, Mafia, et al., but I believe it's pure fantasy.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Oswald was a malcontent who blamed others for his marginalized life.  He thought he was smarter than others who he viewed as sheep accepting their pathetic roles in life.  That created resentment and a desire to show them who he was.  He turned to Marxism for attention as a counterpoint to the mainstream American political establishment and to stick it to those who had ignored him.  The assassination was a giant middle finger to those he held in contempt.  His own personal resentment fueled an anti-hero perspective of himself in which he could be someone important.  That much worked.  What he didn't bargain on was someone else with a similar mentality who would gun him down.

A problem trying to figure out the "Why?" question involves how he pulled it off, the ad hoc nature of the act. Using a cheap rifle - he had money to buy a better one - a weapon that he retrieved only the day before the assassination (that he apparently didn't practice with for weeks). He goes back to his rooming house for his revolver. He leaves behind incriminating evidence. Et cetera. There was little planning, little forethought involved: it was last minute. As you know, it's argued that had Marina agreed to move back in with him and find an apartment then he may have not gone through with the act. Something that simple.

How do we fit this spur of the moment act into this explanation of a larger purpose behind it? Viz., his hatred of the US, his support for Castro, his opposition to America? Someone driven by those grievances doesn't act, it seems to me, so hastily. He plans things out.

This is where Ruby's act was so awful, so indefensible. Besides the vigilantism of it, the denial of Oswald's rights, it denied the world a fuller explanation. Had Oswald lived I don't think any of us would be here. He would have admitted - implicitly if not explicitly - to the crime. He wouldn't be able to answer all of these questions about the rifle, the photos, his post-assassination behavior. But all of that was denied by Ruby's act. Ruby wanted to punish Oswald, hold him accountable when in reality he helped him avoid accountability.

[Lance Payette]

A problem trying to figure out the "Why?" question involves how he pulled it off, the ad hoc nature of the act. Using a cheap rifle - he had money to buy a better one - a weapon that he retrieved only the day before the assassination (that he apparently didn't practice with for weeks). He goes back to his rooming house for his revolver. He leaves behind incriminating evidence. Et cetera. There was little planning, little forethought involved: it was last minute. As you know, it's argued that had Marina agreed to move back in with him and find an apartment then he may have not gone through with the act. Something that simple.

How do we fit this spur of the moment act into this explanation of a larger purpose behind it? Viz., his hatred of the US, his support for Castro, his opposition to America? Someone driven by those grievances doesn't act, it seems to me, so hastily. He plans things out.

This is where Ruby's act was so awful, so indefensible. Besides the vigilantism of it, the denial of Oswald's rights, it denied the world a fuller explanation. Had Oswald lived I don't think any of us would be here. He would have admitted - implicitly if not explicitly - to the crime. He wouldn't be able to answer all of these questions about the rifle, the photos, his post-assassination behavior. But all of that was denied by Ruby's act. Ruby wanted to punish Oswald, hold him accountable when in reality he helped him avoid accountability.

I believe we explain it quite easily by my post above. His infatuation with the "real Marxism" of Castro and his hope to finally achieve his destiny in Cuba were genuine. The failure of his trip to MC, the collapse of his marriage, and his dead-end job at the TSBD left him in near-desperation. Then Fate seemed to hand him a golden opportunity in the form of JFK's motorcade route. He went to Ruth Paine's on Thursday as a last-ditch effort at reconciliation with Marina. When she rebuffed him, this confirmed that Fate was indeed speaking and his destiny was confirmed. He carried out a near spur-of-the-moment assassination with an unlikely weapon that just happened to be highly successful. I see no reason to make things more complicated than this.