A plausible conspiracy theory?

[Lance Payette]

Two facts that always seem like conspiracy-defeaters to me are that the conspiracy would have to be predicated on (1) Oswald working in the TSBD and (2) JFK’s motorcade passing in front of the TSBD. It would have to be a last-minute conspiracy, consistent with Oswald's actions on Thursday.

But let’s consider a plausible conspiracy scenario. I gather this is where Hancock and Boylan are going in The Oswald Puzzle, but I still have more than 100 pages to read and am not trying to put words in their mouths.

Let’s say that up until the assassination Oswald’s life is pretty much exactly as Lone Nutters (and I and apparently Hancock and Boylan) believe it to have been. His high-profile activities in New Orleans and Mexico City cause rabid anti-Castro characters who are enraged by the Bay of Pigs to realize that this pro-Castro former Soviet defector is a potential patsy who is almost too good to be true. If they are successful in inducing him to act, not only will JFK be gone but the finger will be pointed at Cuba.

Pick any handful of the anti-Castro usual suspects you like, although I doubt they would include anyone as easily identifiable as rogue CIA operatives. They convince Oswald they are as pro-Castro as he is and that eliminating JFK would make him a hero to the Marxist cause and assure him a warm welcome in Cuba. Perhaps they even promise him safe passage to Cuba.

But they do no more than this. They don’t get their fingers dirty at all. Up to and after the assassination, Oswald has no reason to suspect they were anything other than the rabid Castro types they pretended to be. He thus carries out the assassination.

The subsequent multi-agency cover-up, as Hancock has previously suggested, is more in the vein of CYA activity than anything having to do with the JFKA per se.

Is this a conspiracy? Sure, of sorts. Was Oswald a patsy? Sure, of sorts.

Is this conspiracy meaningfully different from the Lone Nut scenario? A bit – but not much, it seems to me.

Is it more plausible than any of the more grand and elaborate conspiracy theories? Absolutely, it seems to me, although I still have great difficulty accounting for facts (1) and (2) above. It does account for Oswald's silence - he wouldn't have realized he was a patsy at all (his actual "patsy" comment not suggesting in the slightest that he was a patsy in an assassination conspiracy).

Would it satisfy John Armstrong, Jim DiEugenio or any of the others who have made a cottage industry out of grand and elaborate theories? Of course not. Predictably, The Oswald Puzzle seems to have received a very lukewarm response over at The Education Forum.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Philip Shenon argues something like this - he has pro-Castro people or Cuban agents encouraging Oswald - in his book "A Cruel and Shocking Act". His theory is Oswald met pro-Castro people in Mexico City who inflamed, encouraged, induced (whatever word one wants to use) to hate/dislike JFK. A sort of, "Look, JFK is an enemy of the Revolution, he's a fascist. He needs to go" sort of thing. Afterwards the WC, CIA and FBI didn't fully investigate what Oswald did there, who he met, and uncover this because higher ups didn't want to risk revealing the covert war on Cuba that, in part, was run out of the Mexico City CIA station. Don't open any doors we don't know about.

Not very persuasive to me. Going from (A) MC inducement to (B) Shooting JFK two months later is a big reach. Oswald read Marxist publications, he perhaps listened to Radio Havana. He was receiving all sorts of critical ideas about JFK from those sources. We can add into this mix the Harker story where Castro threatened to retaliate against US leaders. It's a lot of influences. Not sure another person - pro- or anti-Castro - telling him that JFK was a fascist would be much difference. The amnesty offer, he'd be a hero in Havana suggestion, is maybe something more. Doesn't mean it didn't happen but does mean, to me, that it really didn't play much of a role in moving Oswald.

Anyway, one of the odd things about this is how little we have about what he thought about JFK. DeMohrenschildt said he "admired" JFK on civil rights (but nothing critical about Cuba?). Marina said she thought he liked JFK. Michael Paine said Oswald said that JFK was the best president in his life. Otherwise, not much there. And I can't see how someone who did love Castro would also love JFK? No, something doesn't add up to me.

Shenon's theory in part is here: https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-cia-came-to-doubt-the-official-story-of-jfks-murder/

[Tom Graves]

One of the odd things about this is how little we have about what he thought about JFK. DeMohrenschildt said he "admired" JFK on civil rights (but nothing critical about Cuba?). Marina said she thought he liked JFK. Michael Paine said Oswald said that JFK was the best president in his life. Otherwise, not much there. And I can't see how someone who did love Castro would also love JFK? No, something doesn't add up to me.

As mentioned in Richard Russell's book, The Man Who Knew Too Much, a CIA Counterintelligence analyst by the name of Clare Edward Petty read some WW II VENONA decrypts in the early 1970s and came to the conclusion that DeMohrenschildt was very likely a long-term KGB "illegal."

A KGB true defector, Major Pyotr Deriabin (1954), wrote a day or two after the assassination that Marina had to be at least a low-level KGB informant to be allowed to marry Oswald and leave the USSR with him.

[Lance Payette]

In the interests of accuracy, I must note that Hancock and Boylan go off the conspiracy cliff at the end of The Oswald Puzzle, to wit:

1. Oswald was pretty much who Lone Nutters believe him to have been. He may have been an unwitting tool in Angleton's mole hunt, but that's about it.
2. Oswald did not shoot JFK; persons unknown planted the rifle in the stairwell and the shell casings (including a dented one?) at the window.
3. Oswald was an unwitting dupe framed by anti-Castro manipulators who deceived him into thinking they were his pro-Castro brethren.
4. Oswald was completely ignorant of the assassination. His activities after the assassination - including, apparently, the Tippit shooting even though it isn't even mentiioned in the 374-page book - are explainable thusly: He knew nothing about the assassination but was induced to leave at noon as part of a plan, or perhaps pseudo-plan, to hijack a small charter aircraft and take it to Cuba, thereby fulfilling his Cuban Dream. Apparently this was so enticing that the assassination of JFK didn't even cause him to pause. Apparently the fulfillment of his Cuban Dream wasn't worth mentioning to Marina the night before.

I mean, seriously, WTF???

This js so implausible, so entirely speculative, that I truly felt as though the authors had gone off a conspiracy cliff. It has a superficial appearance of being relatively simple because the authors choose not to deal at all with the events in Dealey Plaza - or why Oswald would have gone through all the gyrations he did after leaving the TSBD. I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense at all to me.

I feel quite sure William of Ockham would endorse the far more plausible and straightforward conspiracy theory suggested in my original post. I don't say it's true - I don't think it is - but I do say it's far more plausible.

[Lance Payette]

Philip Shenon argues something like this - he has pro-Castro people or Cuban agents encouraging Oswald - in his book "A Cruel and Shocking Act". His theory is Oswald met pro-Castro people in Mexico City who inflamed, encouraged, induced (whatever word one wants to use) to hate/dislike JFK. A sort of, "Look, JFK is an enemy of the Revolution, he's a fascist. He needs to go" sort of thing. Afterwards the WC, CIA and FBI didn't fully investigate what Oswald did there, who he met, and uncover this because higher ups didn't want to risk revealing the covert war on Cuba that, in part, was run out of the Mexico City CIA station. Don't open any doors we don't know about.

Not very persuasive to me. Going from (A) MC inducement to (B) Shooting JFK two months later is a big reach. Oswald read Marxist publications, he perhaps listened to Radio Havana. He was receiving all sorts of critical ideas about JFK from those sources. We can add into this mix the Harker story where Castro threatened to retaliate against US leaders. It's a lot of influences. Not sure another person - pro- or anti-Castro - telling him that JFK was a fascist would be much difference. The amnesty offer, he'd be a hero in Havana suggestion, is maybe something more. Doesn't mean it didn't happen but does mean, to me, that it really didn't play much of a role in moving Oswald.

Anyway, one of the odd things about this is how little we have about what he thought about JFK. DeMohrenschildt said he "admired" JFK on civil rights (but nothing critical about Cuba?). Marina said she thought he liked JFK. Michael Paine said Oswald said that JFK was the best president in his life. Otherwise, not much there. And I can't see how someone who did love Castro would also love JFK? No, something doesn't add up to me.

Shenon's theory in part is here: https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-cia-came-to-doubt-the-official-story-of-jfks-murder/

FWIW, the authors accept the Mexico City episode pretty much at face value (i.e., the Lone Nut perspective). In my scenario, I don't know where the influence might have come from and doubt that it did. I merely say that IF THERE WAS anything resembling a conspiracy, this seems to me the most likely and Occam-like scenario. In my little attempt at psychological analysis, JFK was just an opportunity that presented itself and provided at least a rationale for going out with a bang - better than admitting "I'm such a loser life isn't worth living."

[Jim Hawthorn]

In the interests of accuracy, I must note that Hancock and Boylan go off the conspiracy cliff at the end of The Oswald Puzzle, to wit:

1. Oswald was pretty much who Lone Nutters believe him to have been. He may have been an unwitting tool in Angleton's mole hunt, but that's about it.
2. Oswald did not shoot JFK; persons unknown planted the rifle in the stairwell and the shell casings (including a dented one?) at the window.
3. Oswald was an unwitting dupe framed by anti-Castro manipulators who deceived him into thinking they were his pro-Castro brethren.
4. Oswald was completely ignorant of the assassination. His activities after the assassination - including, apparently, the Tippit shooting even though it isn't even mentiioned in the 374-page book - are explainable thusly: He knew nothing about the assassination but was induced to leave at noon as part of a plan, or perhaps pseudo-plan, to hijack a small charter aircraft and take it to Cuba, thereby fulfilling his Cuban Dream. Apparently this was so enticing that the assassination of JFK didn't even cause him to pause. Apparently the fulfillment of his Cuban Dream wasn't worth mentioning to Marina the night before.

Matthew Smith's The Second Plot explored that theory. I think there is are elements of what actually happened.
I get the impression that Oswald was involved in something that he thought would be some sort of stunt (not necessarily destined to happen on Dealey Plaza as far as he really knew). He was totally set up by the small group of conspirators. When the hit happened outside the TSBD, it threw him into total confusion and the realisation that it could look very bad for him. He dithered around and eventually sneaked away, heading in all directions in stunned panic, grabbing his handgun in case they came to snuff him out. He ended up hiding in a cinema, trying to find someone who could give him a lift out of Dallas.
...and yes, the government cover-up was something totally different to conspiracy by the handful of powerful individuals.

[Lance Payette]

Matthew Smith's The Second Plot explored that theory. I think there is are elements of what actually happened.
I get the impression that Oswald was involved in something that he thought would be some sort of stunt (not necessarily destined to happen on Dealey Plaza as far as he really knew). He was totally set up by the small group of conspirators. When the hit happened outside the TSBD, it threw him into total confusion and the realisation that it could look very bad for him. He dithered around and eventually sneaked away, heading in all directions in stunned panic, grabbing his handgun in case they came to snuff him out. He ended up hiding in a cinema, trying to find someone who could give him a lift out of Dallas.
...and yes, the government cover-up was something totally different to conspiracy by the handful of powerful individuals.

Although I believe Oswald acted alone, I do think that one of Larry Hancock's valuable insights in the past was separating the JFKA from the subsequent cover-up. CYA efforts by the CIA, FBI, SS and DPD make entire sense apart from any involvement in the JFKA.

The "stunt" theory is very hard to swallow. Even "stunts" involving the POTUS are likely to send one to the electric chair or life in prison. (This is another problem I have with any "big name" involvement in the JFKA - were LBJ, Hoover, et. al, really willing to risk the consequences of involvement in a presidential assassination?). One thing I'll give The Oswald Puzzle credit for is bending over backwards to focus on who Oswald really was and not ascribing motivations and actions that were completely out of character. I see him as too sharp to be duped into a stunt; his actions prior to the JFKA are difficult to square with a stunt; and his post-JFKA actions are impossible to square. If I thought I'd been duped into a stunt that turned into an assassination, I would've run to the nearest cop and blabbed my head off. Once in custody, I would have been the most cooperative arrestee in history. You have him in confused panic ... but then morphing into the most arrogant, hostile, lying jackass possible once in custody.

We do have to account for the entire picture somehow, be it lone assassin or conspiracy. And yes, after studying literally everything out there about Oswald the man, I am somewhat in love with my theory that he was at the end of his psychological rope when he pulled the trigger, astounded to find he'd survived the assassination, and clever enough to begin thinking in terms of Marxist theater once he was in custody. He was essentially a "psychological different" Oswald on Thursday night, when he pulled the trigger on Friday, when he found himself outside the TSBD, and when he found himself in custody.

[Jim Hawthorn]

If I thought I'd been duped into a stunt that turned into an assassination, I would've run to the nearest cop and blabbed my head off.

That would depend on how big the "stunt" was going to be and how much he was under their spell (death threats concerning his wife and family, etc.).
Perhaps Oswald knew that it was an assassination and his instructions didn't involve him being on the 6th floor.

I see him as too sharp to be duped into a stunt; his actions prior to the JFKA are difficult to square with a stunt; and his post-JFKA actions are impossible to square.

Unless he was doubling up, operating as an informant for the CIA.

We do have to account for the entire picture somehow, be it lone assassin or conspiracy.

A conspiracy only has to be more than one person - not necessarily a big inside job. It's not as black and white as that, and that is what clouds a lot of peoples perception of what happened.