What could investigators have done better to prevent the proliferation of CTs?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

His impulsive actions are overblown in the grand scheme of things. Had he lived, Oswald strikes me as someone who would have denied the crime right up to the electric chair.

If he truly wanted to become a historic figure then I don't think so. In any case, I think he'd have to give answers to the questions about, among other things, where he was at the time of the assassination and what he did afterwards. Or in terms of physical evidence: could he publicly deny owning that rifle? And all of this nonsense (to me) about him being a CIA agent or asset would be exposed for the folly it is. Then we have the lesser items: Mexico City, et cetera.

At some point his alibi, his attempts to answer these and other questions, would collapse on its own inconsistencies and contradictions. Other than the hard core types - the two Oswalds believers, he was a victim of MK-Ultra, the Sirhan types - none of us would be here.

[Lance Payette]

Well, if we're all going to hypothesize what Oswald would have done, I think (1) no plea deal for him to avoid execution would ever have been offered; (2) he would've remained completely uncooperative to the end; and (3) represented by Abt or an attorney of similar ilk, he would have testified at length and done his best to vindicate his Marxist philosophy. I think he knew there was no way out of the pickle he was in and would have seen a trial as a way to cement his place in history as a genuine Marxist and deep political thinker.

[Jon Banks]

There are some people who believe that every major event in history has some nefarious conspiracy behind it.

I'm not one of those people. I'm skeptical about everything.

But there are strange coincidences and inconsistencies in the evidence in all three of the major assassinations of the 1960s (JFK, MLK, and RFK).

Impossible to rule out conspiracies involving the US intelligence community in either of those examples.

[Jon Banks]

If he truly wanted to become a historic figure then I don't think so. In any case, I think he'd have to give answers to the questions about, among other things, where he was at the time of the assassination and what he did afterwards. Or in terms of physical evidence, could he publicly deny owning that rifle? And all of this nonsense (to me) about him being a CIA agent or asset would be exposed for the folly it is. Then we have the lesser items: Mexico City, et cetera.

At some point his alibi, his attempt to answer these questions, would collapse on its own inconsistencies. Other than the hard core types - the two Oswalds believers, he was a victim of MK-Ultra, the Sirhan types - none of us would be here.

LN's can never address the fact that Oswald's alibi had indirect corroboration.

Oswald told the Dallas PD that James Jarman and Harold Norman passed by the lunchroom shortly before the motorcade passed by. Which confirms that he was downstairs in the Book Depository minutes before the shots were fired.

As I said earlier, either Oswald was psychic and predicted that we'd be debating his story decades later, or maybe he really was "just a Patsy".

There's no plausible explanation for how Oswald could've came up with an alibi that had some indirect corroboration.