Can we be honest about Oswald's "patsy" statement?

[Lance Payette]

A longtime researcher recently posted on the Ed Forum that “Oswald’s patsy statement speaks volumes.”

Does it?

Oswald said, “They’ve taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I’m just a patsy.”

He was saying, clearly, that he was a patsy of the Dallas Police Department.

I will grant, this could suggest Oswald was absolutely clueless as to why he’d been arrested. He didn’t know his rifle was on the 6th floor of the TSBD, didn’t know Tippit had been shot, perhaps didn’t even know JFK was dead. He really thought he'd been arrested only because the DPD knew he'd been in Russia.

But then we have to explain why he left the TSBD, hopped a bus, got impatient and hailed a taxi, had the taxi drop him off past his rooming house, hurried in and got his pistol, Ded Something (perhaps shot Tippit?), lingered suspiciously at the entrance to the shoe store, slipped into the theater, changed seats, resisted arrest, and told whoppers to his interrogators. Hmmm ...

What his statement didn’t suggest is that he was a patsy in any conspiracy. He didn’t say “I’m just a patsy – there’s more to this than you think” or “I’m just a patsy – the truth will come out” or “Others are the criminals – I’m just a patsy" or "I didn't shoot anyone - I was duped - I'm just a patsy."

Yet this “patsy” statement is one of absolute linchpins of conspiracy gospel. CTers get more mileage out of it than fundamentalists get out of any Bible verse.

Yes, this is old hat, JFKA 101 sort of stuff, but how many members of the public think there was a conspiracy largely because CTers constantly beat the patsy drum as though it had dark conspiratorial implications?

[Charles Collins]

A longtime researcher recently posted on the Ed Forum that “Oswald’s patsy statement speaks volumes.”

Does it?

Oswald said, “They’ve taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I’m just a patsy.”

He was saying, clearly, that he was a patsy of the Dallas Police Department.

I will grant, this could suggest Oswald was absolutely clueless as to why he’d been arrested. He didn’t know his rifle was on the 6th floor of the TSBD, didn’t know Tippit had been shot, perhaps didn’t even know JFK was dead. He really thought he'd been arrested only because the DPD knew he'd been in Russia.

But then we have to explain why he left the TSBD, hopped a bus, got impatient and hailed a taxi, had the taxi drop him off past his rooming house, hurried in and got his pistol, Ded Something (perhaps shot Tippit?), lingered suspiciously at the entrance to the shoe store, slipped into the theater, changed seats, resisted arrest, and told whoppers to his interrogators. Hmmm ...

What his statement didn’t suggest is that he was a patsy in any conspiracy. He didn’t say “I’m just a patsy – there’s more to this than you think” or “I’m just a patsy – the truth will come out” or “Others are the criminals – I’m just a patsy" or "I didn't shoot anyone - I was duped - I'm just a patsy."

Yet this “patsy” statement is one of absolute linchpins of conspiracy gospel. CTers get more mileage out of it than fundamentalists get out of any Bible verse.

Yes, this is old hat, JFKA 101 sort of stuff, but how many members of the public think there was a conspiracy largely because CTers constantly beat the patsy drum as though it had dark conspiratorial implications?

Honestly, the patsy statement to me is very much about what LHO's brother Robert describes about their mother and those traits being passed on to LHO:


ROBERT OSWALD : She had certain characteristics that were so much like Lee. The time and circumstances always seemed to be against her. The world owed her a living. She wanted to be somebody. I think this was passed on to Lee.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/etc/script.html

[Jon Banks]

There's no proof that he shot a gun that day

[John Iacoletti]

I will grant, this could suggest Oswald was absolutely clueless as to why he’d been arrested. He didn’t know his rifle was on the 6th floor of the TSBD, didn’t know Tippit had been shot, perhaps didn’t even know JFK was dead. He really thought he'd been arrested only because the DPD knew he'd been in Russia.

But then we have to explain why he left the TSBD, hopped a bus, got impatient and hailed a taxi, had the taxi drop him off past his rooming house, hurried in and got his pistol, Ded Something (perhaps shot Tippit?), lingered suspiciously at the entrance to the shoe store, slipped into the theater, changed seats, resisted arrest, and told whoppers to his interrogators. Hmmm ...

Why do "we" need to "explain" those accusations?  Are they supposed to be evidence of murder?

[Lance Payette]

Why do "we" need to "explain" those accusations?  Are they supposed to be evidence of murder?

Consciousness of guilt.

[John Iacoletti]

Consciousness of guilt.

Confirmation bias.

[Tom Graves]

Confirmation bias.

KGB*-approved trolling by John Iacoletti.

*Today's SVR and FSB

[John Mytton]

Why do "we" need to "explain" those accusations?  Are they supposed to be evidence of murder?

Well, Duh!

In the law of evidence, consciousness of guilt is a type of circumstantial evidence that judges, prosecutors, and juries may consider when determining whether a defendant is guilty of a criminal offense. It is often admissible evidence,[1] and judges are required to instruct juries on this form of evidence.[2] Deceptive statements or evasive actions made by a defendant after the commission of a crime or other wrongdoing are seen as evidence of a guilty conscience. These are not the typical behaviors of an innocent person, and a "defendant's actions are compared unfavorably to what a normal, innocent person would have done, with the implication that the discrepancy indicates guilt".[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_of_guilt

Consciousness of Guilt is both a concept and a type of circumstantial evidence used in criminal trials by prosecutors. It refers to a powerful and highly incriminating inference that a judge or jury may draw from the statements or conduct of a defendant (accused) after a crime has been committed suggesting that the defendant knows he or she is guilty of the charged crime. In other words, the defendant's conduct after the crime is circumstantial (indirect) evidence that the defendant intended to commit the crime, or, in fact, committed the crime.
Criminal defense attorney Stephen G. Rodriguez

Oswald's actions was the very definition of flight from the scene of the crime, and thus would be "admissible evidence", and it would be up to Oswald and/or his Defence team to fabricate a narrative that could convince a Jury that this is just typical behaviour of an innocent man simply going about his day! Good luck with that!

JohnM