The Silent Conspiracy

[Steve M. Galbraith]

"Oswald was extremely critical of President Kennedy, and he was just obsessed with what America did to support this invasion at the Bay of Pigs.... obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy...."
Volkmar Schimdt, relating a conversation he had with Oswald at a party in Dallas in February of 1963.

I find it difficult to believe that a self-described Marxist (as he understood the word) who admired Castro so much that he actually sang songs to him would also admire the president of the main enemy of that man. It makes no sense. Yes, we have DeMohrenschildt saying that Oswald "admired" JFK and Marina saying she thought he "liked" Kennedy. So one can argue it both ways.

But let's remember that Oswald "left" the Texas Schoolbook Depository Building about three minutes after the shooting. There is no evidence that at any time afterwards did he show any interest at all in what happened to Kennedy, the man he supposedly "like" or "admired." He never talked to any co-worker about the incident, he didn't stay around to find out what happened to Kennedy, he never discussed with anyone he met on his way to his rooming house the incident and when he arrived at his rooming house to discover the housekeeper watching television he never once asked her if she knew what happened.

Zero interest at all. For a politically obsessed person like Oswald that is very, very odd.

[John Iacoletti]

Because he actually did avoid it. I didn’t indicate why. I asked a question.

There’s no reason to assume he avoided it, just because he didn’t engage Ruth Paine in conversation about it.

[John Iacoletti]

But let's remember that Oswald "left" the Texas Schoolbook Depository Building about three minutes after the shooting. There is no evidence that at any time afterwards did he show any interest at all in what happened to Kennedy, the man he supposedly "like" or "admired." He never talked to any co-worker about the incident,

Did Oswald have a history of being chatty with his coworkers about anything?

[Jon Banks]

"Oswald was extremely critical of President Kennedy, and he was just obsessed with what America did to support this invasion at the Bay of Pigs.... obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy...."
Volkmar Schimdt, relating a conversation he had with Oswald at a party in Dallas in February of 1963.

I find it difficult to believe that a self-described Marxist (as he understood the word) who admired Castro so much that he actually sang songs to him would also admire the president of the main enemy of that man. It makes no sense. Yes, we have DeMohrenschildt saying that Oswald "admired" JFK and Marina saying she thought he "liked" Kennedy. So one can argue it both ways.

There’s a long list of witnesses who say Oswald either admired or at least didn’t dislike Kennedy. Far more people than just Marina and George DM. He was not the type of person who hid his political views (ie Gen. Walker and John Connally) so it’s odd that there’s so little evidence that he had negative opinions about Kennedy.

The WC found no concrete evidence of political motivation. That’s why they went with the “he wanted to get his name in the history books” motive.

It’s possible that Oswald liked Kennedy’s policies on Civil Rights and Russia but disliked his policies on Cuba.

Still, I’m not convinced that his views on Cuba drove him to violence. Otherwise, why would he ignore all the anti-Castro people he associated with between Dallas and New Orleans?

He had plenty of opportunities to violently target anti-Castro activists before November 1963.

[Richard Smith]

Neither do I. However, it is evidence that I believe should be considered in forming an opinion about whether or not LHO still liked JFK. And if considered in conjunction with the public threats of both Castro and JFK against each other that fall, and the evidence that even you indicated suggests LHO was involved in JFK’s assassination then it appears to me that perhaps LHO changed his opinion of JFK...

I'm not sure it is a matter of whether Oswald "liked" JFK or not.  JFK was the president.  Oswald viewed himself as some type of revolutionary who had already demonstrated a willingness to assassinate a public figure.  The president is the symbolic representative of everything Oswald hated.  And by sheer chance the opportunity fell into his lap.  If the president had been Nixon, LBJ, or anyone else at that moment, he still takes the shot.  It wasn't the individual but the office holder that he was targeting.  I believe Oswald's political beliefs were more about himself than the political cause.  In a fringe movement like Marxism, Oswald felt he could be someone important.  A big fish because it is a small pond.  That would not be true in mainstream American politics like being a democrat or republican.  Just another sheep in his mind.  So he picks a fringe political group to associate himself with and then hopes he can make his mark.  The political cause is the means rather than the ends.   He uses it to promote himself.

[Jon Banks]

I'm not sure it is a matter of whether Oswald "liked" JFK or not.  JFK was the president.  Oswald viewed himself as some type of revolutionary who had already demonstrated a willingness to assassinate a public figure.  The president is the symbolic representative of everything Oswald hated.  And by sheer chance the opportunity fell into his lap.  If the president had been Nixon, LBJ, or anyone else at that moment, he still takes the shot.  It wasn't the individual but the office holder that he was targeting.  I believe Oswald's political beliefs were more about himself than the political cause.  In a fringe movement like Marxism, Oswald felt he could be someone important.  A big fish because it is a small pond.  That would not be true in mainstream American politics like being a democrat or republican.  Just another sheep in his mind.  So he picks a fringe political group to associate himself with and then hopes he can make his mark.  The political cause is the means rather than the ends.   He uses it to promote himself.

Was Oswald just a “crazy lunatic” and his motive doesn’t matter as you claimed earlier?

Or was he driven by his ideology?

As usual you’re trying to have it both ways because the question of Motive is one that can’t be satisfactorily answered.

FWIW, Oswald’s political views were closer to JFK’s than Kruschev’s.

Clearly, Oswald was strongly opposed to Edwin Walker’s Reactionary John Birch society politics.

He was not opposed to the emerging Democratic politics of Civil Rights and Labor Rights...

[Richard Smith]

Epstein cites it here: http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/question_oswald.htm

He writes: "On October 18, 1963, according to its own records, the Cuban Foreign Ministry in Havana authorized the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City to issue a transit visa for Lee Harvey Oswald to enter Cuba. It required that Oswald also obtain a visa to enter the Soviet Union."

I believe there's a photo of the letter in the HSCA list of exhibits. It was sent from Havana to the consulate in MC but not to Oswald (he put his New Orleans address on the application).

Added: The letter is here (the date is October 15 so perhaps Epstein is referring to a different letter?): https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141#relPageId=847&tab=page

Note: It doesn't explicitly authorize the visa or deny it either but says that: "I respectfully inform you that in order for us to comply with his request, he must inform us by cable, with prepaid reply, when he has the authorized visa of the Embassy of the U.S.S.R." In any case, this indicates that the application was sent to Havana and not tossed away. Very strange.

Yes, I don't read that letter as an approval.  It appears to be just reiterating what he was told in Mexico City.  That he has to the get a visa from the Soviets before the Cubans will do anything.  That makes it all the more curious if, just three days later, they granted his visa without an approval for a visa from the Russians.  It seems odd that whatever is the basis of the claim that his visa was approved - as referenced in a number of places - it is so difficult to locate. 

[Richard Smith]

Was Oswald just a “crazy lunatic” and his motive doesn’t matter as you claimed earlier?

Or was he driven by his ideology?

As usual you’re trying to have it both ways because the question of Motive is one that can’t be satisfactorily answered.

No one is trying to have it both ways.  Motive doesn't have to be proven even in a criminal law trial.  If there is abundant evidence to convict, then we know that person is responsible.  That is the case here.  There is overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt even if we can't know with absolute certainty his subjective motive.  Oswald did it.  Oswald's motive is only a matter of historical interest.  It is not relevant to the issue of his guilt.  And his "ideology" and "mental state" are not mutually exclusive factors.  It is possible for a nut to seek out some fringe cause to vent their anger.  In fact, that is often the case. 

Oswald was attracted to Marxism, in large part, because it was a fringe political element in American society.  That aligned with his own feelings of being an outsider.  He was also considered unique for purporting to be a Marxist.  It garnered attention including requests for interviews.  Something that would never have happened if Oswald was a member of a mainstream American political party.  To what extent he was a true believer in Marxist ideology is unclear.  It aligned with his own fantasy to be someone important.  How deeply he believed in the ideology can never be known.  He certainly wasn't willing to stay in the commie utopia of the Soviet Union when it involved freezing his arse off and doing menial jobs.   So a logical inference is that the depth of his political leanings were superficial but still important as a vehicle for his actions.  His fanaticism was mostly in himself.  He was an angry, disgruntled person who wanted to cause harm to the social and political system that he blamed for his anger about his lot in life.  He didn't want to view himself, however, as an angry nut.  Better to spin his impulse to commit violence in terms of a political act.  So that was a fantasy he concocted in his diseased brain.  That he was a revolutionary figure with a noble goal rather than an angry loser.  Marxism was vehicle he used.  He may have to believed in it for that reason but could easily abandon it when it didn't align with his own self-interests.