Oswald's Motive

[Richard Smith]

Why does he need a job near the crime scene? He didn't have a job near the scene of the Tippit shooting. And people believe he was framed for that murder. I assume, I hope?, you think the evidence shows he shot Tippit?

The conspirators have to be sure he doesn't have an alibi, witnesses who can show he was not at the scene of the crime. If he doesn't have one they can plant the evidence he was there and shot JFK.

He doesn't have to be placed, e.g., a job, in DP in order to frame him. He just can't have an alibi that he was elsewhere at the time.

Some people are impervious to logic and common sense.

[Martin Weidmann]

Some people are impervious to logic and common sense.

Have you been looking in the mirror again?

[Richard Smith]

Have you been looking in the mirror again?

What has happened to Otto?  Do you see him in the mirror?

[Jon Banks]

Why does he need a job near the crime scene?

To ensure that he’s in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, which along with other circumstantial evidence, made Oswald a plausible suspect.

As I explained earlier, if Oswald took the offer for a job at the airport (that Ruth Paine never told him about), how would the conspirators have put him a position to be a suspect in JFK’s assassination?

If he took a job at the airport, why would he have gone anywhere near Dealey Plaza that day if he didn’t have a reason to?

He didn't have a job near the scene of the Tippit shooting. And people believe he was framed for that murder. I assume, I hope?, you think the evidence shows he shot Tippit?

 If I were on a jury, I don’t think I would vote that Oswald was guilty of shooting Tippit based on the available evidence.

If the reports that an unknown person placed Oswald’s wallet (or a wallet that resembled Oswald’s) at the Tippit crime scene are true, then maybe someone did try to frame him for that shooting.

https://jfkfacts.org/oswalds-wallet-planted-at-the-tippit-crime-scene/

The conspirators have to be sure he doesn't have an alibi, witnesses who can show he was not at the scene of the crime. If he doesn't have one they can plant the evidence he was there and shot JFK.

He doesn't have to be placed, e.g., a job, in DP in order to frame him. He just can't have an alibi that he was elsewhere at the time.

Steve, you’re much smarter than this. What you describe is totally illogical.

Unless you kidnap Oswald and don’t free him until after the assassination, there’s no guarantee that he isn’t seen somewhere else by multiple witnesses at the time of the shooting, which would’ve given him a solid alibi.

Telling him to ‘go to work and wait for further instructions’ serves the purpose of making sure he’s where you need him to be at the time of the shooting and reduces the possibility of a convincing alibi.

[Martin Weidmann]

What has happened to Otto?  Do you see him in the mirror?

When everything else fails.....     

A dead giveaway for Richard getting stuck.... Hilarious!

What's next? The "Europe" thing again?

[Jon Banks]

He doesn't have to be placed, e.g., a job, in DP in order to frame him. He just can't have an alibi that he was elsewhere at the time.

That would have been a valid argument if Oswald had lived to have his day in court. After he was killed they could come up with any kind of narrative they wanted without an alibi ever coming into play.

Oswald’s alibi was that he was eating lunch at the time of the shooting and there is indirect corroboration for it from other witnesses. But that didn’t matter.

I don’t think they would’ve been able to easily dismiss witnesses who could place him outside of the Book Depository at the time of the shooting.

[Bill Brown]

(3) a few prints on boxes left behind by a guy who worked in the building and was moving boxes every day.

Here's what you're missing, though...

On one of the Rolling Readers boxes at the window, Oswald's left palmprint and his right index fingerprint were found.

The employees laying the floor moved the large boxes of books from the west end of the floor over to the east end.  However, the "Rolling Readers" boxes did not need to be moved, i.e. they weren't over on the west end where the new floor was being placed down.  The two "Rolling readers" boxes in the sniper's nest were originally about three aisles over from the sniper's nest window and were taken to that window for the purposes of being used as a gun rest.  The "Rolling Readers" boxes didn't contain books.

Other identifiable prints were developed on the boxes.  These prints were compared with the fingerprints of all other employees as well as law enforcement personnel who handled the boxes.  None of the identifiable prints belonged to any of the other employees.

So, the Rolling Readers boxes were in the sniper's nest and used as a gun rest.  Oswald's prints were on one of these two smaller boxes.  No other employee of the building had their prints found on either of these two Rolling Readers boxes.  These two particular boxes wouldn't have been moved there by the floor-laying crew (having been stored about three aisles from the sniper's nest, they weren't in the way, like the bigger boxes over on the west end were).

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald’s alibi was that he was eating lunch at the time of the shooting and there is indirect corroboration for it from other witnesses. But that didn’t matter.

I don’t think they would’ve been able to easily dismiss witnesses who could place him outside of the Book Depository at the time of the shooting.

I don’t think they would’ve been able to easily dismiss witnesses who could place him outside of the Book Depository at the time of the shooting.

Does the name Carolyn Arnold ring a bell? And what about the railroading of Vickie Adams and Dorothy Garner being ignored. And just look how easily and based on no evidence at all they just dismissed Buell Wesley Frazier's statements about the size of the bag Oswald had carried.

If even a witness came forward to say he or she saw Oswald outside the TSBD at the time of the shooting, they will just remind us that witness testimony is highly unreliable and that witness was simply mistaken.