Are there any "researchers" here who started out as LNs but who are now CTs?

[John Corbett]

I would also strongly dsipute John's statement that "people choose to be what they are." Oswald was only 24. He had been shaped by a broken home and a chaotic life with the mother from hell. Every attempt to find a better life had gone awry. He was intelligent, idealistic and frustrated at his inability to achieve what he thought he was capable of achieving. Ernst Titovets, who probably knew him better than anyone, found him likeable, amusing and incapable of anything like the JFKA. I don't completely excuse him, but "evil monster" is way over the top.

Slightly humorous, or at least I think so: I came from a truly traumatic childhood, alone in the home with two incorrigibly alcoholic parents. In 1968, I was a freshman in Apache Dorm at the University of Arizona. One of my good friends informed me that the other residents on our floor had voted me the person "most likely to go up in a tower and start shooting people" as Charles Whitman had done at the University of Texas in 1966. I was deeply flattered and amazed they were so perceptive. Fortunately for me, I got some breaks Oswald never got thanks to a very wealthy grandmother.

Lot's of people come from broken homes and unhappy childhoods. Most of them do not assassinate Presidents. I don't care what problems Oswald faced during his life, he chose to become an assassin and a cop killer. He deserved what he got and wouldn't have if not for Jack Ruby. Even though Oswald probably expected he would be sentenced to death, I doubt he even cared. I'll bet he was looking forward to the notoriety he would receive for what he did. He was finally going to be somebody important. Jack Ruby robbed him of that. Thanks, Jack.

Empathy for Oswald? I feel more empathy when I swat a fly.

[Lance Payette]

I'll bet he was looking forward to the notoriety he would receive for what he did.

DELLA: Minor problem, Perry. That doesn't fit ANYTHING he said or did. No manifesto. No note. No hint in custody. Nada, zilch. Is this a problem, Perry?

MASON: Not at all, Della. Give me a week or so to think about it.

DELLA: Possibly, Perry, he was saving it all for a theatrical trial in which he would at last strut his stuff?

MASON: Nice work, Della. I like it.

DELLA: And yet, Perry, the operation was so fraught with risk that he couldn't reasonably have expected to survive for a trial. Is this a problem, Perry?

MASON: Not at all, Della. Shirley was actually Ted in a latex mask, the dog actually belonged to Bob, and it all stemmed from a confrontation between Shirley and Babs on a summer vacation in Istanbul back in college.

DELLA and DRAKE (in unison): Genius, Perry.

Roll the credits.

One of the psychological explanations for elaborate conspiracy theories is that believers need an assassination worthy of JFK, not a one-off by some "little commie punk" (Jackie).

John seems to be the mirror image of this: to be worthy of JFK, Oswald had to be an "evil monster," the Worst Person In the World.

[John Corbett]

DELLA: Minor problem, Perry. That doesn't fit ANYTHING he said or did. No manifesto. No note. No hint in custody. Nada, zilch. Is this a problem, Perry?

MASON: Not at all, Della. Give me a week or so to think about it.

DELLA: Possibly, Perry, he was saving it all for a theatrical trial in which he would at last strut his stuff?

MASON: Nice work, Della. I like it.

DELLA: And yet, Perry, the operation was so fraught with risk that he couldn't reasonably have expected to survive for a trial. Is this a problem, Perry?

MASON: Not at all, Della. Shirley was actually Ted in a latex mask, the dog actually belonged to Bob, and it all stemmed from a confrontation between Shirley and Babs on a summer vacation in Istanbul back in college.

DELLA and DRAKE (in unison): Genius, Perry.

Roll the credits.

One of the psychological explanations for elaborate conspiracy theories is that believers need an assassination worthy of JFK, not a one-off by some "little commie punk" (Jackie).

John seems to be the mirror image of this: to be worthy of JFK, Oswald had to be an "evil monster," the Worst Person In the World.

Why do you keep coming up with these imaginary red herring problems? Did any of the three previous presidential assassins provide a manifesto? Did any of them give prior warning of their intentions to kill the POTUS? OK. Booth did, but only to his compatriots. There is no rule that I know of that says assassins are required to state their intentions before they act.

[Jarrett Smith]

At 24 years of age why would Oswald want to spend the next 60+ years behind bars?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Oswald had agency, made his decisions (however limited they were) on his own, they weren't forced on him. He had two brothers who also grew up in the same (roughly) environment. They turned out not only to not be bad men they turned out to be good ones.

He disgraces himself in the Marines (among other things twice court-martialed), he defects to the Soviet Union and tells his family to get lost but then asks for help when he needs them. He brutally beats Marina. He prevents her from learning English so that she's dependent on him. He tries to kill Walker and in doing so would abandon his family on their own. He then tries to defect to Cuba and again is abandoning his family including a seven months pregnant Marina (he told Marina to find her way to Cuba on her own). Instead of providing for him family he thinks he's some type of historic figure. Then of course he kills JFK. And a police officer. Both men with families and small children.

That's just a partial list. He was a bad man who made decisions on his own. He had free will.

So who or what "forced" him to do this (from "Marina and Lee")?

[Lance Payette]

Why do you keep coming up with these imaginary red herring problems? Did any of the three previous presidential assassins provide a manifesto? Did any of them give prior warning of their intentions to kill the POTUS? OK. Booth did, but only to his compatriots. There is no rule that I know of that says assassins are required to state their intentions before they act.

You are the one who said he "wanted notoriety." He prepared anticipated reporters' questions and his answers before arriving back in the U.S. from Russia. He spent money to have his "historical diary" typed up (at least $10 worth). He spent considerable time on his "Athenian system" manuscript. He had FPCC materials printed up and handed out Corliss Lamont's booklets. He was eager to appear on radio on behalf of the FPCC. He at least left a note before the Walker attempt.

But the JFKA, supposedly the "crowning notoriety" of his life? NOTHING. Nothing before, nothing after.

I don't think that's a red herring. I think that's a legitimate puzzle.

[Lance Payette]

That's just a partial list. He was a bad man who made decisions on his own. He had free will.

Philosophically, "free will" is far from a simple concept, complex enough that even the existence of free will is hotly debated in both philosophy and science. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/

For purposes of the criminal justice system, we at least have to pretend it exists or no one would be held accountable for anything. However, the insanity defense - which used to require the defendant to be a "wild animal" (the actual terminology) who couldn't understand right from wrong - has now been so watered down that it sometimes seems we are on the verge of no one being held accountable for anything. (There is an interesting question: What psychological defenses would be argued if Oswald were tried today?)

To have empathy for Oswald doesn't require one to think he was a good guy. Empathy is "the ability to understand, share, and recognize the feelings and perspectives of another person." I think I can do this to a large extent with Oswald without thinking he was a good guy. As stated, he was intelligent and idealistic. He could have been steered in positive directions. Ernst Titovets and George de Mohrenschildt, neither of whom was an uncultured dummy, enjoyed his company. But he went off the rails. Some of it was undoubtedly his genetic predisposition, some of it was poverty and circumstances, some of it anger and frustration at his circumstances, some of it just poor choices on his part. This is why it is so difficult to articulate a plausible reason why he would have killed JFK.

Empathy is in the vein of the old saying "There but for the grace of God goes I." Put me in the exact circumstances of Oswald, and I'm not sure I would have turned out much different - possibly not murdering JFK, but easily drifting into pretty serious crime and antisocial behavior.

The venom spewed toward Oswald by people like John is simply beyond me. To be a good little LN soldier, am I required to hate Oswald with every fiber of my being?

It seems to me there is predisposition to make Oswald far more of an "evil monster" than he was because it makes it easier to fit him into the LN narrative. The actual Oswald may fit, but not so easily.