As stated, I find Oswald the man the most interesting aspect of the JFKA. I’ve read everything there is about him, and my sister-in-law and her husband worked in the Minsk factory at the same time. I think I “know” him about as well as he can be known.
I’m a provisional Lone Nutter but troubled by several aspects of the narrative, including the one I’ll describe here. The standard LN response is, “The evidence says he did it. It doesn’t matter who he was, why he did it, or what was going on inside his head.” Well ...
When he took a shot at Walker (we’ll assume he did), he left behind a detailed note, and Marina said he arrived home in a state of considerable agitation. Compare the JFKA.
1. I’m puzzled by his behavior at the Paine home the evening before the JFKA. He begs Marina to join him in Dallas, makes promises, and gives absolutely no clue he is contemplating the JFKA. He leaves no note.
2. He has long been convinced he is destined for a place in history and has written fairly extensively about his views, but he leaves no explanation or manifesto concerning the JFKA. There is nothing like this in his room on Beckley.
3. He shoots JFK, stashes the rifle, scurries down the stairs, hears Baker and Truly coming up – but then is utterly calm and collected when Baker confronts him and sticks a gun in his stomach.
4. He exits the TSBD, boards a bus, leaves the bus and hails a taxi – but then offers the taxi to an older woman who approaches.
5. He is grilled by Fritz, who is a legend for wheedling confessions out of suspects – but he is so cocky and unflappable that Fritz not only fails to break him but emerges speculating that he has been trained to avoid interrogation.
6. In custody, he tells his brother Robert, “Don’t believe the so-called evidence.”
7. In custody for more than 36 hours, and despite the seemingly compelling evidence against him, he never cracks or gives anything other than flat denials of his involvement in the JFKA and Tippit shooting.
I at least find this all bizarre enough to contemplate that “something more” than the LN narrative may have been going on. It seems to me inadequate to say, "The evidence says he did it and nothing else matters." Yes, Oswald was a massive liar even when lying served no purpose, but all of the above is extremely odd and gives me pause about Oswald as a Lone Nut who just snapped. The problem is, I have no real theory as to what the “something more” might be that would explain his behavior. "He was a wholly innocent patsy" would do it, of course, but that just doesn't fit the evidence unless one postulates a conspiracy so elaborate as to be comical.
Fascinating.
