This at least gives me pause about the LN narrative

[John Corbett]

Anyone who is unable to acknowledge that Oswald's behavior was rather odd and puzzling for someone who was going to shoot the President in a matter of hours strikes me as closed-minded to an extreme. I can acknowledge the evidence clearly pointing to him while also acknowledging "This is a huge piece that just doesn't seem to fit."

I find it odd that you pretend to know how a cold blooded killer is going to act before he commits the deed.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

I find it odd that you pretend to know how a cold blooded killer is going to act before he commits the deed.

This is not just any cold blooded killer that we know little if anything about. This is Oswald, someone that we have an understanding of, of what made him tick, of how he acted. I probably know more about his life than any other non-family member (that's pathetic admittedly).

As Marina pointed out in that passage I cited, before making any major decisions in his life he planned things out, showed nervousness during that stage, acted erratically, e.g., beating her, having anxiety/panic attacks in his sleep. There's a record of how he acted. The defection to the USSR, the return to the US, the Walker attempt, the Mexico City trip. Simply choose one: the Walker attempt vs. the JFK assassination.

In the assassination we don't see anything resembling that pattern.

[Lance Payette]

What seems to be lost in the shuffle is that how he acted is evidence. I guarantee you, the things that trouble me would have been emphasized at trial by the defense and might have gone a long way toward "reasonable doubt." This is why I always objected to those who insist on playing defense counsel for Oswald and trying to create reasonable doubt. A criminal trial - which there is obviously never going to be, and wasn't from the moment Ruby shot Oswald - is an entirely different inquiry from the verdict of history. Especially with a Texas jury, it is not at all inconceivable to me that Oswald might have had a fair shot (no pun intended) at being found not guilty. As with OJ, "not guilty" simply means the jurors didn't think the prosecution had proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; it doesn't mean "innocent" and wouldn't preclude the verdict of history being that Oswald was a lone assassin. I agree with those who object that the WC was too much a one-sided prosecution of Oswald rather than an objective investigation into historical truth.

[John Corbett]

This is not just any cold blooded killer that we know little if anything about. This is Oswald, someone that we have an understanding of, of what made him tick, of how he acted. I probably know more about his life than any other non-family member (that's pathetic admittedly).

I am fully aware of Oswald's life history. I have no idea what made him tick. He gave few clues. I can only guess why he killed JFK or took the shot at General Walker. I have no idea if Maria's refusal to reconcile was the last straw that made him go ahead with the assassination. He clearly intended to do that when he returned to Irving on Thursday night with a makeshift paper bag. Would he have changed his mind if she had agreed to get back together. Maybe. Who knows? I sure don't.

I have no idea if he had any plan for after he did the deed. I think he was surprised he escaped the TSBD, but that is no more than a guess. I have no idea where he was going or what he intended to do after he retrieved his handgun from his rooming house. Nobody knows what was going on inside Oswald's head because he didn't tell anyone and left behind no manifesto or any other writings that might have explained why he did what he did.

As Marina pointed out in that passage I cited, before making any major decisions in his life he planned things out, showed nervousness during that stage, acted erratically, e.g., beating her, having anxiety/panic attacks in his sleep. There's a record of how he acted. The defection to the USSR, the return to the US, the Walker attempt, the Mexico City trip. Simply choose one: the Walker attempt vs. the JFK assassination.

In the assassination we don't see anything resembling that pattern.

I think it is folly to try to make sense of a senseless act.

[John Corbett]

What seems to be lost in the shuffle is that how he acted is evidence. I guarantee you, the things that trouble me would have been emphasized at trial by the defense and might have gone a long way toward "reasonable doubt." This is why I always objected to those who insist on playing defense counsel for Oswald and trying to create reasonable doubt. A criminal trial - which there is obviously never going to be, and wasn't from the moment Ruby shot Oswald - is an entirely different inquiry from the verdict of history. Especially with a Texas jury, it is not at all inconceivable to me that Oswald might have had a fair shot (no pun intended) at being found not guilty. As with OJ, "not guilty" simply means the jurors didn't think the prosecution had proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt; it doesn't mean "innocent" and wouldn't preclude the verdict of history being that Oswald was a lone assassin. I agree with those who object that the WC was too much a one-sided prosecution of Oswald rather than an objective investigation into historical truth.

There is a big difference between OJ and Oswald. OJ was a Hall of Fame football player, a TV commentator, an actor, and a popular celebrity. He also had a million dollar defense team working for him. Oswald would have had none of those going for him. The evidence was more than sufficient to erase reasonable doubt about his guilt. Oswald's only chance would have been if there was a right wing extremist on the jury who hated JFK and was glad he got killed. I'm sure the prosecution would try to weed those people out during voir dire, but jurors sometimes lie to hide their true feelings. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that. All the defense needed was one such person on the jury to block a guilty verdict. Of course there would be a retrial and I doubt the same scenario would play out.

Earl Warren had been a prosecutor and I read somewhere that he said it would have been a short trial and an easy conviction. I have no reason to doubt that.