Why did Oswald go get his revolver?

[Martin Weidmann]

I obviously don't KNOW that. However, both Baker's and Truly's descriptions of the encounter are sufficiently "pro-Oswald" that I see no compelling reason they would have omitted a statement along those lines.

Obviously they don't. But there is certainly a range of "normal" or "expected" behaviors when one has assassinated a President two minutes previously and now has a police officer sticking a gun in his stomach. Oswald's behavior seems to me outside that range, which is why I have described it as seeming like a dissociative state. On this thread or another one, I quoted an article to the effect that killers sometimes do exhibit a weird dissociative sort of calm.

I would have no expectations for Truly. Baker actions don't strike me as very solid police work, but he may not have been thinking clearly under the circumstances.

I think you're confusing me with John Corbett. I started an entire thread not long ago about the seeming disconnect between Oswald's behavior in Irving on 11-21 and his assassination of JFK: https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4977.0.html.

I have also stated in just the last day or so that the paper bag strikes me as one of the weak links in the LN narrative. I have not "claimed" anything about the paper bag.

If Oswald constructed and used a paper bag, I assume he did so because it would make his excuse to Frazier that he was going to Irving to get curtain rods more plausible. One would think that a paper-wrapped package described as curtain rods would be likely to raise fewer questions than a duffle bag. I don't know what size duffle bags Oswald had, but that might have seemed like an odd and extreme way to carry curtain rods. It may also have had something to do with the way the disassembled rifle was packaged inside the blanket, which Michael Paine described as seeming as though it were tied together.

You seem to have shifted the focus away from what you were suggesting in the post to which I responded: What "framing" scenario explains Oswald's actions if the M-C rifle was not in fact his and if he didn't know it was in the building?

You seem to have shifted the focus away from what you were suggesting in the post to which I responded: What "framing" scenario explains Oswald's actions if the M-C rifle was not in fact his and if he didn't know it was in the building?

I actually did respond to that, but strangely I can not find the post I have written. I have no idea what happened, Anyway, I'll gladly try to recall what I wrote.

If the position is that Oswald understood he had been framed, after his encounter with Baker, I agree that there must be a reason for him to come to that conclusion and that could indeed be that he knew the rifle he had purchased at Klein's was in fact in the building. But I think Oswald's actions can also be explained with the instant framing scenario you've referenced. In my mind it could be possible that Oswald's encounter with Baker only told him that something had happened. People not only react differently to different situations but they also deal with events differently. Personally, I have never had any dealings with law enforcement, except for a traffic stop or two. Yet, when a cop pulls me over, I instantly start to feel guilty even though I have done nothing wrong.

As I have said before, we don't know what exactly happened in the days, weeks and even months prior to the assassination, so there is no way of telling what went through Oswald's mind when Baker pointed a gun at him. We don't know who Oswald met and talked to, if he did somebody a favor or anything like that, so could it be that somebody manipulated him and then instantly disappeared after the killing? Much like a man dating older women to get access to their money and when he has what he wanted he's instantly gone. Is there any evidence for any of that? No of course not, but absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence!

So, perhaps Oswald put two and two together (whatever those two's were) when Baker pointed his gun at him and he simply got a hunch and wanted to clear it up, by leaving the TSBD as fast as he could and go to that person. In such a scenario it would be surprising that he first went to pick up his revolver, just to be on the safe side.

I have not "claimed" anything about the paper bag.

I don't think I've said that you did.

If Oswald constructed and used a paper bag, I assume he did so because it would make his excuse to Frazier that he was going to Irving to get curtain rods more plausible. One would think that a paper-wrapped package described as curtain rods would be likely to raise fewer questions than a duffle bag. I don't know what size duffle bags Oswald had, but that might have seemed like an odd and extreme way to carry curtain rods.

To a certain extend, I do agree. Frazier confirmed to me and others that the curtain rods story did in fact happen, and I have no reason to disbelieve him. Personally, I think it is possible that Oswald used to curtain rods story as an excuse in order to avoid telling a 19 year old co-worker that he was really going to try and safe his marriage. But that still doesn't explain why he would use TSBD materials and make a bag at the wrapping table, when he could have used a flimsy bag that Frazier described when DPD subjected him to a polygraph on Friday evening. I can't really figure out why anybody would come up with the idea to construct a bag when there were all sorts of other options available. I don't really see why a duffel bag would raise more questions as Oswald could simply say it was the only bag he could find to carry the rods.

It may also have had something to do with the way the disassembled rifle was packaged inside the blanket, which Michael Paine described as seeming as though it were tied together.

I'm not sure that the rifle (if it was a rifle) was disassembled inside the blanket, but it seems nearly impossible to conceal a broken down rifle in a blanket which is tied closed by a piece of rope.
If there was a rifle in that blanket when it was placed in Ruth's car, I think it would have to have fully assembled. As for Michael Paine, I don't really know what to make of him.

You may recall that Paine admitted in a television interview, years later, that an FBI or Secret Service agent has shown him one of the BY photos on Friday evening, when in fact those photos were  allegedly found during the second search (with a warrant) on Saturday afternoon. In Captain Fritz's testimony we find corroboration to some extend, as he tells us that when he interviewed Oswald on Saturday he already had a blown up version of one of the BY photos and that he also knew the photo was taken at Neely Street. Now, why would Michael Paine deny for many years that he knew Oswald had a rifle, when he years later said that he had seen a rifle in Oswald's appartment around the time the BY photos were taken?

[Lance Payette]

So, perhaps Oswald put two and two together (whatever those two's were) when Baker pointed his gun at him and he simply got a hunch and wanted to clear it up, by leaving the TSBD as fast as he could and go to that person. In such a scenario it would be surprising that he first went to pick up his revolver, just to be on the safe side.

But then we bump up against the Tippit murder, which is presumably why Belin called it the Rosetta Stone of the JFKA. The Tippit murder seemingly flies in the face of any theory that Oswald was an escaping patsy who got his revolver for protection. The two CT gambits here are, of course, either that Oswald didn't kill Tippit at all or that Oswald recognized Tippit as part of the conspiracy that had framed him and shot Tippit before Tippit shot him.

But then we bump up against the Texas Theater. Here, the CT gambit is that what supposedly took place inside the theater is not what actually took place. (I do find Oswald's protests about "I'm not resisting arrest!" kind of odd if he had actually pulled his gun on McDonald.)

I have not "claimed" anything about the paper bag.

I don't think I've said that you did

No big deal, but you did say "If so, how does that make sense, when, at the same time, you claim that Oswald, at least one day earlier, made a paper bag to conceal a rifle in, which would imply premeditation?"

Personally, I think it is possible that Oswald used to curtain rods story as an excuse in order to avoid telling a 19 year old co-worker that he was really going to try and safe his marriage.

Yes, that has occurred to me.

I can't really figure out why anybody would come up with the idea to construct a bag when there were all sorts of other options available.

I've repeatedly said the same thing. It's not impossible, but it's certainly odd.

In further response to John's complaint that I'm overthinking things, I would again point out that Oswald's behavior is evidence, regardless of what he was thinking. Every lawyer knows you need some "theory of the case" to give context to what you present to the jury. I believe Oswald's behavior would be the foundation of a defense theory of the case and might go a long way toward creating reasonable doubt.

Did he ever say or write anything suggesting animosity toward JFK? No.

In the days leading up to the JFKA, and particularly the night before in Irving, did he act like a man who was planning a Presidential assassination or give any clue that he was? No.

The morning of the JFKA, did he exhibit unusual behavior? No.

Two minutes after the JFKA, did he act like a man who had just shot the President? No.

Was this demeanor consistent with the way Oswald acted in other stressful situations? No.

In that context, the various holes that CTers try to poke in the Dealey Plaza evidence would likely carry more weight toward convincing a jury he was a mere patsy than they would without such context. Even to me, Oswald's behavior is the most troubling aspect of the LN narrative.

But then, alas for Oswald, we bump up against Tippit, the Texas Theater and his behavior in custody - and the innocent patsy argument becomes a tough sell.