Why did Oswald go get his revolver?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Did you just make that up? Oswald was arrested with the Tippit murder weapon his possession as well as the same two brands of bullets found in Tippit's body. That rules him in as Tippit's murderer.
Since he didn't plan on returning to his rooming house on Thursday night, he would have had to bring his revolver with him on Thursday morning and kept it concealed all day. He would have to have done the same on Friday morning. Did you really need this explained to you?
Funny how none of the other TSBD employees who didn't shoot the President felt they needed to leave work and get their revolver. Why would Oswald need to do so if he hadn't shot the President? Why would Oswald think he was being framed?
I'll bet he demolished it <chuckle>

Michael Griffith says it's a "myth" that Oswald shot JFK. There is no basis for the idea, no evidence to support that claim. He waves it away.

But he says "we cannot dismiss the possibility that Babushka Lady shot JFK with a gun camera."

Consider those two claims: he believes there is more evidence that Babushka Lady shot JFK than there is evidence (none he says) that Oswald shot JFK.

You will have greater success reasoning with a parakeet than with him.

[Martin Weidmann]

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.)

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?"

Yes, that has occurred to me.

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.

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.

I'm not so sure about that. You can also turn that around and ask just how likely it would be for Oswald thinking he was a patsy to kill a cop and thus destroy any patsy defense?

Wouldn't it have been enough for Oswald to just understand or even just believe that he might well be involved in some sort of conspiracy, to decide to get 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.

There is a wide gap between those two options. It seems to me there are a few more possibilities. Unfortunately we can only speculate which will not get us very far.

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.

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.

Agreed

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.

Which is exactly why I don't understand that he would kill a cop. There are all sorts of theories about the killing of Tippit and they all leave questions unanswered.

Let's take the possibility that Oswald recognized Tippit as part of the conspiracy. That would imply that both men knew each other, which I don't think is true. But if it is true, and Tippit was indeed searching for Oswald to kill him, then why did he talk to him first and then leave his car with his revolver still in it's holster? Also, why would Tippit look for Oswald in a suburban area like 10th street? It doesn't make sense, but that also applies to Oswald "fleeing" to 10th street! What in the world was he doing there?

The way Tippit was shot also leads to unanswered questions. According to the narrative, Tippit got out of his car, clearly not sensing danger and then the killer instantly fired several shots at him. That, to me, is more likely a cold blooded act than a panic reaction. What would have motivated Oswald to kill a cop and actually go back for a final shot to ensure he was dead when the two men just had a conversation and Tippit didn't behave in a way that made it clear he either wanted to arrest or kill Oswald? In what universe does that make sense?

[Lance Payette]

The way Tippit was shot also leads to unanswered questions. According to the narrative, Tippit got out of his car, clearly not sensing danger and then the killer instantly fired several shots at him. That, to me, is more likely a cold blooded act than a panic reaction. What would have motivated Oswald to kill a cop and actually go back for a final shot to ensure he was dead when the two men just had a conversation and Tippit didn't behave in a way that made it clear he either wanted to arrest or kill Oswald? In what universe does that make sense?

All I can speculate is that Oswald knew he was carrying a concealed revolver and would likely be arrested if Tippit discovered it, whereupon all the dominoes would fall, so he took the extremely preemptive step of immediately gunning down Tippit. This does seem wildly at variance with the Oswald of the Baker encounter - who, of course, wasn't carrying a concealed revolver. If he actually did administer a close-range coup de grace, that would be truly bizarre and might suggest some personal animosity that would be hard to explain. Ya got me! At the Ed Forum, they are discussing the Oswald who supposedly took a whiz into the bushes along the sidewalk in full view of passers-by, so let's figure THAT into our alternate universe as well.