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?
