Why did Oswald go get his revolver?

[Lance Payette]

The recent posts in this thread perfectly illustrate what I pointed out in another thread. So many people want to overthink this case. They make if far more complicated than it actually is. Instead of simply looking at the evidence and following it to a logical conclusion, they introduce red herring arguments that lead nowhere. They make presumptions about what the various characters should have been thinking at any given time. They expect mentally unbalanced  people like Oswald and Ruby to make rational decisions and question their motivations at every turn. My question to them is, "Why ask why". We don't need to know why somebody committed a particular act when we have ample evidence they did commit the act.

Now I'm going to play amateur psychologist. I think the reason so many people delve into the motivations of the people involved is the JFKA is a hobby for them. A whodunnit. Who wants to read a murder mystery if the perpetrator is revealed in chapter one. They want a more interesting story than the one the WC fed them. They invent twists and turns where none exist. The evidence is crystal clear. Oswald killed JFK and JDT. Ruby killed Oswald. We can have fun guessing why but they are questions that don't need to be answered with certainty.

There are legitimate puzzles that theoretically could lead to different conclusions than the standard LN narrative.

1. Oswald for some reason chose to walk down a residential sidewalk in full view. That is a legitimate puzzle.
2. The broadcast description of the suspect would probably have fit tens of thousands of men in Dallas. A guy walking down the sidewalk in Oak Cliff would scarcely be an obvious suspect.
3. Tippit scarcely had a reputation as the sharpest, most diligent officer on the force.
4. Some reported behavior of Tippit that morning was distinctly odd; the reports may not all be accurate, but they do describe distinctly odd behavior.
5. Oswald up to the point of the Tippit encounter had been an amazingly cool character; why would he have done anything to call attention to himself?
6. If Oswald did nothing to call attention to himself, why did Tippit pull over?
7. If Tippit had serious concerns about Oswald, why did he exit his car unprepared for a confrontation?
8. And, of course, why did our cool cucumber almost immediately take the one action, in full view of numerous witnesses, that would guarantee he would not have a smooth escape from Dallas and would immediately and forever be on the run?
9. And why were the scene of the crime and the witness accounts such a jumbled mess that raises so many questions?

Your posts all read as though asking "Why?" (and other questions) is somehow illegitimate. "Just follow the most damning evidence" and forget the rest. How many people in this country have been wrongly convicted and even wrongly executed? Often they are exonerated because someone took a fresh look at the evidence or something new came to light. There is nothing sacred about the LN narrative.

I think there is a high likelihood that Oswald shot Tippit and fled to the Texas Theater. I don't believe the high likelihood is an absolute certainty.

I have seen some pretty convincing criticisms of the work of Mr. Tippit Murder, Dale Myers (and yes, I have read With Malice twice and followed his blog). He is as arrogant and close-minded as any CTer. Folks like Greg Doudna and Tom Gram, neither of whom I believe to be stupid or insane, amaze me by accepting accounts of the Tippit murder that are completely at odds with the LN narrative and that completely exonerate Oswald. Probably they are wrong, but I wouldn't bet my house they are 100% wrong.

Of course, the JFKA is a whodunnit - probably the ultimate real-world whodunnit. At this point either questioning the LN narrative or defending it can be little more than a hobby. Some peoples' version of the hobby is asking the questions that an investigator would ask and seeing where they lead. Your version of the hobby is telling them that asking such questions is illegitimate.

[Charles Collins]

But the most sought-after criminal in the world is casually walking down the sidewalk ...

Where do you think LHO should have tried to hide? (The Texas Theater didn’t work out very well.)

I think that quickly changing clothes and grabbing his revolver and some ammo makes perfect sense. Having the taxi drop him off a little way from the rooming house makes sense if he was trying to make it more difficult to track him. And walking down the sidewalk in order to catch a bus that could help get him out of town the quickest and cheapest also makes perfect sense to me.

Some very famous and easily recognizable people (including John Lennon and Jackie Kennedy) tried to hide from the paparazzi by blending with others in on the very crowded sidewalks in NYC. Apparently that works to a certain extent.

[Lance Payette]

Where do you think LHO should have tried to hide? (The Texas Theater didn’t work out very well.)

I think that quickly changing clothes and grabbing his revolver and some ammo makes perfect sense. Having the taxi drop him off a little way from the rooming house makes sense if he was trying to make it more difficult to track him. And walking down the sidewalk in order to catch a bus that could help get him out of town the quickest and cheapest also makes perfect sense to me.

Some very famous and easily recognizable people (including John Lennon and Jackie Kennedy) tried to hide from the paparazzi by blending with others in on the very crowded sidewalks in NYC. Apparently that works to a certain extent.

I'd be guessing with everybody else, but "blending into a crowd" or "finding the nearest bus stop" would be two likely choices. Earlene Roberts said she saw him initially walk north toward a bus stop, then apparently change his mind and walk south. I don't recall what the various bus stops around Oak Cliff were, or which buses stopped at which stops, but perhaps the direction he was walking would have been a plausible direction to a plausible bus stop that would have got him out of town faster than the stop to which he initially headed. Even telling Whaley to "wait a minute while I run inside and grab a couple of things" might have been less risky than walking down the sidewalk. I would have thought "getting way out of the area fast" would have been a more logical thought process as soon as he exited the TSBD than "going home and getting my revolver." It's all just "kinda odd."

[Richard Smith]

There are legitimate puzzles that theoretically could lead to different conclusions than the standard LN narrative.

1. Oswald for some reason chose to walk down a residential sidewalk in full view. That is a legitimate puzzle.
2. The broadcast description of the suspect would probably have fit tens of thousands of men in Dallas. A guy walking down the sidewalk in Oak Cliff would scarcely be an obvious suspect.
3. Tippit scarcely had a reputation as the sharpest, most diligent officer on the force.
4. Some reported behavior of Tippit that morning was distinctly odd; the reports may not all be accurate, but they do describe distinctly odd behavior.
5. Oswald up to the point of the Tippit encounter had been an amazingly cool character; why would he have done anything to call attention to himself?
6. If Oswald did nothing to call attention to himself, why did Tippit pull over?
7. If Tippit had serious concerns about Oswald, why did he exit his car unprepared for a confrontation?
8. And, of course, why did our cool cucumber almost immediately take the one action, in full view of numerous witnesses, that would guarantee he would not have a smooth escape from Dallas and would immediately and forever be on the run?
9. And why were the scene of the crime and the witness accounts such a jumbled mess that raises so many questions?

Your posts all read as though asking "Why?" (and other questions) is somehow illegitimate. "Just follow the most damning evidence" and forget the rest. How many people in this country have been wrongly convicted and even wrongly executed? Often they are exonerated because someone took a fresh look at the evidence or something new came to light. There is nothing sacred about the LN narrative.

I think there is a high likelihood that Oswald shot Tippit and fled to the Texas Theater. I don't believe the high likelihood is an absolute certainty.

I have seen some pretty convincing criticisms of the work of Mr. Tippit Murder, Dale Myers (and yes, I have read With Malice twice and followed his blog). He is as arrogant and close-minded as any CTer. Folks like Greg Doudna and Tom Gram, neither of whom I believe to be stupid or insane, amaze me by accepting accounts of the Tippit murder that are completely at odds with the LN narrative and that completely exonerate Oswald. Probably they are wrong, but I wouldn't bet my house they are 100% wrong.

Of course, the JFKA is a whodunnit - probably the ultimate real-world whodunnit. At this point either questioning the LN narrative or defending it can be little more than a hobby. Some peoples' version of the hobby is asking the questions that an investigator would ask and seeing where they lead. Your version of the hobby is telling them that asking such questions is illegitimate.

1) Oswald didn't own a car or apparently even know how to drive.  Walking was about his only option to quickly put distance between himself and his boarding house until he could find a bus or cab.  He is not going to wait around for a cab or bus.
 
2) No reason to believe that Tippit singled out Oswald because he met the description of the shooter.  The police that day would, however, have been alert to any suspicious behavior considering that the president had just been assassinated and the killer was on the loose.  What exactly Oswald might have done is unknown but Tippit's behavior is consistent with that of a police officer who sees something that draws his interest.

3) Tippit's intelligence isn't a factor.  He would have been familiar through his experience with suspicious behavior of individuals.

4)  Not sure what odd behavior is being reference.  Many witness reports are unconfirmed, mistaken, or subjective.

5) I'm sure it was not Oswald's intent to draw attention to himself.  He would have been under intense stress having just murdered the president and being sought by every law enforcement member in the world.  That would make him paranoid upon seeing a police car.  He didn't bolt for it but likely did something like an abrupt change in direction when Tippit noticed him.

6) We can never know with certainty why Tippit paused to speak with Oswald.  Given that he was a police officer with all that entails, it is most likely that did do something that Tippit found odd enough to ask him a few questions.  And Oswald did not satisfy his curiosity which is why he got out of the car.

7) No DPD officer was murdered in a range of years before  or after Tippit.  He likely had no thought that he would be gunned down by Oswald on a public street in the middle of the day.  He was getting out of the car because his brief discussion with Oswald apparently didn't satisfy him.

At the time of the Tippit encounter, Oswald has to assume he is already a suspect in the assassination.  He can't identify himself to Tippit for that reason.  When Tippit gets out of the car, Oswald has a limited opportunity to ambush him before he risk being arrested.

9) Witness descriptions of sudden traumatic events are always suspect.  The basic fact is that Oswald was the person who they saw kill Tippit or at the scene with a gun. 

[John Corbett]

There are legitimate puzzles that theoretically could lead to different conclusions than the standard LN narrative.

Theoretically. Not plausibly.

1. Oswald for some reason chose to walk down a residential sidewalk in full view. That is a legitimate puzzle.

What was he supposed to do? Fly?

2. The broadcast description of the suspect would probably have fit tens of thousands of men in Dallas. A guy walking down the sidewalk in Oak Cliff would scarcely be an obvious suspect.

Obviously something about Oswald aroused J. D. Tippit's suspiscion. Why do you need to know what that was?

3. Tippit scarcely had a reputation as the sharpest, most diligent officer on the force.

So what?

4. Some reported behavior of Tippit that morning was distinctly odd; the reports may not all be accurate, but they do describe distinctly odd behavior.

Tell us why that matters to you.

5. Oswald up to the point of the Tippit encounter had been an amazingly cool character; why would he have done anything to call attention to himself?

Why do you find it odd that Oswald would act different from how you imagine you would act if you were in his situation?

6. If Oswald did nothing to call attention to himself, why did Tippit pull over?

Why do you assume Oswald did not?

7. If Tippit had serious concerns about Oswald, why did he exit his car unprepared for a confrontation?

You'd have to ask him that.

8. And, of course, why did our cool cucumber almost immediately take the one action, in full view of numerous witnesses, that would guarantee he would not have a smooth escape from Dallas and would immediately and forever be on the run?

Tell us why it is important for you to know that.

9. And why were the scene of the crime and the witness accounts such a jumbled mess that raises so many questions?

That's typical whenever multiple witnesses observe the same event. I would find it more suspicious if they all gave the same account. It would be an indication of collusion.

Your posts all read as though asking "Why?" (and other questions) is somehow illegitimate.

It's legitimate to ask. Just don't expect the answers to be knowable. Just because we don't know why somebody did what they did is no reason to dismiss the evidence that they did what they did. It's not important to establish motives when we have clear evidence of what did happen.

"Just follow the most damning evidence" and forget the rest. How many people in this country have been wrongly convicted and even wrongly executed?

Oswald wasn't convicted but he was executed in a delicious irony. I shed no tears for the little SOB. I know what he did and I shed no tears for him.

A murderer got murdered. I don't give a {bleep}. I was even happy when I learned OJ had died. Better late than never.

OJ and Oswald had something in common. Both committed a double murder for which neither was convicted.

Often they are exonerated because someone took a fresh look at the evidence or something new came to light. There is nothing sacred about the LN narrative.

People have been looking at the evidence for 62 years. It is the most investigated crime in the history of the world. No one has found any evidence that negates the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt or provided any evidence he had even a single accomplice. You are free to continue with the snipe hunt. Just don't expect me to follow you down the snipe holes.

I think there is a high likelihood that Oswald shot Tippit and fled to the Texas Theater.

You think?

I don't believe the high likelihood is an absolute certainty.

About a dozen witnesses IDed Oswald as the shooter or the man they saw fleeing the scene and he was apprehended a short time later and a short distance away with the murder weapon in his possession as well as the same two brand of bullets used to kill Tippit. If that isn't enough to erase your doubts that Oswald was a cop killer, what the hell would it take?

I have seen some pretty convincing criticisms of the work of Mr. Tippit Murder, Dale Myers (and yes, I have read With Malice twice and followed his blog). He is as arrogant and close-minded as any CTer.

Whether he is or isn't doesn't change the fact he got the story right. I have to wonder why you are having such a tough time with it.

Folks like Greg Doudna and Tom Gram, neither of whom I believe to be stupid or insane, amaze me by accepting accounts of the Tippit murder that are completely at odds with the LN narrative and that completely exonerate Oswald. Probably they are wrong, but I wouldn't bet my house they are 100% wrong.

I would. I would even bet my house. What do I stand to gain by winning that bet?

Of course, the JFKA is a whodunnit

Some of us already know whodunnit. I've known for 62 years. I even knew that when I was a CT. I just didn't always know Oswald did it by himself. The JFKA was solved in the first 12 hours.

probably the ultimate real-world whodunnit.

If it was a whodunnit, it would be the worst one ever written. The murderer was revealed at the bottom of page one.

At this point either questioning the LN narrative or defending it can be little more than a hobby. Some peoples' version of the hobby is asking the questions that an investigator would ask and seeing where they lead. Your version of the hobby is telling them that asking such questions is illegitimate.

The questions have been asked and answered countless times. The one big unanswered question is what was Oswald's motive. That is unknowable and not necessary to know. The CTs have been spinning their wheels for the 35 years I have engaged off and on in this hobby and for a lot longer than that. They have gotten nowhere with their efforts and never will. If they can't make the case for conspiracy with what they have now, what makes you think there is even a chance they ever will?

[Lance Payette]

People, people, people - thank you, I guess, but I KNOW all the LN responses. I can (and have) regurgitate them myself. As stated, I believe there is a high likelihood the LN version of the Tippit murder is correct. But noooooo, this is insufficient for a hardcore LN zealot. There is a mysterious compulsion to keep pushing the LN narrative as though there were some crowd of lurker historians out there who might be swayed unless all comments that don't toe the LN party line are immediately shut down.

Much the same thing is encountered on religion forums, which is why I have equated the LN narrative to some quasi-religious gospel. On those forums, there is a species of believer who keeps parroting something along the lines of "It's all in the Bible, just read the Bible" no matter how theologically deep the discussion might be. On those forums, I attribute such responses to fear - fear that examining one's faith might shake it. That surely can't be what's going on here ... can it?

[John Corbett]

People, people, people - thank you, I guess, but I KNOW all the LN responses. I can (and have) regurgitate them myself. As stated, I believe there is a high likelihood the LN version of the Tippit murder is correct. But noooooo, this is insufficient for a hardcore LN zealot. There is a mysterious compulsion to keep pushing the LN narrative as though there were some crowd of lurker historians out there who might be swayed unless all comments that don't toe the LN party line are immediately shut down.

Much the same thing is encountered on religion forums, which is why I have equated the LN narrative to some quasi-religious gospel. On those forums, there is a species of believer who keeps parroting something along the lines of "It's all in the Bible, just read the Bible" no matter how theologically deep the discussion might be. On those forums, I attribute such responses to fear - fear that examining one's faith might shake it. That surely can't be what's going on here ... can it?

I'm mystified by the CT compulsion to find somebody, anybody other than Oswald was behind the JFKA.

Religious dogma cannot be proven. The Oswald-did-it narrative was proven a long time ago. The fact that so many reject it is their shortcoming, not the narrative.

Since you are an attorney, I have to think you have a healthy respect for evidence. Just what evidence is there that makes you think somebody other than Oswald was involved in the crime?