JFK Assassination Forum

Why do you keep coming up with these imaginary red herring problems? Did any of the three previous presidential assassins provide a manifesto? Did any of them give prior warning of their intentions to kill the POTUS? OK. Booth did, but only to his compatriots. There is no rule that I know of that says assassins are required to state their intentions before they act.

You are the one who said he "wanted notoriety." He prepared anticipated reporters' questions and his answers before arriving back in the U.S. from Russia. He spent money to have his "historical diary" typed up (at least $10 worth). He spent considerable time on his "Athenian system" manuscript. He had FPCC materials printed up and handed out Corliss Lamont's booklets. He was eager to appear on radio on behalf of the FPCC. He at least left a note before the Walker attempt.

But the JFKA, supposedly the "crowning notoriety" of his life? NOTHING. Nothing before, nothing after.

I don't think that's a red herring. I think that's a legitimate puzzle.

At 24 years of age why would Oswald want to spend the next 60+ years behind bars?

In my humble opinion, in the real world the murders would have required bifurcated trials. It would be extremely prejudicial to Oswald and confusing as hell to have them at the same time. What an absolute mess if the jury had convicted him of Tippit and acquitted him of JFK! With Gacy, the crimes weren't connected - one wasn't supposedly showing consciousness of guilt of the other.

Speaking of Sirhan, Jim DiEugenio approvingly posted today Lisa Pease's diatribe against the LA Times for a program about the RFK murder, about which I know nothing other than that I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't do it:

Can you cite another case in which an individual was given separate trials for two murders committed a short time apart and in close proximity to each other. I'm not pretending to be a lawyer here. I've just never heard of such a case. I'm going from memory hear, but I believe Charles Manson and family were given a single trial for the the Tate and Labianca murders committed on separate nights. I didn't remember this but when I looked it up there were two other murders committed the previous month that Manson and his family were tried and convicted for. The spree has usually been called the Tate-Labianca  murders, ignoring the first two victims.

Nothing reveals the conspiracy mindset better than Sirhan's murder of RFK. He shot RFK and several other people in a crowded pantry infront of numerous witnesses and there are still people who insist he wasn't the lone gunman. They point to the factoid that there were more bullet holes than Sirhan's gun held (. This ignores the fact that a single bullet can make multiple strikes. The pantry had a drop ceiling with a concrete ceiling about it. A bullet could bounce off the concrete ceiling and come back through the drop ceiling. There is also some question as to whether some of the marks were actually bullet holes.

Another argument for a second gunman is that the head shot was fired at almost point blank range and witnesses (you gotta love 'em) said Sirhan never got closer than 3 feet from RFK with his gun. This begs the obvious question whether those witnesses saw another gunman fire a point blank shot into RFK's head. That means whoever fired the shot got close enough to RFK to shoot him at point blank without the witnesses seeing that shot. Given the other testimony, a reasonable reconstruction is that Sirhan fired the first shot into RFK's head before anyone was observing him. He was quickly push back but continued firing over the shoulders of his subduers. By the time the various witnesses turned toward the sound of the gunfire, Sirhan had been pushed back away from RFK.

In 1968, the Secret Service did not provide protection for presidential candidates. The RFK campaign employed form Olympic gold medal decathlete Rafer Johnson and form Rams/Giants defensive tackle Rosey Grier to be RFK's body guards. It was Grier who wrestled the gun from Sirhan's hand but not before he had enptied the gun into the crowd.

Ironically, Vincent Bugliosi was an early CT when it came to the RFKA. He was one who believed there were more than 8 shots fired. The source materials I found seem to suggest Bugliosi may have had a change of mind later but didn't say so explicitly.

Again we see, those who knew Oswald best have difficulty connecting the Oswald they knew to the Oswald of the JFKA. There is an undeniable disconnect. What she suggests is along the lines of what John Orr suggests (unconvincingly to me) - i.e., Marcello actually recruited Oswald and made some sort of offer he couldn't refuse.

This massive biography of DeMohrenschildt is excellent and extremely detailed. He comes across far more as "eccentric" than full of the dark intrigue often associated with him. It's not at all difficult for me to understand why he would have found Oswald an interesting guy.

The author participated for a short time at the Ed Forum, as I recall. (Edit: I just looked. Her participation was extremely short. I don't know what happened to her, but she was a serious researcher and had done extensive work on the Paines. I don't know whether she is/was a CTer, but I got nothing along those lines from this biography.)

https://www.amazon.com/Faux-Baron-Mohrenschildt-Aristocrats-Assassination/dp/1501021494

Here she is on a podcast, which I don't have time to watch:

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?

If you don't want responses, maybe don't ask questions.  There is nothing "quasi-religious" about this.  It is the application of the evidence and common sense along with the facts.  It is strange to take issues with such things while implying that there is something strange about Oswald walking down the street.  A guy who didn't own a car and was in flight from a crime.