Oswald's Motive

[Charles Collins]

Hmm, I think he had moral agency; he wasn't driven by voices or demons. But he wasn't a normal person. Below is from the Nechiporenko book on Oswald at the Soviet Embassy. This is a man with a persecution complex, someone who feels his life is in danger. That might be a form of psychosis I guess. I'll leave the psychoanalysis to others.

Of course the conspiracy believers will say this was an impersonator, it was the CIA framing him. Round-and-round we go.

That description of the encounter in MC reminds me so much of a kid pitching a temper tantrum so that his mommy will cave in and give him what he wants. I can’t help but think that this is probably what happened between LHO and his mother way too many times.

I haven’t yet found his exact words, but Robert Oswald wrote that he noticed a pattern in LHO’s behavior. Whenever LHO failed at something or things didn’t go as he wanted, he then proceeded to do something outrageous [Possibly an adult substitute for a childish temper tantrum?]. Defecting to Russia was an example. Assassinating JFK was the ultimate outrageous act.

[Bill Chapman]

And what happened to JFK - an injustice - calls for or justifies another injustice? If what happened to JFK was wrong, as it was, does that justify another one? This is what More meant above. If you toss out the rule of law in one case, make an exception, then how do you prevent the next one?

What about other killers? Child rapists, murderers? How about the parents of a child killed? Can they kill that killer? They are victims of an injustice every bit if not more than the Kennedys. No, this is the path to anarchism and vigilantism.

Oswald paid for what he did
RIP Officer Tippit

[Charles Collins]

Oswald paid for what he did
RIP Officer Tippit

We live in a land of laws which are there to protect the rights of individuals, so there should be no approval of what Ruby did.


That said, there were a lot of people who were glad that Ruby shot LHO. There are plenty of telegrams in evidence, that were sent from people all over, congratulating Ruby.  I have to confess that, as a ten year old, my first reaction was mixed. Part of me was glad, but I knew it was wrong.

Part of me still wants to say it was poetic justice:

Poetic irony (a.k.a. poetic justice) occurs when a crime or transgression is unexpectedly resolved positively, often due to a 'twist of fate. ' In other words, karma — you get what you deserve. This is very closely related to cosmic irony because there is a sense that the Universe stepped in to balance the scales.

But deep down inside I agree with Steve that it should not be condoned.

[Bill Chapman]

We live in a land of laws which are there to protect the rights of individuals, so there should be no approval of what Ruby did.


That said, there were a lot of people who were glad that Ruby shot LHO. There are plenty of telegrams in evidence, that were sent from people all over, congratulating Ruby.  I have to confess that, as a ten year old, my first reaction was mixed. Part of me was glad, but I knew it was wrong.

Part of me still wants to say it was poetic justice:

Poetic irony (a.k.a. poetic justice) occurs when a crime or transgression is unexpectedly resolved positively, often due to a 'twist of fate. ' In other words, karma — you get what you deserve. This is very closely related to cosmic irony because there is a sense that the Universe stepped in to balance the scales.

But deep down inside I agree with Steve that it should not be condoned.

BONUS
REPEAT

Courtesy
Dead Oswald Tour
27,000 views and counting


billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next

[Charles Collins]

On one hand LHO got ambushed (like his victims).

On the other hand, if he had lived to go through a trial and was sentenced to death, he would have probably
suffered the anxiety of looking at the electric chair.


On the third hand LHO was denied most of the time in which he would have had the attention he apparently craved.

On the fourth hand LHO did go down in history and we are still talking about him.


The vision that keeps occurring to me is that he is in hell and satan keeps taunting him that most people think that he wasn’t capable of the assassination without help….

[Steve M. Galbraith]

On one hand LHO got ambushed (like his victims).

On the other hand, if he had lived to go through a trial and was sentenced to death, he would have probably
suffered the anxiety of looking at the electric chair.


On the third hand LHO was denied most of the time in which he would have had the attention he apparently craved.

On the fourth hand LHO did go down in history and we are still talking about him.


The vision that keeps occurring to me is that he is in hell and satan keeps taunting him that most people think that he wasn’t capable of the assassination without help….

With two trials and two convictions plus the jailhouse interviews he'd had given we wouldn't be talking about him this much if at all; this forum wouldn't exist. The conspiracy crowd would be quite small. Sure, if Oswald was sitting on their laps as he shot JFK they would deny it. There's always that crowd.

It is fascinating to realize that conspiracy people - smart ones, e.g., Lifton - think we're all nuts, that we're gullible sheep who believe "the government", that's it obvious he was framed, that his behavior was proof of his CIA work and he was being directed. Every piece of evidence we show about him, about his alienation from the world, about his erratic behavior such as his exchange with the Soviet/KGB embassy people is, for them, proof that he wasn't that person. It was his "legend", his cover work.

It's like people from two entirely different worlds speaking two indecipherable languages.

One more on motive: I keep thinking about Kerry Thornley's testimony, Michael Paine's, the Soviet Embassy/KGB account and Marina's that Oswald felt persecuted, that his talents weren't being recognized, that he was being picked on. Persecution complex. The world was against him, the FBI, the US government. He was striking back, in part, against that world.

But see? This is all eye-rolling speculation for the conspiracy crowd. They sneer at it. They can speculate about Ruth and Michael Paine and their motive for setting Oswald up (so they say), or LBJ's motives, or the CIA, or Angleton or a hundred different people. They can propose motives for their acts but if we do it for Oswald it's unfair. Well, hooey on that.

[Charles Collins]

With two trials and two convictions plus the jailhouse interviews he'd had given we wouldn't be talking about him this much if at all; this forum wouldn't exist. The conspiracy crowd would be quite small. Sure, if Oswald was sitting on their laps as he shot JFK they would deny it. There's always that crowd.

It is fascinating to realize that conspiracy people - smart ones, e.g., Lifton - think we're all nuts, that we're gullible sheep who believe "the government", that's it obvious he was framed, that his behavior was proof of his CIA work and he was being directed. Every piece of evidence we show about him, about his alienation from the world, about his erratic behavior such as his exchange with the Soviet/KGB embassy people is, for them, proof that he wasn't that person. It was his "legend", his cover work.

It's like people from two entirely different worlds speaking two indecipherable languages.

One more on motive: I keep thinking about Kerry Thornley's testimony, Michael Paine's, the Soviet Embassy/KGB account and Marina's that Oswald felt persecuted, that his talents weren't being recognized, that he was being picked on. Persecution complex. The world was against him, the FBI, the US government. He was striking back, in part, against that world.

But see? This is all eye-rolling speculation for the conspiracy crowd. They sneer at it. They can speculate about Ruth and Michael Paine and their motive for setting Oswald up (so they say), or LBJ's motives, or the CIA, or Angleton or a hundred different people. They can propose motives for their acts but if we do it for Oswald it's unfair. Well, hooey on that.

One more on motive: I keep thinking about Kerry Thornley's testimony, Michael Paine's, the Soviet Embassy/KGB account and Marina's that Oswald felt persecuted, that his talents weren't being recognized, that he was being picked on. Persecution complex. The world was against him, the FBI, the US government. He was striking back, in part, against that world.


Even the best of us can from time to time feel like the world is against us. If several important aspects of our lives go wrong at about the same time, it is easy to fall into that frame of mind. Especially if one is a relatively young age (say early twenties). But most of us recover from that type of mind-set and carry on with life normally. Then again, most of us didn’t have Marguerite Oswald for a mother…

[Jon Banks]

With two trials and two convictions plus the jailhouse interviews he'd had given we wouldn't be talking about him this much if at all; this forum wouldn't exist. The conspiracy crowd would be quite small. Sure, if Oswald was sitting on their laps as he shot JFK they would deny it. There's always that crowd.

It is fascinating to realize that conspiracy people - smart ones, e.g., Lifton - think we're all nuts, that we're gullible sheep who believe "the government", that's it obvious he was framed, that his behavior was proof of his CIA work and he was being directed. Every piece of evidence we show about him, about his alienation from the world, about his erratic behavior such as his exchange with the Soviet/KGB embassy people is, for them, proof that he wasn't that person. It was his "legend", his cover work.

It's like people from two entirely different worlds speaking two indecipherable languages.

One more on motive: I keep thinking about Kerry Thornley's testimony, Michael Paine's, the Soviet Embassy/KGB account and Marina's that Oswald felt persecuted, that his talents weren't being recognized, that he was being picked on. Persecution complex. The world was against him, the FBI, the US government. He was striking back, in part, against that world.

But see? This is all eye-rolling speculation for the conspiracy crowd. They sneer at it. They can speculate about Ruth and Michael Paine and their motive for setting Oswald up (so they say), or LBJ's motives, or the CIA, or Angleton or a hundred different people. They can propose motives for their acts but if we do it for Oswald it's unfair. Well, hooey on that.

Intelligent and informed people can look at the same facts and reach different conclusions. It happens all the time in politics and it’s not always in Bad Faith (although on some occasions it is).

The only thing I’ll add is that it seems like LN and CT are wired differently the same way Conservatives and Liberals are. Meaning, different personalities and different life experiences can affect how we interpret the facts of the Kennedy assassination the same way that our personalities can affect our political views.