Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald

Archives

Earlier discussion archived at:

• /Archive01
• /Archive02
• /Archive03
• /Archive04
• /Archive05
• /Archive06
• /Archive07
• /Archive08

Ancestry

Lee Harvey Oswald's ancestry.On his mother's side,he was French and German; whilst, on his father's side, he was mainly of old English ancestry and also had an Irish great.grandmother by the name of Mary Tonry.She was born in Ireland (county unknown) in the year 1829; after her arrival in USA, she married Henry Harvey of Pennsylvania.This makes Lee one-eighth Irish; therefore, he should be listed among the other Irish-Americans.This info can be verified by biographies as well as Louisiana census records.They list Mary Tonry as having been born in Ireland.Also, Lee was born at exactly 21.55.--jeanne (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And this is important because? -- Zsero (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

As important as JFK being an Irish-American.Why is it OK to list some people as Irish and leave out surely the most interesting man to ever appear on the stage of recent history(LHO).As a woman of mostly Irish and French ancestry,I am proud to share his ethnicity.Have you any further problems ?jeanne (talk) 06:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry,my last post was a wee bit testy.What I wanted to say was that Ireland,in spite of it's small size and centuries of oppression has managed to produce a diverse group of people who have strongly impacted history in every field.From many US presidents to Anne Boleyn,Billy the Kid,Josephine de Beauharnais,Neil Armstrong, the Beatles,Che Guevara,Duke of Wellington,Princess Diana,Robert Boyle,the Bronte sisters,countless sports figures,Hollywood stars,politicians, writers and Lee Harvey Oswald-all these people have partial or fully Irish ancestry.jeanne (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Where one of his great-grandmothers came from is not a significant fact about Oswald. Nor is the time of his birth, or his girlfriend's birthday. And I'm surprised that anyone would feel "proud" to be even distantly related to a murderer. -- Zsero (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Which court of law convicted Mr.Oswald of murder?I saw HIS murder on national television (NBC); he was prevented from receiving a fair trial by Jack Ruby and the gross incompetence of the Dallas police.Anyway,Mr.Zero,I still maintain that Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the most interesting people to step upon the stage of world history.And pray remember in the USA,a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.Nobody saw Oswald fire at the motorcade.If you just killed the most powerful man on Earth would you escape by BUS????17:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk) Had his great grandmother been black or 1/64th Cherokee it would be bandied about constantly.All biographies describe people's ancestry-even minor celebs.I just happen to think his Irish link is interesting-it certainly explains his cheeky smirk alongside his Southern gentleman courtesy.jeanne (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Speculating about a hypothetical black or Cherokee great-grandmother is neither here nor there. It's still not notable that one great-grandparent out of eight came from some particular country. And to claim that this accounts for "his cheeky smirk", let alone his "courtesy" is beyond ridiculous. About as ridiculous as denying that he was a murderer. -- Zsero (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you are trying my patience!OSWALD WAS NOT CONVICTED OF KILLING ANYONE.Au contraire,he was a murder victim,gunned down by a sleazy pimp on national tv.That pimp's ancestry is listed in wikipedia.Yet you insist Oswald's should not,for some bizarre reason.Let me explain in simple terms why I insist his ancestry be listed.If somebody wanted to compile a list of people of the Irish Diaspora and wanted to include as many diverse people as possible-even those labeled notorious such as Oswald, well they would find it in wikipedia.Still got problems with him being part Irish?jeanne (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC) I mentioned "his cheeky smirk" in a humourous attempt to explain his conflicting mannersjeanne (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC) when talking to the press-he constantly veered from overt insolence to well-mannered Southern gentleman(yes sir no sir,etc.)

I don't care whether he was convicted; there's no doubt that he did it. John Wilkes Booth wasn't convicted either, and nor were some of the most notorious murderers in history, but that doesn't affect their guilt. His ancestry simply isn't a notable aspect of his life, and certainly his time of birth or his girlfriend's birthday are not notable facts. They're just clutter. If you want to include him in a category of Americans of Irish descent, you can see whether he fits the criteria for the category; if 1/8 is enough, then fine. -- Zsero (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth was seen firing at Lincoln;Oswald was NOT!!And who mentioned his girlfriend's birthday?I included Marina's!!And if 1/8th Irish ancestry was good enough for John Lennon,it should be good enough for Lee H.Oswald.ok?Or his Irish blood still a problem?jeanne (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Let me also point out that there is a BIG DOUBTjeanne (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC) as to whether or not Oswald DID IT; hence this neutral article.If mentioning something as trivial as his ancestry can possibly help in adding some substance to an otherwise shadowy and enigmatic figure such as LHO it should be encouraged not ridiculed.Have you similar problems with Cher's 1/16 th Cherokee ancestry or Pushkin's 1/8th black?Both are listed in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeanne boleyn (talk • contribs)

Just because other stuff exists somewhere else in wikipedia, that doesn't mean it belongs here. If you believe it belongs here, supply arguments that do not include "since article A has it, then it should be here also". Your current tactic does not help your case. I have no problem with adding it to the article as long as it is sourced and shown to be pertinent. Jons63 (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK .My sources for his ancestry come from two sources.By the way,I think he should be listed amongst French-Americans as well.Here goes:"Lee Harvey Oswald New Orleans Roots "W. Tracy Parnell.This deals with his French ancestry.The other is Ancestry.com.Community.This mentions his Irish-born great-grandmother,who came to US before 1849 obviously during the Famine as did the ancestors of JFK.It's pertinate as it could be used by people researching the Irish Diaspora or the French presence in America.Also as a quirk of history -JFK=Irish,Jackie=French;LHO also shared these ethnicities.jeanne (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Walter Kirk Coleman

A 14 year old boy who lived near Walker's residence in the Turtle Creek neighborhood said that he "saw several men jump in an automobile and speed off" after the shooting.

I have removed this claim because it was an inaccurate newspaper account of what Coleman actually claimed he saw. After hearing what he thought was a car backfire, Coleman looked into the neighboring church parking lot and saw one man walk to a 1950 Ford and drive away at a "normal rate of speed". A second man went to a 1958 Chevrolet sedan, pushed the driver's seat forward, and leaned into the backseat. At that point Coleman went back into this house. No car with several men jumping into it, no speeding off. (CE 2958, FBI interview of Walter Coleman, June 1964). — Walloon (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

.30-06 rifle

(In seeming contradiction to this account, the caliber of Oswald's rifle was 6.5 mm, while the caliber of a 30-06 is 7.62 mm.)

The initial report — on the night of the shooting — was made from a very deformed bullet, before any testing had been done on it. Marina said Lee read the morning newspaper and told her, "They said I had a .30 caliber bullet when I didn't at all. They got the bullet and the rifle all wrong… What fools." — Walloon (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Radar Operator

Nobody has commented on how unusual and extraordinary it was that The Marines would allow a seventeen year old to join the corps without VERIFYING his documents and then to allow him to work at the highly senstive job of radar operator, where one needs a security clearance!!! The article fails to comment on this strange occurance. I know that the US Military is very precise when it comes to names, ages, and other personal data. How did Oswald get away with "lying about his age"?And why was he sent to work as a radar operator? What were the seventeen year old's qualifications?jeanne (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Remember he joined the Marines in 1956, how unusual or extraordinary was it then. Today it would be unusual and extraordinary, but then was it? My dad joined the Army when he was 17 against the wishes of his parents, but they took him without verifying his documents. I also joined the Army at 17, but the verification was better and it is even more stringent today. When I joined in 1980 very few jobs required security clearances, today every job requires a security clearance, you can't even log into the AF computer networks without a secret clearance. Do you have any sources that say that this was unusual or extraordinary in 1956? Jons63 (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

No,in regards to his age but being a radar operator would have required a security clearance and Oswald-even in view of the fact he'd added a year to his age would have been just nineteen and as I mentioned before "what were LHO's qualifications" for obtaining such a senstive post? Also weren't his alleged Marxist sympathies common knowledge amongst his fellow Marines?jeanne (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea that Oswald was the "Marxist Marine" who went around spouting dogma comes basically from one source: Kerry Thornley, who testified befor the Warren Commission. Thornley was a dubious witness, and other people close to Oswald scoff at the idea of Lee as a dedicated communist while in the Marines (as detailed in this acticle).

So why was Oswald, high school dropout, mediocre Marine and all around strange person given such an incredibly sensitive position? It's because he was a tool of the CIA and/or military intelligence. Members of the Warren Commission, other investigations of the JFK assassination and Oswald's family have all expressed this view.

The Warren Commission suggested that Oswald, with his ninth grade education, learned to speak Russian from reading books and listening to a few records in his spare time. Do you think you could learn Russian that way? The Commission also suggested that Oswald while in the Marines saved the upwards of $2,000 needed for his trip to Russia. Yet, when he left the Marines, Oswald had only $200 in his bank account. So he was keeping another $1000-$2000 in a coffee can and not in the bank? Oswald was granted early release from the Marines by falsely claiming that his mother was ill. The Marines release him and never investigated. When Oswald returned to the United States from Russia, after having openly claimed that he would give secret information to the Russians, he was never even debriefed the way an ordinary American tourist to Russia would have been. Lastly, when Oswald returned to the U.S., he wrote a fake diary of his time in Russia. Edward Epstein has documented how this diary was clearly dictated to Oswald for him to write down. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oswald's earnings in the Marine Corps during his 2 years and 10 months of service were $3,452.20, after all taxes, allotments and other deductions. Where do you get the figures of "$200 in his bank account" and "$2,000 needed for his trip to Russia"? Oswald told a newspaper reporter in Moscow that he had saved $1,500 out of his Marine Corps salary to finance his defection. His entire passage, from New Orleans to Moscow, including his first ten days of room and board there, cost less than $1,000. His ship passage from New Orleans to Le Havre, France cost $220.75, it cost him about $20 to reach London from Le Havre, his plane from London to Helsinki cost $111.90, and his train fare from Helsinki to Moscow was about $44. For more information, see the Chapter 6 of the Warren Commission Report. — Walloon (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

FBI doc on the $200[1]. Also Frontline.[2] Oswald opened the account for $200 during his last year in the Corps. Closed it upon his discharge without ever making another transaction. Oswald was also reported to have spent money quite freely while stationed in the Far East. I can't prove that he wasn't keeping a year's pay in cash in a desk drawer somewhere, but I find it hard to believe. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Joegoodfriend that Oswald was a tool of the CIA and/or military intelligence. Nobody can learn a language like Russian by books and records. Most Europeans believe Oswald was set up and did not act alone. I personally have never met a single person who believes Oswald acted alone.Why doesn't anyone mention the fact that 90 seconds after the fatal shot, Oswald was seen on the second floor, calmly sipping a coke. 90 seconds. From the sixth floor to the second.After wiping his fingerprints from the rifle, then carefully hiding it and then sprinting down four flights of stairs.90 seconds.Time was certainly on his side that morning!!!!jeanne (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Warren Commission Report, p. 153:

A test was also conducted to determine the time required to walk from the southeast corner of the sixth floor to the second-floor lunchroom by stairway. Special Agent John Howlett of the Secret Service carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor along the east aisle to the northeast corner. He placed the rifle on the floor near the site where Oswald's rifle was actually found after the shooting. Then Howlett walked down the stairway to the second-floor landing and entered the lunchroom. The first test, run at normal walking pace, required 1 minute, 18 seconds; the second test, at a "fast walk" took 1 minute, 14 seconds. The second test followed immediately after the first. The only interval was the time necessary to ride in the elevator from the second to the sixth floor and walk back to the southeast corner. Howlett was not short winded at the end of either test run.

Oswald took an Army aptitude test in Russian in February 1959 and rated "Poor." When he reached the Soviet Union in October of the same year he could barely speak the language, according to Richard Snyder and Priscilla Johnson. During the period in Moscow while he was awaiting decision on his application for citizenship, his diary records that he practiced Russian 8 hours a day. After he was sent to Minsk in early January 1960 he took lessons from an interpreter assigned to him for that purpose by the Soviet Government.— Walloon (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Oswald's movements before and after the assassination (as well as a lot of other things regarding the shooting itself) preclude his having been the assassin of JFK. When I get around to it, I'd like to work this into the Assassination Theories article. Today's we're talking about his movements after the shooting. Tests suggested that Oswald had just enough time to make it to the 2nd floor lunchroom, with only seconds to spare. However, those tests did not take into account the following: (1) The snipers nest was found as a closed nest of boxes. Oswald would have needed time to climb over them. (2) Oswald did not lay the rifle on the floor, he carefully slid it into a narrow space between two tall stacks of boxes. (3) Two persons left the fourth floor 30 seconds after the shooting and used the same staircase. They did not see Oswald, but could not have avoided encountering him had he actually used the stairs. (4) The original report describes Oswald as having been calmly drinking a Coke when discovered in the lunchroom. If Oswald had enough time to use the Coke machine, the whole test falls apart.

Lastly, the whole idea doesn't make any sense. Why would he be hanging out in a empty lunchroom instead of trying to escape?

On the Russian thing, I don't hold that it's impossible for Oswald to have learned to speak some Russian in his spare time. I do think it's another unlikely explanation offered as part of a dubious story woven by the Warren Commission and its defenders. Also, Oswald wrote the entire "diary" after leaving Russia. It contains demonstrable untruths. Who lies in their own diary? Also, again, it is demonstrable that the diary was dictated to Oswald for him to write down. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"The snipers nest was found as a closed nest of boxes. Oswald would have needed time to climb over them."

Officer Luke Mooney, who discovered the sniper's nest, did not have to climb over boxes. He testified that he turned sideways and squeezed between two stacks of boxes. I imagine that Oswald, who weighed about 135 pounds, didn't have much trouble doing the same.

"The original report describes Oswald as having been calmly drinking a Coke when discovered in the lunchroom. If Oswald had enough time to use the Coke machine, the whole test falls apart."

Actually the "original report" does not say that. Officer Marion Baker didn't write the handwritten deposition published as CE3076. It was written by FBI Special Agent Richard J. Burnett. Officer Baker crossed out (i.e., deleted) the incorrect phrase "drinking a Coke", which had been written by Burnett, and initialed the alteration. In any case how does the whole test fall apart? Going by the re-enactments, Oswald still had 12-16 seconds to buy a Coke. However, note that both Baker and Truly said that when they first encountered Oswald, he had nothing in his hands. The Coke bottle Oswald was seen carrying through the second floor office area was apparently bought after the encounter with Baker and Truly.

"Why would he be hanging out in a empty lunchroom instead of trying to escape?"

It is my belief that as Oswald went down the rear stairs heading for the first floor rear exit, he heard Officer Baker and his supervisor Roy Truly coming up those same stairs, and quickly ducked into the lunchroom. Diagram. — Walloon (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I've been thinking about updates to the More than one gunman section of the assassination theories article for some time. I look forward to the epic battle in which we're bound to engage. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you've just murdered the most powerful man on the planet, you are going to do one of two things: Shout it to the rooftops why you did it and stake your claim in the history books. Or you are going to get out of Dodge-and fast.Oswald did neither. Instead he is found "hanging out" in the lunchroom. What was his motive for killing Kennedy?jeanne (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "hanging out"? "Hang out" means to to spend time relaxing. Oswald was found entering the second floor lunch room about 90 seconds after the last shot. And as I said above, he may well have done that to avoid Officer Baker and Roy Truly, who were coming up the same stairs he was going down. Within a minute after Baker and Truly left Oswald in the lunchroom, Mrs. R. A. Reid, clerical supervisor for the Texas School Book Depository, saw him walk through the clerical office on the second floor toward the door leading to the front stairway. Oswald was gone from the TSBD three minutes after the last shot was fired. He probably could have left the building in two minutes had he not encountered Baker and Truly. — Walloon (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

And what did Lee do after leaving the TSBD ? He hops on board a municipal BUS as his get-away transport. He could have walked over to the Greyhound bus station and been on a bus to Mexico, but instead gets on an ordinary bus which got stuck in traffic. And are you sure Oswald wasn't drinking a coke when Baker encountered him? Most reports state this to have been a fact

And there is still the absence of a motive for killing Kennedy. Why do most people kill political leaders? For many reasons. 1. Political-Oswald was supposedly a Communist, so maybe, yet made no political statement to the journalists after his arrest.2.To foment anarchy and/ or revolution.Difficult to bring about in a country like USA.3.For personal fame and recognition.Why didn't Oswald do what Mark Chapman did after John Lennon's murder? Admit it, revel in it. Oswald's replies were vague almost baffled.jeanne (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"And are you sure Oswald wasn't drinking a coke when Baker encountered him? Most reports state this to have been a fact"

Please click through to the testimony of Baker and Truly that I linked to above. — Walloon (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But that is testimony Baker made before the Warren Commission. Why did FBI agent cross out the line about the coke? Because it provided Oswald with an alibi.The Warren Commission's report is highly controversial, so cannot be relied upon for veracity. Had LHO lived long enough to go to trial, the entire case built up against him would have fallen apart.jeanne (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the FBI agent did not cross it out, Officer Baker himself deleted the error, and initialed his deletion. If some coverup was involved they could have just scrapped the draft and written a clean one. The testimony of Baker and Truly is not from the Warren Commission Report, it is from their unedited, verbatim testimony before the Warren Commission. — Walloon (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

All this can go on and on forever but the sheer fact remains of the incongruity of the time factor involved. From the time the first shot rang out in Dealey Plaza to the fatal head shot.Eight seconds.And another ninety seconds until Oswald was on the second floor(coke or no coke). That short space of time just does not permit so many events to have occured.jeanne (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

New Orleans

The New Orleans section has been steadily chipped away at to promote conspiracy. Gamaliel (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What information might be restored to the article to bring it to a more neutral point of view? Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I chose my metaphors poorly. What I mean is that through dozens of tiny edits, the section has been slowly twisted to push the conspiracy pov. Gamaliel (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, but the editors can't address the problem unless we have a better idea as to specfic POV problems you see in the text. For instance, their was a NPOV tag on David Ferrie for a while because it had a lot of stuff about Jack Martin's accusations, but little about the consensus that Martin was not considered credible. Can you point out any text here that needs some balance? Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Per the MOS here, this article is too long. It needs to be trimmed. To start, I'd like to trim the New Orleans section by merging the last three paragraphs into the Trial of CLay Shaw article. We can do a "For further information... jump cite to the article." Further I'd like to condense and summarize the rest of the section by taking out trivial information, such as the quotation about the contents of Oswald's letter to FPCC and the amount of paper Oswald ordered. Thoughts? Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. A lot of extraneous information has crept into the article. Editors should remember that this is an encyclopedia article, which summarizes secondary sources, and not a book. Gamaliel (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. If it's not too much to ask, can we get a For further information link to David Ferrie as well? Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Life in the Soviet Union

The second paragraph of the "Life in the Soviet Union" section has way too much unnecessary detail about Oswald's travel itinerary, what hotels he stayed at, etc. Almost all of it could be cut, and the paragraph reduced to half its length. Anybody object? — Walloon (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Bannister Information

Please stop re-inserting the information about General Banister. This is a biography of LHO. The Banister information is unnecessary and unrelated to the topic. It's only purpose is to skew the article to a conspiracy POV via innuendo. Per discussion above, lets try to keep the article on point and neutral. Thanks. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The information is not about Guy Banister. The information concerns the fact that the address "544 Camp Street, New Orleans" was stamped on some of the leaflets that Oswald was distributing, and that this address was also that of a group of anti-Castro activists, including Guy Banister. I did not add this information. It has been part of the article for a long time. Your objection seems aimed at omitting any facts that might mitigate against the POV conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Let's try to keep the article on point regarding the facts. Thank You. Mtracy9 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

By now you should know we comment on content not the contributor. As I know you know, your attempt at characterizing my motives can be considered a personal attack and is wrong in any case. I'll sum up my objection-- as you term it-- this way: Banister's office and the 544 Camp address have no relation to each other, unless one wishes to imply a conspiratorial connection between Oswald and Bannister. The important part of the story, as it relates to Oswald biography, is the arrest for disorderly conduct with Bringuier, and the subsequent coverage it received. Let's try to keep the article focused on Oswald. Thank you. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to make a suggestion for a possible compromise. For some reason, no one has ever gotten around to writing an Oswald-Ferrie-Banister-Shaw-whomever section on Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. If Mtracy9 would do the honors, I'll be glad to add anything I can that will add value. Perhaps there could be a Further Information link from the New Orleans section here.

I'm responsible, or if you prefer, guilty, for adding the first HSCA quotes to this section. I just wanted to provide some balance because someone had added text along the lines of, "There is no evidence of an acquaintance between Oswald and Ferrie." Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem Joe. I'm very aware that in order to compromise on these articles sometimes edits are made one day that achieve a consensus but later on as other edits get made, get twisted away from their original intent. Also I believe the Clay Shaw trial article has this 544 Camp issue there. That's where it should go as it was part of Garrison's investigation. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ramsquire was the first to wage a personal attack in regards to questioning motives when he said that my "...purpose is to skew the article to a conspiracy POV via innuendo" (see above). Ramsquire states: "Banister's office and the 544 Camp address have no relation to each other, unless one wishes to imply a conspiratorial connection between Oswald and Bannister." However, this is just one possible interpretation. It should be left up to the reader to decide whether the fact that Oswald had the 544 Camp Steet address printed on some of his leaflets was coincidental, or something more. That Oswald had this address on some of his leaflets should not be ommitted out of fear that some readers may interpret this in a way not to the liking of those who hold the POV that Oswald acted alone. (Wikipedia policy: "...neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.") Mtracy9 (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I find your use of the ellipsis humourous. It's clear from my edit that I was talking about the content of the information and not any edit. But hey why deal with facts, right? Nice try. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You need to go back and read your first post where you describe the alledged "purpose" of my edit. But hey its easy to confuse content with personal attack, right? Mtracy9 (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Last time-- The full comment without ellipsis: Please stop re-inserting the information about General Banister. This is a biography of LHO. The Banister information is unnecessary and unrelated to the topic. It's only purpose is to skew the article to a conspiracy POV via innuendo. Per discussion above, lets try to keep the article on point and neutral. Thanks. As you'll note the part of the sentence you ommitted says "its". Generally in English, you do not refer to people as "its". If I referring to someone I would have said YOUR or used a name. The "its" is clearly relating to the "Banister information". Now please stop it. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't try to couch yout personal attack in what you consider to be clever language. Its meaning and intent was/is obvious. Mtracy9 (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Mis-quoting the HSCA

In 1979, the HSCA stated in its Final Report that it found evidence that Oswald, while living in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, had established contact with anti-Castro Cubans[79]and "apparently" with American anti-Castro activist, David Ferrie.[80]

The HSCA report does not support the statement here. The HSCA only mentioned one definitive contact Oswald had in NO -- The well publicized meeting with Bringuier. It makes no finding on if the other meetings with Odio, Echevaria and the other alleged meeting Oswald had that summer. It explicitly states that it cannot explain or determine the extent of Oswalds associations with anti-Casto groups. That is entirely different from the implications of the above paragraph.

The Committee also found "credible and significant" the testimony of six witnesses who placed Oswald and Ferrie in Clinton, Louisiana, in September 1963, where the Congress of Racial Equality was organizing a voter registration drive.[81]

The committee also states that they were telling the truth "as they saw it", which is not quite the endorsement the above sentence seems to give them. The HSCA made no determination if the testimony was in fact the truth and placing it in a biography of Oswald is misleading when the proper context of the quotes is ommitted.

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent research, Ramsquire. I knew something was fishy about that whole section, but I couldn't figure out what. This is pretty much conspiracy modus operandi: twist the facts to create innuendo, and it's often subtle enough to go undetected. Gamaliel (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We've all been lax regarding these articles recently. I figured I'd go easy and let them breathe a bit after the whole Arbcom situation. But I've noticed the conspiracy creep and I'm ready to "wade back in to the sewer"-- so to speak. :). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE:

From page 147 of the HSCA report: "The committee candidly acknowledged that it could not explain Oswald's associations with anti-Castro Cubans." In other words, according to the HSCA, Oswald did indeed have such associations. Also, the HSCA report says on the same page: "The committee concluded that Oswald's most significant apparent anti-Castro association was with David Ferrie."Mtracy9 (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Trials

I think we should remove the fictional trials section as it appears to be place to put trivia into the article. Also I do believe there is Oswald in Popular Culture section where this information might go. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald... "was" the assassin of U.S. President John F. Kennedy...

I would like to EDIT the controversially made fact that Lee Harvey Oswald WAS the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.

The sentence reads:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was the assassin of U.S. President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas.

Requesting to be changed to:

Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was the incriminated assassin of U.S. President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas.

On the grounds that he was never found guilty and that it should not be assumed a fact. Lee Harvey Oswald was accused and incriminated as the assassin of the late President John F. Kennedy.

John Wilkes Booth was never found guilty. Hitler (aside from the brief prison stay in 1924) was never found guilty. The same goes for Jim Jones, David Koresh, and any number of people throughout history whose guilt is a historical fact without necessitating a trial. Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Oswald wasn't even incriminated. That means someone was charged, tried and convicted, which he wasn't. He was only charged. How about "alleged assassin"? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That implies a level of doubt which does not exist amongst serious, legitimate historians. Gamaliel (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, let the historians speak for themselves. And why are historians the only ones who can pronounce on this matter anyway? Millions of serious-minded people have had legitimate doubts about this, as they're entitled to. But let's not get into that here. To me, "incriminated assassin" suggests an even more concrete and unambiguous level of legal guilt than plain "assassin". The Warren Commission found he was the sole assassin, and that's the official word, but that still doesn't make him legally guilty. Legally, he was charged, and that's where the process came to an untimely end. He was not a criminal. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Legally is not the issue here. We can mention in the intro that he was never tried if you like. Historical fact is the issue here. Historians get the say because Wikipedia weights the findings of professionals and experts above amateurs and dilettantes. Why shouldn't they get the say? Creationists don't get the say on evolution articles, nor flat earthers on geology and astronomy articles. Gamaliel (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course historians should have their say, and I never suggested they shouldn't. Your post above ("That implies a level of doubt ...") suggested that whatever historians say on the matter is the final word, and I just wanted to counter that. "Legally is not the issue here" - well, when it comes to using "criminal", "incriminate" etc, that gets into legal language. A crime was definitely committed, and Oswald may well have been a murderer, but he wasn't a criminal. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem avoiding the words "criminal" and "incriminate". I just have a problem with using the word "alleged". Gamaliel (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For a long time, the lead read: Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was, according to four United States government investigations, the assassin of U.S. President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. Propose this be restored.

Many serious, legitimate historians doubt that Oswald murdered JFK. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think your first suggestion is a good idea. Gamaliel (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your gracious endorsement. Change made. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. It states the facts, plain and simple. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oswald is indeed the alleged killer, not THE killer. With no trial, a denial by LHO himself and evidence that there were more than three shots fired, you lose credibility with most readers when you rely upon the work of the Warren Commission as factual.

The evidence which points to LHO as assassin of JFK was flimsy at best and had he lived long enough to be tried in a court of law (and not by journalists) a good lawyer would have got him acquitted. Comparing him to John Wilkes Booth is nonsense seeing as Booth shot Lincoln in a crowded theatre with plenty of witnesses, whereas LHO allegedly fired, unseen, from a corner window of the TSBD! Oswald had no real motive for assassinating JFK, unless it was to gain fame, and that begs the question as to why he denied shooting him upon his arrest ?!--jeanne (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if this comes across as condescending, but people have been put on death row with less evidence than what exists to implicate Oswald. There is forensic evidence tying him to both the murder of JFK, and Officer Tippit. There is also eyewitness evidence of him in the snipers window, and killing Tippit. The circumstantial part of the case, and motive is up for dispute and where conspiracy theories arise, but there is hard evidence tying LHO to the assassination. Whether he acted alone, that is another story.Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you were not being condescending at all, just stating your opinion. The witnesses who claimed to have seen LHO at the window and fire at Tippet appear very unreliable. Their descriptions of the man they saw do not match the physical appearance of LHO. I happen to believe LHO was up on the 6th floor and at the window, but there had to have been another sniper somewhere who killed JFK. eight seconds just wasn't long enough for him to have been the sole assassin.--jeanne (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The eight seconds of the Warren Commission is a minimum time for the assasination to take place, and the fatal bullet has been forensically matched to Oswald's gun. Most juries in Dallas would convict on that basis alone. But in any case, I've always felt that if there was a conspiracy, it would more likely be a conspiracy of two or three loners and not some of the grand stuff you see in books. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the bullet badly damaged? Ramsquire, there were so many people who had a lot to gain from JFK's death, and you have to admit Texas was the perfect place to carry it off. And what about Ruby's convenient appearance just as LHO was being whisked off to tight security. If that had happened here in Italy, nobody would even question that it was a conspiracy. By the way, Italian journalists always refer to Oswald as Kennedy's "presumed assassin". That might be good for this article.--jeanne (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It was damaged, but as far as I know, the markings on the side of the bullet was enough to positively match it to Oswalds Carcano. Yes, I agree that tons of people had motive to kill JFK, some with much more than Oswald, but motive isn't evidence. There are some good websites out there that discuss the evidence in detail, even some pro-conspiracy ones, and its really interesting stuff. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but to be frank, this Discussion page on Lee Harvey Oswald is clearly the most intellectually stimulating on Wikipedia. The amount of knowledge displayed by the editors is far better than most documentaries. I really enjoy coming to this page, one can learn so much here. I'm quite impressed.--jeanne (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The mountain of evidence incriminating Oswald is so vast it is truly incredible the level of denial some have on this subject. To doubt Oswald killed JFK is akin to doubting whether the pope is catholic. As for this nonsense about "no trial," I suppose that by that logic, Hitler wasn't guilty of anything, nor any of the tyrants throughout history who didn't actually stand trial. Multiple investigations, some almost eager to find evidence of conspiracy all concluded the same thing: Oswald fired the shots that killed Kennedy. Period. Canada Jack (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Four U.S. government investigations

Re the statement in the opening paragraph about four U.S. government investigations finding Oswald guilty of the assassination: FBI (1963), Warren Commission (1964), and HSCA (1979), but what is the fourth? The report of the Ramsey Clark panel (1968) never mentions Oswald. — Walloon (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Clark publicly supported Oswald's guilt, and that's led to a misconception. Change the text from four to three? Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dallas Police investigation. Remember they were the first to tackle this thing and they had it together within hours. Gamaliel (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Dallas Police investigation can't be called a U.S. government investigation. — Walloon (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry

Why has Oswald's sourced ancestry been removed-again? Is he the only American not allowed to have his ethnicity mentioned? I notice nobody has removed Jack Ruby's ancestry on his Wikipedia article.jeanne (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are thousands of facts about Oswald that one could include. But an encyclopedia article does not have space for every fact about a person. Only the most important. Oswald's ancestry seems to have played no role in his life. Ruby, on the other hand, said that he shot Oswald because he wanted to show the world that a Jew could be tough. He was also upset that the anti-Kennedy "Wanted for Treason" flyers gave an apparently Jewish name at the bottom. He was also worried that the rumors of his conspiring with Oswald in Kennedy's death would cause Jews to be persecuted. — Walloon (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I just thought that his French Louisiana ancestry should be listed also the fact that his maternal grandfather John Claverie was a streetcar conductor in New Orleans. There are a lot of genealogy buffs out there who'd be interested.jeanne (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So make a geneology wiki, Jeanne. It just doesn't seem important as far as LHO is concerned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.53.36 (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally think his French ancestry should be included in the article seeing as Ruby's Jewish Lithuanian ancestry is elaborated on. Also, LHO should be included in the list of French-Americans. But, seeing as other editors disagree with me there is nothing I can do about it. Wikipedia is a community effort and if the community doesn't believe LHO's ancestry is important I have to abide by it's opinions. No, I shall not make a genealogy wiki, although it does sound rather interesting.--jeanne (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jack D. White?

Not sure why Jack D. White appears in this sentence:

"However, despite such evidence, some critics continue to contest the authenticity of the photographs, including Jack D. White in his testimony before the HSCA"

His testimony before the HSCA (See http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscawhte.htm) demonstrates he has little credibility when it comes to analysis of the backyard photographs. Suggest removing the "including Jack D. White in his testimony before the HSCA" portion of the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In what way does his testimony suggest a lack of credibility? Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It clearly shows that he is not an expert in any technique used to ascertain the authenticity of photos, in addition he had no idea what generation of photographs his questionable analysis methods were being applied to.

White's biography demonstrates that he is clearly qualified as an expert witnesses. Your analysis of his analysis is POV, and refering to him as a "layman" in the article is inappropriate. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

White should be removed since it gives undue weight to a single person. We do not mention the names or positions of the 21 other experts consulted by the HSCA. Gamaliel (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying that White's dissent can stay, but his name should be removed? Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying anyone can object to anything, why are we highlighting this guy? Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How does his biography demonstrates that he is clearly qualified as an expert? To my knowladge he hold no qualifications in regard to photo analysis and in his own testimony clearly shows he has little understanding in any of the methods used to determine authenticity of photos. I let his dissent stay as a compromise in my opinion the sentence should be cut to "However, despite such evidence, some critics continue to contest the authenticity of the photographs" with a number of links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The use of Allegedly

This is an important word when dealing with Oswald. I put it in, put an administrator saw fit to remove it. Why? Dapi89 (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for other editors or administrators, but I suspect that the answer is because it's reliably sourced. Being fully cognisant of the farrago that still surrounds the JFK assassination, I think sometimes the dust has to settle and minor issues like this become epistemological and largely irrelevant. Let's face it, for everyone who says "X" about Oswald, you'll find an equal number to say the opposite. We have to live with some uncertainty even in these days of more complete information than we enjoyed even fifty years ago. Is Oswald going to sue? No. Let it rest and we can move on to more important issues. OTOH, if you have cogent evidence that it wasn't Oswald using that alias who ordered the mail-order gun, let's have it. --Rodhullandemu 21:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Allegedly" endorses the POV of conspiracy theorists, namely their claim that there is some doubt to the guilt of Oswald. Since his guilt is a settled matter for serious, professional historians, Wikipedia should not endorse the claims of conspiracy theorists. Gamaliel (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so, and I wish I'd said that. --Rodhullandemu 22:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. What do historians have to do with this? Did he face trial? Was he convicted? The answer is no, so everything should be listed as allegedly. One could simply say the same for those that wanted it out of the article, as it can just as easily endorse other theories. I would alsothat the findings of the WC were found to be dubious, and that further investigation should be pursued, but of course it has not. Dapi89 (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And yes I do have a citation that doubts his purchase of the rifle, but that is hardly surprising. Dapi89 (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This depends on whether we take the legal view or the practical view, both valid approches. For practical purposes, the weight of evidence is that he committed the crime, either alone or in concert with others. For legal purposes, however, his technical status is "innocent" since he never had a chance to be convicted of the crime. The Warren Commission's findings and other evidence, no matter how convincing they may be, don't and will never alter that, since a person cannot be convicted posthumously. If we say he "was the assassin of JFK", then we should also make it clear (and not just buried way down in the guts of the article) that legally he died an innocent man. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The introduction already makes it clear that he was not tried for his murders. Gamaliel (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Historians have everything to do with this. We are an encyclopedia and we rely on the judgment of experts in the relevant fields, in this case history. The lack of a legal judgment is irrelevant. Gamaliel (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant. "His murders"? I can't help but notice the bias in your tone Gamaliel. Your grasp of legality, and history is somewhat distorted, as of course Oswald is not a convicted murderer. JackofOz (Note: I did NOT make this post. User:Dapi89 did. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC))

Wow, let's shelve the bias accusations here, shall we? We've already had too much contentious editing on this article, let us not start another round, eh? My grasp of legality is perfectly sound, I just don't think the concept applies here. We are writing history, not legal opinions, and history is what matters here. Of course Oswald is not a convicted murderer, the facts are clear, but so is the evidence and the judgment of history. The legal opinion is not the overriding one, it is not a standard that applies here. Or will we be adding "alledgedly" to the biography of John Wilkes Booth too? Gamaliel (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

JackofOz, I take it you agree Oswalds status as an "accused" should be more prominent in the article, if the word "Allegedly" is not to be used? The rest of the article is worded like there was no doubt it was him. Dapi89 (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you edited the thread in such a way that makes it appear that I made the post above that Dapi89 actually made. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. It appeared that Dapi89 stuck his comments at the end of yours, so I separated the two. I should have checked the edit history to see who said what before doing so. Sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, what happened was that Dapi89 addressed his question "I take it you agree ..." to me, and linked my username. You seem to have read it as a signature, mine, rather than a form of address written by Dapi to me. No harm done. I've restored the sentence the way it was meant to be read. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a heck of a time with this talk page. Perhaps I should get some sleep before I post here again. :D Gamaliel (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The tone of some of the above is that Oswald did it, historians are unanimously agreed on this, and anyone who thinks differently is some sort of crank. Well, historians are not unanimously agreed on the matter, although the majority of them are. As for being "accused", that is what the politicians and historians have done (not that they didn't have good reason to). The police didn't even get around to charging him with JFK's murder, only Tippitt's. History should not be seen as the record of "what actually happened", but what a lot of people believe what happened. In many cases the two things coincide, but in cases like Oswald's there's room for doubt, and keeping an open mind is always a good thing to do. I see this in danger of getting into a discussion of whether or not Oswald did it, and that's not what the discussion is about. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lee Oswald was arraigned for the murder of John F. Kennedy at 1:35 a.m. on November 23, 1963. Affidavit text. Affidavit cover. — Walloon (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, thanks for the info. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

JackofOz I think you have nailed it. My complaint was that like you say The tone of some of the above is that Oswald did it, historians are unanimously agreed on this, and anyone who thinks differently is some sort of crank. - yes, agreed, it is going that way. The article needs to be worded in a way that makes it clear nothing is definitely known, and we just know what we are told. Official investigations and criticisms of those investigations don't mean much, as both sides arguements are full of holes and lack any real "clean" evidence. The article seems to read like it was fashioned by the WC itself. Dapi89 (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For the article "to be worded in a way that makes it clear nothing is definitely known" would create an article which would push the conspiracy POV and would be unacceptable according to WP policies. Gamaliel (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We must only present what the sources tell us. That's how it works in an encyclopedia. Finally, many things are definitely known, and to make an article with the opposite slant, would be as Gamaliel said above, unacceptable. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Like I said, both sides theories are full of holes, and these would be pointed out in the article. Dapi89 (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You pointing out "loopholes" would be original research and murking up the information from sources would also violate WP:NPOV. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I'm stupid? I will be using published material. Dapi89 (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how much original research comes up in these articles. I'm glad we won't have that concern here. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I just have to bring up a point about your John Wilkes Booth comment Gamaliel. I am not a historian, nor do I want to debate with one. I just see a flaw in you bringing up the John Wilkes Booth Assasination. Booth shot Lincoln in a theatre full of people and was plainly seen jumping down from the balcony. Did anyone actually see Oswald pull the trigger? So yes, the word "allegedly" or "accused" should be used for Oswald since he was never brought to trial and convicted nor was seen doing such acts. There is definately a difference in the two scenarios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdsjr21 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This argument - that because Oswald didn't go to trial and therefore was never convicted and therefore must forever remain an "alleged" assassin - is complete and utter b.s. Here is what Vincent Bugliosi said on this very subject. This invests a power and legitimacy to a verdict of guilty or not guilty that it does not have. A verdict of not guilty, for instance, cannot change the reality of whether or not the defendant committed the crime. That reality was established the moment of the crime, and what happened thereafter can never change it. If a courtroom verdict could, then if the defendant actually robbed a bank, but the three witnesses who saw him do it were unavailable to testify against him at the trial, his subsequent not-guilty verdict means he really didn't rob the bank. In other words, the jury verdict succeeded in doing something that God can't even do - change the past... To those who have challenged my calling Oswald guilty throughout the years by saying he was never found guilty in a court of law, I've responded that "under that theory, Adolf Hitler never committed any crimes, Jack the Ripper never committed any crimes, and the only crime Al Capone ever committed was income tax evasion."

As for this complete nonsense that because "no one" saw him commit the acts he was accused of, he is only "alleged," there may be a case if that was what the "guilt" was based upon. But it wasn't. Even if we ignore the witnesses who did identify Oswald as the gunman (and Howard Brennan did so on December 18, 1963 - saying he said he "wasn't sure" at the line-up as he feared for his family's safety) both in Deally Plaza and shoot Tippet, there is veritable ton of evidence which convinced not only the Warren Commission but the HSCA of Oswald's guilt. It should be noted that while the HSCA concluded a probable conspiracy and the WC could not rule it out, they both concluded Oswald and Oswald alone fired the bullets which killed the president.

A "ton" of evidence? As Bugliosi also points out, when someone is innocent of a crime, even then, on occasion, there are times when a piece of evidence points to an innocent man's guilt. On rare occasions, there might be two pieces of evidence which points to the guilt of an innocent man. In extremely rare occasions, three pieces of evidence may suggest this. And this is a man who was for years a DA, so he knows of what he speaks, unlike almost all of those who suggest otherwise in terms of "guilt." Oswald? "...everything, everything, points towards his guilt.... In other words, not just one or two or three points of evidence point towards his guilt, but more than fifty pieces point towards his guilt... Only in a fantasy world could Oswald be innocent and still have all this evidence against him."

A brief look at some evidence which suggests Oswald's guilt: 1) Brennan identified him as the man; 2) Many other witnesses saw a rifle sticking out of the window in question; 3) Oswald himself, during the Sunday interrogation, slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination, the only employee of the TSBD who was placed there by him or anyone else; 4) Why would he claim after the assassination, he ascended a floor to get a coke during the screaming and commotion going on outside; 5) Oswald was the sole employee who could not be located in a roll call after the assassination; 6) If Oswald was innocent and simply wanted to go home, why did he not try to get the Beckley bus at Houston and Elm which he normally took and would take him to his front door, instead going out his way to take the Marsalis bus which would require a half-mile walk to get home; 7) Why, if he was not trying to flee, did he get off the bus after only a few blocks when stuck in traffic; 8) Why did Oswald not answer the cabbie when he asked what was going on in Dealy Plaza; 9) Why did Oswald have the cabbie drive by his house if not to ensure authorities were already there; 10) Why was Oswald in such a rush to get in and out of his apartment; 11) Why did Oswald change his clothes in the middle of the day if not to disguise himself; 12) Why, in God's name if he was completely innocent, shoot and kill a police officer, an act witnessed by two people who positively identified him- Helen Markham and Jack Tatum - and was positively identified as the man who approached the scene or fled the scene by William Scoggins, William Smith, Virginia Davis, Barbara Davis, Ted Calloway, Sam Guinyard, B.M. Patterson, Harold Russell, etc., etc.,; 14) Why would he say "Well, it is all over now" when approached by an officer in the theatre; 15) Why would he then if innocent, draw his revolver on the officer; 16) Why would he, if completely innocent, not give his name; 17) Why, if he was innocent, refuse to take a lie detector test; 18) Why would his own wife declare on Feb 23 1964 and Sept 23 1964 she had "no doubt" that her husband killed JFK; 19) The specific rifle found on the sixth floor was ordered by Oswald, as determined by handwriting experts, had his palm print which could only have been placed there when dissembled, and photographs exist of him holding this specific rifle; 20) Two large bullet fragments found in the limo were parts of bullets fired from that specific rifle, as was the whole bullet found on the stretcher as determined by the WC and HSCA; 21) bullet shells found on the sixth floor were fired from the specific rifle; 22) a brown paper bag which matched the one Wesley Frazier saw Oswald using to carry what he said were "curtain rods" was found on the floor, with his fingerprints; 23) Oswald's fingerprints were found on boxes in the sniper's nest; 24) Oswald's clipboard was found on the sixth floor with orders all dated for Nov 22, none filled out.

A few of these items could be explained away. A lot of them, in isolation, would only suggest guilt, not prove it. But when virtually everything Oswald said and did on that day point in the same direction, his guilt, the conclusion, reached by some of the most exhaustive investigations in not only American history but in world history, that Oswald shot and killed Kennedy, is so inescapable that to believe otherwise is to willfully ignore reality. And to pretend, as some do, that a trial is required to establish the reality of whether he indeed killed the president when several large-scale and meticulous investigations concluded precisely that, is, simply put, bullshit. He is no "alleged" assassin because these investigations concluded he was the actual assassin. Period. Canada Jack (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I just have two questions : Were Oswald's fingerprints found on the sixth floor window sill? How did Oswald have time to rub down the rifle, climb over the boxes, run across to the stairwell (with rifle still in hand!!!-why didn't he just drop it by the window?), hide the gun behind some boxes, sprint down four flights of stairs, only to be met by Officer Baker 90 seconds after the fatal head shot?90 SECONDS! A minute and a half! The only person who could have performed such a feat was The Bionic Woman. I'm not saying Oswald was innocent, there's overwhelming evidence that incriminates him, but there had to have been others involved.--jeanne (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oswald's fingerprints were found on the rifle and all over the crime scene. Oswald was an ex-Marine who performed manual labor all his life, so he could have easily run across an empty floor, tossed a rifle behind some boxes, and run down some stairs in the time provided, assuming that 90 seconds is accurate - could Baker have really driven up to the door, gotten off his bike, found Trudy, tried the elevator, and climbed the stairs in that short period of time? If he could have, why couldn't Oswald have done something much simpler and something preplanned? Gamaliel (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Even Chief Justice Earl Warren could match what you describe as a "bionic" feat by Oswald. Besides, this issue is moot as we have all that physical evidence and witness evidence and it isn't trumped by someone's estimate as to how long it took him to get to a specified location. Canada Jack (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I accept that Baker could have been mistaken regarding the time factor. However, Oswald did not just toss the rifle behind some boxes, he carefully placed it. Big difference. The floor of the depository isn't that small- I've been there. He would have walked fast diagonally to get to the stairwell. My qestion, however, still hasn't been answered and a good lawyer would have hammered away at the vague reply "his fingerprints were all over the crime scene". Were his fingerprints found on the windowsill of the corner where he allegedly reclined on some boxes with his rusty old war-surplus, $12,95 rifle stuck out the window-which he had to have opened thereby leaving fingerprints-while the most powerful man on the planet passed under his window, yet he WAITED until he'd passed, so that the moving target was barely glimpsed though the leaves of the elm trees below and then fired, and missed, fired again and the bullet became demonically possessed, hit Kennedy through the throat, exited and then did a mad dance through Connally's body, and then, finally he got the last shot to hit the mark, thus making a lot of Kennedy's enemies happy! If you read all that in a novel would you believe it feasible or throw the book down in disgust?--jeanne (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I too don't believe that Oswald was the assassin. However, as it's just my opinon & I've no sources to contradict the Warren commission, my hands are tied. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well put. Whatever we argue on this talk page is meaningless because without those sources, the article cannot change. Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem with the Warren Commission report-it's official so how can anyone contradict it? Government reports are sacrosant. I once read a British Government report that placed Ardoyne in west Belfast when any map can tell you it's in north Belfast.Another editor wouldn't let me correct the aricle as he too believed in the infallibilty of government documents.--jeanne (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You could have easily cited thousands of sources to correct that report. There is no source from a comparable investigation to contradict Warren, just the blathering of the conspiracy press. Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your objections are utterly irrelevant. We don't know how long Oswald took once the final shot was fired to stash the rifle, and to get to the second floor. No one was standing there with a stop watch. Others have retraced his probable movements and easily have gotten to the second floor within a time frame supposed to be close to accurate. His fingerprints were found on several of the boxes in the window, on the weapon in question, on the wrapping paper, on the clipboard, all found on the sixth floor. And, he was seen on the sixth floor. How your remark about the windowsill is of any relevance is beyond me. It's as if all the evidence which places him there dissappears into thin air because a thumbprint wasn't found somewhere.(!) Perhaps his fingers never touched the windowsill! But to then suppose he is off the hook willfully ignores all the other evidence which places him there. That is what a lot here don't seem to get.

Not sure what your remark about "waiting" is supposed to go. So he waited. If, as you seem to imply, he didn't do it, then someone else waited. Why? We don't know because a) Oswald is dead and b) no one else has confessed to the crime, so we can't ask anyone. But this is all beside the point as even the HSCA, which supposes that a grassy knoll shot was probable, still says all the physical evidence points to all shots which struck originating from the TSBD. There is no evidence - none - of a shot before the turn onto the street. No evidence - none - of a shot from any other place other than the TSBD. (The HSCA acoustic evidence has now shown to be completely erroneous.) So while we can speculate as to why Oswald waited, in terms of "solving" the crime it is utterly irrelevant in determining his guilt as the shots were fired from there at the moments they were fired. IOW, your line of argument goes nowhere.

Your complaints about the rifle are utterly irrelevant as well. The price and vintage are not the pertinent question here - the question is whether the rifle in question, the one actually found, could do what was claimed. And - guess what? - marksmen were able to recreate the sequence of shots within the time in question with the gun found on the sixth floor. That's the only relevant question. Whether the gun cost a nickel or a thousand bucks is completely irrelevant. And, remember this, since three shots were fired, one presumably missed, the second hit JFK and Connally and the third JFK in the head, Mr Oswald only hit his presumed intended mark - JFK's head - in one of three shots. As for Connally's wounds, you seem to doubt one bullet did it. Okay, where is the other bullet? A bullet exited JFK. Where did it go? Connally was right in front - how could it have missed him? And, since the bullet that struck COnnally was tumbling, indicating it hit something before, well, what if not JFK did it hit? And how could it have been slowed sufficiently to not penetrate his thigh?

What never ceases to amaze me is how so many people willfully ignore a veritable ton of evidence which clearly points to this one guy - Oswald - pulling off one of the most heinous acts in American history. So much so that it is almost perverse to pretend otherwise. But yet we have those who clearly have not looked at what evidence points to Oswald with any objectivity not only dismissing all this on the strength of what they see as an discrepancy, (where are the windowsill prints!) but elevating this guy to some level of martyr. Canada Jack (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It was November. When Oswald got o the Sixth Floor the window was likely closed. WHO opened the window? Again I ask, did he leave prints.Where did Oswald recline? Again did he leave prints? The boxes would have been touched by Oswald in his line of work same with the clipboard. And why didn't ALL of the boxes bear his prints? Wasn't the print found on the INSIDE of the rifle with the rusted scope (1890 vintage).The reason the bullet was not found is because it hit Kennedy from the front not back, and what about Connally's words "MY God, THEY'RE going to kill us all" Key word is they, indicating that bullets were coming everywhere at once. And let's talk motive. What was Lee's motive? A political assassination always involves a conspiracy whereas a nutcase can act alone, but they usually do it in public, claim they did it and what's more they would have done it as the car was approaching the Depository. His actions before, during and afterwards jst do not make an iota of sense, especially his escape by-BUS!!!!!!Come on now.--jeanne (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Where he might have left prints doesn't tell us much. The fact is that his prints were in enough places to convince non-conspiracy minded people and likely convict him in a court of law.

The immediate outcry of a person witnessing the shooting of a family member is not evidence of any kind, it's just that, an immediate outcry which may, or more likely, or may not be accurate and/or coherent.

He never learned to drive a car. How else was he supposed to escape? Gamaliel (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Another thing, which little birdie whispered in JD Tippet's ear that the white guy in his twenties walking down the road was the assassin of Kennedy-miles from the scene of the crime. Got lucky, I suppose. Just like Oswald was lucky the Secret Service agents were hung-over and lucky that Greer slowed down enough to get a final blast at Kennedy's head, and Ruby was lucky the Dallas cops let him get close enough to shoot the gutter rat(rich-coming from a pimp) that killed his president. So much luck and so much dereliction of duty. Another question, why did the cops tell the reporters not to ask Oswald anything as he was being transferred?hmmm.--jeanne (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

He could have walked away and then sought a hiding place or had a taxi booked and waiting. A bus leaves you trapped.Especially a slow, city bus. He could have caught a greyhound bus as the depot is close-by to the TSBD.--jeanne (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, bad luck explains a lot of historical events. That's life. It's not all some cosmic plan, or conspiracy. As for Tippet, he heard a description on the police radio (based on Brennan's eyewitness account), saw a guy who fit the description turn around and go the other way when he saw the police car, so yeah, he stopped to say hello.

Should Oswald have had a taxi waiting? Booking a taxi to flee the scene in advance? That pretty much guarantees you will be pursued by the authorities. Did he take the wrong bus? Sure, that's why he got off and took a cab. Should he have planned his escape better? Sure, but then the fact that Oswald was hardly a mental giant is not evidence that he couldn't have shot somebody with a rifle. Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oswald not a mental giant? Then how did he learn Russian? Not an easy language with the Cyrillic alphabet and all. Then there's the matter of his being made a Radar operator in Japan when he served with the Marines- at the age of 18! After his arrest, the way he parried the stupid questions of the reporters was sheer genius. Another thing, unrelated to his intelligence is this: If you'll take a look over on YouTube, you will see a clip of him just as he's being led into the area where Ruby was waiting. Notice the expression in Oswald's eyes as they alight on Ruby.Look carefully. Facial expressions never lie.They're worth a thousand Warren reports.--jeanne (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It was November. When Oswald got o the Sixth Floor the window was likely closed. WHO opened the window? Again I ask, did he leave prints.Where did Oswald recline?

As Reagan once famously said "There you go again." You utterly miss the point, jeanne. You haven't accounted for the ton of evidence which does place Oswald there. And you have failed to explain why fingerprints in some places are crucial to prove he was there, yet all the other evidence can somehow be ignored. Who opened the window? The better question is: How is the knowing who opened the window relevant? But, since you clearly don't know this, only perhaps 30 per cent of fingerprints lifted are usable in terms of being identifiable. They are often too smudged, too fragmentary or superimposed on other fingerprints to be able to be useful. Besides, I don't know how you open a window, jeanne, but I generally use the side of two fingers on the little hook things to lift the window, or push up with the base of my palms, then pull up with my palms under the window. If Oswald opened the window in that fashion, there is no mystery - no usable fingerprint would be produced in that manner. Nevertheless, there were numerous prints that were good enough to identify Oswald. And, more to the point, his prints were found on the boxes in the nest, and all prints found there were identified as to who they belonged to, save for one. In the sniper's nest, his prints were found on the box he presumably sat upon, and on the box he presumably rested the barrel of his rifle. Depending on how he picked up the boxes positioned in the nest, no usable prints would have been produced. The only "mystery" here is how some can willfully ignore all the other evidence placing Oswald there and raise to a level of "crucial" other evidence which wasn't collected.

Yes a print was found INSIDE the rifle. Which is to be expected as he would have assembled the rifle once he got to the TSBD. The paper wrapping was too short for the assembled rifle and, Oswald likely reasoned, it would be glaringly obvious he had a rifle and not "curtain rods" if he had brought an assembled rifle to work. Which, btw, was clearly a lie. He had no rods, nor any need for rods.

The reason the bullet was not found is because it hit Kennedy from the front not back Where do you get this stuff, jeanne? The bullet wound in Kennedy's back was an entrance wound. This is a proven, established fact because of the nature of the wound. To get technical, examination of the tissues surrounding the back wound found coagulation necrosis of the tissue at the wound margins which conclusively established (as with the wound and the back of the head) that this was an entrance wound. Logic also is problematic for your scenario as a bukllet entering and travelling the path you suggest would require a gun man sitting in Connally's seat facing the president.

What was Lee's motive? A political assassination always involves a conspiracy whereas a nutcase can act alone, but they usually do it in public, claim they did it and what's more they would have done it as the car was approaching the Depository.??? News flash, jeanne. Oswald is dead. And while we can speculate on motive here, only he knew.

His actions before, during and afterwards jst do not make an iota of sense, especially his escape by-BUS!!!!!!Come on now. The only one here not making any sense is you, jeanne. You seem to require a set script for Oswald to have followed if he did it alone. Seems you've been watching too many Hollywood movies here. Besides, if there was a group here involved, why would Oswald hop on a bus for a block, then take a cab? Seems to me he was most concerned with getting the hell out of there. Why? No one else at the TSBD took off, yet the employees were expected to stay put as police investigated. Oswald's actions, in other words, suggest a panic flight from the scene of the crime.

Another thing, which little birdie whispered in JD Tippet's ear that the white guy in his twenties walking down the road was the assassin of Kennedy-miles from the scene of the crime. Got lucky, I suppose. The "birdie" is called a police radio, jeanne. Believe it or not, in 1963, the Dallas police force was equipped with this high-tech equipment. Besides, since officer Tippet was the one who saw fit to stop Oswald, and was subsequently murdered, and Oswald, the one stopped, did not discuss the matter before he was killed, we can only speculate here. But one thing is probable here - all cops in Dallas, aware that the unthinkable had just happened - the killing of the president - were on high alert, ready to stop even the marginally suspicious as a vague description went out. And since Oswald was probably walking at an unusually fast pace, Tippet may have decided to have a chat with the guy. We can't know for sure what happened, but if Oswald was acting suspiciously at that moment, it's a no-brainer that Oswald's actions would have invited an inquiry.

Here are some more howlers: Just like Oswald was lucky the Secret Service agents were hung-over and lucky that Greer slowed down enough to get a final blast at Kennedy's head The motorcade was going at 10mph, jeannie. Oswald didn't require the limo to be slowed further. IOW, this is one of those "doesn't go anywhere" arguments as any sharpshooter could have taken out Kennedy with those low speeds, Greer slowing further or not.

Ruby was lucky the Dallas cops let him get close enough to shoot the gutter rat(rich-coming from a pimp) that killed his president. Perhaps you didn't notice the parading of Oswald through crowded hallways with the press (many unknown to the Dallas cops) crushing in. The transfer was actually, relatively speaking, secure. And the cops knew Ruby. They wouldn't have expected his reaction, and since he had already been there in Oswald's presence, wouldn't have been seen to be a risk. Truth be told, the Dallas police forces' handling of OSwald was one of the most embarrassingly inept moments in American history. Which is partly why we see the enormous security measures now in place for those accused in connection to heinous acts.

Another question, why did the cops tell the reporters not to ask Oswald anything as he was being transferred?hmmm. Migod, you're right! He was about to spill the beans on the conspiracy as he took the 10-second stroll to the vehicle! That;s why he had to be silenced then! Jeanne, you are getting sillier by the minute. But since it seems you have to be sat down, be asked to take a deep breath and consider what for most would be glaringly obvious, this was a prisoner transfer not a press conference. If, as you seem to want to suggest, Oswald needed to be isolated from the media, then why all these previous forays into the press? And, even better, why not invite reporters to ask questions if Oswald was to be shot, since a standing target would have been easier to kill than a moving target?(!)

Oswald not a mental giant? Then how did he learn Russian? Not an easy language with the Cyrillic alphabet and all. jeanne, humans, even imbeciles, have an innate ability to learn languages. It's not as easy when an adult, but one hardly needs to be a genius or highly intelligent to learn a language. Then there's the matter of his being made a Radar operator in Japan when he served with the Marines- at the age of 18! ???

Notice the expression in Oswald's eyes as they alight on Ruby.Look carefully. Facial expressions never lie.They're worth a thousand Warren reports. "Facial expressions never lie." I will have to remember that one. Here's a question for you: Have you actually read the Warren report which you so casually denounce? Canada Jack (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My, my aren't we condescending here. Jackie me lad, you can stop your sneering as I've got news for you: I AM NOT THE ONLY PERSON WHO DOUBTS OSWALD'S GUILT AS THE MAN WHO FIRED THE FATAL SHOT!!!!! When I visited the TSBD, there was a large crowd of visitors near the sealed-off window. It was comprised of people of various nationalities, ages, races, both genders, and they all were discussing the assassination. Guess what Canada Jack, not one person agreed with the Warrren report!!!!!They thought the fatal shot came from the Grassy Knoll or mostly likely. from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. You thought security measures were fairly good that day? Oswald should have had cops in front of him. The cops knew Ruby. Yeah, as a pimp and petty criminal, the perfect person to let near the most important prisoner in the world. You are naive, Jack. Oh, and how many American high school drop-outs do you know who can speak Russian? Or their native English for that matter? I will close here with clause 39 in the Magna Carta signed by King John- he was a real king, BTW, not just a character in Robin Hood, which reads as follows:No man shall be taken, imprisoned, outlawed, banished or in any way DESTROYED, nor will we proceed against or prosecute him, except by the LAWFUL of his peers or by the law of the land. Oswald's rights were trampled on as soon as he was taken in. For the record, I do not suggest that he was completely without culpability. I just do not-and your eloquent words dripping profusely with arsenic-laced sarcasm- will not make me believe in the Warren report or that Kennedy received that final, fatal shot from Oswald's gun. The lack of prints on the window frame and sill would have been hit upon by a lawyer, as well as his lack of legal representation, the lack of prints on the OUTSIDE of the rifle, not to mention the fact that the highly efficient cops failed to check as to whether the gun had been recently fired. You don't think Lee Harvey wouldn't have got off? Oh and I forgot to mention the witness of the Tippet shooting. Didn't she describe the killer as a man wth wild, BUSHY hair? Well, Lee's hair looks lank and thinning to me. Do I agree with you or the Warren Commission findings? My answer is as it has been since 24 November 1963 when the Dallas police department's friendly neighbourhood pimp placed gun in a man's stomach and blasted him into eternity before being allowed to defend himself before his peers-as was granted more than 700 years ago at Runnymede, NO WAY, JOSE!Lee Harvey Oswald was at the window of the TSBD but did not fire the fatal shot. Alas, I haven't got a source powerful enough to combat the omniptent Warren report. Rather like a medieval man with a crossbow firing at a Panzer. Good day to you, sir.--jeanne (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ruby

If Ruby admitted "stalking" Oswald - as opposed to just showing up for the press conference because that was where the action was - then let's hear the statement in his own words, instead of having the article declare it and then cite it to a dubious conspiracy book.

Also, we should not use that section to cherry pick Ruby quotes. He said many contradictory things, many outright crazy things. If you want to say that he hinted at conspiracy, you should also say that he was adamant that he acted alone. Gamaliel (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What would you call it? He intended to kill him for christ sake, how is this not stalking? He was never adamant about anything, thats the point thats being made. Furthermore, who are you to say whats dubious? The WC isn't exactly thorough. Keep your opinions to yourself. And Cherry picking quotes? Get real. This section deals specifically with his motive(s). As it happens I was planning to expand this article and include all the other things Ruby said about Oswald, but I wasn't given a chance. Instead you have slapped a "section disputed" tag on it. Dapi89 (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is Ruby's own testimony from the WC (I'm not sure if it was sworn or not):

• [S]ome persons are accusing me falsely of being part of the plot . . . a plot to silence Oswald. . . . [T]he people that have the power here . . . already have me as the accused assassin of our beloved President. I tell you, gentlemen, my whole family is in jeopardy . . . as to their lives. . . . Naturally, I am a foregone conclusion. My sisters Eva, Eileen, and Mary, I lost my sisters. My brothers Sam, Earl, Hyman, and myself naturally -- my in-laws, Harold Kaminsky, Marge Ruby, the wife of Earl, and Phyllis, the wife of Sam Ruby, they are in jeopardy of loss of their lives . . . just because they are blood related to myself . . . Consequently, right at this moment I am being victimized as a part of a plot in the world's worst tragedy and crime at this moment. . . . At this moment, Lee Harvey Oswald isn't guilty of committing the crime of assassinating President Kennedy. Jack Ruby is. How can I fight that, Chief Justice Warren?
• If certain people have the means and want to gain something by propagandizing something to their own use, they will make ways to present certain things that I do look guilty.". . . If you don't take me back to Washington tonight to give me a chance to prove to the President that I am not guilty, then you will see the most tragic thing that will ever happen. And . . . I won't be around to be able to prove my innocence or guilt.. . . I am used as a scapegoat, and there is no greater weapon that you can use to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith, especially at the terrible heinous crime such as the killing of President Kennedy. . . . Now maybe something can be saved. It may not be too late, whatever happens, if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me. But if I am eliminated, there won't be any way of knowing. Right now, when I leave your presence now, I am the only one that can bring out the truth to our President, who believes in righteousness and justice. But he has been told, I am certain, that I was part of a plot to assassinate the President. . . .

It seems to me that he is pretty adamant that he acted alone and was not in concert with Oswald, and he wanted that story to get out (because of the charges being made by the John Birch Society). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Dial back the hostility please, Dapi89. Gamaliel (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If I seem hostile it is because I think I am being treated like an idiot. Ramsquire I am affraid you seem to be missunderstanding me. I am not saying there was a connection between Ruby and Oswald, I am saying, judging by what Ruby has said, that there may have been a connection between him (Ruby) and a conspiracy, that may or may not, include Oswald. The text you have included is just part of what Ruby said before he died. I would have to follow that up and make sure, word for word, that was what he did say - I tend be to suspicious of everything - conspiracy theories included.

The filmed interview citation that I have put in reveals another angle about Ruby's story. He did contradict himself, on more than one occassion, but why should one version of his story be included and another ignored? It seems to me as if the article is pointing the reader to a particular version - and that is not NPOV. Dapi89 (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are reading way too much into Ramsquire's comments. I don't detect any condescension in his remarks. Gamaliel (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Dapi if you think I am treating you like an idiot, not my intention. But you said he was never adamant about anything. The quotes are presented to show that it's not a stretch for someone to think that he was in fact adamant that he acted alone and was shook up by the charges of the John Birch Society. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 22:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the source of that YouTube clip anyway? If it's not Federal or State government, it's a copyright violation and needs to go. And it will. --Rodhullandemu 22:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well he was pretty adamant in that filmed interview that he was part of a conspiracy. He didn't sound crazy then, and he might, just might, have been telling the truth. Rodhull: not important, I have in a published work, which will be dug out soon. Dapi89 (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Two things. One, using the Youtube clip as a source for the proposition that Ruby was adamant that he was part of a conspiracy is original research, but since you have a published work with the quotes its not important. Two, as Gamaliel has stated above, it is the consensus of the serious, professional historians that guide the article. So although some authors or researchers may believe the quotes were a confession of sorts, we still cannot give that viewpoint undue weight, when the consensus of the experts is that Ruby was confused at best. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, so thats irrelevant. There are many who are serious and professional historians that doubt the findings of the WC (which again is lot a legal authority). This comment again implies that those historians that do not share the opinions of the those that are believers in the WC, are not serious, or second rate, or perhaps even crazy. This tone is also apparent in the article, which is why I am disputing its non neutral wording. I could just as easily complain that the findings of the WC are given undue weight, when wikipedia is obliged to give both sides of the story. Just for the record, incase you were wondering, I am not a conspiracy theorist. Dapi89 (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some history is in order here. That issue, the WC having undue weight, was discussed by the ArbCom a few years ago and they said: "As applied to this case, where the Warren Commission Report contains extensive accounts of primary evidence, use of the primary evidence to draw novel conclusions is inappropriate. It is the interpretation of the primary evidence by the Warren Commission which is usable as a secondary source." What I'm trying to explain is that we are in a lot of ways bound by the interpretations of the WC and HSCA, in this article, because of verifiability concerns. Otherwise, the door is opened for the articles to become a stream of consciousness rant, which is unencyclopedic and inappropriate (and trust me, it has happened before, hence ArbCom intervention). FTR-- I never considered whether you were a conspircacy theorist or not, just as I hope you didn't consider me a WC apologist (I am not). Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 16:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what your saying, and thats the problem. Those interpretations still violate true NPOV, because we are making the assumption that all the investigative agencies were thorough, their cases watertight and had the truths best interests at heart. Given the amount of criticism, from both sides of the fence, surely much more of an effort should be made to ensure this comes across in the article which makes it clear that there is some doubt as to Owalds guilt. Particularly in the event of the House Select Committee on Assassinations findings in 1979 - about which nothing has yet been done. This alone contradicts the theory of the lone gunman, even if it does not exhonorate Oswald. Dapi89 (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The article currently states that "when arraigned, he had been distraught over the Kennedy assassination. Ruby later, changed his statement, and claimed he did it to spare Jackie Kennedy from having to testify at the trial. Later, Ruby changed this for a second time, claiming he had shot Oswald on impulse." I don't think we should characterize his statements as "changes" since I don't believe any of these claims of motive contradict one another. Gamaliel (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree, it demonstrates a clear contradiction. The first reason states planned intent, which then begs the question: did anyone help or force him into it? The second, impluse, makes clear he did it alone. Dapi89 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As a compromise, we could just state that Ruby gave several reasons behind his actions without characterizing them as changing or as consistent. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support this. Gamaliel (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. Dapi89 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. A motive does not indicate planning, nor is it evidence of conspiracy. Impulsive acts have motives. He killed Oswald in a blind rage, but what made him angry? The assassination of JFK. Gamaliel (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Allegedly so. But in light of him changing his motives, i.e sparing JBK from a trial, "rage", to alledging a conspiracy are three different motives. Dapi89 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Rage is not a motive and is not incompatible with his other explanations. Gamaliel (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This entire argument seems to me to be about something that is not germane to this article. If the editor wants to expound on Ruby's motives and movements, please consider doing so by adding to the Jack Ruby article, there is already a lot there along these same lines. If the editor wants to cover the possibility that Ruby did not act alone, add some material to the Kennedy assassination theories article. I'd like to keep working on making that article something better than a junkyard, any help is appreciated. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel I have never said rage was a motive. You can see above I was saying the rage was related to this notion of sparing JBK from testifying. Dapi89 (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in your comments above you said he had "three different motives" and listed "rage" as one of them. But if you agree that rage is not a motive, then what justification is there to say he changed his story? The conspiracy hints didn't come until he was in his crazy phase, when he also said that Jews were being massacred by the thousands in the prison where he was being held. Gamaliel (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So I did. I meant two. Dapi89 (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Acoustic reference

, ; ; --62.101.126.233 (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Lee or Lee Harvey?

As a southerner, wouldn't Lee have been called Lee Harvey as the use of double names is the custom in the southern United States? I notice the article refers to him as just Lee. I think it should say Lee Harvey instead. Does anyone agree with me?--jeanne (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be few places in the article that call him Lee at all. It should either be his full name or his surname only, unless it is in a place where the first name alone is used to distinguish him from another family member. Beyond that, the use of double names isn't really a normal Southern custom as much as it is a Southern stereotype. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In the book I have on Janis Joplin written by her friend Peggy Caserta who went to school (the seventh grade) with Oswald in Covington,La., the author (Caserta) refers to Oswald as Lee Harvey not Lee. Obviously his teachers called him that as well. But I agree that his surname should be used throughout the article.--jeanne (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

His wife Marina, his mother Marguerite, his brother Robert, his half-brother John Pic, and George de Mohrenschildt, the closest he ever had to a friend in his adult life, all called him Lee, not Lee Harvey. And Lee Oswald attended only four months of first grade, not seventh grade, in Covington, Louisiana. He went to seventh grade in New York City: Trinity Evangelical Lutheran School, P.S. 117, P.S. 44, P.S. 613, and back to P.S. 44. — Walloon (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK so that takes care of his name, but how do we account for Caserta's story about Lee locking his teacher up in a closet over an entire weekend? She relates it in the book she wrote.--jeanne (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems as if Lee had made a habit of being in two different places at the same time his entire life!!!--jeanne (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Peggy Caserta has a vivid imagination, that's how we account for it. Schedule showing known addresses of Lee Harvey Oswald from the time of his birth. — Walloon (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Walloon, forgive me for being stubborn but why would she make that bit up? It was written before the JFK film came out, besides her book was a graphic story of her friendship with Janis, not Lee H. Oswald. If she wanted to lie about Lee she could have invented something more lurid, surely. I just think that whenever we try to pin Oswald down to one place and time, he elusively slips out of our grasp again.--jeanne (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the year 1951 shows him living in Fort Worth which is the time Caserta alleges him to have been in Covington. Weird..--jeanne (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oswald wasn't in the seventh grade in 1951. He was in the seventh grade in 1952-1953. Don't you think that if Lee Oswald had lived in Covington, La., and gone to school there in the seventh grade, his mother, brother, teacher, and classmates (who were 12-13 years old, after all, not toddlers) would have remembered that? Especially the teacher he allegedly locked in a closet over a weekend? And what does it have to do with when the movie JFK came out? What's more likely: mass amnesia, or that Peggy Caserta made it up? — Walloon (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a few things that account for all of this. The first is that, unfortunately, Peggy Caserta hasn't been considered the most reliable of Joplin's biographers, with several disputing the accounts in the book. She had some substance abuse issues of her own, and she wrote her book some four years after Joplin's death. Another point is, much like the "assassins have three names" theory from Conspiracy Theory, by 1974, the whole world was calling him Lee Harvey Oswald, as they do Mark David Chapman. That doesn't mean the people who actually knew him did that, nor does it reflect some regional naming custom. Finally, it's more likely that she's repeating an urban legend. That's not to say that she made it up, or that the story wasn't told to her. The story may have been circulating in that area for many years, without it being true. This is to say that a recounting of an old story as an aside mention of a classmate, in a biography of a rock star written by an author whose reliably has been questioned can't be more valid than school records and other official documents. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct in everything that you say Walloon and Wildhartlivie, I suppose the only way Caserta's story can be verified is by the school records of Covington for roughly the period between 1951-53. Yes, it could well be an urban myth, circulated around Covington, much like the oft-repeated tale of Charles Manson having auditioned for a part in The Monkees. I was silly to have brought it up, but I feel anything concerning Oswald which contradicts established fact should be questioned and analysed- and in this case-dismissed as fallacy.--jeanne (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough! Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oswald's body link

I have no wish to get into the rest of the content dispute regarding the Oswald's murder section, but I do want to ask what the purpose is for the link to the celebrity morgue image of Oswald's body? What does a citation link for that photo support? I don't believe it is relevant or necessary, and IMO, it's crude. If there is nothing for it to support, then its place in the article is sensationalism and needs to be removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)