Does Anyone Think Oswald Did It?
Subject: Re: Does Anyone Think Oswald did it?
Date: 10 Aug 1999 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <19990810130528.21258.00000037@ng-ce1.aol.com>
I know people hate me saying this, but for a number of reasons, I find it hard to regard Lee Harvey Oswald as completely innocent and blameless in all this.
I think it's fair to say that one can reasonably question nearly every bit of empirical evidence suggesting guilt on Oswald 's part, but taken in it's totality, I find it hard to believe that every scrap of evidence was manufactured to frame this innocent patsy.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a human being who left behind a confusing record as to what he was thinking and doing in this time period. His writings and his activities both before and after the assassination do not seem to me to be wholly consistent with him being misled by others or selected after the fact for a frame-up.
If Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire shots at President Kennedy, somebody went to a great deal of trouble before-the-fact to make it look like he did. And there was a fair degree of fortuitous chance in completing the frame-up process.
I believe it is only fair to extend to Oswald the presumption of innocence, until proven guilty (a presumption I also extend to Shaw, Ferrie, Banister, Arcacha, Novel, Phillips and others). But to say that the case against him is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that each piece of evidence can be questioned, is not to say that he may not have done it.
There's this whole business with the package he brought to work. There's his rapid departure from the building, his stop-off at his room to get a gun, his proximity to the Tippitt murder, his peculiar trip to the movie theater and the attempted assault on a police officer. And there are his peculiar statements to the authorities (as best they were recalled by the officers) after his arrest. I find the logic necessary to reconcile these things with complete innocence extemely contorted.
Perhaps one of the strongest witnesses to the guilt or innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald is Oswald himself.
From: blackburst@aol.com (Blackburst)
Subject: Re: You are The Jury
Date: 01 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <20000801185451.24302.00000361@ng-cj1.aol.com>
Martin Shackelford wrote:
>I would agree with that, Dave, except that I am more skeptical that he shot
>at JFK.
Thanks as always for respectful give and take. See how it's done, readers? Also note Martin's choice of "skeptical". Strong and to the point, but not too categorical.
I used to think Oswald was completely innocent - I even lectured on the topic - but I've always had difficulty understanding how the frame-up would have been accomplished. While one can quibble about nearly every aspect of the physical evidence, it does seem likely that Oswald's rifle was used in the assassination, ruling out an after-the-fact frame-up by the police. So either the conspirators had to obtain the rifle and take steps to insure that no evidence of innocence (such as LHO in a crowd photo) would emerge, or Oswald himself fired the rifle.
And as I have said here, Oswald's actions after the shots are very hard for me to reconcile with complete innocence: leaving the building very quicky, getting a pistol, going to a theater in an apparent attempt to avoid police, assaulting at least one police officer, failing to expose the frame-up to police, continuing to maintain the Marxist pose.
None of this proves that he fired a shot, but, FOR ME, the intellectual gymnastics necessary to rationalize his innocence become increasingly difficult.
But others may disagree, for good reasons.
David
By the by, I think you described me in a recent post as an LN. I can consider arguments on both sides, but I definitely would not describe myself that way.