(PART 932)




A classic crime of opportunity.

You could add to your list the selection of the Trade Mart for the luncheon, which played a factor in #3. Since any motorcade would likely have been routed through downtown, any luncheon site would probably have resulted in the motorcade going through Dealey Plaza, but the selection of the Trade Mart resulted in the jog over to Elm St. from Main St., making Oswald's shot much easier. He may not have even attempted a shot at JFK if he was on Main.

Another luncheon site might have resulted in the motorcade going through downtown in the reverse direction that it did. The motorcade might have been routed from Love Field, past Parkland to southbound Stemmons to Dealey Plaza. In that case, it might have even ended up on Commerce and jogged over to Main on Houston.

"For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: 'It might have been!' "
-- John Greenleaf


Great analysis, DVP. I would add:

As an ex-Marine, Oswald possessed the marksmanship expertise required to hit a moving target at that distance and the knowledge of the indispensable requirement to first zero the firearm using the windage and elevation screws on the scope.


Well, in fact the motorcade was not scheduled to pass the TSBD at NOON.


Just for the sake of clarification, I did not say in my "Six Things" article that JFK's motorcade was due to arrive in Dealey Plaza "at NOON". I said "RIGHT AT LUNCHTIME", "at noontime", and "lunch period". I didn't put an exacting "12:00 noon" timestamp on it. I merely said "lunchtime" and "noontime" and "lunch period", which is perfectly accurate.


President Kennedy's written itinerary for 11/22/63 shows these two entries:

"11:45 am -- Motorcade through Dallas"

"12:30 pm -- Arrive Trade Mart for Luncheon"

[Source for the above picture --- Screen capture from the 2013 National Geographic documentary "JFK: The Final Hours".]

Now, given those times shown above, Anthony Marsh surely can't argue with me about this part of my "Six Things" post repeated below. Can you, Tony?....

"Not only did Kennedy's visit to Dallas occur on a workday for Oswald (a Friday), but the parade route took JFK's limo past the Book Depository Building RIGHT AT LUNCHTIME as well, which meant that most TSBD employees were on their normal lunch breaks at that hour of the day. .... This meant fewer people staying on the upper Depository floors...with those employees going down to the first-floor "Domino/Lunch Room" or the second-floor lunch room (or going outside the building to watch the President pass by) during the exact time when Lee Oswald would require a VACANT sixth floor in his preparations for shooting the President during this Friday lunch period."


I would take aim at your first salvo:

1.) He (Oswald) hated America and its Government's representatives.

Clearly, it's the most important one in your view, as you listed it first. And you included the hot-button word "hated" to underscore the emotional content you're trying to convey.

This premise is unproven. Absent a fervent belief that LHO killed JFK on his own, there is a lack of evidence that bolsters the argument.

I will stipulate LHO wrote a letter to his brother containing damning phraseology regarding Americans. Further, he was willing to jettison his citizenship at one point.

I will remind you that he was a teenager when he did that. He was swept up in an immature view of the world that was supported and intensified every time he faced a difficulty in his life. That's how he was. He looked for external explanations for every personal woe.

Let's not forget he also joined the Marines at a very young age, gave himself physically and mentally to that punishing regimen in support of America. He trained and operated under the aegis of the most pro-America, gung-ho, overtly patriotic organization on the face of the earth.

His writings indicated a passionate belief that America could be better. That its global practices were unfair. That it had rejected socially progressive policies in favor of jingoistic chest-thumping. He wasn't wrong.

That's not hating America. That's wanting it to be better and to live up to its promise. Not saying he was a super patriot. But teeing up your list like that isn't scholarship, it's propaganda.


The key is Oswald's hatred of America's "representatives", which Oswald tells us about in CE25 (at 16 H 120).

But there is also some evidence that Lee Oswald did, indeed, "hate America". New Orleans Police Lieutenant Francis Martello's memorandum concerning his interview with Oswald in August of 1963 was read into the record by the Warren Commission [at 10 H 56]:

"When Martello asked why he [Oswald] did not allow members of his family to learn English, Lee said that he hated America and didn't want them to become "Americanized" and that he planned to return to Russia." -- Page 724 of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"

Yes, Lt. Martello's statements about the things Oswald said to him at the New Orleans jail are hearsay, but they are in the record nonetheless. And Martello's memo definitely says that Oswald said he "hated America".


I would weigh Martello's hearsay evidence against the undisputed fact that LHO joined the Marines and gave himself mentally and physically to the brutal training he underwent in defense of America.


Oh, come now, Mark. We all know why Lee went into the Marines. He did it in order to get away from that very strange mother of his. He didn't join the military because of his desire to fight for America and its principles.


It would be hard to deny that the Oswald brothers had a strong motivation to leave that household.

But let's stipulate that. I never said he joined the Marines because he was patriotic.

But he went through one of the toughest, most demanding boot camps on the face of the earth. All along the way, recruits are indoctrinated in the ethos of defending America. It seems virtually impossible to survive even one week of that grueling beating without an underlying motive.

Tell me one person you've ever met in your entire life who would suffer such rigorous physical and mental torture just because he wanted to get away from his momma.

No. He trained to defend American airspace. He studied to defend American principles.

He was a political animal, no doubt. He wanted America to be better than it was.

That, in no way, shape or form translates into he "hated" America. That is your bias.



Oswald had four years to start hating America between the time he was discharged from the Marines and the time he told Martello that he "hated America" in August of 1963.

Tell me, Mark, do you think Francis Martello just MADE UP the "HATED AMERICA" dialogue that he attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald? If so, what for?

Conversely, if Oswald DID say what Martello said he said, do you think Oswald was LYING to Martello? Did Lee really love his country of birth, but told Martello he hated it?

And what kind of person voluntarily leaves a country he loves in order to defect to a nation like Russia? That move ALONE shows Oswald's dissatisfaction with American life. Wouldn't you agree, Mark?

Or do you think Oswald was a "fake defector"?

In other words, is ANYTHING surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald what it seems to be? Or was Oswald's entire life pretty much nothing but smoke and mirrors?



His [Lee Oswald's] visit to Russia (in which he did not legally defect as I recall), even in its simplest form, reflects more curiosity than hostility. It's not like he contacted Soviet agents in the US or spied for them while in the Marines or performed sabotage or anything of that sort.

And if you read his draft manuscript after his return, if anything he was more dissatisfied with Russian dominance and manipulation of the Communist and Socialist agenda than stating any fundamental hatred of the US. DeMohrenschildt described him as a proto hippie, socialist and liberal and progressive. And he turned to the romance of the Cuban revolution over Russian bureaucracy.

Finally, take a look at his final speech in which he expresses his real concern that the US might be threatened by a military coup. If anything, he suffered from an excess of idealism and a tendency to be annoying and disdainful about the American establishment....then again, so did a lot of us in the 60's. Some of us even enlisted in the military despite that...sort of like Lee Oswald.


Hi Larry,

You're correct, Oswald didn't "legally defect" to Russia. But he sure as heck wanted to in October of '59. But then, like with other things in his life, he became dissatisfied with life in the USSR too, so back he comes to America. He was pretty much dissatisfied with everything in his life. Drifting from one lowly job to another, drifting from one American city to the next, and even drifting from one country to another (while trying desperately to get to a third---Cuba).

If some people want to think that all that adds up to a young man who loves the United States (despite telling a policeman in New Orleans the exact opposite), well, okay. Everybody's entitled to their views. But given Oswald's last attempt to ditch America for yet another hostile nation--Castro's Cuba--via LHO's Mexico excursion in September '63, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that Mr. Oswald was in love with the good ol' USA.


He didn't have to want to dry hump the Grand Canyon in order to not "hate" the US as you claimed. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.


I agree. But I think in Oswald's case, the truth rests more with Oswald wanting to GET OUT of the United States and abandon American life than it does with him wanting to sing the Star Spangled Banner every day.

He wants to go to Russia (of all places)!

He wants to go to Cuba (again--of all places)!

And you think THAT'S a man who is deeply fond of the USA?



I've gathered from your writings that you base your theory of the case on a number of beliefs. One being that Oswald owned a rifle. Another being that Oswald used the rifle to shoot at Edwin Walker. A third being that Oswald wanted to kill JFK, and so on.

Question: Does any trickle of doubt ever occur to you as to any of the beliefs on which your theory is predicated? Or are you rock-solid certain as to these beliefs?


Not a trickle of doubt exists in my own mind about those CORE beliefs (aka: "facts", IMO) regarding things like....

>> Oswald's ownership of both the JFK and Tippit murder weapons (the paperwork is a mile deep that proves LHO ordered and was shipped BOTH guns).

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Mannlicher-Carcano

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Oswald's Revolver

>> Oswald's attempted murder of General Walker.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Edwin Walker And Oswald

>> Oswald's guilt in President Kennedy's murder.


>> Oswald's guilt in Tippit's murder.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Murder Of J.D. Tippit

All of the above things are proven facts, in my opinion. And they've been proven in a number of different ways too, which all have to be added together to provide the full picture --- e.g., ballistics evidence, eyewitness testimony and statements, Oswald's own incriminating actions, and documents written in Oswald's own handwriting.

I mean, when a guy is caught with his hands on the very same gun that was used to kill a police officer just 35 minutes earlier, how much more proof is needed to prove he committed at least THAT murder on 11/22/63? Even if we were to debate the Tippit case for another 200 years, the fact remains (given the evidence) that Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't possibly be innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit. Only in the outer reaches of the world of speculation and fantasy could anyone believe that Oswald didn't kill Officer Tippit. But, amazingly, many Internet CTers reside in just such a world.

In short, I'm not an "Everything Was Faked" believer. Therefore, to me, Lee Oswald's status as a proven double-murderer couldn't be any clearer.


But DVP,

I ask for your orientation.

Do you believe Marina's husband killed JFK and work backward from that belief?

Or do you start from the fact JFK was killed and work forward?


Via either method, one irrevocable conclusion becomes very plain --- Marina's husband killed two people on November 22nd.

The only way to avoid that conclusion is to just ignore all the evidence. (IMHO.)

David Von Pein
April 25-26, 2015
April 26, 2015