# The case against Lee H. Oswald **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 24, 2023, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643 "2023-11-24T18:35:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2023, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/306 "2023-12-03T15:18:31Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > The movie JFK makes the claim that you couldn’t do the whole 3 shots in 6 seconds thing, and provides a demonstration. In the clip, Kevin Costner (playing Jim Garrison) reports it as having taken “between 6 and 7 seconds” but _if you time the clip_, it’s no more than 6 seconds. (And, in my opinion, he pauses between shots 2 and 3). Plus, it makes the mistake of having the “shooter” commence after the guy with the timer says “go” rather than the correct way (having the timer start at the first shot). I also think that movie grossly misunderstands the value (and the relative lethality) of a crossfire on a moving target. And there’s good reason to not shoot as he’s coming up Houston, too: it’s harder to adjust aim from an elevated position like that, having to angle the rifle lower as the target gets closer (and so have to edge forward or sit up higher or stand up unpredictably, faster and faster as the rate of bearing change increases, rather than sinking lower and/or angle the rifle up less and less as the target moves away). ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2023, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/307 "2023-12-03T15:30:12Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > And there’s good reason to not shoot as he’s coming up Houston, too: it’s harder to adjust aim from an elevated position like that, having to angle the rifle lower as the target gets closer He also has the problem that he’s shooting through a windshield as the limo gets closer. And, since Kennedy is flanked by secret service agents with weapons, it has the added flaw of occurring right in front of a bunch of people who can return fire, who would only had to look up to see the assailant. Whereas a shot from the back is more likely to _obscure_ the location (not really - witnesses saw him shooting) and let him escape. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2023, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/308 "2023-12-03T16:13:38Z")
I was reading the wiki article on Robert MacNeil (MacNeil Lehrer report ), who as a young reporter was covering JFK’s Dallas trip, and learned that he may have run into Oswald leaving the Depository building. MacNeil first ran to the grassy knoll and can be seen in some photos. He then was trying to find a phone booth to file his report and asked the guy he met where he could find one. Manchester in his book speculated that was Oswald, but MacNeil wasn’t sure. > [@](#): > > He asked the man where the nearest telephone was and the man pointed and went on his way. MacNeil later learned the man he encountered might have been [Lee Harvey Oswald](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald). Historian [William Manchester](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Manchester)reached this conclusion in his book _[The Death of a President](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_a_President)_ (1967). Recounting the day’s events to the Dallas Police, Oswald may have mistaken MacNeil for a [Secret Service](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service) agent because of his suit, blond crew cut, and press badge. MacNeil has said, “it was possible, but I had no way of confirming that either of the young men I had spoken to was Oswald.”[[4]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_MacNeil#cite_note-4) (When MacNeil got to a phone, he called NBC News in New York and got through to report. The person he was speaking to put the phone down and never came back, so NBC missed having a live report minutes after the shooting. NBC fired that staffer the next day. ) ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2023, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/309 "2023-12-03T17:01:11Z")
> [@Common\_Tater](#): > > Who claims it was “sighted off” when Oswald was pulling the trigger, though? The FBI stated that the rifle could not be properly sighted in without shims. It didn’t have the shims. However, the rifle was still accurate enough to kill people at that range, and iron sights were problem free and still available. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2023, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/310 "2023-12-03T17:44:52Z")
> [@Common\_Tater](#): > > This is one of the “facts” that is always and ever repeated ad nauseam by the CT crowd. “Rifle was no good, it was cheap, the ammunition was from WWII, and the scope was misaligned!! No WAY could he have hit anything!” WWII wasn’t even that long ago in 1963, hell most of the infantry weapons the US was supplying the ARVN with under Kennedy were from WWII. Calling it old is one of those things that can sound impressive to a layperson who doesn’t know any better though. Bolt action rifles are built to last, 20 years old is nothing. The Russian Mosin-Nagant M1891 became a popular civilian firearm in the West after the end of the Cold War because it was dirt cheap to buy when the former Soviet Union’s reserve stockpile of millions of them of WWII vintage hit the market with the fall of the Iron Curtain. Here’s a video of one of the world’s first bolt-action rifles, a Dreyse M1841 needle gun being fired, this particular weapon having been manufactured in 1851 at the Dreyse factory in Sommerda. Notably the operator easily scores hits on a target at 100 meters with this weapon which was manufactured prior to the US Civil War. > **[Dreyse M1841 needle gun - Intro, Field Strip and Range Report - English...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjHfYWVQBww%2F)** > > \-DUE TO COPYRIGHT CLAIMS, SOME AUDIO PARTS ARE MISSING-Dreyse M1841 Needle Gun: Introduction, Filed Strip and Range Test.PrussianDreyseZündnadelgewehrM1841Ha... ---
**Author:** ![Common\_Tater](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/common_tater/32/13846_2.png) [@Common\_Tater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Common_Tater)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2023, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/311 "2023-12-03T18:00:46Z")
OK, I was unaware of that detail. Oswald certainly could have noted the extent of the point of impact error during practice shots, and adjusted the point of aim accordingly. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2023, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/312 "2023-12-03T18:11:56Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > > [@K364](#): > > > > That one would be the easiest to aim. > > I disagree. If the first shot misses, you have two more opportunities to correct your aim. And since the vehicle is traveling away from you, along a slight embankment, once you hit once it’s easy to hit again. > > Whereas, with the first shot you do not yet have a frame of reference. [This article](https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162870) indicates that the 1st bullet hit an object which was part of a traffic light signal. ---
**Author:** ![scabpicker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/scabpicker/32/8268_2.png) [@scabpicker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scabpicker)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2023, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/313 "2023-12-03T18:16:46Z")
> [@Common\_Tater](#): > > OK, I was unaware of that detail. Oswald certainly could have noted the extent of the point of impact error during practice shots, and adjusted the point of aim accordingly. Oh, I agree. He also could have just noticed that it was off with the first shot, and corrected after that. I’ve done that myself when hunting squirrels and the scope was sighted in for 3-4 times the range between myself and the squirrel. I rarely needed a third shot for that. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2023, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/314 "2023-12-03T23:43:03Z")
Like bullseye-ing womprats back home! (Sorry, couldn’t resist) ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/315 "2023-12-04T14:31:58Z")
As I consider the conspiracy theories presented in this thread, and seen elsewhere, I think I have come to understand the flaw in their reasoning. The people coming up with these ideas start by considering a motive, and use that idea to formulate a theory of the case. They then look for facts that substantiate their theory. That is not at all how criminal investigations work, and it is not how crimes are solved. Detectives do not begin their investigation by asking “who would have a reason to kill this man?” It’s an especially ridiculous question when the Victim is famous, or influential, like a politician. Instead, investigators look for facts demonstrating the existence of the crime, and then use those facts to formulate a theory of the case. They never bother trying to establish motive, or if they do, it’s only tangential to their effort to figure out what happened. Basically, conspiracy theorists have it ass backwards. They spend time trying to figure out the least knowable part of a crime, instead of addressing what is discoverable, as revealed by the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/316 "2023-12-04T15:27:52Z")
Conventional fictional drama almost always sets up the motivation first. We the viewer get to see that happening before the event occurs. And of course in the mind of an actual criminal they start from motive too, then proceed to means and action. So if one’s approach to the world is mostly taught by reading or watching fiction, one will apply that same approach to understanding a crime or accident that comes to your attention. CTs are what happens when everyone is only raised on fictional drama. ---
**Author:** ![Galactus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/galactus/32/3581_2.png) [@Galactus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galactus)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/317 "2023-12-04T18:56:54Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Detectives do not begin their investigation by asking “who would have a reason to kill this man?” They usually look at the spouse first. Where was Jackie Kennedy at the time of the murder? Oh dear. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/318 "2023-12-04T18:58:43Z")
> [@Galactus](#): > > Where was Jackie Kennedy at the time of the murder? Oh dear. I mean, if we’re going to consider “who benefited most from this murder”, then I think Aristotle Onassis has to be considered the prime suspect. ---
**Author:** ![Galactus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/galactus/32/3581_2.png) [@Galactus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Galactus)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/319 "2023-12-04T19:14:13Z")
My god, Moriarty! You’ve broken the case. Well done. The game is afoot. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/320 "2023-12-04T19:22:19Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > As I consider the conspiracy theories presented in this thread, and seen elsewhere, I think I have come to understand the flaw in their reasoning. It’s the “means, motive, and opportunity” school of crime solving. Which, even when they taught us about that in elementary school (probably as part of Reading or Writing), I thought sounded kind of screwy. I mean, anyone can come up with a motive to kill anyone else at the drop of a hat. Like, literally at the drop of a hat (He dropped my hat! I’ll kill him for that!). Means and opportunity? Well, anyone with access to whatever kind of weapon was used has the means (we all know how easy it is to get a gun in the US these days) and anyone without an air tight alibi presumably had the opportunity. But then again, if they _do_ have an air tight alibi, that seems awfully suspicious, doesn’t it??? ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/321 "2023-12-04T19:41:22Z")
> [@ASL\_v2.0](#): > > It’s the “means, motive, and opportunity” school of crime solving Are you guys saying that “means, motive, and opportunity” is not used by (a) the police in finding suspects or by (b) prosecutors during a trial? Does this all only exist in movies and books? ---
**Author:** ![JohnnyEcks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnnyecks/32/18197_2.png) [@JohnnyEcks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnnyEcks)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/322 "2023-12-04T20:11:24Z")
Looking for motive first can trick you into ignoring the obvious; as in- the convenience store owner was found shot; his wife was cheating on him, will inherit everything, and has a generous insurance policy on him. Obviously she had the most motive, and so must have been responsible. Except no, it was a just an armed robbery gone bad. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/323 "2023-12-04T20:22:48Z")
Knowing LBJ’s hunger for power, I think he did it to be both President and Governor by taking out both Kennedy and Connelly. Little known fact: he once gave a speech where he said > When I was a boy, a mere lad, a fairy appeared unto me and told me that I would be both Governor and President. But I am a bastard … and a pretender. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/324 "2023-12-04T21:08:41Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Are you guys saying that “means, motive, and opportunity” is not used by (a) the police in finding suspects or by (b) prosecutors during a trial? “Means, motive, and opportunity” are the finishing touches on an effective investigation; they bring reassurance that the facts are not just accurate, but logical. And, if you can establish them with some certainty (say, via written letters from the suspect) then they can provide an effective basis for advocacy at trial - people like to believe things happen for a reason; and they will be pleased if you can give them one. But lots of crimes are investigated and prosecuted without ever establishing some motive, and (as already noted) means and opportunity aren’t narrow enough to constitute effective proof. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2023, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643/325 "2023-12-04T21:38:41Z")
> [@Galactus](#): > > They usually look at the spouse first. Allegedly philandering husband gets “assassinated”, widow marries a billionaire. It’s awfully convenient that she has a rock solid alibi. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-lee-h-oswald/993643.md?page=17)