Oswald did it all by himself. There were probably multiple conspiracies going on at the time, but Oswald wasn’t a part of any of them. He was just a loose cannon yearning for fame and notoriety.
Is that worse than accepting it without reading it?
I believe this is the reason there are so many smoking guns in this historical event; people actually tried to hide this and that, but not because they were part of a conspiracy. – This is very well portrayed in Norman Mailer’s The Harlot’s Ghost; everybody goes “Were we into this?” and start covering things up to be on the safe side. But, as you say, they weren’t, and only fed the CTs.
Case Closed finally made it for me too. This is the first time I mention two Mailer books in one post, but after reading Oswald’s Tale: An American Mystery I went, damn, he did it…! And the I read Cased Closed and that was end of discussion in my brain.
ETA: I started out with my studies after watching Stone’s JFK, so I was on the CT side in the beginning.
Originally Posted by wheresgeorge04
I must say, I’m shocked at all the acted alone / Ruby acted out of patriotism votes.
Joe
Actually, I think you mean “TWO (2) lone conspirators”, don’t you?
You are saying that BOTH Lee Harvey, AND Jack Ruby, both acted alone…and both acted independently, and both without any conspiracy and that Jack had no motive to hush/stop the investigation. That is a stretch.
Unless one has read all 26 volumes of the actual Warren Report then any opinion of “the Warren Report” is biased, prejudiced, almost completely limited, and totally baseless. Reading the little “novel sized” drug store version that the Warren Commission wanted people to read instead of the actual Warren Report is necessarily prejudiced (as it was intended to be)
(BTW, I know, bc I read all 26 volumes)
.
I think Oswald did it. I don’t know if I want to say there was a big, deep conspiracy, but I do think someone knew what Oswald was up to. That Jack Ruby, a known mafia associate, killed Oswald out of patriotism and a desire to spare Jackie Kennedy from Oswald’s trial is just bizarre. Ruby’s story changed quite a few times after his arrest, too. At times he was part of a conspiracy, at other times he acted alone. I don’t think we’ll ever know the whole story.
This makes me wonder if everyone in the Mafia is as considerate of other people’s feelings, as Jack Ruby.
OTOH, maybe some people in the Mafia are not so considerate and altruistic?
People will believe anything to hold on to their belief that there was no ulterior motive for Jack Ruby to stop Lee Harvey from talking.
I’m hoping I’m still alive 75 years post 1963 so I can see the files. Or, perhaps, Congress will let us have peak a little sooner.
What does “known Mafia associate” mean? I’m not all that familiar with Jack Ruby’s background, but I doubt he was a made man. Being a nightclub owner, he probably had some financial dealings with them, but that doesn’t make him a member.
I voted for ‘acted alone’ but you probably should have had a Mafia option, too.
Oswald acting alone is the most likely explanation.
Is there any evidence that Ruby was involved with the mafia? He certainly knew some people associated with organised crime, but given he was a night-club owner that isn’t surprising. A lot of people shook hands with Frank Sinatra, but that doesn’t make them mobsters.
Ruby was described by people who knew him as pretty flakey. Talk about sparing Jackie Kennedy the ordeal of speaking at Oswald’s trial sounds like post-hoc rationalisation to me. He also had a motive for changing his story, he wanted a retrial. I wouldn’t necessarily read a lot into this.
The mobster theory is kind of weak. There are no known links between Oswald and organised crime. Friends and family reported that Ruby was was genuinely upset at Kennedy’s death, crying more than once, and shutting some of his clubs for 3 days as a mark of respect.
I can get on board with the idea that Oswald acted alone but the the Single Bullet Theory is kinda hard to swallow. How in the world does one bullet do all that damage and leave bits and pieces of itself inside Gov Connally yet end up on the hospitable gurney basically unscathed?
Oswald acted alone from start to finish means that he was not part of a conspiracy, and that is the wording of the poll option.
I am offended by the implicit suggestion that I do not already have all Dopers under constant surveillance by repeater-scope.
Hmm. Did you miss the domestic criminal conspiracy option, or are you saying that the Mafia’s involvement would be better described as an international (but non-governmental) conspiracy?
Oswald acted alone. I believe this for three reasons.
- What credible evidence is there that he didn’t?
- Magic bullets, grassy knolls… crime scenes are weird, ballistics is weird, probability is weird.
- It’s been fifty years with no plea-bargains, no deathbed confessions, no post-death memoirs. The crime of the century and nothing other than fever dreams and speculative fiction has appeared to contradict what was the likeliest explanation: Oswald did it.
When the incomprehensible occurs, humans seek greater meaning. Sometimes, we do it in vain.
The geometry of the wounds works out, as Connally was sitting slightly inboard and below Kennedy. (Oliver Stone’s JFK totally screws this up in his reconstruction by placing Connally directly in front of Kennedy). The bullet was not completely unscathed, the end is heavily deformed as this view shows. It was a full metal jacket round, and as such was less prone to fragmentation. It seems plausible to me that the bullet was not badly damaged because it passed through a considerable amount of flesh, slowing it considerably, before it hit bone.
It was almost 200 years before the death of Meriwether Lewis (Lewis and Clark) was finally seriously questioned. It is still being stonewalled by the federal government even though Tennessee approved exhumation.
Secondly, as far as the Kennedy assassination, in the past 50 years there have been plenty of “loose ends” , contradictions, dead witnesses, etc.
After 50 years, I’d expect a lot of the witnesses to be dead. What loose ends and contradictions please?
Then you think Ruby killed Oswald on a spur of the moment adrenaline rush and tried to rationalize with his story about saving Jackie from greif? The idea that Ruby acted spontaneously doesn’t hold up because he had been seen at the police headquarters numerous times after Oswald’s arrest, even impersonating a news reporter to access a press conference. Oswald’s assassination was planned. The question is: why? Jack Ruby, described as a low life and a flake by people who knew him, suddenly felt like avenging the death of a president? Throw in the mafia connections (weak or strong as they may be) and the ever-changing story and it just becomes a pretty big pill to swallow.
Are you shocked because you believe the evidence clearly points a conspiracy, or because you think the majority of us dopers don’t have the intelligence to realize that Oswald truly acted alone? 