Could Oswald have gotten away with it if he really tried?

[Chris Bristow]

If Oswald did Kill JFK he didn't care much about covering his tracks. I wonder why he didn't do the following.
1. Destroy the backyard photos.

2. Remove his A. Hidell I.D from his wallet because it tied him to the rifle.

4, Remove his fingerprints from the rifle or maybe wear thin rubber gloves if that isn't to clumsy.

5. Bring his revolver under a coat. If you think you may need it to escape, that escape starts right after you shoot. you shouldn't have to go home to get it.
6. Don't take in a movie, go back to work.

7. Don't bring the rifle with you to work the same day you plan to use it. Carrying a package that looks like a rifle into a 6 story building on the presidential parade route, a few hours before the president arrives, looks suspicious.

8. Maybe find another building to shoot from. Maybe pose as a delivery guy with a long package and invoice and smuggle the rifle into the DalTex building through the loading dock days in advance. find a place to hide it and a location to shoot from. The roof may suffice but an unused office on a low floor would make a quicker getaway. Getaway from the rear and across the street to the SBD and eat your lunch. I'm sure #8 has fatal flaws, it's all just an interesting thought experiment.

We could also assume Oswald didn't do it and speculate as to when his behavior suggested he had realized he was the patsy. Some time before he picked up his revolver I think. 
  

[Denny Zartman]

People that advocate the lone assassin theory have to believe that Oswald wanted to get away, and that he wanted to get caught.

17 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

1. Destroy the backyard photos.

It also brings up the question: why take a picture with it at all? Are there any other pictures of Oswald posing with a rifle? Was this something he was in the habit of doing, getting his picture taken with his firearms? And he couldn't have destroyed them all, only his own copies, since one was apparently in the possession of George de Mohrenschildt and one in an entirely different pose in the possession of Roscoe White. But the point still stands - why would he take a picture with the guns at all if he had any intention of committing the crime and trying to get away with it?

17 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

2. Remove his A. Hidell I.D from his wallet because it tied him to the rifle.

Yes, it seems that ordering the rifle under an alias would be a conscious attempt at NOT tying himself to the rifle. And this apparently indicates premeditation. Therefore it makes no sense for him to be carrying a Hidell ID with him at the time of his arrest.

Of course, had he only walked into any gun store in Texas and paid cash for a rifle, there would have been no paper trail at all.

17 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

4, Remove his fingerprints from the rifle or maybe wear thin rubber gloves if that isn't to clumsy.

Both of these are good points. It's interesting that apparently there were no prints found on the rifle until after Oswald's death.

17 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

5. Bring his revolver under a coat. If you think you may need it to escape, that escape starts right after you shoot. you shouldn't have to go home to get it.

This is a point I brought up in another thread recently. I believe it's an important and telling detail. I would imagine that anyone considering this crime would likely think there was a chance that he would have to shoot his way out of the building. That Oswald didn't take a handgun with him, and had to travel all the way home to pick one up, suggests that the need for a handgun was not felt until just before he went to pick it up. I interpret this as being consistent with a person in a panic situation, trying to adjust to unexpected events. Not someone whose plan is going according to plan.

17 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

6. Don't take in a movie, go back to work.

I also believe this is very telling. According the the official story, Oswald had no escape plan beyond going to the movies. This is a guy that had access to over a hundred dollars cash and had just recently traveled out of the country. Lee Harvey Oswald knew how to get to a bus station, train station, or airport. He got on and off two vehicles. He even had the opportunity to steal a police car. If it's true that he couldn't drive, then at the worst he could have carjacked someone and made them drive. But he didn't have any getaway plan at all, from what I can discern.

From what I understand, Oswald could have literally walked a few blocks to the train station from the TSBD. The fact that after being on two vehicles and walking a decent distance, the best escape he could make was to a place where people sit quietly in one spot, in the dark, for hours. This is a guy who just pulled off the crime of the century!

17 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

7. Don't bring the rifle with you to work the same day you plan to use it. Carrying a package that looks like a rifle into a 6 story building on the presidential parade route, a few hours before the president arrives, looks suspicious.

From what I understand, only Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle reported seeing the rifle package, but you're still right that anyone truly keeping subterfuge in mind could do a lot better than carrying it in open sight through the usual employee entrances and gathering places.

17 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

8. Maybe find another building to shoot from. Maybe pose as a delivery guy with a long package and invoice and smuggle the rifle into the DalTex building through the loading dock days in advance. find a place to hide it and a location to shoot from. The roof may suffice but an unused office on a low floor would make a quicker getaway. Getaway from the rear and across the street to the SBD and eat your lunch. I'm sure #8 has fatal flaws, it's all just an interesting thought experiment.

It seems most LN's try to frame this as a crime of opportunity. That lonely misfit Oswald saw his chance to make a mark upon the world and to finally "be somebody" and get his name in the history books. Only one little problem with that, is that Oswald denied the crime with every breath. How is he going to be famous for a historic act that he strenuously denied committing? LN's will often then try to say that Oswald wanted to save his opportunity to pontificate on world politics for his trial, where he would have a bigger stage. I always ask if there is a precedent for that anywhere in history? Has an assassin ever killed a world leader and denied the crime, only to later take credit for it in a public forum? I don't know, I've never heard of that happening, but I'd like to think that the idea wasn't just based solely upon conjecture.

[John Butler]

Denny Zartman said:

"It also brings up the question: why take a picture with it at all? Are there any other pictures of Oswald posing with a rifle? Was this something he was in the habit of doing, getting his picture taken with his firearms? And he couldn't have destroyed them all, only his own copies, since one was apparently in the possession of George de Mohrenschildt and one in an entirely different pose in the possession of Roscoe White. But the point still stands - why would he take a picture with the guns at all if he had any intention of committing the crime and trying to get away with it? "

I have been going through Oswald's 201 photos and I can think of only one or two photos of him holding a rifle.  As a marine he took dozens and dozens of military photos.  He was not camera shy.

I don't think this is Lee Oswald but, Robert.  If it is Lee, this is a textbook picture on how to hold a rifle.  He is holding it correctly and whether or not he could shoot it well is another matter.

There is one other that I can't find at the moment showing Oswald in the barracks with an M-1.

Denny also said, "This is a point I brought up in another thread recently. I believe it's an important and telling detail. I would imagine that anyone considering this crime would likely think there was a chance that he would have to shoot his way out of the building. That Oswald didn't take a handgun with him, and had to travel all the way home to pick one up, suggests that the need for a handgun was not felt until just before he went to pick it up. I interpret this as being consistent with a person in a panic situation, trying to adjust to unexpected events. Not someone whose plan is going according to plan."

Was the pistol Oswald's or McDonald's.  We only have someone else's word that he claimed the revolver was his.

Zartmen and Barstow are making many good, I say many good points.

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by John Butler

[Denny Zartman]

16 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Was the pistol Oswald's or McDonald's.  We only have someone else's word that he claimed the revolver was his.

Hmm, I don't know. I was under the impression that the revolver was allegedly purchased via a separate mail order. I can't confirm that, though.

[Ron Bulman]

56 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Hmm, I don't know. I was under the impression that the revolver was allegedly purchased via a separate mail order. I can't confirm that, though.

Look for Seaport Traders I think out of Los Angeles.  Then no order form, money order or record of it being received/picked up.  Some think planted on him by the DPD in the Texas Theater.  Then I read somewhere Oswald said he bought it at a pawn shop in Fort Worth.  Others have posted more detail than I before.

I stand corrected.  Order form from Hidell, whoever he was.  No method of payment of $10 listed. No record of it being shipped COD for the balance.  Receipt for the balance or record of it thus being picked up.  Been discussed before in depth. 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Ron Bulman

[David Von Pein]

52 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

I was under the impression that the revolver was allegedly purchased via a separate mail order. I can't confirm that, though.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Lee Harvey Oswald's Revolver Purchase

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by David Von Pein

[John Butler]

13 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Hmm, I don't know. I was under the impression that the revolver was allegedly purchased via a separate mail order. I can't confirm that, though.

There is controversial evidence that Oswald bought the .38 and then others claim that he didn't.  The Harvey and Lee site suggest Oswald was given the .38 with a defective firing pin by Officer Tippett.  I've always favored Officer McDonald with a throw down piece and he shot at Oswald and the gun misfired.  He reversed the story after failing and  being knocked down by Oswald who ended up with the gun.  Of course, that is just speculation with no evidence there.  Oswald is later said to have claimed the gun at his questioning with the statement something like you know how boys are.

[Chris Davidson]

On 7/15/2019 at 1:11 AM, Chris Bristow said:

If Oswald did Kill JFK

Highly Unlikely. imo

We could also assume Oswald didn't do it and speculate as to when his behavior suggested he had realized he was the patsy.

Highly Likely. imo
  

[Jeffrey Reilley]

I've always wondered why he didn't bring the revolver with him to the TSBD. He supposedly brought a rifle, but no easily concealable handgun? 

So, he's heading back to go get his gat and carry it around cause that's what guys like him do...why would he have his cab driver go past his place? That was brought up in another thread. It was apparently assuming he was on the lookout for police. Why?

No cop would be quietly lurking/waiting to pounce on him and take him in. There would have been a show of force if they had any idea he had killed the POTUS. Look at what they did at the theater, every cop ever seemed to converge on him. He had also walked right on through police while leaving the TSBD, so in the minutes in between, they figured this all out and he didn't see a single squad car drive past him with sirens going? Even in a panic, that is highly illogical for someone who had the sense to drive past the house first. 

"Nobody seems to be there, grab the gun. Now let's go see a movie." Seems logical...

 

As well, for someone who bounced around Europe with ease and precision, he had a hard time getting home from work. 

So yeah, Oswald who defected to Russia, probably would have been able to get away with it...for a while. Oswald bungling his way home from work and then grabbing a gun to go see a movie, probably not so much. So many contradictions with him it is unreal. We are supposed to believe he took a sneaky sneaky trip to Mexico City, but we are also supposed to believe he showed up to the workplace with a rifle the day he shot the president. 

[Chris Bristow]

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

There is controversial evidence that Oswald bought the .38 and then others claim that he didn't.  The Harvey and Lee site suggest Oswald was given the .38 with a defective firing pin by Officer Tippett.  I've always favored Officer McDonald with a throw down piece and he shot at Oswald and the gun misfired.  He reversed the story after failing and  being knocked down by Oswald who ended up with the gun.  Of course, that is just speculation with no evidence there.  Oswald is later said to have claimed the gun at his questioning with the statement something like you know how boys are.

If the gun was planted by the Dallas PD it would make sense to fix it so it would misfire and not shoot a cop.

[Chris Bristow]

4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

completely agree.

[Chris Bristow]

20 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

People that advocate the lone assassin theory have to believe that Oswald wanted to get away, and that he wanted to get caught.

It also brings up the question: why take a picture with it at all? Are there any other pictures of Oswald posing with a rifle? Was this something he was in the habit of doing, getting his picture taken with his firearms? And he couldn't have destroyed them all, only his own copies, since one was apparently in the possession of George de Mohrenschildt and one in an entirely different pose in the possession of Roscoe White. But the point still stands - why would he take a picture with the guns at all if he had any intention of committing the crime and trying to get away with it?

Yes, it seems that ordering the rifle under an alias would be a conscious attempt at NOT tying himself to the rifle. And this apparently indicates premeditation. Therefore it makes no sense for him to be carrying a Hidell ID with him at the time of his arrest.

Of course, had he only walked into any gun store in Texas and paid cash for a rifle, there would have been no paper trail at all.

Both of these are good points. It's interesting that apparently there were no prints found on the rifle until after Oswald's death.

This is a point I brought up in another thread recently. I believe it's an important and telling detail. I would imagine that anyone considering this crime would likely think there was a chance that he would have to shoot his way out of the building. That Oswald didn't take a handgun with him, and had to travel all the way home to pick one up, suggests that the need for a handgun was not felt until just before he went to pick it up. I interpret this as being consistent with a person in a panic situation, trying to adjust to unexpected events. Not someone whose plan is going according to plan.

I also believe this is very telling. According the the official story, Oswald had no escape plan beyond going to the movies. This is a guy that had access to over a hundred dollars cash and had just recently traveled out of the country. Lee Harvey Oswald knew how to get to a bus station, train station, or airport. He got on and off two vehicles. He even had the opportunity to steal a police car. If it's true that he couldn't drive, then at the worst he could have carjacked someone and made them drive. But he didn't have any getaway plan at all, from what I can discern.

From what I understand, Oswald could have literally walked a few blocks to the train station from the TSBD. The fact that after being on two vehicles and walking a decent distance, the best escape he could make was to a place where people sit quietly in one spot, in the dark, for hours. This is a guy who just pulled off the crime of the century!

From what I understand, only Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle reported seeing the rifle package, but you're still right that anyone truly keeping subterfuge in mind could do a lot better than carrying it in open sight through the usual employee entrances and gathering places.

It seems most LN's try to frame this as a crime of opportunity. That lonely misfit Oswald saw his chance to make a mark upon the world and to finally "be somebody" and get his name in the history books. Only one little problem with that, is that Oswald denied the crime with every breath. How is he going to be famous for a historic act that he strenuously denied committing? LN's will often then try to say that Oswald wanted to save his opportunity to pontificate on world politics for his trial, where he would have a bigger stage. I always ask if there is a precedent for that anywhere in history? Has an assassin ever killed a world leader and denied the crime, only to later take credit for it in a public forum? I don't know, I've never heard of that happening, but I'd like to think that the idea wasn't just based solely upon conjecture.

You made some good point like why didn't he just pay cash for the Carcano?
 I just remembered Oswald Used the Carcano to try and kill General Walker in April! Then he gives a copy to De Mohrenschildt a month later. He didn't feel any need to destroy the evidence that connected him to Walkers assassination attempt from just weeks before.
March 30th he takes the BYP's. April 5th he gives De Mohrenschildt a copy of 133a. April 10th he tries to kill Walker.

Edited July 16, 2019 by Chris Bristow

[Paul Brancato]

Chris - I think what you are pointing out is if you buy the WC conclusions, and their account of Oswald’s actions, you have to accept that he was an assassin who left the clues to his guilt in plain sight. I prefer to see his actions as those of an innocent man, and certainly not of an assassin. To that end it’s necessary to question the WC conclusions, their explanations for Oswald’s irrational behavior, and their timeline. Nothing is certain when comes to the weapons he supposedly purchased, and most especially to the Walker shooting. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

I like the way you phrased your question Chris. I noticed DVP weighs in with one piece of physical evidence, which is good, but ultimately DVP and other LNer's shy away from questions of intent such as these. Because inevitably they are left with nothing  to say but Oswald was a "loser" failed in every aspect of his life, yet always they come back to an  intensely ambitious person, out to make a name for himself,  who ultimately when faced with the accumulated failures of his everyday life just unthinkingly struck out and pursued a self destructive course, not considering any consequences, unable to think ahead enough to manage the most elementary coverup. Would their contention be that Oswald simply "snapped". They've never been detailed or clear about that. Yet ultimately he could impart no message, because he denies his wrongdoing. I'm not sure I can think of any other such profiles that they would cite that would fit with Oswald.

He was a loser despite the fact that he had managed to accomplish more, seen more places and cultures in his short 24 years, than the great majority  of us have see have seen in our lifetime. But the more primary and one dimensional they can depict Oswald, the easier they can craft an explanation.

[Chris Bristow]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Chris - I think what you are pointing out is if you buy the WC conclusions, and their account of Oswald’s actions, you have to accept that he was an assassin who left the clues to his guilt in plain sight. I prefer to see his actions as those of an innocent man, and certainly not of an assassin. To that end it’s necessary to question the WC conclusions, their explanations for Oswald’s irrational behavior, and their timeline. Nothing is certain when comes to the weapons he supposedly purchased, and most especially to the Walker shooting. 

I do think Oswald's actions are that of an innocent man. I only posed these questions has an interesting thought experiment.