Jump to content
The Education Forum

Motive and Murder


Recommended Posts

Realizing that in the U.S. judicial system that motive need not be proven to find a defendant guilty of murder, I have a dilemma. It is logical to me that when a case involves the planned killing of one particular individual, by name, to the exclusion of all other individuals, that motive must in fact exist! Apart from crimes of passion, random killings, insanity and a few other examples which do not fit the alledged LHO murder of JFK, we must assume that this was a planned murder. Except for in cases of insanity, a plan requires a motive. The very nature of "a plan" excludes it from being random. If this is true, then LHO had a motive to, as a lone assassin, kill JfK.

What then was his motive? He did not seem to seek fame by taking blame. Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles

According to the Warren Commission Report Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to take the life of Major General Edwin Anderson Walker seven months before the assassiantion of John F. Kennedy. Within the report is a good deal of information about the detailed planning done by Oswald for this April attempt on the General which was provided by his wife Marina. Motive is also discussed.

If Oswald attempted this first assassination could the motive for the actual assassination of Kennedy be tied to his previous attempt.

Perhaps the discussion should be focused on attempting to associate a motive for both events if one exists. But, if there was a motive for both that is tied together, then Oswald would not automatically be a nut and the conclusions of the Warren Commision could be questioned on a different level.

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jim

This would be a good idea if one believes that Oz was a participant in the first event which I personally do not. I furthermore have a major problem with nearly all of Marina's WC testimony. I feel that she was under extreme duress. Reenforcing my beliefs have been her more recent affirmations of his innocence. Charlie Black

Edited by Charles Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles

I believe your statement set the parameters of this thread:

"If this is true, then LHO had a motive to, as a lone assassin, kill JfK.

What then was his motive? He did not seem to seek fame by taking blame."

Many people do not accept that Oswald did in fact kill Kennedy therefore a search for an Oswald motive would be moot. But if we wish to speculate upon such subjects do we limit the search for motives to a defined list or do we allow the search to be exempted from limitations?

"Reenforcing my beliefs have been her more recent affirmations of his innocence."

Does this mean that you believe she is no longer under duress therefore her statements are more believable?

Over the last 40 years Marina has never wavered from her testimony dealing with the Walker case. While she may have been under "duress" 40 years ago and she may have changed opinions on many other things over the years she has remained steadfast in this one particular area.

I have been informed that reporters suggested (by their questions) that there were attempts to associate Oswald to the Walker shooting within hours of Lee's arrest. The first published article that associated the Walker incident to Oswald was reported in a German newspaper (done after a transatlantic telephone interview with Edwin Walker less than 24 hours after the assassination of JFK) on the Wednesday following the assassination. Marina Oswald was not questioned about the Walker assassination attempt until several days later.

After a decade of researching the life of Edwin Walker there are two things that stand out:

First: Between the years 1927 and October 1959 the events surrounding Walker's life seem to be linked closely to Maxwell Taylor.

Second: From early October 1959 till after the assassination of Kennedy the events of Walker's life are tied to the movements an actions of Lee Harvey Oswald.

While the Walker event may be the one area that could lead to a better understanding of this whole assassination mess it seems that many people find it more convenient to ignore this event than to speculate upon its significance.

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"many people do not accept that Oswald did in fact kill Kennedy therefore a search for the Oswald motive must be moot"

Jim----I apologize if I lacked clarity. My post was directed toward those who do believe that Oz was THE lone nut assassin. My question was and is---if he in fact was a lone nut assassin, what was his motive? The assassination was planned. What did he personally expect to gain.He apparently did not seek fame. If truly a lone nut he could not have gained wealth. Was his motive a death wish?

Regarding Marina, I restate that I can place very little value in any of her testimony or subsequent statements. Which portions of even a part time xxxx are to be believed. CharlieB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JIM ROOT

Congratulations, that is a very cogent protrayal of your approach. Your theory is the more compelling one, and this executive relationship with Walker by Taylor is the Key.

The Key is the Walker attempt, as you know.

When we talk about Marina, we are talking Baron George DeMorenschildt.

Her testimony is nearly worth something, but not really.

No one who has read LEGEND believes that DeMorenschidlt wasn't handling her, and LHO as a side interest to Marina.

LHO had other handlers, very detatched, who built a communist, and a psychopath, from scratch. I don't call him the Angleton ORCHID MAN, I call him

a burn card

a carefully coached and prompted counterintelligence PLANT sent over to the other side, as a minor minor program in the great big COLD WAR.

When David Ferrie and the research stringer model ran out, LHO was a hand made home grown, domestically made COMMUNIST. So it was perfest, you take the infantile product of this ONI (Marini intelligents) oxymoronic counter defector program, this sworn communist/ trusted flunky and put him

in the bookstore with the italian rifle

at the correct time and the rest is a done deal, so yes I think the 1959 defection at Helsinki is a very cogent angle of approach.

This is not a lone gunman approach, I know I am looking at OSWALD as a less than fully witting frame up type participant.

THrowing this MI6 Admiralty Joint chiefs/joint agency focus on OSWALD is

important and key to the whole thing.

I am following up on the Fletcher Prouty material, Tosh Plumlee's affadavit and the the ambuscade program of Al Currier.

Jim Root's theory forms a large part of my traditional suspicions and current thinking...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Lucky Lyndon Junior Jay Bert Peck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shanet and Charles

Without the Walker attempt the Warren Commission conclusions do not work. It is the attempted assassination of Walker that leads to the "lone nut" concept. Oswald is portrayed as a man who would shoot at a person from the right (Walker), shoot at a liberal (Kennedy, although I don't believe Kennedy would be called a liberal by todays standards) and was labeled a traditional communist while he continually referred to himself as a Marxist-Leninist Trotskite Socialist (not a Stalinist Communist).

The biggist problem facing the the Warren Commission conclusions could very well be, "if there were a motive for both of Oswald's assassination attemps, then the "lone nut" was not a nut at all."

In the backyard photographs Oswald is displayed holding two magazines from two "communist" organizations that were in fact in conflict with one another. Was he a confused nut? Were the photos faked? If the photos are real was he in fact confused or was he (shown with his weapons) displaying a knowledge of the seriousness of the internal type of conflict that the two "communist" organizations were engaged in? Had he been used by the Socialist Workers Party (to whom he wrote a letter 3 weeks before joining the Marines) against the Communist Party? Had the US intellegence community minipulated Oswald's SWP affilliation for its own purposes?

Had Walker in fact "helped" Oswald enter the Soviet Union through the Helsinki Embassy (the only embassy in the world that he could receive a visa from in 24 hours) on Oct. 9th 1959? Why was the Warren Commission unable to determine which flight Oswald traveled on from London to Helsinki (at the same time that Walker was traveling to Augsberg, Germany)?

What if Oswald had been a "patsy" because he went to the Soviet Union? What if he realized it? What if Oswald wanted a trial with Jonathan Abt (the Smith Act Attorney) as his attorney? Would Oswald have sought "fame by taking blame?"

If we are going to ask questions.....lets be open to the possible answers! If we are unwilling to accept the premiss of a question why ask it?

Jim Root

Edited by Jim Root
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The motive is applied onto Oswald, you see.

Lee never says, "Hey I am overthrowing the capitalist aristocracy"

He says, "I work in that building...I am a patsy....I havent' been charged with that"

and then he tries to call John B. Hurt.

The motive comes when you see the pictures and read the biography, you see, it was constructed around him. Minsk, Communist, guns, attempted suicide and the kicker, the "attack" on Edwin Walker.

Walker put his neck out for that one but it was essential to the frame.

This is the team that put the frame in place and it lead back to the military army staff and joint chiefs, who ran the military side of the joint agencies........

Oswald was a constructed communist, a burn card from the bottom of the deck called "ONI losers" he had defected and DEFECTED BACK.

If he had said "I did it for the REVOLUTION" then he would be consistent, as it is he is not alone, he is not a nut, and he is not a gumnan..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Whilst a supposed,well schooled communist, like LHO ;) would be expected

to know the difference between, Stalanist & Trotskite thinking, it is doubtful

wether the DPD would. " Their all Commie nuts" would have been their

reasoning...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Morning Jim and Shanet

My theories always seem to flow at a much lower altitude than do yours. I do not feel that it would take a Walker / Taylor confluence to establish a "lone nut patsy" having the credentials of an LHO. Perhaps a dead Castro supporter would have better filled the bill for the desired results. My experience is that intricate planning need not be and in fact should not be paticularly complicated. That is why tho I have seriously studied Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee", I can see no need for a plan this complicated to have been meticulously arranged and carried out over so many years, and fraught with so many very potential, even probable, pitfalls necessary for the placement of one very low level defector within the Soviet Union.

I feel that when planning reaches this stratospheric level, and it too often does, that which is accomplished in too many instances is "overkill". Why fly Mach II at 40,000 ft. if you can be as well served subsonically at 10,000 ft. with much less risk? The simpler the plan, the less built in error. Sophistication is not a requisite for success. Do you wonder how a plan, that was theoretically so well construed with the availability of unlimited gray matter, money and resources did not affect its goal? The goal needed to be a one shot kill from a non surviving "patsy". No multiple gunmen---no conspiracy! Yes a one shot kill from a gunman who at the time of the fatal shot should have already been in the gunsight of one of the President's many protectors. A one shot kill fired at an approaching target at very close range from a rifle that had been reconditioned to the point that it could accomplish it's goal. There are very sound reasons for "overkill" to be avoided. Without overkill, there is no conpiracy---no Jack Ruby-- no Mafia---no Warren Commission. There would be only a thorough and very competent Texas autopsy and a Texas murder investigation that pointed only to this heinous lone nut.

You very well may be absolutely correct. It appears to me that the planning may well have occured at a very high level. Too high a level and with too many contingency plans and plausible denials built in. This has often happened during military engagements when planning is attempted at a level far up the command chain and too far removed from the engagement. Plan specifics should be handled at ground zero. Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen

From the Warren Commision Testimony of Agent Hosty:

Representative FORD. Was this comment by Mrs. Paine that Oswald had said he was a Trotskyite----

Mr. HOSTY. Trotskyite Communist was the word she used; yes, sir.

Representative FORD. Was that new as far as your knowledge of your file was concerned?

Mr. HOSTY. Well, he was a self-admitted Marxist. He had stated that earlier. The New Orleans office had reported that. He had been on television and made that statement in New Orleans, so this appeared to be in keeping with his character.

Representative FORD. The use of the word Trotskyite didn't add anything to the previous Marxist identification?

Mr. HOSTY. Well, of course, that is a particular type of Marxism, Trotskyite, the followers of Leon Trotsky's particular deviation, but this did show that he was not a member of the Communist Party USA, follower of the Leninist-Stalinist-Khrushchev movement, but would be an independent Marxist would be what it would show me, not tied in with the regular Communist Party USA.

Representative FORD. Is there anything particularly identifiable with the Trotskyite element that might alert you to anything?

Mr. HOSTY. Well, yes. The Socialist Workers Party is the Trotskyite Party in the United States, and they are supposedly the key element in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, or were the key element in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. So this would tie in with the fact that he was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and, therefore, he claimed to be a Trotskyite this would follow.

Mr. McCLOY. Do you associate with Trotskyite Communists any greater disposition to acts of violence than the normal Communist?

Mr. HOSTY. No, sir; no more than the others.

Mr. McCLOY. No doctrine of policy by assassination?

Mr. HOSTY. No, sir.

Mr. STERN. Have you reviewed, Mr. Hosty, the document that has been marked No. 830 for identification preliminary to your testimony today?

Mr. HOSTY. Oh, yes; this one you gave me earlier; yes, sir.

Two points:

First: While the DPD may not have had an understanding of the differing doctrines of the "communists" the FBI did and had an undersanding of Oswald's particular persuasions before the assassination.

Second: This testimony seems to have come about by chance and was then explored by Representative Ford. I find it interesting that Mr. Stern then redirects the questioning away from this subject and in the final analysis Oswald is a "nut" without a real political foundation.

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles

If I am reading you correctly, you suggest that the plan would be better accomplished if it were simple.

"My experience is that intricate planning need not be and in fact should not be paticularly complicated. That is why tho I have seriously studied Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee", I can see no need for a plan this complicated to have been meticulously arranged and carried out over so many years, and fraught with so many very potential, even probable, pitfalls necessary for the placement of one very low level defector within the Soviet Union."

I tend to agree with you.

If there was in fact a plan it was in fact accomplished on that November day.

"It appears to me that the planning may well have occured at a very high level. Too high a level and with too many contingency plans and plausible denials built in. This has often happened during military engagements when planning is attempted at a level far up the command chain and too far removed from the engagement. Plan specifics should be handled at ground zero."

My contention would be that the plan was executed by very few people, perhaps only one, but with a person (Oswald) in place that would have all the personal at "ground zero" forced to scurry around attempting to explain how what happened happened, all attempting to cover there own rears in the process.

The perfect murder perhaps?

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

Mr. McCLOY. Do you associate with Trotskyite Communists any greater disposition to acts of violence than the normal Communist?

Mr. HOSTY. No, sir; no more than the others.

Mr. McCLOY. No doctrine of policy by assassination?

Mr. HOSTY. No, sir.

Jim..

For confirmation of this see,"Against individual terrorism" by Leon Trotsky.

Trotsky warns his followers against what he calls" This infantile behavior"

and regards assassination of officials as counter-productive to the cause.

Steve...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve

Thanks for the Trotsky quote. Interesting to note that it is McCloy who (as any good lawyer worth his salt would do) asked a question that he already knew the answer to. It follows that McCloy was well versed in his knowledge of this "particular deviation" of communism.

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...