Whatever you believe about Lee Harvey Oswald, his tale is a sad one indeed. It’s either the story of an innocent man framed for the crime of the century, or it’s the story of a nobody who never accomplished anything in his life, and when he finally does, it’s so extraordinary that nobody believes he could have pulled it off. But if Oswald did indeed shoot Kennedy, why did he deny it?
Quite simply, because he could.
All the previous presidential assassins had committed their crime with a side-arm at point-blank range, leaving no room for doubt as to who pulled the trigger. The assailant was quickly identified, in and in most cases immediately subdued (with the exception of John Wilkes Booth, who briefly evaded his captors).
Since Kennedy was the first President assassinated with a long-range weapon, his assailant was the first Presidential assassin with the luxury of relative anonymity. In other words, unlike Booth, Czolzgoz, and Guiteau, President Kennedy’s assassin was not surrounded by throngs of witnesses who saw him pull the trigger. The best witness we have against Oswald was Howard Brennan, who claims to have seen Oswald firing the rifle from the sniper’s nest. But Brennan was across the street from the nest, and six floors below it, unlike the mass of witnesses surrounding all the other Presidential assassins. So Oswald could deny his guilt with a degree of plausibility—at least until the evidence started to stack up against him, which it eventually did.
Okay, So He Was the First Presidential Assassin Who Could Deny It, But Why Would He?
From his behavior, diaries and interactions with other individuals, Oswald was clearly a man with delusions of grandeur, and a man who saw a place for himself in the history books. Why then would he deny the very act that would assure this self-fulfilling prophecy? Various researchers have come to their own conclusions concerning this notion, but I believe it boils down to one thing:
Oswald Liked Fucking With People
He fucked with his peers, he fucked with authority figures, he fucked with the anti-communists in New Orleans, he fucked with the Feds and he fucked with the Fuzz. One day he would go to the anti-communists in New Orleans and claim to be one of them, and then the next he’d go out in the streets and hand and pro-communist leaflets right in their face. Look at the images from that day, and note the obnoxious little smirk on Oswald’s face. He’s getting a rise out of everybody, and having a blast.
When Oswald was arrested the day of Kennedy’s assassination, the Dallas cops found two IDs on him, and asked Oswald which one was real. “You’re the policemen, you figure out,” was his reply. Classic Lee Oswald, doing what he does best: fucking with people.
When the reporters started showing up at the Dallas Police Station, Oswald finally got the chance of a lifetime: To fuck with the WHOLE WORLD. And he did, masterfully. Previously, Oswald was only afforded opportunities to fuck with this person or that, a co-worker or fellow marine, but now he was given the opportunity to go on television and fuck with every man, woman, and child on the whole planet. And every time someone goes on YouTube and watches the footage of Oswald claiming innocence, he’s fucking with them too. Even from the grave, Lee Oswald is still getting a rise out of people.
The tragic part of Oswald’s sick little joke, is that people believe him. He preyed on the American ideal of innocent until proven guilty and started one of the most vicious debates in our history.
So in light of his long history of fucking with people, one has to ask the question:
Who’s the Real Patsy? Lee Oswald? Or anybody gullible enough to believe a damn thing he says.
Assassination Agnostic 
Why did Oswald deny murdering President Kennedy and Officer Tippit? We don’t know. But a very likely explanation is that if Oswald admitted his guilt he would have never received a trial. No trial meant that Oswald would NOT be in the limelight with a forum to spread his political ideologies. If he denys involvement there will be the most publicized trial in American legal history. Therefore it is 100% conducive to Oswald’s quest for fame to deny his murder and then force the country to listen to his beliefs in a trial.
It is quite obvious by the above article and comment that you really haven’t done any research on Oswald. Why was Oswald seen in the company of David Atlee Philips for example? Why was Oswald given Russian language training while in the military?
If you look at Oswald’s actions they all add up to being intelligence work. When he was caught at the Texas theatre witnesses said he kept moving from seat to seat sitting beside people. That is not fucking with people. In spycraft that is called covering your trackes and is part of clandestine meeting.
If you look at Oswald through the Intelligence world it all starts making sense. And it starts making sense that he was being framed by the very people he was working for.
We now know David Joaniddes, a CIA employee, was living in New Orleans in 63 when Oswald was there. The CIA was funding the DRE on a monthly basis. This was an anti-Cuban group that had a few run ins with Oswald.
The day after the assassination this group put out a magazine that the rest of the media picked up on about Oswald and his connections to Castro and his pro-Castro activities.
Perfect. So essentially the CIA was behind the first potrayal of Oswald in the media.
If you don’t think something is wrong with this picture then keep burying your head and I have some land in Florida I can sell you.
Oswald desperately wanted to be a secret agent and was always knocking on the door of the intelligence community on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Unfortunately for him, no one ever let him in. My fiancee laughed when she saw your claim that I haven’t done any research on Oswald—oh how she desperately wishes that were true.
-Lee
There is, obviously, a whole industry built on Kennedy Assassination “Conspiracy.” I have indulged in books and films concerning the subject and I admit that I was at one time rather enthralled with the subject. I have become rather skeptical about the conspiracy theories but I am especially skeptical about the conspiracy theorists. Might there be a relationship between the level of character weakness and the level of implausibility? Please consider my comments about some of the JFK conspiracy writers.
Does anyone think that when the person writing about the conspiracy finds that there is a problem with their theory that he or she is going to discard the whole thing? David S. Lifton for example argued, in the beginning of “Best Evidence,” that Kennedy had to have been shot from the front because he lurches to the rear on getting shot in the head. Later in the book he describes learning that a bullet to the skull will likely cause the victim to lurch in the direction the bullet came from. Instead of discarding his theory David S. Lifton finds a way to worm around the problem. Let’s face it, David S. Lifton wasted a lot of time on his theory and he sure wouldn’t want to admit that to himself.
Mark Lane has been helping to create a “Kennedy Myth”. JFK was strongly anti-communist but you wouldn’t know that from Mark Lane who regards himself as a communist. Mark Lane provides his readers with some rather convoluted reasoning as to why JFK was really an enemy of Capitalists. Mark Lane also argued that the People’t Temple in Guyana was victimized by a conspiracy of the CIA.
G. Paul Chambers writes about the science of the assassination. One would hope that a man with such a solid science background would actually write about science. Chambers decided at some point in his book that Kennedy was killed by a particular model of rifle with a particular caliber. Why does he choose that one in particular? Because it is such a good choice as a weapon. There is no chain of evidence, just a good guess. He makes mathematical calculations that sound good but in order to make them he has to also make assumptions and he has to leave out most of the variables. What a bluffer.
Occam’s Razor posits that the simplest explanation is the best. The theories put forward by the JFK Conspiracy theorists tend to be highly convoluted. One has to let one’s imagination wander if one is to believe their “theories.”
I have derived a great deal of entertainment from them.
Agreed. Even though most of the popular conspiracy theories have been discredited, I still have a soft spot in my heart for them. That’s one of the reasons we created this site, as a tribute to Assassination Conspiracy lore, and all the theories we wish were true, but just aren’t. Of course, you and I are clearly just members of the CIA tasked with covering up the truth, right?
-Lee
What is your source that places Oswald and Phillips together? I can’t WAIT to hear this source.
jfk gave his life for what he believed a mystery wrapped in an enigma killing innocence ready for the vietnam war from flower power to ……please no more wars
I have been waiting for four months now and no one has linked Oswald and David Phillips. Just as I suspected.
For David Lifton….Currently reading “the Girl on the Stairs”. I have information which could clear up another mystery…the identity of the Dark Complexioned Mystery Man on Dealey Plaza. Please contact me if anyone interested. Steve Kasarsky 662-988-3145 or click stevekazz@tds.net
There is one problem with this and that is Lee Oswald never cracked during his interrogation even in the face of mounting physical and eyewitness evidence. Interrogations are designed to get confessions from individuals. Even innocent people have confessed to crimes during interrogations which thay did not commit.
Hard to tell since no recordings exist. DPD claims he was close to cracking but we all know they were pretty incompetent during this whole affair. At this point it’s all conjecture, but I stand by this theory as a reasonable possible explanation.