Page 1 of 22 November 1963: what really happened at JFK`s assassination?

After the excellent documentary shown last night on BBC2, I was thinking we could now bring about our own personal opinions of what happened on 22 November 1963 in Dallas, Texas. As long as this thread doesn`t degenerate into a farcial flaming contest, we could perhaps come up with a plausibe and firm explanation...

My own opinion is that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole shooter, and three bullets were fired. There probably never was a `second shooter` on the grassy knoll (hilariously mocked in an episode of The Simpsons), but I do believe Oswald either worked for the Mob/Mafia or for Castro (Cuban leader). I do not believe there was a Soviet connection.

The fact that Jack Ruby assassinated Oswald in the way he did either suggested he was a real fervent believer in JFK, or, more likely, was made to do it by some higher figure in the Mob/Mafia. Then again, seeing how the Kennedy administration had openly tried to kill Castro, it is plausible he recruited the excellent shot of Oswald to pay JFK back.

Discuss... :-)

--
DVD Profiler Collection ¦ YMDb Top 20
My Trader Feedback ¦ For Sale DVDs ¦ Wanted DVDs

It was interesting to see just how much artistic licence had been used in the JFK movie. I always understood a few liberties had been taken, but didn`t realise it was quite to that extent.

Of course the documentary could have just been a great piece of filmmaking to make us believe there wasn`t a conspiracy, ie. actually part of it.

It seems to me that he was just a nutter who acted alone for attention. But I don`t really care to be honest. I`m more bothered about finding out whether or not it was actually Stephen King who had John Lennon killed.................

Rich

I think if it had of been a conspiracy - someone in the know would of said something by now. I mean let`s be honest, if you had to chance to make $20 million dollars by writing a book detailing how the plot unfolded - someone would have done it.

Interestingly, the bullet that missed, hit the curb and rebounded to hit someone under the underpass. I have been watching a lot of JFK programs this week on History and Discovery channels, very interesting.

Oswald - sole gunman and working for nobody!
__________________________________________

---

"There are things known and there are things unknown, and inbetween are the doors."

My Top 20 Movies
My 59 Strong DVD collection

This item was edited on Monday, 24th November 2003, 19:08

OK, so if Oswald was working alone, then what was his motive? And don`t lay down the `nutter` theory, as everyone has some MO...

--
DVD Profiler Collection ¦ YMDb Top 20
My Trader Feedback ¦ For Sale DVDs ¦ Wanted DVDs

Its because he was a nutter. :)

Rich

This item was edited on Monday, 24th November 2003, 19:10

What`s wrong with the nutter theory?

Why couldn`t he have just been a nutter with no motive?

Is ******* (don`t want to get sued for saying his name but am sure you can fill the balnks in) a nutter? What possible motive could he have had for killing two perfectly innocent kids?

__________________________________________

---

"There are things known and there are things unknown, and inbetween are the doors."

My Top 20 Movies
My 59 Strong DVD collection

This item was edited on Monday, 24th November 2003, 19:22

Although the term `nutter` is applied to a majority of heinous crimes, it may just be that the individual responsible felt some way inclined that what they were doing was right - triggered by one, or more, situations. So in the case of ******* it may be that some factor of child life affected him in such a way that it drove him to kill (if, I add, he is guilty ;-)).

--
DVD Profiler Collection ¦ YMDb Top 20
My Trader Feedback ¦ For Sale DVDs ¦ Wanted DVDs

But that`s avoiding the point, the point is he had no motivation. I would say that motivation was revenge, or greed, but to say that some part of his childhood was motivation to kill two innocent girls is ridiculous. It might have given him the thought that is was right, are OK, but not motivatiion.

Anyway, let`s keep on topic, my opinion was that Oswald was working alone, he was "mentally handicapped" in some way shape or form and that fuelled his desire to murder a man with no motivation.

Although he was a pro-communist, anti-capitalist, I don`t think that counts as motivation. I hate Manchester United but I am not out trying to take Alex Ferguson out!

__________________________________________

---

"There are things known and there are things unknown, and inbetween are the doors."

My Top 20 Movies
My 59 Strong DVD collection

Lee Harvey Oswald was acting alone, out of a need to be somebody. His profile on the BBC2 show indicated a man who needed to be recognised by the rest of the world as something special, unusual or infamous. This need for notoriety, combined with his sense of moral indignation at America`s treatment of Cuba, led him to make the ultimate statement against his national leader by killing him.

I would agree to a certain extent with Jim that he`d have to be a little soft in the head to perpetrate the crime, but the moment you start talking about somebody not being in full possession of their faculties you offer them the opportunity of wriggling out of their culpability by entering plea of not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity.

I suspect that ******* may also have been acting out of a need for notoriety. A desire to become the Hindley and Brady of the 21st Century - I also suspect a greater degree of involvement in the case by **** other than simply being an accessory after the fact. I am fascinated that the defence has made no attempt to refute the accused`s involvement in the disposal of the victims and yet the accused maintains innocence of the primary charge. I can`t wait to hear the defence case!

J Mark Oates

---

"You win, Barbarella! But the Earth has lost its last great dictator!"