DOC

Trust you to have researched this most vexed question. I'm sure there's lots of us beside me, who'd be intrigued to hear your views on it.

A couple of other questions you might care to answer, the first is no relation to the assassination, second might be.

So, do you think the press was craven or sycophantic in not relaying news of JFK's numerous affairs? Or was it too well covered up? Or was Bobby Kennedy the only Bobby Shaftoe?

And, what truth is there re the Mafia swinging the November 1960 Presidential election in New York State by ballot box-stuffing?

As for the event, I always find it hard to believe Oswald, who was far from mentally stable, could have put 2 shots out of 3 into JFK from that range, however good the rifle or his alleged marksmanship at the range, which doesn't equate to shooting to kill.

Also, as the 3 previous assassinations of US presidents all involved hand-guns at short range, ditto the later attempt on Ronald Reagan, why chose a rifle from that range in any case?

And finally, why did Oswald kill one police officer and attempt to kill another with a hand-gun after leaving the book depository where he'd left the rifle? Why would he have been challenged in the first place?


Over to you, Doc!



Steve M

Trust you to have researched this most vexed question. I'm sure there's lots of us beside me, who'd be intrigued to hear your views on it.

Why not? Plenty of other tangential discussions on this forum - although for a connection, I do actually recall caning a boy in the aftermath of the assassination.

So, do you think the press was craven or sycophantic in not relaying news of JFK's numerous affairs? Or was it too well covered up? Or was Bobby Kennedy the only Bobby Shaftoe?

I think it was most likely a mixture of different things. First of all, I do think it was well covered up and so only a relatively small number of journalists probably knew enough details that they could have made a story of it. But I'd be very surprised if no journalists knew enough about his dalliances, and I think the ones who did helped to conceal it. Why? Sycophancy might be too strong a word, but it certainly comes close. There were other factors though - it was the height of the cold war, and undermining a President could have been seen as contrary to the national interest. Also Jackie was incredibly popular and a lot of people would have wanted to spare her the pain and humiliation, revealing JFKs affairs would have caused.

And, what truth is there re the Mafia swinging the November 1960 Presidential election in New York State by ballot box-stuffing?

Do you mean New York State or Illinois (Chicago). The allegations I've seen tend to relate more to Chicago than anywhere else. I am fairly certain that the Chicago count was manipulated in some way, and that was enough to give Kennedy victory in Illinois. There was also definiely voter fraud that favoured Kennedy in Texas but they probably did win that state even without the fraud. If Nixon had won Illinois and Texas, he'd have won the election - just winning Illinois would not have been enough. So overall, Kennedy probably did win the election. (there were also definite cases of voter fraud that benefited Republicans in 1960, but none were large enough to change any significant result, so don't garner the same attention as Chicago or Texas, which might have mattered). Was the Mafia involved? I don't know. I'm inclined to doubt it, simply because most of the people who allege they were do so to try and build a case for Mafia involvement in the assasination, and I don't believe there was Mafia involvement in the assasination.

As for the event, I always find it hard to believe Oswald, who was far from mentally stable, could have put 2 shots out of 3 into JFK from that range, however good the rifle or his alleged marksmanship at the range, which doesn't equate to shooting to kill.

When it comes to the assasination, I'm afraid I'm rather boring. I'm what is referred to in the assasination community as a 'Lone Nutter' - I am convinced Lee Harvey Oswald assasinated John F. Kennedy, and I believe he almost certainly acted alone.

Yes, Oswald was mentally unstable. In fact, I think he was by the time of the assasination pretty well insane (though still capable of making his own decisions and criminally responsible for them). The shots he had to fire to kill Kennedy, were, actually rather simple shots. I did my National Service (even briefly deployed overseas before being invalided home) and so had training an an infantryman at about the same period Oswald had his training in the US Marines. The shots Oswald had to fire to hit Kennedy were simple and straightforward enough that while I couldn't do them with my eyes closed, I could probably have fired them even while under the influence of two or three beers. A slow moving target with a scoped rifle at a distance of less than 200 feet. It's not a difficult shot at all. To be honest I'm surprised that he missed once.

As for shooting to kill - the first shot was probably survivable (there's a lot of debate around this, given Kennedy's general health, but most experts conclude that he was likely to survive). The head shot was another matter - in essence, it killed him instantly (Doctors would not have even bothered to treat most people brought in with that type of wound - Kennedy received medical treatment because nobody was willing to give up on the President, but he was technically DOA at Parkland Hospital - his official time of death relates more to the desire to ensure he received the Last Rites than to medical reality). One shot out of three was a fatal shot. At 200 feet that's not particularly difficult.

Also, as the 3 previous assassinations of US presidents all involved hand-guns at short range, ditto the later attempt on Ronald Reagan, why chose a rifle from that range in any case?

People are much more likely to be aware of successful assasinations than the ones that failed. While it's true that the successful assasinations of Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley did involve handguns at short range, overall, it hasn't been a very succesful method.

In January 1835, Richard Lawrence fired two pistols at President Andrew Jackson at a distance of about 13 feet. Both misfired and he was taken into custody after Jackson beat him senseless with his walking stick.

In October 1912, President Theodore Roosevelt was hit by a single bullet fired from a .38 calibre revolver. He was wounded, but still made his speech.

In February 1933, Giuseppe Zangara fired five shots at President-Elect Franklin Roosevelt from a .32 calibre pistol. He missed FDR completely, although he killed the Mayor of Chicago.

On October 28, 1950, two men attacked Blair House (where President Truman was staying while the White House was renovated) armed with pistols. Truman was unharmed, but one of the failed assassins and a police officer were killed in the gunfight (the other failed assassin was wounded).

So, from the perspective of somebody in 1963, there had been seven attempted assasinations of US Presidents by men harmed with handguns, three of which had succeeded, and four of which had failed. I actually think it's unlikely Oswald was educated enough to know about all these cases, but it illustrates the point that handgun at close range is not, overall, a very effective method of killing a President.

Oswald also had an advantage most assasins never had. By sheer chance (and I do believe it was sheer chance and if it hadn't happened, he would have been unlikely to shoot Kennedy - although he probably would have assasinated somebody, he'd already made one failed attempt) he was working in a building which a Presidential motorcade drove right past. He had an unusual opportunity to set up a sniping point and use it).

And finally, why did Oswald kill one police officer and attempt to kill another with a hand-gun after leaving the book depository where he'd left the rifle? Why would he have been challenged in the first place?

A description of the gunman had been broadcast three times over police radios at 12.45, 12.48, and 12.55pm. The description was a reasonably good match for Oswald, not surprisingly, because it was a description of him (the description came from Howard Brennan who had been standing across the road and saw Oswald fire the shots - the fact that there was an eyewitness is often glossed over in conspiracy literature). Officer J.D. Tippit, presumably decided to question Oswald because he matched the description. Oswald presumably shot and killed him because he didn't want to be arrested - he'd already committed one capital crime, he could hardly make his situation much worse by committing a second murder. And when he faced capture a second time, again, he was prepared to kill to try and escape. He didn't succeed in getting a shot off that time.

DOC

Thanks-most interesting.

I think the most compelling argument re Oswald acting entirely alone is the lack of investigation of ANY possible co-conspirators. Compared to the Lincoln assassination, where they swiftly hung any one thought to be connected and jailed others for life, including the Doctor who treated Booth, they left every stone unturned at the time, perhaps with good reason.

Also, as we agree Oswald was definitely unhinged, would he have been any sensible person's choice as an assassin but his own? At least if you planned to do it the way it was done. As you say, if chance alone put him in the book depository, no conspirator could have foreseen that stroke of ill-fortune for JFK.

I'd normally say that the moving target is much harder to hit than you suggest. But, to be fair, all 3 shots were at a car travelling at 10-15 MPH BEFORE anyone reacted to the shots. My live rounds experience was in the school cadet force, and that was with a WWII vintage Lee Enfield .303, not the fairly sophisticated gun used.

If indeed Oswald did it, then his subsequent shootings make their own twisted sense. I suppose it also makes twisted sense to want to be taken alive, for the headlines.

Let's just hope Barack Obama doesn't go the same way.



Steve M

There are a couple of things I would like to add to this discussion. First about the Mob carrying the election for Kennedy. That did in fact happen. But not so much by stuffing ballot boxes as by controlling the vote of the Teamsters Union. The Teamsters were more powerful than the President at the time and Hoffa knew it.

Second the press didn't blow the whistle on Kennedys affairs because it was a different culture back then. Men were almost expected to cheat on their wives. Most of the reporters probably had mistresses of their own. Many men gauged their success on whether or not they could afford a mistress.

Other than those two points I basically agree with Dr.D.

BOB T

Thanks-that's a real gem on the situation.

The attitude was rather summed up in the 1960 Film, The Apartment.

Directed by that well-known "American", Billy Wilder!

I also guess that women seduced by the youngest and probably best-looking US president were not exactly going to be quequeing up to become kiss-and-tell bimbos, either.

There may, however, have been a very long line of hopeful repeat customers stretching way down Pennsylvania Avenue!



Steve M