Regarding Oswald's Mental State
RICLAND
the way he smears a man who isn't there to defend himself. Rather than
present evidence that shows Oswald's mental state on its own, Bugliosi
resorts to the schlock smear tactics we'd expect from the cheapest kind
of lawyer -- "Oswald is a nut and we know he's a nut because he killed
the president!"
Textbook circular reasoning as any fool can see. Clearly, Bugliosi could
find no evidence showing Oswald was a nut so he relied on circular
reasoning and smear tactics.
Then in his summation he gives -- almost word for word -- the same
summation he used to convict a real nut -- Charlie Manson -- 25 years
earlier.
But was Oswald really a nut? Here's what the people who knew him had to
say about that:
ricland
___________________________________________________
In her highly acclaimed book ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT: THE WARREN
COMMISSION, THE AUTHORITIES AND THE REPORT, Sylvia Meagher made the
following points about Oswald's character and reputation:
There is . . . no basis in any of the available medical or
psychiatric histories for allegations that Oswald was psychotic,
aberrant, or mentally unsound in any degree. His life history is
consistent with the conclusion that he was a rational and stable
personality (which is not to say that he was appealing, admirable, or
untroubled). He was capable of marriage and fatherhood, with
responsibility and devotion, particularly to his two children. He was
conscientious in his punctuality and work, completed military service
satisfactorily, paid his bills and repaid his debts promptly, and
managed his practical affairs capably.
Since there has been unrestrained "psychoanalysis of Oswald by
amateurs who never heard of Oswald before November 22, it is apropos to
examine the judgments of those who knew him, on the two key questions of
(1) motivation and (b) capacity for violence.
His wife, star witness for the prosecution, considered Oswald
"mentally sound, smart and capable, not deprived of reason." (1 H 123)
Most members of the Russian-speaking community in Dallas, including
those who were not fond of Oswald, were astounded by the news of his
arrest. Sam Ballen, for example, was unable to conceive of Oswald
harboring any hostility toward the President; it was his impression
that, on the contrary, Oswald had warm feelings for him. Oswald was
dogmatic but not mentally ill. Ballen, like George De Mohrenschildt,
considered Oswald a man "with no hatred in him." When he heard of
Oswald's arrest, Ballen felt there must have been a mistake. He did not
believe Oswald capable of such a crime, in spite of the force of the
circumstantial evidence. (9 H 48-54)
George Bouhe was not an admirer of Oswald's. He regarded Oswald as
"crazy," a mental case. But it had never entered Bouhe's mind, he
testified, that Oswald was capable of such an act. (8 H 370) Everett
Glover said that he had never questioned Oswald's mental stability and
did not consider him capable of violence. (10 H 20)
Anna Meller was "completely shocked" at the news of Oswald's arrest
and could not believe that he had done such a thing. (8 H 386-390) Elena
Hall had never regarded Oswald as dangerous or mentally unstable; she
was incredulous when he was arrested. (8 H 405) Michael Paine (2 H 399),
Paul Gregory (9 H 148) and George De Mohrenschildt (9 H 255) testified
that Oswald was an admirer of President Kennedy and had praised him.
Lillian Murret, Oswald's aunt, said that he had liked the President and
admired his wife. (8 H 153) Marilyn Murret, her daughter, confirmed that
Oswald had spoken favorably of the President. She felt strongly that
Oswald was not capable of having committed the assassination and that he
had no motive for such an act; and she disagreed completely with
theories that Oswald resented authority or craved a place in history. (8
H 176-177)
None of Oswald's fellow Marines suggested that he was psychotic,
violent, or homicidal. Lt. Donovan saw no signs of any mental
instability (although he found it unusual for anyone to be so interested
in foreign affairs). (8 H 299). . . .
Adrian Alba, who knew Oswald in New Orleans in 1963, said that he
"certainly didn't impress me as anyone capable or anyone burdened with a
charge of assassinating the President . . . let alone any individual,
for that matter." (10 H 227) Tommy Bargas, Oswald's former employer at
the Leslie Welding Company, said that he had been a good employee, with
potential, and had shown no sign of temper or violence. (10 H 165) Helen
P. Cunningham, an employment counselor, had found no indication of
emotional problems in her contacts with Oswald. (10 H 128)
FBI Agent Quigley, who had interviewed Oswald after his arrest in
New Orleans for disturbing the peace [many have argued that he was
unjustly arrested on this charge], found absolutely no indication that
he was dangerous or potentially violent. (4 H 438)
And the comments of Lt. Francis Martello, intelligence division
(anti-subversion) of the New Orleans Police Department, are especially
memorable. He had interviewed Oswald at length in August 1963 and had
formed the impression that he liked President Kennedy. He considered
Oswald not to be potentially violent.
". . . not at all. Not in any way, shape, or form violent . . . as
far as ever dreaming or thinking that Oswald would do what it is alleged
that he has done, I would bet my head on a chopping block that he
wouldn't do it." (10 H 60-61) (17:245-246)
--
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/2qgodj
David Von Pein
More bullshit from another "I'LL BELIEVE ANYBODY DID IT EXCEPT LEE
HARVEY OSWALD" CT-Kook.
Ms. Meagher's "Here's How Sweet Lee Really Was" book passages
notwithstanding, there are ample other witness accounts to show that
Lee Oswald was all of the following things:
1.) A wife-beater (Marina herself told us that, of course).
2.) A semi-expert (and moving toward "expert" status) at manipulating
people to get exactly what he wanted. (His bald-faced lie about his
mother that he told to the Marine Corps in order to secure his
discharge in 1959 being a prime example of Ozzie's excellent
manipulating skills. And an excellent example of how Oswald was
willing to tell "whopper lies" to get what he wanted as well. "Curtain
rods" anyone?)
3.) A disturbed youth who was fixated on Marxism, Communism, and even
the sudden and violent death of the President of the United States.
(He threatened Eisenhower at one point in his life....and he was
barely starting puberty at the time. He was warming up in the bullpen,
it would seem, for November 22, 1963.)
4.) A top-notch liar. (Oh, I already mentioned that one, didn't I?
Well, it's worth a reprise anyway. Oz could lie like a champion "To
Tell The Truth" game-show contestant....day or night, pre-
assassination or post-.)
5.) A double-murderer, with every last scrap of physical (ballistics)
evidence in the 11/22/63 murders of JFK & JDT leading to one man's
guns -- Lee Harvey Oswald's.
Nice guy, wasn't Lee?
>>> "It's no secret that what I find so loathsome about Vincent Bugliosi is the way he smears a man who isn't there to defend himself." <<<
<hearty laugh>
As if Oswald would have uttered a single word in court had he stood
trial.
LHO would have been a fool to take the witness stand. Vince Bugliosi's
very first set of questions would have convicted the bastard. Let's
listen......
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 139,
which is a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial number C2766.
This exact rifle was found on the sixth floor of your workplace, the
Texas School Book Depository, just 52 minutes after President Kennedy
was shot and killed from right in front of that building in November
of 1963. A palmprint of yours was located on this exact weapon. .... I
ask you now, Mr. Oswald, have you ever seen this rifle before?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have not."
BUGLIOSI -- "Did you, Mr. Oswald, ever send in a mail-order coupon to
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, a coupon for a 6.5-millimeter
carbine rifle, during the first half of the year 1963?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir. I didn't order any rifle."
BUGLIOSI -- "Have you owned a rifle in your lifetime, Mr. Oswald....a
privately-owned rifle, that is, since you got out of the Marine Corps
in late 1959?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have never owned a rifle in my life."
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 134,
a photograph of a man who looks exactly like you--Lee Harvey Oswald.
This man who looks exactly like you is holding a rifle, is carrying a
handgun, and is also holding up two Russian newspapers, dated early in
1963. .... I ask you now, Mr. Oswald, are you the man depicted in this
photograph?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir. That picture must be a fake or something. I never
posed for any picture like that before in my life."
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now direct your attention to the date of
President Kennedy's assassination--November the 22nd, 1963--and I ask
you now, Mr. Oswald, if you know a man by the name of Wesley Frazier?"
OSWALD -- "Yes, I work with him at the Depository."
BUGLIOSI -- "And did Mr. Frazier give you a ride to work on the
morning of President Kennedy's visit to Dallas--that is the morning of
November 22, 1963?"
OSWALD -- "Yes....he did."
BUGLIOSI -- "Did you, Mr. Oswald, take any kind of paper package with
you to work on that particular morning?"
OSWALD -- "I brought my lunch. That's all."
BUGLIOSI -- "You brought ONLY a lunch sack with you to work on
November 22nd, is that correct?"
OSWALD -- "Yes, sir. I had my lunch with me."
BUGLIOSI -- "Did you have any OTHER paper package with you that
morning at all? Anything larger than a small lunch bag?"
OSWALD -- "No, I had nothing else."
BUGLIOSI -- "Wesley Frazier, just this morning, told this court and
this jury that he observed you carrying a much-larger paper bag on the
morning of November the 22nd. Mr. Frazier said that you told him you
had some curtain rods in that larger paper package. Did you tell
Wesley Frazier anything like like on the morning of November 22nd?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir! Absolutely not! I don't know why he'd say a thing
like that. I never told him anything like that."
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, another witness--Mr. Frazier's sister, Linnie
Mae Randle--also testified during this trial that she also observed
you carrying a bulky-type brown paper bag as you walked toward her
house in Irving, Texas, around 7:10 AM on the morning of November
22nd, 1963. Was she mistaken, Mr. Oswald? Did she ONLY see your small
paper lunch sack?"
OSWALD -- "Well...uh...I really can't speak for what another witness
might or might not have seen...or said. I can only tell you that she's
wrong if she said I had a big bag with me that day. I just carried my
lunch to work, like I usually do on work days."
BUGLIOSI -- "Thank you, Mr. Oswald....no further questions at this
time."
==============
The above questioning of Oswald would have been, of course, preceded
by a parade of witnesses who would have confirmed (without a shred of
a doubt) that Lee Oswald DID purchase Rifle #C2766 by mail-order in
March 1963, and WAS photographed (by his own wife) while holding that
weapon on 3/31/63, and DID take a bulky paper package into the TSBD on
11/22/63.
Who do you think the jury is going to believe? The accused murderer?
Or the succession of several different witnesses who all paint Oswald
as the liar he obviously was when he told Mr. Bugliosi (via my
simulated courtroom proceeding above): "I have never owned a rifle in
my life"?
The jury wouldn't even break a sweat on that decision.
To sum up --- Oswald's many lies ALONE would have convicted him in a
court of law if he had taken the stand (and probably even if he hadn't
taken the stand....because his many lies would still have certainly
come to the forefront via other witnesses who would have testified at
the trial).
In addition, of course, the physical and circumstantial evidence in
the case also convicts LHO ten times over....but when Oswald's OWN
LIES are added to the mix -- it's the hangman's noose for sure for Mr.
Oz.
Because does an "INNOCENT PATSY" really NEED to lie this much?......
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d