BOOK REVIEW -- "Oswald's Game" By Jean Davison

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 15, 2007, 4:18:11 AM1/15/07

to

"OSWALD'S GAME"

By:

Jean Davison

--------------------------------------------------------------

Publisher: W.W. Norton & Co.
Year Published: 1983.
Foreword by Norman Mailer.
343 Pages.
18 Chapters.
13 Pages of Illustrations/B&W Photographs.
29 Pages of Source Notes.
11-Page Index.
Bibliography.
Hardcover (1st Edition; November 1983).

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0393017648

--------------------------------------------------------------

Anything I've ever seen written by Jean Davison merits high marks on
the "Common Sense" scale when it comes to evaluating the various
aspects of the John F. Kennedy assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald's
obvious involvement in that 1963 crime.

Davison is an expert on Presidential assassin Lee Oswald, and over the
many years since her 1983 book "Oswald's Game" was published, she has
defended her "Lone Assassin" position (at a variety of public JFK
forums) with grace, dignity, and (above all) a wealth of facts to
support the idea that Oswald was anything BUT an innocent "Patsy" on
11/22/63 (as many, many conspiracy promoters believe).

As the pages of this book are turned, it becomes easier and easier to
climb inside the mind of Lee Oswald, and assess what probably was going
through this strange man's head when he took it upon himself to carry a
cheap mail-order rifle into work one day and change the course of
history.

It's also interesting to note (via these intriguing pages) how Oswald
has been severely mischaracterized by conspiracy theorists over the
years as a person who could easily be manipulated (i.e., a "dupe" who
could easily fall prey to some kind of "Patsy" plot).

When, in reality, Lee Oswald was, himself, an expert "manipulator".
This book details many, many verified instances where Oswald would
cleverly manipulate his wife Marina to serve his own self-serving
purposes....and how he manipulated the officials at the American
Embassy in Russia, in order to secure the proper papers so that he
could return to the United States in 1962 after defecting to the USSR.

There is a clear and distinct PATTERN over many years of Oswald "using"
people to serve his own needs and desires. This man Oswald was no
brain-dead dupe....and would certainly have not been stupid enough to
be suckered in to some assassination plot in November 1963, whereby he
would willingly take his own rifle into his own workplace for the
purpose of handing it over to some co-conspirator, who would in turn
use it to kill JFK.

Conspiracists have too often (almost always, in fact) totally ignored
the type of manipulative and scheming person Lee Harvey Oswald HIMSELF
was in the months and years leading up to November 22nd, 1963.

After reading "Oswald's Game", it's very nearly impossible to NOT say
to yourself dozens of times throughout these chapters: This guy Oswald
was just EXACTLY the type of crackpot Marxist who just might want to
take a potshot at the President of the United States if given THE
GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO (which he was afforded -- on 11/22/63 in
Dallas, Texas).

Here are some of my favorite passages and quotes from "Oswald's Game":

"Is it possible that Castro's warning to American leaders gave Oswald
the idea that Kennedy should be killed? ... Oswald was quoted as
telling a consular official {in Mexico City} that he wanted to 'free
Cuba from American imperialism'. Then he said, 'Someone ought to shoot
that President Kennedy. Maybe I'll try to do it'. {Daniel} Schorr had
uncovered two sources that reported Oswald's threat." -- Pages 22-23

~~~~~~

"This book will present evidence that Castro's public warning did, in
fact, inspire Oswald to assassinate the president. Furthermore, the
full context of Oswald's life directed him toward this reaction. In the
final analysis, the assassination was a natural outgrowth of Oswald's
character and background -- and of the American-backed plots to kill
Castro." -- Page 23

~~~~~~

"The argument that Oswald was the tool of a high-level conspiracy does
seem plausible, until one tries to fit it into the context these
theorists always leave out -- the personality and background of Lee
Harvey Oswald, the individual." -- Page 25

~~~~~~

"Ten days after his interview with Priscilla Johnson, Oswald wrote a
second, remarkable letter to {his brother} Robert. ... He advised his
brother of the following: 1. In the event of war I would kill ANY
American who put a uniform on in defense of the American government --
any American." -- Pages 38-39

~~~~~~

"For one thing, this model {from "the St. Elizabeths Study"} at least
provides a framework for looking again at Oswald's breathtaking
arrogance -- for instance, the manner in which he threatened to give
away military secrets at the U.S. Embassy and then loudly complained
that the embassy had acted illegally in refusing to let him sign away
his citizenship. Oswald expected his adversaries to abide by the letter
of the law, whereas he did as he pleased. ... The cumulative details of
his life reveal more about him than any category we might use to
explain him." -- Page 68

~~~~~~

"{On the subject of "Death", Oswald told George DeMohrenschildt}: 'I
have had enough time in this short existence of mine. What shall I do
with eternity? When a rich man dies, he is loaded with his possessions
like a prisoner with chains. I will die free, death will be easy for
me'." -- Page 112

~~~~~~

"The assassination attempt against {General Edwin A.} Walker, like his
defection, revealed Oswald's extreme dedication to his political
beliefs. All else was secondary to him -- his family, even the question
of whether he lived or died." -- Page 131

~~~~~~

"These credentials {presented by Oswald himself within his "resume"}
indicate that {Oswald} saw himself as an experienced political
operative who was qualified to work for the Cuban revolution as a
soldier, lecturer, organizer, agitator, translator, or spy. ... He
expected to be welcomed aboard, and he would then go out and
distinguish himself in the Communist world and work his way up. ... For
someone who couldn't hold a job in the United States, he had some
extraordinary ambitions." -- Page 180

~~~~~~

"When these men visited {Sylvia} Odio's apartment {on September 25,
1963}, Kennedy's trip to Dallas had not even been scheduled, let alone
announced. ... No one on earth could have known that Oswald would
ultimately land a job in a building that would overlook a Kennedy
motorcade.

"But the frame-up theory's ultimate weakness involves the critics'
conception of Lee Harvey Oswald. In every conspiracy book, Oswald is a
piece of chaff blown about by powerful, unseen forces -- he's a dumb
and compliant puppet with no volition of his own. If the man Odio saw
was an impostor, how could the plotters be certain no witnesses would
be able to establish Oswald's presence somewhere else that evening --
unless they ordered the unsuspecting patsy to stay out of sight?

"And if the real Oswald was used, how did the anti-Castro plotters get
their Marxist enemy to stand at Odio's door to be introduced as a
friend of the Cuban exiles?

"No one has come up with a plausible scenario that can answer those
questions. ... The point to be stressed is this: Sylvia Odio gave
testimony of obvious, even crucial importance, and no one could explain
what it meant." -- Pages 193-195

~~~~~~

"I began to see how similar {Oswald's} encounters with Bringuier and
Odio were. Oswald had approached each of them as an eager volunteer.
... The age-old role of the provocateur is to encourage acts of
violence that will discredit the group he has infiltrated. ... In other
words, the mysterious Odio incident was another of Oswald's attempts to
infiltrate the anti-Castro underground. The intended victim of this
enterprise was not Lee Harvey Oswald, but Sylvia Odio and the Cuban
exiles. Oswald was plotting against the exiles, not the other way
around.

"Unlike the explanations offered by the Warren Commission and its
critics, this solution FITS THE REST OF THE EVIDENCE ABOUT OSWALD. And
it makes better sense, after all, that Oswald went to see Odio for some
reason of his own, than that he was impersonated or duped by his
enemies." -- Pages 195-196 [Emphasis is Jean Davison's own.]

~~~~~~

"At 12:30 P.M. {on November 22, 1963}, Lee Harvey Oswald entered
history. Three shots from a sixth-floor Depository window hit Governor
Connally once and the president twice." -- Pages 241-242

~~~~~~

"Marina could tell that he was guilty. If he hadn't been, she thought,
he would have been loudly protesting his arrest, and besides, she
sensed that he was saying goodbye to her with his eyes." -- Page 249

~~~~~~

"{Dallas Police Detective James R.} Leavelle told the {Warren}
Commission the prisoner {Oswald} seemed very much in control of himself
at all times and added, 'In fact, he struck me as a man who enjoyed the
situation immensely and was enjoying the publicity and everything
[that] was coming his way'." -- Page 253

~~~~~~

"{At 11:21 AM on Sunday, November 24, 1963, Jack} Ruby rushed forward
and shot him {Oswald} once in the abdomen. ... When the crowd outside
heard what had happened, it let out a cheer. ... A raised fist was
Oswald's last comment." -- Page 254

~~~~~~

"Although the solutions proposed by {David} Lifton and {Michael}
Eddowes are more farfetched than some, they use the same style of
reasoning found in other conspiracy books. All these theories are based
on unexplained discrepancies in the record. ... Alternative
explanations and the overall pattern of the evidence are given little
attention, if any." -- Pages 274-275

~~~~~~

"The reader {of pro-conspiracy books} will understand the difficulty
these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent a story
that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for 'curtain rods',
left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought a package into
the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against Oswald is
strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up will
inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt." --
Page 276

~~~~~~

"The conspiracists' methods produce a surreal world. Every discrepancy
is interpreted as a crack in the official stone wall through which one
may glimpse the ugly truth of what happened. Behind the wall are
disconnected scenes, each with its own set of conspirators. On close
examination, many of these scenes evaporate." -- Page 277

~~~~~~

"The assassination of John Kennedy was neither an act of random
violence nor a conspiracy. It was carried out as a result of Oswald's
character and background interacting with circumstance." -- Page 297

[END BOOK QUOTES.]

Jean Davison's "Oswald's Game" is 343 pages of impeccably-researched
material detailing the very unusual 24-year life of Lee Harvey Oswald
-- the man who was charged with assassinating President Kennedy.

I challenge anyone who reads this book to then come away from such a
reading with the following mindset: "There is no possible way to
believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed John F. Kennedy by
himself on November 22, 1963".

Such a mindset should forever be eliminated from a reasonable person's
head upon the completion of reading "Oswald's Game".

The physical evidence of Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination has
been rock-solid since the day the murder occurred in Dallas. But the
question of "Why would he want to shoot the President?" had been
dangling in the breeze -- never fully explained in a detailed manner --
until Davison came out with this absorbing book twenty years after the
President's death.

It's true, of course, that this publication will not convince every
last person on the planet that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK all
alone....but it should increase the percentage of "LNers" by a goodly
number. Of that, I am certain.

Thank you, Jean Davison, for your excellent book "Oswald's Game"....and
for the "high road" that you have taken since writing it when dealing
with critics of your work regarding Oswald. I've yet to read an article
or a newsgroup posting by Jean that didn't brim over with common sense
and reasoned thinking with respect to John Kennedy's assassination.

-----------------------------

In a (lone)-nutshell.....

1.) This book shows (beyond a reasonable doubt, in my opinion) that Lee
Harvey Oswald had it WITHIN HIMSELF the desire to shoot President
Kennedy.

2.) The physical evidence positively indicates that Oswald's very own
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle WAS the one and ONLY weapon used to kill JFK.

Those two things go together like bread and butter. When adding #1 to
#2 above, it's pretty clear that Lee Oswald was not the "innocent
patsy" that so many conspiracy theorists seem to want to believe he
was. Instead, numbers 1 and 2 above, when merged, are telling the world
that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President John F.
Kennedy.

David Von Pein
February 2006
January 2007

eca...@comcast.net

unread,

Jan 15, 2007, 4:25:17 AM1/15/07

to

Excellent review on "OSWALD'S GAME"
by Jean Davison DVP.

My guess is you are aware
that one of my personal heroes,
our own John Forentino completed a
Kennedy assassination book "Return to
Reason." It was endorsed with a
foreword from Lattimer himself but
unfortunately may never be printed..
My guess is that the sheer magnitude
and depth of Bugliosi's book may have
swept away what I am certain was a
superb book by author Forentino.
Word on the street however has it
that John may have fallen ill as
well.. Any chance you could review
his unpublished book if I locate him
for you?

Ed 0318Jan1507

> patsy" that so many consiracy theorists seem to want to believe he was.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 15, 2007, 4:42:42 AM1/15/07

to

>>> "Any chance you could review his unpublished book if I locate him for you?" <<<

But how can an "unpublished" book be obtained in order to be reviewed?
(Or is John in the habit of sending his unpublished manuscript to
strangers for such reviewing purposes?)

Has John F. sent you a copy? If so, why don't you review it for us?

Papa Andy

unread,

Jan 15, 2007, 9:24:01 AM1/15/07

to

so a book of speculation is really great

so says DVP

but when CTs use evidence that is wrong

A

> attention, ...
>
> read more »

tomnln

unread,

Jan 15, 2007, 1:35:47 PM1/15/07

to

It's a NOVEL.

Combined with Myers' CARTOON, you people live in a Fantasy World.

<eca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1168853117.1...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jan 15, 2007, 5:58:04 PM1/15/07

to

>>> "So a book {"Oswald's Game"} of speculation is really great...so says DVP." <<<

Jean's book does contain some speculation, yes. I don't deny that. But
it's REASONABLE speculation, being based on Oswald's character and
actions and activities leading up to 11/22/63.

Jean has speculated that Oswald killed JFK (alone) on behalf of Castro,
after Castro made a threatening statement against U.S. leaders in early
September 1963 (although Castro later denied the comment was a "threat"
of any kind...but it obviously appeared on paper to be such).

But Jean's documented accounts of Oswald's KNOWN ACTIVITIES AND
STATEMENTS TO OTHER PEOPLE are not "speculation"....those things are
FACTS. Oswald did and said those things, without question (unless you
want to think that a myriad of people are lying about every movement
and statement Oswald ever made in his life; which would be merely
unsupportable "speculation" on a CTer's part, if he/she chooses to go
down that "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be" path, as many CTers are wont
to do re. every aspect of the JFK case).

As I said in my review.....

"After reading 'Oswald's Game', it's very nearly impossible to NOT say
to yourself dozens of times throughout these chapters: This guy Oswald
was just EXACTLY the type of crackpot Marxist who just might want to
take a potshot at the President of the United States if given THE
GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO (which he was afforded -- on 11/22/63 in

Dallas, Texas)." -- DVP

~~~~

And Jean Davison herself summed up the assassination very nicely near
the end of her book with this simple and to-the-point paragraph (which
is a paragraph of text that is almost certainly accurate, based on the
physical evidence in the case COMBINED with Oswald's politically-based
personality).....

"The assassination of John Kennedy was neither an act of random

violence nor a conspiracy. It was carried out as a result of Oswald's
character and background interacting with circumstance." -- J. Davison;
Page #297 of "Oswald's Game" (c.1983)

eca...@comcast.net

unread,

Jan 16, 2007, 4:31:42 AM1/16/07

to

David:
No John Forentino
never sent my a copy, but
I did converse with him
behind the scenes. His
logic and objectivity was
consistently sound and his
ability to find answers to
obscure research questions
was profound. Not just
"unsurpassed"
but absolutely the best!

I will attempt to contact him
and see if something can be done
to enable us to look further into
what I know is a great book.

For some reason (I could be
wrong here) I think JF may
have sent Dr McAdams a copy.
I'll check on that as well.

MR ;~D 0329Jan1607

Papa Andy

unread,

Jan 16, 2007, 10:21:42 AM1/16/07

to

David Von Pein wrote:

> "The assassination of John Kennedy was neither an act of random
> violence nor a conspiracy. It was carried out as a result of Oswald's
> character and background interacting with circumstance." -- J. Davison;
> Page #297 of "Oswald's Game" (c.1983)

by that definition, there is no such thing as random
perhaps you can see why someone might have real problems with that last
sentence
if LHO didn't have a job at the TSBD
if he didn't have a rifle
if something didn't happen in his personal life to set him off on the
assassination quest
if if and more if but it's not random

please

the whole 'theory' depends on LHO being a pro-Castro Marxist
one of many points justifiably in dispute

A

Bud

unread,

Jan 16, 2007, 5:51:01 PM1/16/07

to

Papa Andy wrote:
> so a book of speculation is really great

Where would this case be without speculation? It would have been
great if Oz detailed all his activity after being captured, but I doubt
you`d believe it anyway.

> so says DVP
>
> but when CTs use evidence that is wrong

No, the way kooks look at the evidence is wrong. They are fucked in
the head, incapable of reasoned analysis.

Bud

unread,

Jan 16, 2007, 5:52:53 PM1/16/07

to

You are overly impressed with your ability to dispute.

> A

Papa Andy

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 3:04:41 PM1/17/07

to

here is an example of CT logic:

eca...@comcast.net

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 5:17:44 PM1/17/07

to

I posted 35 Reasons Oswald
did it under:
alt.conspiracy.jfk
1500Jan1707

Rossley: See if you can post a
similar conspiracy *PATTERN*

MR ;~D 1615Jan1707
PS: Rossley where you ever
dropped on yer pointy little
head as an infant?

Papa Andy

unread,

Jan 17, 2007, 7:15:38 PM1/17/07

to

another one who quotes himself

A

On Jan 17, 5:17 pm, ecag...@comcast.net wrote:
> I posted 35 Reasons Oswald
> did it under:
> alt.conspiracy.jfk
> 1500Jan1707
>
> Rossley: See if you can post a
> similar conspiracy *PATTERN*
>
> MR ;~D 1615Jan1707
> PS: Rossley where you ever
> dropped on yer pointy little
> head as an infant?
>
> tomnln wrote:
> > It's a NOVEL.
>
> > Combined with Myers' CARTOON, you people live in a Fantasy World.
>

> > <ecag...@comcast.net> wrote in message

> > >> words, the mysterious Odio incident was another of Oswald's attempts to...
>
> read more »

tomnln

unread,

Jan 18, 2007, 1:12:03 AM1/18/07

to

<eca...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1169072264.8...@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>I posted 35 Reasons Oswald
> did it under:
> alt.conspiracy.jfk
> 1500Jan1707
>
> Rossley: See if you can post a
> similar conspiracy *PATTERN*
>
> MR ;~D 1615Jan1707
> PS: Rossley where you ever
> dropped on yer pointy little
> head as an infant?

Ed, you just Proved through your Apology that your word is Useless.
You just proved that your claim that you did NOT want to trade insults was a
LIE.

SOoooo, I happen to have a BIG pointy little head,
Just ask every one of the women in your family.

You have me confused with all the little boys you've been eating for
decades. (FAGGOT)

As for a LIST.....
Take that little boy outta your mouth & Choke on THIS one>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm

tomnln

unread,

Jan 18, 2007, 1:15:26 AM1/18/07

to

To hell with that.

I Especially LOVE the insults from that Faggot.

Plus, he was Stupid enough to ask for a LIST

What are the odds that he addresses them or RUNS?

"Papa Andy" <playiso...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1169079338.0...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...

eca...@comcast.net

unread,

Jan 18, 2007, 3:55:06 AM1/18/07

to

The points are there Papa,
all 3 dozen of them in an
evidence *pattern*
I didn't make them up at
all as you mistakenly seem to
think.. To the contrary they
are the product of 43 years of
research by countless authors,
media-types, investigators,
journalists, law enforcement
officials at all levels, the CIA,
FBI .. And yes the WC as well.

Did you read any of them?
It's under reference:
1500Jan1707

At least I post a reference;
something you failed to do
on your zAnY *planted* bag
scenario.

Ed Cage