Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 16

Leavelle interrogating Oswald on 22?
I just noticed that this article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. This article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest. But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time.


 * any comment on the doubt of anon editor? — usernamekiran (talk)  22:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

When Leavelle testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that the first time he had ever sat in on an interrogation with Oswald was on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963. When Counsel Joseph Ball asked Leavelle if he had ever spoken to Oswald before this interrogation, he stated; "No, I had never talked to him before". Leavelle then stated during his testimony that "the only time I had connections with Oswald was this Sunday morning [November 24, 1963]. I never had [the] occasion to talk with him at any time..."

In a 2006 interview, Leavelle said that he was the first to interrogate Oswald after his arrest (contrary to his Warren Commission testimony). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.202 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2018
"former" marin redundant since he is dead. All "former"s are redundant if there are more. 2605:E000:9149:A600:1EF:610B:A257:CC33 (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ The language conveys that he was no longer a Marine when he murdered JFK. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Oswald Letter to Mr. Hunt, spelling of "concerding", and the other example of the same spelling
The letter from Lee Oswald to "Mr. Hunt" which the House Select Committee investigated, and could not agree on as to authenticity, is discussed in Dr. Jerry Kroth's book "The Kennedy Assassination: what really happened", and he points out that Oswald misspelled "concerding" identically in a May 16, 1961 letter to the American Embassy (which is documented in Diane Holloway's book "The Mind of Oswald: Accused Assassin of President John F. Kennedy") as "... although nothing has been said, even vaguely, concerding this in my correspondence with the embassy" https://books.google.com/books?, as well as the Mr. Hunt letter "information concerding my position" mrhunt.txt. Is this significant, or just diabolical? This Wikipedia article documents his spelling problems. StreetSign (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Significantly, the Oswald "Mr. Hunt letter" was revealed to be a Soviet KGB forgery, when the Mitrokhin Archive was published. The Soviets used examples of Oswald's writing, including misspellings, to fool even his own wife Marina.  StreetSign (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggested Edits to Protected Oswald Article
Since the article is protected, various minor edits regarding his military service cannot be easily be made, but I suggest the following, with all suggested changes intentionally set in bold characters ONLY to set the changes aside; the final product would not show bold:

Suggested Change #1: "Oswald was honorably discharged from active service with the Marine Corps and defected to the Soviet Union in October 1959. He lived in the Belarusian city of Minsk until June 1962, when he returned to the United States with his Russian wife Marina and eventually settled in Dallas."

Reason: Oswald was NOT honorably discharged from the Marine Corps. He was honorably discharged from active service only, on 11 September 1959, and immediately, without break in his military status, transferred to the Marine Corps Reserve to serve the remainder of his statutory and contracted 6 year Military Service Obligation. Pursuant to paragraph 10277.2f of the Marine Corps Manual (as of August 1960), and the provisions of Marine Air Reserve Training Command Order 1626.1 (also current as of August 1960), Oswald was later discharged -- fully and completely -- from the Reserve Component into a civilian status with no further military obligation, due to "Misconduct" on 13 September 1960. "Misconduct" is the official description of the basis for discharge used in his case; "undesirable" was the characterization of his discharge from the USMC Reserve. The distinction should be made, as "official" descriptions contained in the authentic reference manuals of that time reflected the application of US law throughout the Department of the Navy, and specifically in this case, as applied to Private First Class Oswald by the provisions of the Marine Corps Manual (the senior body of administrative regulations in the USMC), and especially by the local regulations of his immediate commanding officer contained in MARTC Order 1626.1.

Reference: all of this material is contained in citation #56 of the current article, found as:. (The current article contains a PDF showing Oswald's entire service record, which supports my suggested change above, as well as my reasons thereto.) An additional reference, with similar information, is found at:. I would use both citations to support the statement above, as it currently has no citations supporting it, specifically after the word "...October 1959."

Suggested Change #2: "Oswald was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, on October 18, 1939, to Robert Edward Lee Oswald, Sr. (1896–1939), and Marguerite Frances (née Claverie) Oswald (1907–1981). Robert Oswald, Sr., was a distant cousin of Confederate general Robert E. Lee and served in the Marines during World War I.[6] Robert, Sr., died of a heart attack two months before Lee was born.[7] Lee's elder brother Robert, Jr. (1934–2017),[8] was also a former Marine. Lee and Robert, Jr., were the younger half-brothers of Air Force veteran John Edward Pic (1932 – 2000), through the first marriage of Marguerite, the mother of all three boys, to Edward John Pic, Jr.[9]"

Reason: the wording is especially cumbersome and redundant in the last sentence of the paragraph, and was reorganized for clarity. Oswald's mother is referenced throughout his military records by only the last name "Oswald," including the "CONSENT, DECLARATION OF PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN (FOR THE ENLISTMENT OF A MINOR IN THE U.S. ARMED FORCES)" document that legally permitted him, as a 17 year old, to enlist (only allowed with parental consent at age 17). That document is included in both references shown above, establishing, under perjury, that she named herself and was identified as "Marguerite Oswald."

Reference: not required, only minor editing and reorganization of existing material; unless you want to continue to use the two references listed above to specify why Marguerite Oswald's last name was used vs. "Claverie."

Suggested Change #3: "Oswald completed the eighth and ninth grades in New Orleans. He entered the 10th grade in 1955 but quit school after one month.[21] After leaving school, Oswald worked for several months as an office clerk and messenger in New Orleans. In July 1956, Oswald's mother moved the family to Fort Worth, Texas, and Oswald re-enrolled in the 10th grade for the September session at Arlington Heights High School in Fort Worth. A few weeks later in October, Oswald quit school at age 17 to join the Marines (see below);[22] he never earned a high school diploma. However, Oswald passed the GED test on March 23, 1959, while still on active duty with the Marine Corps. By this point, he had resided at 22 locations and attended 12 schools.[n 2]"

Reason: Oswald passed the GED test on March 23, 1959, with a GED "Battery Code Rating" of "Satisfactory," as shown in the references already provided. This information might also be included in the Note 2 citation at the end of the paragraph, for completeness of his formal education from start to finish. Such as it was.

Reference: as already provided above.

Suggested Change #4: "Oswald enlisted in the United States Marine Corps on October 24, 1956, just after his seventeenth birthday. He was underage and his mother, Marguerite Oswald,  was required to sign the forms as his legal guardian. Oswald also named his mother and his half-brother John as beneficiaries.[31] Oswald idolized his older brother, Robert Jr.,[32] and wore his Marine Corps ring.[33] John Pic (Oswald's half-brother) testified to the Warren Commission that Oswald's enlistment was motivated by wanting "to get from out and under ... the yoke of oppression from my mother."[34]"

Reason: as noted above in Suggested Change #2, Oswald's mother Marguerite Oswald DID, in fact, sign the official and legally required document permitting 17 year old Lee Harvey Oswald to enlist into the USMC. The document is found in the references already listed above, titled "CONSENT, DECLARATION OF PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN (FOR THE ENLISTMENT OF A MINOR IN THE U.S. ARMED FORCES)" and signed on 15 October 1956. Oswald's mother signed, explicitly, in the presence of both a civilian notary public and a military recruiter (Master Sergeant Ozell W. Milam, USMC), thus guaranteeing that she, and only she, was Oswald's legal guardian when she signed the legally required documents. Oswald subsequently enlisted on 24 October 1956 for a 3 year active duty enlistment. I would insert the references immediately after the word "guardian."

Reference: same as the two above.

Suggested Change #5: "After completing boot camp at Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego in January 1957, Oswald completed the 5 week Infantry Combat Training course at Camp Pendleton, California, on February 26, 1957.  He then attended the Aviation Fundamentals School, in Class "P," for six weeks at the Navy Technical Training Center, Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida.  He completed the course in April, 1957, finishing 46th out of 54 students.  Next, starting April 24, 1957, and continuing through June 17, 1957, while at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi, Oswald finished seventh in a class of thirty in the Aircraft Control and Warning Operator Course, which "included instruction in aircraft surveillance and the use of radar."[36] He was given the military occupational specialty of 6741, Aviation Electronics Operator.[37] On July 9, he reported to the Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, then departed for Japan the following month, where he was assigned to Marine Air Control Squadron 1 at Naval Air Facility Atsugi near Tokyo.[38]"

Reason: Added details to the timeline of his military biography; it currently omits and includes seemingly random events.

Reference: same as the two above.

Suggested Change #6: "Like all US Marines, Oswald was trained and tested in rifle marksmanship. In December 1956, he scored 212, which was slightly above the requirements for the designation of a rifle sharpshooter, but not high enough for designation as a rifle expert.[21] In May 1959, he scored 191, which reduced his rating to a rifle marksman.[21][39]"

Reason: When referring to Marines (and Coast Guardsmen), their title is a proper noun, and as such in English (as supported by the NY Times and AP Style Manuals) the title should always be capitalized. Additionally, Marines are not taught to "shoot." That could mean billiards, basketball, etc. Marines are taught "marksmanship," and specifically "rifle marksmanship," which is an entirely different thing than handgun marksmanship, machinegunnery, or other military ordnance. Oswald's military service records show zero training or qualification with either service or competition pistol marksmanship.

Reference:

Suggested Change #7: "Oswald was court-martialed (by a summary court-martial) on April 11, 1958, after he accidentally shot himself in the elbow with an unauthorized .22 caliber handgun. He was quickly court-martialed a second time (another summary court-martial) on June 27, 1958, for fighting with a staff non-commissioned officer whom he thought was responsible for his punishment in the shooting matter. He was demoted from private first class to private and briefly imprisoned in the brig. Oswald was later punished for a third incident: while he was on a night-time sentry duty in the Philippines, he inexplicably fired his rifle into the jungle.[40]"Insert Note Below -- Verification of this statement is needed, as there is no evidence of a third punishment within Oswald's military service records.

Reason: Added details to the timeline of his military biography; it currently omits and includes seemingly random events.

Reference: same as the two above.

Suggested Change #8: "While Oswald was in the Marines, he made an effort to teach himself rudimentary Russian. Although this was an unusual endeavor, on February 25, 1959, he was invited to take a Marine proficiency exam in written and spoken Russian. His level at the time was rated "poor" in understanding spoken Russian, though he fared rather reasonably for a US Marine private at the time in reading and writing.[45] On September 11, 1959, he received a hardship discharge from active service, claiming his mother needed care. He was transferred to the United States Marine Corps Reserve, where he was required to complete his original 6 year military service obligation ending on October 23, 1962.[21][46][47]"

Reason: clarified US Marines, the proper wording for completing a period of active service and transfer without break in service to the reserve component to complete the statutory requirement of his 6 year military service obligation.

Reference: none required; existing references capture the changes.

Suggested Change #9: "On October 31, Oswald appeared at the United States embassy in Moscow and declared a desire to renounce his U.S. citizenship.[52][53] "I have made up my mind," he said; "I'm through."[54] He told the U.S. embassy interviewing officer, Richard Edward Snyder, that "he had been a radar operator in the Marine Corps and that he had voluntarily stated to unnamed Soviet officials that as a Soviet citizen he would make known to them such information concerning the Marine Corps and his specialty as he possessed. He intimated that he might know something of special interest."[55] (Such statements, and subsequent investigations and administrative procedures of the US Marine Corps led to Oswald's existing Honorable discharge for hardship (for his active military service), being reviewed by a board of Marine officers and downgraded to an "Other than Honorable" characterization (known at the time as an "Undesirable" discharge) of service, and a complete discharge from the US Marine Corps Reserve and all remaining military service obligations, effective September 13, 1960.)[56]INSERT Note Below #4 -- Oswald attempted to have his undesirable discharge overturned through his application to the Navy Discharge Review Board (NDRB), beginning in June 1962. In July 1963, only four months before the assassination of President Kennedy, the NDRB ruled against Oswald and notified him that his previous Honorable discharge would not be reinstated. The Associated Press story of the defection of a former U.S. Marine to the Soviet Union was reported on the front pages of some newspapers in 1959.[54]"

Reason: The second to last sentence was not clear as to Oswald's military status:  he was fully and completely discharged from all military service or obligation on 13 September 1960, by reason of Misconduct while a member of the US Marine Corps Reserve, and was separated with an "Undesirable" characterization of service, which is the equivalent of today's "Other Than Honorable" discharges. I added the additional Note Below, because I think it is very relevant: he had second thoughts about going through life with an "undesirable" discharge that made getting any benefits from his military service difficult, if not impossible, and took the time to write a very cogent appeal letter to the NDRB, attempting to explain his past and reiterating his loyalty to the US. But only 4 months later, he became a murderer.

Reference: in addition to the two named above, I would insert both of these references, as well, for the alert reader who wishes to know specifically what an "undesirable" discharge (and the form that was prepared and sent to him informing him of his Undesirable discharge, the DD-258 MC). See item 13a on page 15-50 of the archived Marine Corps Personnel Manual, describing that an "undesirable" characterization of discharge is equivalent to an "Other than Honorable" discharge:, and see also page 17-3 of the archived Marine Corps Personnel Manual, describing the "DD-258 MC" form for "Undesirable" characterization of service:

2600:1700:A150:E860:5A9:FEC5:6BAC:8B22 (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

"An American Marxist"
This seems like a really bizarre thing to essentially lead the article with. What other figure in history is identified by their ideology as if it were their profession? What he is notable for is assassinating JFK, not his contributions to Marxist theory. It's OK to mention his ideological beliefs, but they should be further down. Also I believe "Communist" should be used, rather than the more general term "Marxist". He was a Marxist-Leninist Communist, so "Communist" is appropriate. While "Marxist" could mean what - he's a professor in continental philosophy who uses the Marxist dialect in his works? Or he's a social democrat who believes in implementing Marxist politics through winning elections in the regular constitutional process of that nation? Why use the less specific term?2601:140:8980:106F:416:4996:E203:65B4 (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2018
Whereas Lee Harvey Oswald never received a proper trial because of his own murder, & due to compelling evidence regarding the condition & operational specifications of the alleged murder weapon, as well as the questionable chain of custody for the recovered round, labeled CE399, I propose that Oswald's status in this article be amended from assassin to ALLEGED assassin. 97.113.146.246 (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Two congressional investigations found Harvey to be the assassin. This has been extensively discussed and dismissed - the fact that Harvey was never tried - being dead - is irrelevant.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there actually any precedent in United States law about puting dead people on trial, in the style of the Cadaver Synod? If not, Oswald's status may keep being questioned due to a technicality. Dimadick (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Select Committee on Assassinations - "The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The Committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy." On this basis, the wording should be corrected. He is the alleged assassin who was accused - NOT CONVICTED - who may have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. Also he was only charged, not convicted, of shooting J. D. Tippit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeelmannJE (talk • contribs) 07:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course he wasn't convicted - he was dead. But that doesn't mean we can't conclude he assassinated the president. The fact he didn't face trial seems to befuddle the legally illiterate into thinking we can't make any conclusions about his culpability. Of course we can. Just like when we refer to John Wilkes Booth as the killer of Abraham Lincoln. By your logic, all his accomplices who were found guilty in the conspiracy and hanged were responsible for Lincoln's assassination, but Booth himself was only the "alleged" assassin as he never went to trial, owing to his death before being arrested.
 * And your argument loses credibility when you seem to imply that because the HSCA concluded there was a conspiracy that that somehow means Oswald was off the hook. Or maybe you somehow think that this is the case - maybe you should more carefully read the HSCA's conclusions, because this appears a little above what you quoted - "Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots fired struck the president. The third shot he fired killed the president."
 * That rather succinctly addresses the main question - did Oswald kill the president? Yes, the HSCA concluded, he did. And, may I remind you that even if we can be certain that Oswald killed the president - and we can be certain he killed the president - he could have been found "not guilty," for example, by reason of insanity, or some other method as many people are. Yes, we know person x did the killing but he bears no guilt because of... well, there are many ways that can happen. But you don't get off the hook for reason of conspiracy if you are, as the committee implied, PART of said conspiracy! Canada Jack (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Oswald’s whereabouts?
The article currently says that Marrion Baker saw Oswald on the second floor, but JFK historian Stan Dane has suggested in his book and research, “Prayer Man”, that Baker originally said he saw a man walking away from a stairway on the 3rd or 4th floor, a man who doesn’t match Oswald’s description, and that original interrogation reports say Oswald was on the first floor, at the entrance, (not in the first floor room or second floor lunchroom) and may have captured on film outside, and is the figure called “Prayer Man” (a very blurry image of a man in the TSBD doorway in the Couch film who, the author and others claim, was Oswald). Plus, it's a new original theory, and it does put Baker's claims into question and seems to suggest that Oswald's claims of where he was at the time Kennedy was shot have been misinterpreted. I am aware it is a "fringe" theory as it dismisses, out of hand, positive, corroborating evidence in order to accept flimsy evidence placing Oswald elsewhere. If it cannot go here, then it more properly resides on the conspiracy theory page, If realible sources for this research can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.220.81 (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this would properly reside on the conspiracy page, and I'm surprised it isn't there now as this theory about "prayer man" has been making the rounds for three years, since Dane's book was published. I definitely feel it has a place there.
 * But should we nevertheless include a reference to this on this page? I'd say no, as the theory is extremely flimsy and is easily dismissed.
 * Baker said the ecounter with a man happened on another floor and his description of Oswald some claim doesn't match. But he had never been in the building, nor did he know Oswald. Roy Truly, who escorted Baker into the Depository, repeatedly stated the encounter happened on the 2nd floor by the lunchroom and that it was Oswald who Baker encounter. Truly had worked in the building since 1934, so he knew where he was, and he was the guy who hired Oswald, so his identification was pretty close to definitive. Further. Oswald himself said he was challenged by an officer, by the Coke machine, which is on the second floor, and his account matches in most details what both Baker and Truly stated. The conspiracy crowd has done some impressive calisthenics to turn Truly into a liar, or make Baker not the cop Oswald encountered, even though they for decades were adamant that Oswald was at that location with a Coke in his hand, as a linchpin argument in claiming Oswald couldn't have descended the steps fast enough to be there. Now, all of a sudden, he wasn't there after all! But, as you say, the positive evidence actually placing Oswald as the prayer man is a very grainy image of a man who could be anyone. Canada Jack (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the theory doesn't have notability here on the LHO article outside of the fact it concerns Oswald's possible whereabouts, and it does seem more appropriate to fit the theory within the conspiracy article instead. In the tangled web that is the JFK assassination, there are very few things which defenders of the Warren Commission and its critics agree on. However, one thing which most critics agree with Warren Commission defenders on, despite the recent attention given to the "Prayer Man" theory, is that the encounter in the second floor lunchroom of the TSBD between Baker and Oswald did in fact occur. If (and that it is a very big IF) it is ever proved convincingly/given more attention and/or evidence is shown to indicate that Oswald may instead have claimed he was on the TSBD steps (and not on the first or second floor as it is often believed and accepted by all WC defenders and most WC critics) and was possibly the figure known as "Prayer Man" (notice: I say possibly, and indeed I myself admit that the theory does not stand up), an argument could be made for putting the theory on the LHO article; but unless/until that happens, this article is quite sufficient IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.220.81 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Leavelle interrogating Oswald on 22?
I just noticed that this article (great job, btw, it certainly deserves its star) contradicts the one covering Jim Leavelle. This article says Oswald was questioned by Detective Jim Leavelle about the shooting of Officer Tippit on the 22nd after his arrest with the words, "Oswald was taken to the Police Department building, where homicide detective Jim Leavelle questioned him about the shooting of Officer Tippit". But Leavelle’s biographical article on Wikipedia states the exact opposite - that he only interrogated Oswald on the 24th - the morning Oswald was shot, and that he had never talked to him before. Not accusing Leavelle of being unrealible or a liar but his interviews he has done in recent years are in contray to his WC testimony. Memory always distort from time to time. When Leavelle testified before the Warren Commission, he claimed that the first time he had ever sat in on an interrogation with Oswald was on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963. When Counsel Joseph Ball asked Leavelle if he had ever spoken to Oswald before this interrogation, he stated; "No, I had never talked to him before". Leavelle then stated during his testimony that "the only time I had connections with Oswald was this Sunday morning [November 24, 1963]. I never had [the] occasion to talk with him at any time..." In various interview since the 1970s and up to the mid 2010s, Leavelle said that he was the first to interrogate Oswald after his arrest (contrary to his Warren Commission testimony).

In the course of my research into the JFK case, I encountered a number of examples where I had testimony or accounts by people from 1963/64 as well as from years or decades later. It became apparent that the testimony and writings from 63/64 were superior. These were obtained when the events was still fresh in their memories, and as a result were clearer, usually more detailed, and consistent with what other people wrote or recalled at the time. Whenever I had conflicting accounts by a person to deal with, I would use the earlier of the two. As Jim Leavelle’s interview testimony to the Warren Commission were so specific that the first time he had ever sat in on an interrogation with Oswald was on Sunday morning, November 24, 1963, and that he had never talked to him before. I would place no value on second-hand information based upon various interviews with Leavelle which had occurred over two/three/four decades after the event.

Bart Kemp has done an article looking at the differing accounts, called "Anatomy of Lee Harvey Oswald's interrogations" that can be found on the internet. Kemp is pro-conspiracy, so be warned if you want to read it. :)

Should the words "homicide detective Jim Leavelle questioned him about the shooting of Officer Tippit" be removed and/or Leavelle's warren commission testimony used instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.220.81 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I read his WC testimony again; Leavelle never "interrogated" Oswald about the JFK assassination or Tippit murder on Sunday morning, Nov. 24th, or any other day. He merely "spoke" to Oswald about the upcoming transfer while Oswald was changing clothes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.220.81 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need to get into this on this page. If the sources on this page back what is said here, that is fine. It's not an issue whether he did or dod not interrogate Oswald for the Tippit murder, at least as far as this page is concerned. On Leavelle's page would be the place to dive deeper into the contradiction, something like "he testified he first spoke to Oswald on the 24th, but Fritz etc testified he was talking to Oswald on the 22nd when arrested for Tippit's murder" or some such text. And, if there are claims of some sort of cover-up or what have you because of this contradiction, then that belongs on the conspiracy page, potentially. Canada Jack (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is wise to think that Leavelle's memory is as good as he seems to think it is. Leavelle himself during his W.C. testimony, used “I do not recall” 30 times in two testimony sessions and “I don’t remember” 9 times. Quite a few instances of failed memory when it comes to his actions during that big important day only about 4 months later. But in later years, and today, he is able to give precise details surrounding those days without any trouble. This by the way, is something that seems to be present with almost all D.P.D. law enforcement officers memories from the Kennedy assassination; collective amnesia when it comes to remembering details of Oswald’s interrogations. It should be clear that researchers cannot afford to take 'common knowledge' for granted; a review of people's interviews both in the time they were given IMMEDIATELY and YEARS after an event, prove that serious researchers must regard undocumented secondary sources with a great deal of caution and should instead rely on primary sources of information as often as they possibly can. If this cautionary advice is not acted upon, it is quite possible for well-meaning researchers to expend a great deal of time and energy discussing the fine points of historical events that never occurred in the first place. A good example is Charles Lightoller on the fate of Jack Phillips during the Titanic disaster; his claim that Phillips died on board an overturned lifeboat was accepted for many years, even on Phillips' wikipedia page, but careful research has shown this is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.213.142 (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Assassination of John F Kennedy
Currently the article reads: "... who assassinated United States President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963."

Due to Oswald never standing trial, I propose changing this sentence to be as follows: "... who was alleged to have assassinated United States President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, however, Oswald never lived long enough to stand trial.

The article also currently reads: "About 45 minutes after assassinating Kennedy, Oswald shot and killed Dallas police officer.."

Again due to never having been through due process, Oswald's guilt regarding the Kennedy assassination and the killing of a police officer are both allegations. Please can this sentence also reflect this fact. My suggestion: "... About 45 minutes after allegedly assassinating Kennedy, Oswald is alleged to have shot and killed Dallas police officer.." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mason321 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * All the fact that he never stood trial means is he wasn't found guilty or not guilty of the charges he was laid with. And the article doesn't claim otherwise. However, numerous investigations concluded he in fact shot and killed the president and Tippit. So we can state that as a fact, just as we can state as a fact Booth (who also never faced trial) shot Lincoln, that all those mass killers who also never faced trial in fact carried out their killings. It's also why we can call Hitler the mastermind of World War II even though he never faced trial for his crimes. What verdict these people might have received in court will never be known, but that fact doesn't mean we can't know if they carried out what they were accused of!
 * The common conflation here is between an act someone did and the penalty they received for that act. They are separate things. Many people, for example, carried out a killing or other crime, but bear no responsibility for that act. So, the fact that Hinkley was found "not guilty" in his attempt to assassinate Reagan doesn't somehow mean he didn't attempt to assassinate Reagan!
 * And as long as a person isn't actually facing trial, we don't need to worry about presumption of innocence, which is where we'd need to attach "alleged." Once the investigations concluded he killed Kennedy etc., we could state that as a fact, no "alleged" required. Canada Jack (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm advised by an American lawyer that in American law a duly constituted body can make a determination of guilt or innocence even after a person's demise, and the President's Commission, known as the Warren Commission, was such a duly constituted body. Its findings are established facts in law and have never been seriously questioned. The majority finding of conspiracy by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s was very shortly struck down by the National Academy of Science's Committee on Ballistic Acoustics, commissioned by the HSCA itself, which found that the last-minute 'acoustic evidence' accepted by some though not all of the HSCA was false -- the sound recording in evidence did not originate from Dealey Plaza and did not contain the gunshots. In any case the HSCA found that the only shots which hit the President and Governor Connally were fired by Oswald. So Oswald's guilt is not alleged or assumed but an established fact in law. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oswald's handgun
It was stated at one point that four shell casings were found near where Oswald shot the police officer, but his gun was supposedly a S&W revolver. Revolvers don't eject shells. This needs clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papabill1945 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Please change intro
"assassinated United States President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963"

In the US criminal justice system, only a trial by jury can precipitate a legal determination of guilt. Because Lee was assassinated by Jack Ruby, a close friend of the Dallas Police Department, he never had an opportunity to exercise his constitutional right to due process. It's simply legally wrong to say "Oswald assassinated JFK", just like it would be to accuse anyone else of culpability a serious crime without going first going through the prerequisite steps to reach that determination.

The article must be changed to the following:

"was alleged by the Warren Commission to have assassinated United States President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6600:8C00:2450:32A8:A843:BA07 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a fallacy. Determination of guilt by trial applies only to the living, and ten seconds of searching will establish thousands of cases in which deceased perpetrators are unequivocally stated to have killed someone - one can't escape guilt through death before trial. Two federal investigations determined that Oswald killed Kennedy. The only dispute was whether he had help.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * False analogy. In almost all the historical cases you describe, there is no real debate among historians as to the identity of the perpetrator. Whereas with the LHO case, you have a great number of attorneys and legal scholars, including some who participated in the Warren Report, affirming that LHO would have been easily acquitted if granted his constitutional right to a trial, mostly due to the overwhelming witness testimony in support of a grassy knoll shooter, as well as a complete lack of non-circumstantial evidence pointing Oswald to the scene of the crime. The findings of federal investigations (necessarily defined as less accountable and democratic than a trial by jury) are irrelevant from a legal perspective. It's just as incorrect to say LHO murdered JFK as it is to say Acroterion murdered JFK.


 * You're mixing two arguments, a pseudo legal one and an argument concerning conspiracy theories. The dead have no legal rights, apart from disposition of wills and contracts. Investigations into the deeds of now-deceased perpetrators are closed with findings of guilt all the time, and the existence of conspiracy theories doesn't mean that investigations are to be ignored. Wikipedia goes by reliable mainstream sourcing which concludes that Oswald was the assassin. We have a long article on conspiracy theories where other issues are discussed. Until the New York Times and the like start inserting "alleged", we follow their lead.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is legally possible to make a determination of guilt against a deceased person, and the Warren Commission did so, and its findings are facts in law. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The controversy under this header and the previous one is silly since it can easily be shortcircuited by doing what an encyclopedia and other impartial sources should do: simply report what we know. Encyclopedia writers and editors need not (and should not) opine as to the guilt or innocence of their article's subject: they ought simply report what we know.  If what we know is that two federal investigations, the Warren Commission and whatever other federal investigations found LHO guilty of killing JFK, then such an investigative conclusion should be mentioned like so in the article.  Without editorializing that the investigation's conclusion had merit or had no merit.  And if several attorneys, legal scholars, or whoever else contest the finding, this too should be mentioned.  Again, writers/editors need not have any opinion as to the merit of the pro or con arguments--and indeed should not reproduce them in an encyclopedia article.  Just tell us what we know.  Having said this, let me add tangentially in response to the suggestion that we follow the nytimes lead in not using words like "alleged": (1) in point of fact the premise is wrong, for when the nytimes is reporting responsibly, it indeed uses qualifiers such as "alleged," or "X says" (following an assertion), and (2) the reliability of the nytimes and other establishment press is hardly beyond question anyway as a judge of dispassionate authority.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.129.158 (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

155.19.91.37 (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * All that mean is he was never sentenced. Whether he in fact killed the president is a differnt question. Hinkley was found "not guilty" of shooting Reagan. This doesn't somehow mean he didn't shoot Reagan. Did Oswald kill the president? All the investigations concluded he did. A trial may have found him "not guilty" by some legal rational, say insanity, but that doesn't change the fact that he killed the president. Canada Jack (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Cause of death
Currently, on the cause of death parameter it is listed as "gunshot wound." However, there needs to be some clarification that he was murdered and not shot by the police, suicide, executed, etc. I think the best way would be to phrase it "Assassination (gunshot wound)" or "Murder (Gunshot wound)," something along those lines. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

source number 32
When following the link the site did not have anything there VarleyBunyslay (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ruby shoots Oswald.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020
Lee oswald saved up about $1600 from his service in the marine, not $1500 176.203.139.212 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. QueerFilmNerd  talk 19:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible last words, possibly?
I have read somewhere (on various forums, so not exactly a good source) that some people have claimed, that after listening again to Oswald's reaction after he was shot by Ruby, they have said that it sounds like the first "moan" he makes is actually a huge pained “Fuc*!”. Oswald was known to have made at least two noises after he was shot, and possibly more that were lost in the bedlam as people shouted and screamed. It has always been interpreted that the two noises Oswald made were moans/cry/scream of pain/agony. Most notably heard as, “Ohhhh! Ohhh!”. Some people who think that Oswald's first "moan" was actually a huge pained swear (literally the f bomb), would possibly interpret this as “FUC*! Ohhh!”. Again, I know that this is probably not a good source, but it is interesting to consider, that perhaps Oswald's last words were actually heard on film, but have just been heard as a simple "moan". I would like to know if any JFK researcher has looked at this possibility. Listening to the video/audio again, Oswald's first noise after being shot does sound like a huge F bomb then a simple moan. -- Undated post found here 06:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Robert E Lee Oswald Sr military service branch
The article says Lee Harvey’s father Robert E. Lee Oswald Sr served in the Marine Corp during WWI. However, his tomb headstone says he served as a sergeant in the U.S. Army. Ctalbott (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... that does seem problematic. There must be something about this in the high-quality sources. Anyone want to volunteer? EEng 06:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say go ahead and change it to sergeant in the U.S. Army unless or until someone finds a reliable source otherwise. Marine Corp currently is unsourced. So is the mention of Robert E. Lee, so we should remove that until sourced. Sundayclose (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hold it. If anything we should just remove the info about military service, until someone's checked the high-quality sources. A grave marker is, after all, a primary source, and errors happen; this isn't a military cemetery (?) so it's likely the info on the stone just came from the family. EEng 16:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. My point is that it's better to have supposedly accurate information that is inadequately sourced (the grave marker) instead of information that is unsourced (Marines). Removing it entirely is fine with me, as well as the information about Robert E. Lee. Sundayclose (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for everyone's info: I checked 'Reclaiming History...', 'Case Closed', 'Crossfire', and a few others.....couldn't find anything.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Oswald was accused, not convicted
I have a question about the designation of Oswald as the killer of Kennedy. Usually we make this kind of statement after a person has been convicted. But Oswald was never tried in a court of law. He was charged by the Dallas Police Department but never indicted. We are relying on a government commission—which did not hear all the witness testimony and has been shown to have manipulated or ignored evidence—for its "official" conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy. It seems to me that Oswald should be referred to as the accused killer and that actions credited to him should be prefaced with allegedly in this and other articles related to the Kennedy assassination. Yoninah (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a perennial question. Two federal investigations found him to be the shooter. The only question was whether he had help, per the HSCA report. Longstanding consensus in this and all other similar events in which the shooter was never brought to trial (i.e. the 2017 Las Vegas shooting) is that the assassin/shooter named in investigations and mainstream sources as the shooter is treated accordingly. Being a popular topic for conspiracy speculation or uncertainty concerning the true scope of a broad conspiracy does not demand that we water down the article, and being dead before trial is not a free pass.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:30, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

the exact same question is posted at Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy, kindly post your comments there to keep the discussion in one place. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. It also seems to me that the definite identification of Stephen Paddock as the shooter in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting also violates the American principle of innocent until proven guilty—i.e. in a court of law. Yoninah (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If that was so, one would only have to manage to die before trial to escape culpability, The dead have no right to due process, and history is littered with people who did terrible things but were never prosecuted- that doesn't mean that we have to tiptoe around an absence of legal process. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not an "alleged" mass murder duo. And noting today's date, articles on 9/11 don't water the perpetrators down to "alleged" hijackers.   Acroterion   (talk)   14:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "This is a perennial question." As it should be, since this is basically an unresolved murder. First of all, it is not any murder. It is the most controversial murder of a United States of America President ever. There were in American history only 4 Presidents who were murdered, but only 2 of those murders had far-reaching political consequences for the country. But the Kennedy murder is the only murder in American history that was committed after the creation of the US Secret Service for protection of the President. And it is the only murder in US history that succeeded in killing a President over the supposed protection of the Secret Service and the FBI. And on top of all that, it is the only murder where the main suspect in the crime was murdered himself less than 48 hours after the death of the President, and in the custody of the Police and the FBI, in extremely controversial circumstances inside the Dallas Police headquarters. The precise circumstances of the President's killing were also not determined above all reasonable doubt by the Presidential committee nominated to determine the causes and circumstances of the murder, where the main conclusion was that this was an act committed by a solitary deranged murderer all by himself, with no help whatsoever from anyone else. Under all these controversial circumstances, and because it basically remains an unresolved murder, it actually marks the beginning of the use of the controversial concept of "conspiracy theory" in American politics. warshy (¥¥) 18:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly right. Acroterion. Are those terrorists who struck the United States 19 years ago today somehow merely "alleged" perpetrators because they died carrying out the act? You could argue, using the "no trial" logic, that every suicide bomber in history was an "alleged" perpetrator. The confusion arises over the "innocent unilt proven guilty" precept in common law jurisdictions. That simply means before a court of law the onus is on the prosecution to demonstrate the guilt of the accused, not on the accused to establish their innocence. It most certainly does NOT mean we can't assess someone's culpability absent a trial. Oswald could have been found "not guilty" even if it was established he killed the president. Does John Hinckley's verdict of "not guilty" in his charges related to shooting Ronald Reagan mean he didn't shoot Ronald Reagan? Of course not. And the conspiracy crowd often deliberately conflates the distinction. Not knowing whether Oswald would have been found guilty or not of assassinating the president does not change the fact that he assassinated the president, as determined by multiple investigations, a distinction the conspiracy crowd has deliberately and dishonestly been conflating for years. Canada Jack (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's generally agreed that it's unresolved, but the lack of resolution concerns the extent of a conspiracy beyond Oswald, not whether Oswald was the shooter, at least in mainstream accounts. We therefore don't use "alleged" and we don't confuse the legal rights and procedures pertaining to living defendants with actual guilt or innocence when deceased. This isn't really the original conspiracy theory, they;ve been around as long as human speech has existed, but it's the foundational CT of the modern era. As such it attracts perennial queries common to all CTs on Wikipedia. The fact that that happens doesn't change our policies for due emphasis.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you can so easily separate the different components of the lack of resolution, as you put it. Very reasonable doubt remains as to whether Oswald shot and/or hit the President, or if the manner in which the President's head exploded could have been achieved by a lone shooter shooting from the place and at the angle from which it was determined by the Warren Commission that Oswald shot. Or with the number of shots it determined that were shot from Oswald's rifle. The overall circumstances and the particular details of the murder, including the motives of the accused lone perpetrator, remain basically unresolved. I don't believe also that the motives of the initiator of the current round of questioning on this difficult case are connected to the deepening controversies about conspiracy theories. They are simple and forever valid questions of logic and of social ethics. warshy (¥¥) 21:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Will everyone who objects to describing Oswald as an assassin of JFK (or who just has an interest in the issue) PLEASE carefully read through the archives instead of trying to re-invent the wheel here. This has been discussed ad nauseam. We don't need to hear the same arguments one more time. Anyone who's interested can read about it in the archives. Sundayclose (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "Very reasonable doubt remains as to whether Oswald shot and/or hit the President... etc" Actually, no it doesn't. At least, not since 1979 and the HSCA explored the very issues you mentioned which were not addressed by the Warren Commission. To that point, there WAS "reasonable doubt" as, for example, the autopsy photos had not been subject to forensic examination, the shot trajectories had not been meticulously recreated, many photos had not been subject to the latest forensic techniques, etc. And while the HSCA concluded "conspiracy" based on later-disproven acoustic evidence, it nonetheless concluded that all the bullets that struck JFK came from a single rifle, and that rifle not only belonged to Oswald, he fired the shots. And no new evidence these past 40 years has come forward to negate the physical evidence that established that conclusion. And what his possible motive was is neither here nor there. If we have the evidence that shows someone killed someone else, we don't need the "why," though it's obviously more satisfying to understand someone's motives. But the lack of a plausible motive means little if the accused is standing there with a smoking gun in his hand. Which is basically what we have here.
 * In other words, any doubt that has been raised on the conclusion that Oswald, and Oswald alone, shot and killed the president, is not "reasonable" doubt, as it ignores the evidence that establishes conclusively that he did so. Which is why most conspiracy theorists - those who exonerate Oswald - either completely ignore the mountain of evidence implicating Oswald, or contend with a dismissive wave of the hand that it is faked. Did others put him up to it? That has always been a possibility, though it seems after all these years the closest chance of that is Oswald met some Cubans while in Mexico City and said he'd do something big to show himself worthy to the cause. But Castro was no fool and it defies belief he'd actually encourage Oswald to act. But act he did. Canada Jack (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Aaah... what would some Canadian know? E<b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 02:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is correct: "no new evidence these past 40 years has come forward." In fact, the "resolution" of the murder as you have it had already been telegraphed by the Director of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover to all the organization's field offices in the country less than an hour after the death of the President had been officially reported to the public on November 22, 1963. This was, of course, even before the one and only alleged perpetrator was also eliminated from world, as the President already had been, brutally silenced forever the next day. And it has not changed one iota since, no matter how many political inquiries were added to the original one. The problem is that there is here, beyond the obvious gut-wrenching human tragedy on display on television for the whole world to see, also a national political tragedy. And it festers on to this day. It will also continue festering, I believe, because no new evidence on the material case is actually possible. No new relevant material evidence can or will ever be added, because the very source for all the original evidence had already been all solidified, cleaned up, and shut off from the outside world by the FBI, weeks before the Warren Commission ever started its inquiry. The nation will just have to live with it, in one form or another, for the remainder of its history. warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 20:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your time may be better spent discussing at Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Sundayclose (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I just tried to explain, there is actually no point in trying to "discuss" this problem, either here, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. The result will always be the same as it just was here/now, with your posts, for the reasons I tried to explain. But I guess you don't even have to bother reading what I write, as you apparently did not. So I am done. Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 21:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was offline for 24 hours. Frankly, I think the above discussion asking if death should give criminals who were never tried in court a "free pass" is disingenuous and does not answer my question. (And what kind of argument are you making by comparing this to the John Hinckley case, ? Though a court found him not guilty, you still do???) It seems to me that you and, like the Warren Commission, are starting with the premise that Oswald killed Kennedy and writing the article from there. As states, no new evidence will ever be found that decisively says, "This is the killer", and apart from the 1% of government files still being held back on the grounds of "national security", evidence was destroyed by our government agencies long ago. But Wikipedia, being only 19 years old and a source of information for millions of people who weren't even born at the time of the assassination, does have rules for how it approaches criminal biographies, and I don't see these rules being applied here. I appreciate all the feedback here and I do not want to go into the whole realm of conspiracy theory, but my question still remains. Even if two federal commissions (not courts, mind you) determined that Oswald was the killer, why are we stating this in Wikipedia's voice? Why are we not calling him the accused assassin? (My apologies to  for bringing this up and not poring through the archives. I guess you will always find new readers coming across Wikipedia pages.) Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, one point made in the archives is that Wikipedia is not a court of law and does not have to follow a court's strict legal guidelines. There is substantial support for the conclusion that Oswald was an assassin (and probably the only assassin). If you want more than that, take the time to at least skim the archives. Sundayclose (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, the "resolution" of the murder as you have it had already been telegraphed by the Director of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover to all the organization's field offices in the country less than an hour after the death of the President had been officially reported to the public on November 22, 1963.
 * Not sure where you are getting your facts, warshy, but I am aware of a Hoover memo about the time Oswald was shot on Nov 24 1963, but not one before the world knew officially that JFK was dead, which would have been ~1pm CT on Nov 22. But assuming you are mixing up your facts here and are referring to the Hoover memo where he mentions Katzenbach, this is an example of the conspiracy crowd making a mountain out of a molehill. Hoover was more concerned about covering his incompetent ass than anything else, as he was by then aware the very suspect who shot Kennedy was the same guy writing death threats to FBI agents mere weeks before the assassination - and they didn't even bother to surveil him during Kennedy's visit! Further, and every intellectually honest researcher has to admit this, at that point, 48 hours after the assassination, all signs pointed to Oswald and Oswald alone. He had been positively identified by numerous witnesses as the guy who shot J. D. Tippit and fled after doing so - I think nine witnesses attested to that - and his rifle with his fingerprints had been found in the TSBD - and numerous witnesses had seen shots being fired from there and only there. And who normally worked there and fled the area soon after? Oswald. And why in god's name would Oswald, if innocent, shoot a cop in cold blood, if not to evade arrest for some terrible crime? Why this needs to even be spelled out is an indication as to how ridiculous the conspiracy crowd has become over the years. What Hoover was doing can be seen in a much more benign light - Oswald was clearly the guy who did it and with all the conspiracy talk swirling around, especially after Oswald had been shot, this needed to be tamped down. The public knew very little of what the investigators knew, and what the investigators knew pointed to Oswald and Oswald alone. And Hoover was saying that the public has to be made aware Oswald was the guy - but because all the evidence at that point made it blindingly obvious that Oswald was the guy!
 * You will notice that no conspiracy theorist ever produces some memo or conversation where Hoover says "we know Oswald didn't do it but we gotta lie to the public" or what have you. Instead we have the misleading claptrap which ignores the context.
 * If you have any evidence that says otherwise, let's see it. No? Instead you pull nonsense out of thin air, suggesting - with ZERO evidence - that all evidence pointing to a conspiracy was miraculously scrubbed by the FBI, so that by the time the Warren Commission got its hands on it, there was nothing to see here, folks. Which would have been the most air-tight cover-up in American - hell, world - history, by a guy - Herbert Hoover - who wasn't exactly the most competent guy in Washington.
 * Sure enough, we have this: No new relevant material evidence can or will ever be added, because the very source for all the original evidence had already been all solidified, cleaned up, and shut off from the outside world by the FBI, weeks before the Warren Commission ever started its inquiry. A typical tactic of the conspiracy crowd, simultaneously ignoring all the evidence pointing to Oswald as the lone killer - and there is a ton of evidence linking him to the assassination - and suggesting with NO evidence that Hoover somehow had his agents "scrub" the scene of anything pointing to someone else. How they could manage this infinitely complex task, with no agents ever shamefully admitting they were part of what would have constituted one of the most heinous cover-ups in history... well, that's never explained. This doesn't even make a plausible comic book, fer chrissakes! What they never get is that the onus is on them to address the evidence that exists, not on everyone else to disprove the claim that the FBI somehow scrubbed the "conspiracy" evidence. Which is why we are still debating this 57 years after the fact.
 * And you don't think Lyndon Johnson wasn't aware that Hoover was more concerned about covering his ass? Why do you think the Warren Commission was created in the first place? And while the FBI was a main investigative arm of the WC, they didn't trust Hoover either, and used about a dozen other agencies in addition to the FBI to investigate, as well as their own people. Indeed, one of the first things they did was throw the December 1963 FBI report on the assassination in the garbage as it was a worthless piece of crap. Canada Jack (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the above discussion asking if death should give criminals who were never tried in court a "free pass" is disingenuous and does not answer my question. (And what kind of argument are you making by comparing this to the John Hinckley case, Canada Jack? Though a court found him not guilty, you still do???) You seem to miss the point, Yoninah. The fact Oswald died means we can't say "found guilty of murder" as that is a criminal conviction and the dead can't be convicted. But we CAN determine whether someone committed a crime and conclude they did so. It seems you miss the salient point I was making about Hinkley - whatever sentence he got in court does not change the fact that he shot Reagan! I'm not changing any verdict, I'm simply stating that whatever the verdict rendered was does not change the material fact of the act of commission. With Oswald, whatever his verdict may have been in court does not change the FACT that he shot and killed the president. If you read Hinkley's wikipedia page, despite the fact he got a "not guilty" verdict, the page says this: John Warnock Hinckley Jr. ...attempted to assassinate U.S. President Ronald Reagan in Washington, D.C. He wounded Reagan with a bullet from a revolver that ricocheted and hit Reagan in the chest. When we say Oswald shot and killed the president, that is the fact that has been determined by the investigations. Whether he would have been found guilty in a court of law of killing the president is unknown, but that does not alter the facts of the case as determined by the investigations. And saying "innocent until proven guilty" entirely misses the point. But that's not surprising - the conspiracy industrial complex has made millions over the decades pedalling misleading and bogus arguments, and have clearly misled you with this vacuous claim. Canada Jack (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have been out of the U.S. for more than 30 years and have not read any of the hundreds of books that I understand have been published on the subject. Meanwhile, I have spent more than 10 years on Wikipedia and try to understand and follow its policies. I will read the already expressed opinions on this subject in the archives, as suggested. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a bit odd - of all the literally hundreds of examples on Wikipedia of people being described as killers without a trial verdict - and there are literally hundreds of examples - you focus on the one instance where there is a persistent argument from conspiracy theorists over where we should call that particular person a killer as he didn't face trial. So after 10 years on Wikipedia, as you described your time here, how do you not know that calling Oswald the perpetrator here is actually what we normally do on wikipedia, given the conclusions of the official investigations? We don't see a similar argument on John Wilkes Booth's page, where it says he "assassinated President Abraham Lincoln," despite the notable lack of a trial in his case. Where's the "innocent until proven guilty at a trial" argument there? Or on the many mass-murderer pages where the killer died before trial? Stephen Paddock, the 2017 Las Vegas sniper, is called a "mass murderer" even though he killed himself before he could be arrested - I searched in vain on the talk page for any hint that since he didn't stand trial we can only say "alleged" mass murderer. Just saying. Canada Jack (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And is it odd that you have been on Wikipedia as long as me and are still not familiar with WP:AGF? Yoninah (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, now both of you just cool it. No need for this. Let's talk about something uncontroversial, like Trump. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. If Kennedy had not been forcibly, rather murderously removed from office, the course of the escalation of the Vietnam War would probably have been different. The history of the contest in the 1968 elections would have been quite different, with maybe Nixon never coming to power? And if Nixon never came to power, then the history of the right-wing populist phenomenon called Trump would also have been necessarily different? Can you imagine American history without the Kennedy assassination, without the Nixon resignation in 1974 and the disastrous half term completed by Gerald Ford? The one term Carter presidency ending with the Iran debacle being used by Ronald Reagan for three consecutive Republican terms? The impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998 on an alleged sexual misconduct? The 2000 contested election being decided for the Republicans by the Supreme Court? The 9/11/2001 events and the invasion of Iraq? Two terms by the first non-white Democratic American President, the African American Barack Hussein Obama? And then the violent reaction of the right in the Tea Party movement and the electoral college election of Donald Trump in 2016. No, impossible. That is, the removal of Kennedy by murder did succeed, and all those who wanted it very strongly in 1962-1963 got away with it scott-free. All thanks to this deranged Marxist Marine, once defector to the Soviet Union who somehow came back from the cold and was still in direct contact with the FBI right before he was called by the FBI the sole perpetrator of the murder of the century. Quite a feat by the subject of this Wikipedia page/talk page, and he accomplished it all by himself, with no help whatsoever from any other living soul. What an America tale! What happens now? warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 17:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kennedy's assassination changed history, that can't be denied, but I very much doubt that Kennedy could have avoided escalating in Vietnam as the assassination he engineered - of Ngô Đình Diệm shortly before he himself was assassinated - failed to have the intended effect as the Vietcong escalated their attacks in 1964 with the South no stronger. And, given that Kennedy was the more hawkish of the two presidents - ie he and Johnson - it is hard to argue that Kennedy would not have wanted to avoid the realization of the Domino Theory. Notably, even Robert Kennedy agreed with this Johnson escalation - until the war turned south and he started to run against it. Johnson ended up owning the folly, but it's hard to see what another president would have done differently Kennedy might have not scaled up as much as Johnson, but those were largely his men advising Johnson, weren't they?
 * As for Nixon in 1968, the problem with that and the "silent majority" was - what? The advances in civil rights made by Johnson in 1964 and 1965 with landmark legislation passed in those years. Yes, the Vietnam War was a big issue, but the fundamental shift in American politics was over civil rights, not the war. The divisions over the war faded over time: we are still living with the backlash over the extension of civil rights. If you read Caro's description of how Johnson got the 1964 Civil Rights bill through Congress, you soon realize what one of the great changes brought about by Kennedy's death and Johnson's subsequent presidency - it made civil rights possible to a degree not seen before, led by the master legislator Johnson. So, yes, things would have been very different if Kennedy lived - there would likely not have been a civil rights bill in 1964 and the entire basis for Nixon's "southern strategy" in 1968 would have failed to pass. How long could things have continued like that in terms of race relations? Well, apartheid lasted into the 1990s in South Africa, didn't it?
 * So yes, a perverse effect of the death of Kennedy was the advancement of civil rights in the United States, and the resultant polarization of the populace and re-alignment of the parties, where the Dixie Democrats moved over to the Republican side and allowed for the relatively centrist Richard Nixon to be eventually eclipsed by the more right-wing Ronald Reagan, and those who followed who pushed the party even further to the right. I guess it's a spoiler to discuss this, but that JFK-assasination-themed novel that Stephen King did a number of years ago has a great twist ending: The time-travelling protagonist, who changes history by stopping the assassination, returns to his world of 2011 (I think) to find a crime-ridden dystopia has replaced the world he knew. But, hey, how far away from that are we now anyway? Canada Jack (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Good points CJ. But I have to disagree that Vietnam didn't have a far reaching effect on the Democratic party and the Cold War in general. The shift of the party's stances on foreign policy was felt in every issue that came up after the LBJ/JFK admin. Whether we are talking the deployment of medium range missiles in Western Europe, the nuclear freeze, contra aid, the first Gulf War, etc, etc....without question there were major differences that developed over time. I found myself thinking by the mid-80's that JFK couldn't even get the nomination of the Democratic Party by that point. The backlash against the Democratic party that materialized by 1980 had many factors.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI - For a long time, this article began, "Lee Harvey Oswald (October 18, 1939 – November 24, 1963) was an American assassin and former Marine who, according to five government investigations,shot and killed President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963." A consensus of the editors changed it to the current version removing any equivocation. I didn't agree with the change, but consensus of the editors is how these things are resolved. And it appears that any change in that consensus is currently unlikely. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is already severely lacking in NPOV. I say change it back to the way it was. Earl of Arundel (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Prayer Man Theory Debunked
For those who are aware of previous attempts by editors to place the "Prayer Man" theory in Oswald's article please reference Chris Davidson's photographic analysis on the Education Forum's JFK Debate branch...For those who are unaware, the Prayer Man theory is a claim made by Australian researcher Greg Parker and Sean Murphy that Oswald was captured standing on the Depository front steps as a shadowy figure in newsreels of Dealey Plaza during the assassination...The shadowy figure is holding their hands in front of them as if praying so the figure got the nick-name "Prayer Man"...Much false research has been poured in to this by Bart Kamp on his Prayer Man website that was all undone and disproven by Davidson who used cutting edge digital software to make subtle differences between light and dark, that were not visible to the human eye in the Wiegman newsreel film, visible...After Davidson inputted the clearest Wiegman film frame in to his digital software the clearly visible face of a woman was brought out on Prayer Man proving beyond a doubt that the shadowy figure in question was not Oswald...Davidson also posted his metadata which proved all he did was drop the original film frame in to his software program while making adjustments for brightness and contrast (Source: Chris Davidson, Education Forum)...Another source for the debunking of the bogus Prayer Man theory is researcher Brian Doyle's interview with Depository secretary Sarah Stanton's grand daughter in 2018...Wanda Daniel (Stanton's grand daughter) was shown the newsreel films and responded "That has to be Sarah, she's the biggest one out there"...Daniel has sent Doyle a family photo of her grand mother showing her obesity...That obesity was seen on Prayer Man, as well as Stanton's 5 foot 4 height (Oswald was 5 foot 9), proving beyond a doubt that Stanton was Prayer Man (See: "JFK Assassination Forum Member Brian Doyle Interviews Sarah Stanton's Granddaughter" on You-Tube)...Plus there is much more photogrammetric evidence that is too detailed to list here...Finally, Depository employee Buell Frazier was interviewed on video by the Dallas 6th Floor Museum in 2013 as well as by CSPAN in 2002...In both videos Frazier makes clear he was facing and talking to Sarah Stanton at the time of the Prayer Man newsreels...One look at the newsreels in question shows Frazier facing Prayer Man at that time...(Source: 6th Floor Museum and CSPAN interviews of Buell Frazier - You-Tube, and CSPAN website)...I would like to submit that these verifiable sources refute and dismiss the Prayer Man theory and it should not be allowed in any Wikipedia article, despite the irrational persistence of its backers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScrumDrum (talk • contribs) 17:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The above paragraph by Brian Doyle contains no source citations and several factual errors. Chris Davidson has stated publicly that Doyle has misrepresented him and his photo work (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2549.msg90985.html#msg90985).Johniac1 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

In the link provided by Johniac1 Chris Davidson posts a screen shot of his metadata for the software program where he brought out a woman's face on Prayer Man...Please look at the thread shown in Johniac1's link and you will see Davidson publicly posts that his enhancement of the Wiegman film has exposed a woman's face on Prayer Man, therefore proving Prayer Man cannot be Oswald...Davidson posted his raw image outputs from that software and anyone can clearly see two of the frames possess a clearly-visible woman's face as Davidson confirms... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScrumDrum (talk • contribs) 20:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Brian Doyle is also ignorant as to what constitutes "metadata". A screen shot of Photoshop settings is not metadata, nor does it prove anything about the underlying image. Chris Davidson has specifically stated that it was merely his opinion that the resulting enhanced image was a woman and that this didn't prove anything. See https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=562.msg45022#msg45022 2605:6000:101E:CB0B:95F4:F740:9692:EF91 (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * This is all WP:Original research and a complete waste of time. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 06:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this judgement. Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 19:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It is important to note that the reason there are no "reliable sources" on the Prayer Man issue is because the original Warren Commission and Conspiracy researchers who are responsible for the main body of Kennedy Assassination research and sources did not consider the Prayer Man claim worth investigating...They did not see anything there worth investigating that ever rose to the level of formal documentation or further investigation...It wasn't until 2013 when controversial researchers Greg Parker and Sean Murphy waited for the original consensus to lapse with time that they made this quite bogus claim that was mainly gotten by ignoring the evidence that refuted it...I invite anyone to view Mr Parker's "ReOpenKennedyCase" website to see the type of "research" that is conducted there...It is a one-stop source to understanding why Wikipedia disallows original research as sources...Contrary to what "Johniac1" says above Davidson's publicly-displayed digital software settings are metadata...The settings Davidson displayed can be traced in the tabs of his software program to the specific corresponding metadata for those settings and therefore does validly constitute "metadata"...Again, Johniac1 is incorrect when he says Davidson's displayed metadata does not prove anything about the underlying image...It proves that all Davidson did was use high-tech image enhancement on the Wiegman film that made subtle contrasts not visible to the human eye in the original visible...This is all moot anyway because the Wikipedia rules pre-emptively disallow it and in this case serve their purpose well...ScrumDrum (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify and make a suggestion, while this shouldn't be on Oswald's page, there is a place for this theory, and it's on the conspiracy theory page . The main criterion for inclusion is not plausibility, as many of the major theories there are implausible anyway, it is notability. I checked and was kinda surprised that this theory was not mentioned there. I'd say that it is one of the current "top ten" theories making the rounds, hence should be included in, say, the section on the role of Oswald. Canada Jack (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

How many schools?
12, or 22? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.120.255.250 (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Misinformation with Backyard Photos section
I'm not a confirmed user and cannot edit this so please help me. I followed the references after reading this in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#Backyard_photos: In 1964, Marina testified before the Warren Commission that she had taken one and only one version of the two known versions of two poses of Oswald, at Oswald's request using his camera — [274] testimony she reaffirmed repeatedly over the decades.[n 13] These photos were labelled CE 133-A and CE 133-B.

It's pretty clear from any actual referenced source material that she was shown both CE 133-A and CE-133-B and was very open about taking them both. For example, from the published reference https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/marinade.htm#maraug:

Q. I want to mark these two photographs. On the back of the first one, which I would ask be marked JFK committee exhibit No. 1, it says in the bottom right-hand corner copy from the National Archives, records group No. 272, under that it says CE-133B. I will ask that be marked JFK exhibit No. 1. (The above referred to photograph was marked JFK committee exhibit No. 1 for identification.)

Q. New, this second picture that I will ask to be marked says copy from the National Archives, record group No. 272, CE-133. I would ask that this be marked JFK committee exhibit No. 2. (The above referred to photograph was marked JFK committee exhibit No. 2 for identification.)

By Mr. KLEIN: Q. I will show you those two photographs which are marked JFK exhibit No. 1 and exhibit No. 2, do you recognize those two photographs?

A. I sure do. I have seen them many times.

Q. What are they?

A. That is the pictures that I took.

You can double-check a printed source here: https://books.google.com/books?id=pSwtAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA333&lpg=PA333&dq=%22That+is+the+pictures+that+I+took.%22&source=bl&ots=g9gX5ZVZ3Y&sig=ACfU3U3RREslX_5FCesH-K9ICR6DN5B1Iw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjSjZPix8vtAhUKHzQIHQqcBJgQ6AEwBnoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=%22That%20is%20the%20pictures%20that%20I%20took.%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway42 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Please make two things clear: what exactly do you want to change in the article (i.e. "I propose changing the current text X to say Y instead"), and what secondary source you're relying on for that change. This article has some problems in that it relies a good deal on the Warrent Report, which is a primary source, and while I don't have the level of interest to want to fix that, we shouldn't be making the problem worse by making further references to the Warrent report except to illustrate what secondary sources say. See WP:PSTS for more on this. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 00:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Warren Report is in no way a primary source and any attempt to rewrite the Oswald article ignoring the report or failing to cite it as a standard source is not going to happen. The recent addition to the backyard picture section, on the other hand, is classic original research, based on court records that are poorly cited and inaccurately quoted, drawing conclusions that I have never seen put to print before. I will take a look to see if there is anything in the literature similar to this stuff, but even if there were, it would go in the conspiracy theory article on JFK, not here. Rgr09 (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the section. I removed the part about whether she said she took one or both of the photos - and there is no citation for the "four poses" line. There were four or five prints - of two poses, two separate images. The issue with the one photo/two photos recollections of Marina is its relevance is not stated. The germane issue is not how many photos she took, it is whether she took the photos at all. She confirmed she did which establishes that a) LHO lied when he said he didn't pose for a photo with the rifle and b) LHO lied about whether he owned the rifle. How anyone could see the issue of how many photos she recalled taking would outweigh the fact she repeatedly and emphatically confirmed photographing her husband holding the murder weapon is beyond me.

As for the comment, "The Warren Report is in no way a primary source..." this ignores the fact that, even for the conspiracy crowd, the primary source for much of their evidence of a conspiracy.... is found in the Warren Report. By far most of the relevant facts, testimony and evidence can be found in that report. How that evidence is interpreted is another matter. Canada Jack (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * My apologies if I did not write clearly enough. I agree with the removal of the lengthy note on Marina's testimony about the photos.


 * When I wrote that "The Warren report is in no way a primary source", I was only responding to a claim made above, that the article was flawed because it relied on the Warren Report. That editor called WR a "primary source" in the sense of WP:PSTS, i.e. "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." What I meant to say was that this is an erroneous understanding of the Warren Report.


 * WR is a synthesis of the evidence and testimony produced for the members of the Warren Commission, none of whom were participants or witnesses to the assassination. It is not primary in the sense of WP:PSTS. It is a standard source for the events and circumstances of the JFK assassination, a "primary' source in terms of how important it is for its interpretations, and for its 26 volumes of appendices, covering most of the important evidence and testimony concerning the assassination. Rgr09 (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your analysis lacks nuance. At this late date the Warrent Report can be taken, at best (and it's an excellent best) as an indispensable collection of primary material, but we would (or should, anyway) not use it as a secondary source for analysis, synthesis, and conclusions drawn from that material, stated as flat fact in Wikipedia's voice -- there's just way, way too much high-quality, scholarly material that combines WR with other evidence to correct, confirm, or extend it and come to more comprehensive conclusions. There's nothing wrong with drawing on the WR for material (quotes and images especially) to illustrate conclusions of better sources, but (I repeat) we should never be repeating its conclusions as flat fact, except with great caution in very straightforward cases. In this regard it's much like most 19th-c newspapers, which at one time might have been secondary sources for most purposes, but now would be considered primary except in restricted circumstances for limited purposes. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

How many children did Lee Harvey Oswald have?
The summary paragraph says he had a child, (implied singular) and the information chart says he had two children. I'd fix this myself, but I'm not sure which is correct. BenevolentChaos347 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Only one child is discussed in the article. Without any evidence otherwise, stating that he had two children is unsourced. I removed it from the infobox. Thanks for pointing this out. Sundayclose (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Lee and Marina Oswald had 2 daughters, June Lee Oswald and Audrey Marina Rachel Oswald. The article already mentions the 2 daughters, the second one being mentioned in the first paragraph of the "Return to Dallas" section, relating to the period of October 1963, when she was born. The mention of the birth of the second daughter is currently unsourced, but I found the following source for it. Maybe you'd know better than me how to technically update the article with the proper sourcing for the facts? Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 18:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and updated the article with the source. The part I'm not sure about is how to format the raw source being used now to appropriate WP standards for this type of citation... Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 19:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I found a second source, which I added. And I streamlined your citation. Sundayclose (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">(¥¥) 19:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

J. W. Fritz link request
Can a confirmed user please create a link to the orphan article J. W. Fritz, thanks 81.131.132.199 (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, done, thanks. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021
Lancehamilton (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Alleged assassin
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is clear what change is wanted, but it's about the 1000th time people have suggested it, and it's contrary to reliable sources. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 06:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is to completely ignore the work of New York Legislator Mark Lane, District Attorney Jim Garrison, not to mention countless others who have written on the subject. Is none of that reliably sourced? Of course it is. The very fact that this article does not adhere to WP:NPOV principles is proof enough that reliable sources are not the issue.
 * Earl of Arundel (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources on their theories, which are discussed at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 16:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

"Defection to the Soviet Union"
LHO never defected. He travelled to the USSR perhaps with the intention to defect, but he never formally defected, never gave up his US citizenship, and was welcomed back to the US. I assume you know this, hard to understand this section heading which is a material falsehood. This point is especially important because so many people erroneously believe LHO defected when in fact he never did. 99.171.179.102 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)