For no reason

Another scribe irritated at the prevalence of those darn JFK conspiracy theorists.

Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star Ledger says, regarding JFK’s assassination: “The truth hurts but it doesn’t sell.”

The truth being, in Mulshine’s opinion, that Kennedy was not killed by his enemies, but by one man for no reason.



9 thoughts on “For no reason”

  1. Yes, the truth hurts but doesn’t sell. To think that one lone man for no obvious reason could bring down a powerful President can really hurt. Perhaps a closer look at the human side of Lee Harvey Oswald might provide at least one plausible reason. People like Jean Davison, Bugliosi, Peter Savodnik, Robert Oswald, Mel Ayton, Paul Mulshine etc. found reasons. I’m not sure how much I agree with them at the moment but there are facts there that I can’t ignore. If the lone gunman theory is true, it would seem boring after all of this.

  2. I have read over and over again, by one researcher after another, that the Dallas police were really not prepared to handle the assassination. It was 1963. They did not have a sophisticated interrogation program thus unprepared. In fact they were having to transfer LHO to another jail. They even tried to carry out the transfer during the day and this was noted as a wrong decision by some in the department. But they had to follow orders. They just weren’t prepared for a prisoner like LHO.
    I think the lone gunman theory would have been boring press. A cut and dry case. The truth hurts but it doesn’t sell. A man with no reason. Perhaps LHO had a reason that might not be understood in today’s world. He once told his brother that if there was a war, he would shoot anyone in a uniform on the side of the American government.The word “anyone” was emphasized. This was a strong statement. He told interrogators that Marxism was his religion. A deeper look might reveal that he had a reason, just not one acceptable in today’s western thinking.

  3. re: “Truth Hurts” article.

    It’s easy to understand Mr. Carroll’s logic. Does it make sense (Mr. Carroll asks) that Ruby would jeopardize his ‘assignment’ to murder Oswald by making an unnecessary and untimely detour to the Western Union office? No.

    The usual conspiracy scenario requires Ruby to have help from a Dallas insider (or insiders) with sufficient authority to control Oswald’s transfer until someone confirms that Ruby is in place. Who are the insiders, especially those at the top? (and prove it) Further, this scenario infers that a person of even greater status is ‘giving orders’ to the insider(s) mentioned above. After all, Oswald’s murder is considered a subplot within the larger plot that was meticulously orchestrated by very important men.

    According to conspiracists, Oswald’s silencing was a desperate kamikaze mission. Ruby was going to be caught or killed. How could the puppet masters be so sure that Ruby – an extroverted and unstable personality – would never name names? How could they know beforehand that investigators would steer both murder cases away from conspiracy? How could they know that Ruby’s gunrunning activities and underworld connections would be ignored by FBI, and state, local, congressional and media investigators? How many Dallas cops were involved in the subplot . . . and what are the odds that none of ’em would ever confess or leak something to family, friends or press? There are dozens of such questions.

    After all these years I’m still a very committed conspiracist “screwball”, as Mr. Carroll likes to sneer. But I do understand that some of the conspiracy theories require impossible levels of precision, coordination, timing, stealth and clairvoyance, as well as improbable lifelong silence by hundreds of participants. Like it or not, that’s a problem for our side.

    1. Hmmm….If I were one of the conspirators behind the JFK assassination, I’d want Oswald dead as soon as possible, because he was a primary source. I’d want the police to kill him in a shootout, the ideal way to “legitimately” silence him. Barring that, I’d have someone kill him. The risks of that person assigned to kill Oswald saying something or not performing exactly as I wished would have been far outweighed by my desire to have Oswald silenced. Remember, Oswald did talk, it’s just that most of his testimony, other than saying “I was just a patsy” went unrecorded, and with no notes (to ever surface) by the police interrogating him. So, with this information, what makes you so sure about Ruby and anyone’s concern regarding his talking? Your logic doesn’t seem to hold up to close scrutiny.

        1. Thanks. I hadn’t seen those notes before. I’m surprised that there are no audio or film records of Oswald under interrogation. Was that standard procedure, to just write notes and leave things at that? Seems kind of lame to me, but I don’t know much about Dallas Police Dept. procedures in 1963.

          1. Innocent generic speculation might lead one to believe Dallas police were overwhelmed by JFK’s assassination in their city and tried to heal an embarrassing civic wound by not recording details.

            Let’s jump back to reality. The odor of Dallas PD’s omission still stinks today, almost 50 years after the fact. Perhaps a semi-modern Dallas PD in 1963 intentionally failed to use tape recorders, stenographers, or other technical methods of recording suspect interrogations. The glaring omission of an official interrogation transcript of questions and Oswald’s answers can lead one to assume there was a solid connection between JFK’s killers and the Dallas police.

            Someday, somewhere, somehow, a hidden recording of Oswald’s interrogation might surface to serve as Oswald’s revenge. Eventually we will know more about what happened during his interrogation. The long-overdue exposure will come from insider knowledge about the plot, assassination, and cover-up minus innocent generic speculation.

          2. I don’t know if anything will turn up from the Dallas PD or not. It would be great if some “lost recordings” did turn up of Oswald’s interrogation. But looking at the recordings made (allegedly) of Oswald in Mexico City by intelligence there, now lost, but said to not be the same voice (just as surveillance photos showed someone else posing down there as ‘Oswald’) I remain skeptical that any new recordings from Dallas would have survived. If any recordings were made, I’m betting they got destroyed, just like the Mexico City voice recordings did.

  4. I’d counter this by saying: “The truth can be found, but you can’t be lazy; have to READ to find the information.”

    Intellectual laziness won’t cut it in looking at the JFK assassination. I know that Allen Dulles allegedly quipped about the Warren Commission volumes upon publication that, Americans are too lazy to read them. This goes for the good books that counter the Warren Commission as well, I might add.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top