36

L.H. Oswald claimed he was innocent and didn't kill J.F. Kennedy. There are various theories on what could have happened that day, but I didn't "study" all the evidence and research, so I don't know what really happened.

The ten-month investigation of the Warren Commission of 1963–1964 concluded that the President was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone and that Jack Ruby acted alone when he killed Oswald before he could stand trial. These conclusions were initially supported by the American public; however, polls conducted from 1966 to 2004 found that as many as 80 percent of Americans have suspected that there was a plot or cover-up.

Is the Warren Commission conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy supported by factual evidence, or is there reasonable space for some doubt and/or alternative theories?

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
Frantisek
  • 385
  • 3
  • 7
  • 16
    I don't think this can be objectively answered. All the facts that are available are already available and the jury is out. This is more of a discussion type question. – going Jul 05 '11 at 01:20
  • 3
    @xiaohouzi79: so why is this question allowed and nobody protests: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2971/was-osama-bin-laden-responsible-for-9-11 – Frantisek Jul 05 '11 at 01:21
  • 2
    With that question there may be other info scattered around the place that not everyone is aware so there is a possibility of a definitive answer. With your question its been done to death and EVERYONE knows there is not a definitive answer and there's not going to be. Which can only lead to discussion. The wikipedia article on Lee Harvey is very detailed, outside of that there are no secrets left to tell. – going Jul 05 '11 at 01:45
  • 2
    btw. I actually have thought about posting this question myself several times, but there has already been a Commission, a Panel and a Committee as well as countless other professionals who have looked at the evidence and so far although it could go either way there is no answer that will cause either side to be satisfied. So there is nothing gained by listing out all the possibilities here. It's already been done 1000 times before. – going Jul 05 '11 at 01:49
  • What harm would it do if someone listed everything you mentioned, clearly laid out all the facts and ended the answer by simply stating that the real answer cannot be found from the available facts? Please, understand that if you personally did a research on the problem, you have a lot of info regarding the problem and thus you consider it futile for someone to list it here, but I think people who care, but don't have the time to do the research themselves, would appreciate a nice summary in one answer. Just my two cents! – Frantisek Jul 05 '11 at 01:53
  • 1
    I suggest you read this: http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/868/what-are-the-attributes-of-a-good-answer You will notice that any answer you get to this question won't actually answer the question, it won't be factual (as we don't have complete facts), and it will be based in speculation; – going Jul 05 '11 at 02:14
  • 6
    @xiahouzi79: Questions to which the answer is "we don't know" [are explicitly permitted](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/175/334). – Patches Jul 05 '11 at 08:58
  • 6
    @rim I made this question much more clear, whilst I believe respecting your original intentions. Although we permit "we don't know" questions, that shouldn't be because the question is not properly posed. – Sklivvz Jul 05 '11 at 11:42
  • For the record, I would have added my vote to close if the bounty had not been there. – MrHen Jul 07 '11 at 04:07
  • 2
    -1 just another conspiracy theory. Noone who's claimed a conspiracy has ever come out with real evidence, it's all hearsay and speculation. – jwenting Jul 07 '11 at 06:37
  • 1
    Agree totally with @Patches and @Sklivvz. As edited, this is a totally valid question. Like it or not, Skeptics is a perfect place to debunk or bunk conspiracy theories... in theory. Even though the answer is usually "no" with "yes"-dissent or "we don't know" with ad nauseum arguments, it's still worth trying. To misquote Evelyn Beatrice Hall (not Voltaire!): I disapprove of what you ask but I will defend to the death your right to ask it. – erekalper Jul 07 '11 at 12:29
  • @erekalper - The problem with this question is that it _is_ "we don't know with ad nauseum arguments". It's the ad nauseum part that this site is supposed to be avoiding. – going Jul 07 '11 at 23:27
  • 3
    @xiaohouzi79: Totally agree, but given our current "bylaws," if you will, it's still okay to ask, and the result is just people being people. The best that could happen now is, "We probably won't know for sure until all associated documents are unclassified, but given what we do know, yes, he really killed him. Here's why." And then have a mod lock it down if the arguments start up. It's not the best system, and maybe we need to amend the overall rules for situations like this (contentious issue flag, not fully answerable flag, etc, I dunno), but it's what we have right now. – erekalper Jul 08 '11 at 12:55
  • There are links to suggest the loopholes in the Commision report http://www.american-buddha.com/presumeguilty2.htm and http://jfkcountercoup.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/did-the-single-bullet-take-out-specter/ – JoseK Jul 11 '11 at 08:34

2 Answers2

33

While it's true that the Warren Commission was run in a somewhat hasty manner, I see no reason to doubt its conclusion after reading through the research done since then. Both sides are absolutely obsessive about it, so there is a lot of confusing material to go through. Probably the clearest and most through is the JFK assassination website of John McAdams, a professor of political science.

Many of the doubts come from people finding it hard to believe that only one person fired the shot, based on the details of the crime scene. A rather infamous simulation of the assination, JFK: Reloaded, shows that all of the known details, when put together, are absolutely possible.

The argument I find most convincing is to compare the kinds of motive ascribed to the shooters in each instance. Conspiracy theorists are all over the map when describing why JFK was killed, from getting killed by businessmen because he was working to take apart the Federal Reserve to some kind of Mob hit (Wikipedia goes over all of them). Lee Harvey Oswald's story is more clear. He was a communist who aspired to be a spy for either the Soviets or Cuba, but neither country wanted anything to do with him. Deeply depressed, he plans to assassinate the president, something that was essentially suicide. While there is hardly a large sample size, depression is a common trait when you look at other lone-nut assassins (see Samuel Byck and Dan White).

The definitive answer here isn't "I don't know", it's "The Warren Commission was right".

devtesla
  • 867
  • 8
  • 5
  • 4
    IMHO the single bullet theory is the weakest point of the official theory. However I can not say what really happened. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory) – daniel.sedlacek Dec 01 '13 at 14:46
  • @daniel.sedlacek - See the link in my answer, below, if you have doubt about the ballistics and behavior of the bullet(s). – PoloHoleSet Nov 11 '16 at 15:47
  • This documentary examines the single bullet theory and confirms it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLBMX0WmMCY – ventsyv Feb 13 '17 at 16:20
22

On the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, the PBS show Nova did a "cold case" show about it, applying the modern science, tools, computer simulation and technology to the evidence we know of, and seeing if any of it matches up with the conclusions of the Warren Commission.

They gathered top forensic criminal investigators and applied the techniques. They looked at the type of weapon used, the type of rounds used for the weapon, the behavior of those rounds as they passed through multiple targets (and the shape and manner of wounds that would be created), the used sound sensor hooked to computer software in multiple locations in the area to see how a gunshot would sound and echo to people in various locations, etc etc etc.

What they found was that the "establishment" answer's predictions for how their tests would come out matched up almost perfectly. They confirmed that the conclusions were valid, plausible and were backed by science.

You can watch the whole episode, along with other reference materials about the episode here -

NOVA Official Webiste - Cold Case JFK

PoloHoleSet
  • 9,608
  • 3
  • 34
  • 41
  • 7
    For people down-voting because forensic science debunks your conspiracy theories, perhaps you should check into the purpose of this particular stack exchange group. – PoloHoleSet Dec 20 '16 at 15:24