bigdog
2018-04-26 17:44:01 UTC
Several people have maintained that if the federal agencies and the DPD
been more diligent and had shared what they knew about Oswald with each
other that the assassination could have been prevented. I have long taken
the view that is nothing more than 20/20 hindsight and I just saw John
McAdams express that same sentiment in another thread. It's easy to say
now that he should have been watched more closely but prior to 11/22/63,
what reason would there have been to do that. Up until then he had only
one minor brush with the law in New Orleans that summer and he apparently
wasn't even the instigator in that event. Nobody in law enforcement knew
he had taken the shot at Walker earlier that year. As far as anybody knew,
he was just an insignificant little screwball who had defected to the
USSR, married a Russian girl, and then repatriated. Naturally they would
have a file on him but it's not as if the people in the CIA and the FBI
didn't have other cases on their plate. What was there that should have
made Oswald standout? What was there that would have justified the level
of surveillance that would have told them that he was working in a
building along the motorcade route and that he posed a danger to the
President?
In the aftermath of the recent tragic school shooting in Parkland, FL, we
learned the shooter had given ample warning of his intentions and yet even
then those in law enforcement failed to take actions that would have
prevented that tragedy. Oswald had given no such signals prior to his
actions in Dallas. He had shown himself to be a screwball. There are lots
of screwballs in this world and most of them aren't dangerous. A few do
prove to be a danger but identifying which ones those are is often
difficult if not impossible to do. I see nothing in what authorities knew
about Oswald prior to 11/22/63 that should have alerted them that he was a
danger to the POTUS.
been more diligent and had shared what they knew about Oswald with each
other that the assassination could have been prevented. I have long taken
the view that is nothing more than 20/20 hindsight and I just saw John
McAdams express that same sentiment in another thread. It's easy to say
now that he should have been watched more closely but prior to 11/22/63,
what reason would there have been to do that. Up until then he had only
one minor brush with the law in New Orleans that summer and he apparently
wasn't even the instigator in that event. Nobody in law enforcement knew
he had taken the shot at Walker earlier that year. As far as anybody knew,
he was just an insignificant little screwball who had defected to the
USSR, married a Russian girl, and then repatriated. Naturally they would
have a file on him but it's not as if the people in the CIA and the FBI
didn't have other cases on their plate. What was there that should have
made Oswald standout? What was there that would have justified the level
of surveillance that would have told them that he was working in a
building along the motorcade route and that he posed a danger to the
President?
In the aftermath of the recent tragic school shooting in Parkland, FL, we
learned the shooter had given ample warning of his intentions and yet even
then those in law enforcement failed to take actions that would have
prevented that tragedy. Oswald had given no such signals prior to his
actions in Dallas. He had shown himself to be a screwball. There are lots
of screwballs in this world and most of them aren't dangerous. A few do
prove to be a danger but identifying which ones those are is often
difficult if not impossible to do. I see nothing in what authorities knew
about Oswald prior to 11/22/63 that should have alerted them that he was a
danger to the POTUS.