Stephen King & Norman Mailer Convinced Me Oswald Acted Alone: Lone Nuts Are Tough To Swallow

 

 
Stephen King and The New RFK Assassination “Evidence”: Why Lone Nuts Are Tough To Swallow
 

by Bijan C. Bayne

President Kennedy, whose mother lived into her nineties, and sister Eunice to be 88, would have been 95 years old May 29. The recent Secret Service scandal, recalls memories of agents partying hard into the Fort Worth night on the eve of JFK’s assassination:

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Secret-Service-also-Partied-before-Kennedy-Assassination-148338385.html

This examination of the past and present behavior of those charged with protecting the lives of our presidents, comes on the heels of Stephen King’s bestseller 11/22/63, a novel in which time travel is interwoven with the JFK assassination. As conspiracy theories rank, the assassination of RFK has never been one about which Americans have asked a stream of questions. It was never the subject for a Congressional subcommittee, as Sirhan Sirhan isn’t exact central casting’s idea of a hired hit man. Dr. Martin Schorr, a psychologist for the defense in Sirhan’s murder trial, testified that his subject was a paranoiac schizophrenic. Whether or not Sirhan’s lawyer can prove he participated in a conspiracy, it is interesting to observe that after several years devoted to researching 11/22/63, suspense master King concludes (don’t read any further if you’re still waiting to read the novel) that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. In that belief, King joins the late Norman Mailer, who arrived at the same conclusion after writing the 828 page historical novel Oswald’s Tale in 1995. What led two of America’s most successful purveyors of fiction, whose living depends on character development, to decide Oswald was not a pawn of the New Orleans Cosa Nostra, the CIA, pro-Castro Cubans, the KGB, or any combination thereof? Upon careful character examination, both scribes determined that Oswald’s motives were more personal than political.

The Scales of History

Why do so many of us need to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was part of a plot? In 1967, based on years of tireless research, historian William Manchester published the controversial bestseller The Death of a President– a minute-by-minute account of the actions and movements of hundreds of individuals associated with JFK, Oswald, and Jack Ruby from hours before the assassination, through the funeral that stopped America. Like Mailer and King decades later, Manchester had to “live with Oswald” for a few years, to collect material for his 710 page opus. Manchester syposized our national need to find the nefarious wizard behind the Oswald curtain:

 

“If you put the murder of the president of the United States at one end of the scale, and you put that waif Oswald on the other end, it just doesn’t balance,” he said. “And you want to put something on Oswald’s side to make it balance. A conspiracy would do that beautifully. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatever of that.”
Before he placed Oswald under the microscope, Norman Mailer penned a 1979 bestseller about Utah mass murderer Gary Gilmore, The Executioner’s Song. That work followed in the footsteps of the original novel of crime non-fiction, Truman Capote’s masterful In Cold Blood (1966). Mailer based his thesis that Oswald acted alone, on the alleged assassin’s loyalty “to himself and his own ideas”, coupled with his delusional sense that he had the “makings of a great leader.” Mailer also expressed serious doubts that anyone would select Oswald as a contract killer. In 11/22/63, King travels through time for 849 pages, beginning in late 1950’s Maine. Like Manchester and Mailer, he visited Dallas to familiarize himself with Oswald’s haunts and tracks. Many things have changed since the Dallas of Manchester’s time- Dealey Plaza, the assassination site, is no longer the city’s downtown center. Traffic doesn’t even travel in the direction of the fateful parade route. But one thing has not changed, and all three authors learned it. Oswald killed JFK because of some deep rooted personality issues that transcended either’s political preferences. Lee Harvey Oswald was, in 1960’s parlance a “shmuck” (some men over 35 would use the term “punk”, kids of our generation would label him a loser).
Not every novelist who chased the elusive Oswald, came away with the belief he was a lone nut. In 1988’s Libra, Dom DeLillo went the conspiarcy route, based on his sense of the history of the era. James Ellroy cited Libra as the inspiration for his own American Tabloid, in which the JFK assassination is but one in a series of historical events. Both authors also preferred the tangled web as a fictional device. Historian Manchester, and tale weavers Mailer and King, followed Occam’s razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_razor, which states that the least complex hypothesis is the most likely. For decades I disagreed. After reading 11/22/63, I’m sold.

It didn’t take 800 pages for Stephen King to convince me that Oswald was a violent man in failed marriage. I already suspected his main fault with capitalism was that it wasn’t working in his favor. Anecdotal evidence that he admired JFK, begs the question, why would Oswald like Kennedy? Kennedy was everything Oswald was not, a charsimatic war hero at the top of the world. Kennedy’s wife was encouraged to speak foreign languages in public and abroad, Oswald forbade his Russian wife Marina from learning English. The most compelling aspect of King’s historical portrait of Oswald deals with his subject’s sense of himself. Oswald’s achilles heel was his feeling that he was smarter than his fellow Marines, wife, co-workers, and employment supervisors. The autodidact who left school after eight grade, and apparently taught himself conversational (some accounts say fluent) Russian, was stuck in a series of dead end jobs. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. A 24-year old man eeking out a living ordering and checking textbooks, can become frustrated when he has little outlet for his study of Marxist-Leninism. For a veteran who has lived in Japan and the then-Soviet Union, and attended dinner parties where his command of the Russian language, and musings on geopolitics, amused educated guests of every stripe from a Quaker activist to a White Russian petroleum geologist, stock boy work alongside black men with high school and business school diplomas, and even more military experience, could not have been fulfilling. Self taught types often feel such menial labor is beneath them. Had Oswald been born black instead of white in 1939, his disenchantment with society may have led him to join the Nation of Islam, where he would have laid fault for his lack of status, on “white devils”. In such an organization, his bitterness could have been manipulated, as it was in the case of the Muslims who assassinated Malcolm X. As it was, Oswald tired of his wife asking why he couldn’t earn enough income for them to afford better housing for their growing little family, and the modern household appliances the other dinner party guests considered standard. After all, they could have stayed in Minsk if it all they were going to do was scrape by. This was one subject of their many domestic disputes. That didn’t make the Oswald’s unique among young couples.

There are some indisputable facts about Oswald. His palm and fingerprints were found on a discarded high powered rifle left in a workroom six stories above the Kennedy motorcade route. The same weapon was traced, after the JFK assassination, to the attempted murder of extreme right wing Major General Edwin Walker in Dallas the previous April- a crime local police had no leads on until the day the president was killed. In another instance, Marina Oswald had to lock Lee in a closet to prevent him from going into town to kill 1960 GOP presidential candidate Richard Nixon. Walker, Nixon and JFK have nothing in common politically. While stationed in the USSR, Oswald aslo attempted suicide in a hotel bathtub. The man who learned to speak Russian, but never learned to drive an car to make life easier for his wife and babies in spacious Fort Worth and Dallas, never fit in. Oswald also had an archetypal domineering mother, and a more successful big brother, often a volatile combination. In the workplace, he was antisocial, surly, and distracted by his plots to kill figures such as Nixon and Kennedy. His most notable accomplishment from working in a special effects photo lab, was learning to make fake I.D. badges, and teaching Marina to take a backyard picture of himself holding what became the Kennedy murder weapon. No organized crime figure, Cuban exile, or intelligence officer would have hired Oswald to put a hit on a U.S. president. Even his getaway was unprofessional, featuring city buses and taxicabs, shooting an inquisitive police patrolman in cold blood, and ducking into a downtown movie theatre without paying for a ticket. If Oswald was an innocent pawn, why did he kill Patrolman J.D. Tippit? It was an act of cowardice, similar to shooting JFK from a hidden perch.

The intent here is not to paint Lee Oswald as some Olbermanesque “Worst Person Ever”, on the level of a Hitler or Gaddafi. He lacked both the charisma and swagger to govern millions. And questions do linger regarding the assassination of JFK, I am still uncertain why so many motorcade spectators and law enforcement officials immediately sprinted toward the railroad yard behind the Texas School Book Depository immediately after shots rang out. Did the acoustics of Dealey Plaza play tricks with sound and echo? Did eyewitnesses mistake rail car smoke for gunsmoke? And having visited the Book Depository, now the site of The Sixth Floor Museum, and peered onto the intersection of Houston and Elm where Camelot ended (or began), I wonder why the sniper waited until the presidential limousine was a little forward and to the right in his sights, and did not fire when the Lincoln convertible was slowly approaching the corner. Perhaps Oswald could not bring himself to shoot the president face on. Why did Oswald insist he was a patsy if he acted alone? He lied- the evidence is on the murder weapon, and in his actions after the shooting. Why did Jack Ruby shoot Oswald? There was more than one self-important, violent soul in Dallas, whose elevator didn’t go all the way to the top. A few of Kennedy’s advisors told him to avoid the city where only a month eariler, a man spat upon U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, and a woman struck Stevenson with a protest sign. But obligation to mend Democratic party divisions in a key campaign state, and fate combined to bring the young president into the path of a sniper. We have made too much of Lee Harvey Oswald’s handing out “Fair Play For Cuba” leaflets in downtown New Orleans, his underworld cousin “Dutz” Murret, a bookie for the Marcello crime syndicate, and his brief pronouncements of innocence and against “police brutality”, and too little of his hatred. In an effort to balance the scales of history, we have not sufficiently weighed his inflated sense of self, which evens the JFK equation once and for all.

Advance Praise For ‘BLACKOUT’

“Brilliant fiction debut. A fascinating page turner that demands to be read in one sitting.”
-Kyle Keiderling, author of 5 books including, Olympic Collision: The Story of Mary Decker and Zola Budd

“…absolutely awesome”- Dr. Jeffrey Guterman, Author, Mastering The Art Of Solution-Focused Counseling

“Bijan Bayne is a superb writer, but this time around it appears as if he’s about to take us on a mind-numbing journey. Blackout looks fascinating”.- Scott Russell, Author, Joey -An Extraordinary Life & A Dream Fulfilled , and author of the forthcoming novel Prophet’s End