The Oswald Puzzle: The Pieces That Won’t Fit – Part 1
By Johnny Cairns
“I worked in Russia. Er… I was… er, under the protection… er, that is to say, I was not under the protection of the American government, but as I was at all times… er, considered an American citizen.” Lee H. Oswald, New Orleans- 1963.
Who was Lee Harvey Oswald? That is the $64,000 question, isn’t it? A question that has been debated endlessly since that fateful afternoon in November of 1963 when he was dragged from the darkness of the Texas Theatre and thrust into history. He was cast as an assassin, charged, murdered without trial, and sentenced to a posthumous verdict of guilty—his name forever etched in infamy. Truly as it was written long ago; The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones.
Oswald’s death remains a festering wound on the soul of a nation—a nation that, for over sixty years, has continued to grieve the loss of one of its finest leaders: President John F. Kennedy.
The name Oswald will forever be synonymous with one of the gravest injustices in history. And yet, his short life remains an open contradiction—an enigma that defies easy explanation.
On one hand, we have the Marxist Marine—a contradiction in itself. A public ‘defector’ to the Soviet Union. A man who, throughout his life, openly espoused socialist, Marxist, and communistic ideologies at the height of Cold War America.
On the other, we have a man who always seemed to be at the center of American intelligence operations. A man who was impersonated multiple times—including once when he wasn’t even in the country. A man whose closest acquaintances were a who’s who of the most fiercely militant anti-communists of the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Men such as:
•David W. Ferrie
•George De Mohrenschildt
•Clay L. Shaw (alias Bertrand)
•Guy Banister
These were not just random acquaintances. This was a who’s who of intelligence-linked operatives, far-right extremists, and shadowy figures operating at the nexus of covert operations.
Their connections to Oswald were so striking that Senator Richard S. Schweikerwould later remark: “The fingerprints of intelligence are all over Oswald.”
And it is this very contradiction that compelled me to write this review of The Oswald Puzzle.
II
In the interest of full transparency, I must first acknowledge my respect for co-authors Larry Hancock and Dave Boylan. They are serious researchers, meticulous in their methodology, and their work is thorough, well-sourced, and deeply considered. In fact, it was through the generosity of Dave Boylan that I was able to write this review at all. With the book’s UK release delayed until mid-March, Dave was kind enough to send me a copy from the U.S.—a gesture I greatly appreciated.
And on the surface, Larry and Dave stand on solid ground here. They follow Oswald’s own writings, a literary North Star, which guides them through the “swamp” of “conspiracy” research and into their contrarian conclusion on his true ideology.
In essence, Oswald’s writings are a literal treasure trove of Marxist ideology. But you know what they say: actions speak louder than words, but Inaction screams loudest of all.
For example, if we take the view that I espouse, that Oswald’s Marxism was a facade, a carefully constructed legend, then his writings should be the first thing held as suspect. After all, a good intelligence operative doesn’t just prove their loyalties with actions; they do it with words designed to be seen. And Lee Oswald was seen.
But before we jump into that, I think we need to remind ourselves what the culture surrounding Socialism, Marxism, and Communism looked like in the United States of the 1950s. Would there even be a distinction between the three?
Though Senator Joseph McCarthy himself had faded from power by the time Oswald’s ‘Marxism’ emerged, the suspicion and paranoia he unleashed still gripped America’s national psyche in a stranglehold of fear. The spectre of Communist infiltration loomed large, fuelling an era where mere suspicion could end careers, shatter reputations, and destroy lives. The machine of McCarthyism had been set into motion, and even in his absence, it continued to devour those deemed ideologically impure.
This unrelenting witch hunt led to the blacklisting, expulsion, and imprisonment of Americans—men and women whose constitutional rights were shattered, cast into political exile for even the faintest whiff of leftist affiliation. Careers were obliterated, reputations tarnished beyond repair, and lives upended—all in the name of eradicating the Communist spectre. Yet, in the midst of this ideological purge, Oswald—the overt, self-proclaimed Marxist—stood untouched.
Why?
For nothing about Oswald’s documented behavior, affiliations, or the way he was treated by the U.S. government aligns with the paranoia and persecution of Cold War America. How did Oswald escape the fate of so many “suspected” leftists before him? Men whose mere associations with Communism—often far less explicit than Oswald’s—led to ruin?
• Alger Hiss.
• Langston Hughes.
• Milo Radulovich.
• Dalton Trumbo.
• Irving Peress.
• Howard Abramowitz.
Yet Oswald—a man who openly espoused Marxism, declared his allegiance to Communist ideology, and even attempted defection to the Soviet Union—remained inexplicably untouched. What made him so exceptional that he was able to avoid a national security investigation?
And here lies the dichotomy at the heart of the Oswald Puzzle—a contradiction too glaring to ignore. If Lee Harvey Oswald’s blatant Marxist/Communist ideology was truly genuine, then why was it tolerated by the staunchly conservative, fervently anti-Communist institutions of Cold War America?
Why did the Civil Air Patrol, the United States Marine Corps, and ultimately the U.S. government itself turn a blind eye?
It is a question Larry and David, in my opinion, fail to answer.
Civil Air Patrol
“Oswald and Ferrie were in the unit together. I know they were because I was there. I specifically remember Oswald. I can remember him clearly, and Ferrie was heading the unit then. I’m not saying that they may have been together; I’m saying it is a certainty.” (Bill Davy, Let Justice Be Done; p.5)
Who was David Ferrie? Was he a pivotal figure in the life of Lee Harvey Oswald? If you were to judge by The Oswald Puzzle—where he is mentioned only once in passing—you’d think not. And if that glaring omission isn’t shocking enough, then the book’s characterization of Ferrie as merely a “commercial airline pilot” should leave you a bit dumbfounded. Because, to put it mildly, David Ferrie was far more than that.
He was a dangerous, militant right-wing extremist, a rabid anti-communist, and a man with deep, verifiable connections to U.S. intelligence, paramilitary operations, and underground networks.
His absolute hatred for Communism is best captured in a letter he wrote to the U.S. Air Force, offering his services in the fight against the “Red menace”:
“There is nothing that I would enjoy better than blowing the hell out of every damn Russian, Communist, Red or what have you. We can cook up a crew that will really bomb them to hell… I want to train killers, however bad that sounds. It is what we need.” (Davy, p. 7)
And this fanatic wasn’t just some peripheral character in Oswald’s orbit. As one can see from the above, he was the squadron leader of Lee Harvey Oswald’s Civil Air Patrol unit.
So now we must ask the question: Are we truly expected to believe that a man who wanted to “train killers” to obliterate Communists would have had a benign, indifferent view of a cadet who—according to The Oswald Puzzle—was already:
“forceful in the expression of his own views on government, social issues, and geopolitics”? A cadet who, according to William Wulf, “started to expound the Communist doctrine? Who was allegedly “highly interested in communism” and believed that “communism was the only way of life for the worker”.
Most astonishingly, however, was the revelation that Oswald “was looking for a Communist cell in town to join” (The Oswald Puzzle; p.40) ( WC Vol VIII; p.18)
Would such a cadet have been tolerated under the leadership of a rabid “Red” hater like Ferrie?
We do, however, have testimony on record that directly contradicts the characterisation of Oswald as a budding Marxist in his youth.
His fellow Civil Air Patrol cadet, Ed Voebel, who joined the CAP alongside Oswald, dismissed the notion outright when testifying before the Warren Commission:
“I have read things about Lee having developed ideas as to Marxism and communism way back when he was a child, but I believe that is a lot of baloney”. Voebel also stated that he saw no evidence whatsoever that Oswald was studying communism in 1954.
Robert Oswald’s testimony would further reinforce this:
“If Lee was deeply interested in Marxism in the summer of 1955, he said nothing to me about it… Never in my presence, did he read anything that I recognised as communist literature”.
So what changed?
If Oswald showed no interest in Marxism in 1954-55, then what triggered his sudden transformation? The evidence suggests that his introduction to Marxist literature was not organic but rather coincided with his encounters with David Ferrie.
Can’t you see the contradiction?
Even more damning is that The Oswald Puzzle explicitly states:
“It is around this time that Oswald is showing clear and consistent indications of his beliefs regarding political and social systems.” (The Oswald Puzzle; p.40) Yet if this were true, then why—just a year later—would Oswald, the supposed overt Marxist, voluntarily enlist in the United States Marine Corps—an institution built to uphold and defend American capitalism and imperialism? The very antithesis of Marxist ideology.
Oswald’s half-brother, John Pic, testified before the Warren Commission that Oswald had no ideological motivation behind his enlistment. Instead, he suggested that Oswald joined the Marines simply “to get from out and under the yoke of oppression from (his) mother”, Marguerite. (WC Vol. XI; p.10)
Possible. But I believe the answer lies elsewhere—at the feet of David Ferrie.
One of Ferrie’s primary roles in the Civil Air Patrol was to encourage and recruit young men into the U.S. military—particularly the Marines. He frequently boasted about his connections to intelligence and military operations, and he would speak to cadets about the orders he received from those channels.
In fact, when Lee, underage, tried to join the Marines just after his 16th birthday, his mother was visited by a man passing himself off as a Marine Corps recruiter. As Bill Davy rightly points out, “this was a clear violation of the law”.
Ferrie, as it turns out, “often posed as a military officer and exhibited domineering and controlling behavior towards his cadets”. (Davy, p.6; James DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, pp. 152-153)
Now, consider this. If Oswald was truly the overt “Marxist”, why, while preparing to enlist in the U.S. military, did he begin to do two opposing things simultaneously? He starts to obsessively study his brother’s Marine Corps manual, memorizing it “by heart.” While, at the same time, devouring Communist literature. (WC Vol I, 198.)
Now take a moment to really let that one sink in for a second.
That’s tantamount to me, as a supporter of the Glasgow Celtic, turning up each week to Ibrox Stadium to cheer on the Glasgow Rangers. It defies all logic. (And would never happen). And logic should be an easy trail to follow, especially if one is as intelligent as Oswald.
To just ever so briefly skim over Oswald’s relationship with Ferrie is not presenting the totality of the evidence. As James DiEugenio, a specialist in New Orleans, wrote: “Oswald’s relationship with Ferrie had a powerful, perhaps crucial, effect on his life.” (The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 177). Which is likely the reason that, in the wake of the assassination, Ferrie was frantically trying to conceal that relationship. (ibid, p. 176)
The Marxist Marine
“At the time he entered the Marine Corps, Lee Oswald… was very much interested in socialism and Marxism.” (The Oswald Puzzle; p.40)
Yet, which is the real Oswald?
“Oswald was not a Communist or a Marxist. If he was, I would have taken violent action against him, and so would many of the other Marines in the unit.” James Bothelo.
Two statements. Two conflicting realities. Both cannot be true. So, which one is the illusion? With this, we enter a phase of Oswald’s life that defies explanation—at least if one assumes his Marxist convictions were genuine. His enlistment in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) stands as a glaring contradiction, compounded by the military’s staggering negligence in addressing his overtly pro-Soviet behavior.
How could a staunch Marxist thrive within the staunchly anti-Communist U.S. military? How was his open admiration for the Soviet Union and Castro’s Cuba tolerated—at the height of the Cold War? And why did none of it trigger the alarm bells that destroyed so many others?
Some have suggested that the Marine Corps simply viewed Oswald as an eccentric ideologue, dismissing his vocal admiration for the Soviet Union and his praise for Fidel Castro’s revolution as nothing more than a harmless personality quirk. But is that even remotely plausible in the rigid, hyper-vigilant, anti-Communist climate of the 1950s?
Had Oswald merely harboured private sympathies for leftist ideals, perhaps this argument could be entertained. But that is not what happened. His behavior was neither subtle nor sporadic. He was a Marine who, while actively serving in the U.S. military—a force dedicated to opposing Communism—repeatedly and publicly expressed Marxist ideology, Soviet allegiance, and disdain for American capitalism.
This is not just an inconsistency—it is a contradiction. And one that requires rigorous scrutiny.
The Marxist Résumé
“He must have had a secret clearance to work in the radar center, because that was a minimum requirement for all of us”. John Donovan. (WC Vol VIII; p.298)
“We all had secret clearances.” Nelson Delgado. (Vol VIII; p.232)
Below is a documented list of some of Marine Radar Operator Oswald’s openly pro-Soviet activities while serving in the U.S. Marines, under normal Cold War security policies. Any one of these actions should have immediately marked him as a severe national security risk.
- Openly Studying/Declaring interest in Marxist/Communist Ideology. (WCR; p.388) (Oswald Puzzle; p.57)
- Declared publicly his support for the Soviet system. (WCR, p.388)
- Believed that communism was “the best system in the world”. (WCR, p.686)
- Gigged by his fellow Marines about “being a Russian spy”. (WC Vol; VIII; p.322)
- Described by his commanding officer as a “Little nuts on foreign affairs”. (WC Vol VIII; p.290)
- Complained about the incompetence of the “American Government”. (WC Vol VIII; p.292)
- Made Remarks About “American Imperialism” and “Exploitation”. (Edward Epstein, Legend; p. 82)
- Referred to Fellow Marines as “You Americans”. (Ibid)
- Made serious references to “American Capitalist Warmongers”. (WC Vol; VIII; p. 315)
- Denounced Capitalism and praised the Soviet economic system to fellow Marines. (WCR; p.868)
- Nicknamed “Oswaldovich”. (WCR; p.388)
- Made remarks stating his preference for “The Red Army”. (WC Vol VIII; p.323) (WCR; p.388)
- Had his name in Russian on one of his jackets. (Vol VIII; p. 316)
- Played Russian records at extremely loud volume (particularly Tchaikovsky’s “Russian War Dance”) (Ibid)
- Studied The Russian Language. (WCR; p.388) (Oswald Puzzle; p.55-56)
- Made remarks in Russian frequently or used expressions such as “da”, “nyet,”or “comrade” to his fellow Marines. (Vol VIII; p. 315) (WCR; p. 686)
- Read a Russian language newspaper. (Vol. VIII, p. 315-321-292)
- Read Karl Marx’s Das Kapital, which is fundamentally a Marxist work but is also foundational to Communist ideology. (Vol. VIII, p. 254)
- Read and subscribed to publications directly linked to the Communist Party USA: The Daily Worker-The People’s World. (Elaborated on later). (WC Vol VIII; p.292-320-323) (Tony Summers Conspiracy; p.147)
- On February 25, 1959, Oswald sat for a Marine Corps Russian proficiency exam—an event that, in itself, is rather shocking in its improbability. The Oswald Puzzle states that “Oswald may have been motivated by the fact that scoring at certain levels of proficiency would add to his monthly base pay” or “he just wished to test himself” in the Russian language.“ In other words, Oswald—a Marine assigned to anti-aircraft radar operations, with a secret clearance—chooses to take a Russian language proficiency exam. But it’s not because it had any bearing on his military duties. But either for a small financial bonus or as a personal intellectual challenge. This explanation, however, is so weak that it collapses under even the slightest scrutiny.
The late District Attorney of New Orleans, Jim Garrison, famously ridiculed the absurdity of such a test for someone in Oswald’s position. He noted, “In all my years of military service during WWII and since, I had never taken a test in Russian… I could not recall a single soldier EVER having been required to demonstrate how much Russian he had learned… A soldier genuinely involved in anti-aircraft duty would have about as much use for Russian as a cat would have for pyjamas.” (On The Trail of The Assassins, p. 23). (WCR; p.685) (The Oswald Puzzle; p.56)
- Received mail on base suspected to be from the Cuban government. And openly supported Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution. (WC Vol VIII; p.240-243)
By any rational metric of Cold War security policy, Oswald’s conduct should have led to:
- A full-scale investigation by the USMC and the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI).
- Immediate dishonourable discharge.
- Blacklisting from any future government employment.
- Court-martial proceedings.
- Possible imprisonment for espionage or subversive activities.
And yet, none of this happened.
If one attempts to reconcile Oswald’s “radicalism” as nothing more than a mere “personality quirk”, then the U.S. Marine Corps was running the most reckless, incompetent security operation imaginable—hardly consistent with the military ethos of Cold War America. And if The Oswald Puzzle expects us to swallow that narrative, the real scandal isn’t just Oswald—it’s the alarming possibility that other “personality quirks” were freely roaming U.S. military bases, unchecked, with the potential to defect to the Soviet Union.
Even more alarming, Oswald had access to one of the most sensitive military installations in the world—Atsugi, Japan. This base housed the U-2 spy plane program, one of America’s most closely guarded Cold War secrets. And yet, this proclaimed Marxist, who referred to his fellow Marines as “you Americans,” was reportedly seen strolling around the base, casually taking photographs (Philip Melanson, Spy Saga, p.8).
Oswald’s Ability to Follow Orders and Authority
It has often been argued that Oswald’s temperament—frequently characterized as rebellious, defiant, and resistant to authority—would have made him wholly unsuitable for intelligence work. Detractors paint him as a loose cannon, a man who bristled under orders and was incapable of following directives.
However, as with so much else in the Oswald enigma, this portrayal is contradicted by testimony on the record. Nelson Delgado testified that;
“He used to take orders from a few people there without no trouble at all…If he had respect, he would follow, go along with you.” (WC Vol VIII; p262)
This statement suggests that Oswald’s alleged inability to follow orders was not an intrinsic trait, but rather a selective disposition—he was fully capable of obedience when he deemed it warranted. A quality, one might argue, that could be highly desirable in certain intelligence circles.
How Did Oswald Learn Russian?
The Oswald Puzzle makes the case that Oswald’s Russian proficiency was solely the product of his own self-discipline, a testament to his determination to master the language through solitary study. The book cites various Marines recalling his commitment to learning Russian, as if this alone explains how a young radar operator—without formal instruction—somehow acquired an impressive grasp of one of the most notoriously difficult languages in the world. (The Oswald Puzzle; p.55)
This argument, however, begins to unravel when faced with a striking omission from the book—a name that should have been central to the discussion but is instead left out entirely: Rosaleen Quinn.
Quinn was the aunt of Oswald’s fellow Marine, Henry J. Roussel, Jr., and she had a personal stake in learning Russian. She was preparing for a position at the American Embassy in Moscow, which required passing a State Department exam in the language. To achieve this, she undertook a Berlitz course and received formal tutoring for more than a year. (WC Vol. VIII; p.321) (XXIV; p.430)
At her nephew’s arrangement, Quinn spoke with Oswald one evening for over two hours in Russian. She later recalled that Oswald spoke the language better and more confidently than she did! (Melanson; p.11)
That revelation alone should be enough to pierce the myth of Oswald as a self-taught Russian student. Here was a woman who had received structured, professional training, yet she found herself outpaced in fluency and confidence by a 19-year-old Marine with no formal instruction.
It gets even more implausible when we consider the timing. This conversation took place after Oswald had already failed his Russian proficiency test in February 1959. According to The Oswald Puzzle:
“Oswald got two more questions right than wrong, however, his overall rating on the test was poor. Oswald scored -5 for “understanding” (listening to spoken Russian) +4 for reading and +3 for writing. Those scores suggest that he had been teaching himself Russian from a book up to that point in time”. (p.56)
So we are supposed to believe that a man rated as “poor” in Russian just months earlier—who had a negative score in listening comprehension (-5)—could, by the time he spoke with Quinn, outclass a trained Russian speaker?
Jim Garrison captured the absurdity of this contradiction perfectly when he wrote: “I am reminded of the man of said his dog was not very intelligent because he could beat him three games out of five when they played chess.” (Garrison, p.22)
But beyond the numbers, there is an even larger problem. Russian is not an easy language for an American to master, even with professional training. Dr. James Weeks, a professor of modern languages at Southeastern Massachusetts University, taught Russian himself and underwent military language training. He was consulted by researcher Phillip Melanson and was asked whether Oswald’s supposed rate of progress was feasible.
Weeks stated that attaining Russian fluency requires more than twice as many hours as Spanish or French—1,100 hours or more, including instruction. Weeks opined that the kind of progress described in Oswald’s case would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to attain in such a short time by using only the radio and self-study props. (Melanson, p.12)
This is not an opinion—it is a fact supported by decades of linguistic research.
We must also consider a particularly revealing exchange from the January 27, 1964, executive session of the Warren Commission, in which Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin made a rather curious admission:
“We are trying to run down to find out what (Oswald) studied at the Monterey School of the Army in the way of languages”. History Matters Archive – January 27, 1964 transcript, pg
This single sentence raises profound implications. Why was the Warren Commission investigating Oswald’s possible enrolment at Monterey?
The Monterey School (Defense Language Institute) was not some casual language academy—it was a top-tier training ground for U.S. military and intelligence personnel. Students did not elect their own courses; they were assigned languages based on operational requirements.
If Oswald had indeed studied at Monterey, this would explain both the speed and depth of his Russian proficiency, as well as why his behavior in the Marine Corps—so outwardly pro-Soviet and politically suspect—never raised alarms within the military establishment.
The very fact that Rankin and the Warren Commission found it necessary to “run this down” suggests they had reason to believe Oswald’s Russian training was more than just the efforts of a self-motivated Marine flipping through textbooks in his spare time. (Melanson, p.12)
Click here to read part 2.
