You probably know that determining intention is far, far less important than determining whether someone did something.
However, in Oswalds case, he could have said anything. Anything at all. Apart from his lying in nearly every sentence he spoke to the Dallas police in their interviews before he was shot had lies in it.
Lee, have you ever been to Mexico City?
No.
Lee, do you own any guns?
No.
Lee, do you own a handgun?
No.
Lee, have you ever owned a rifle?
No.
Lee, did you kill Officer Tippet?
No.
Lee, did you kill the President?
No.
And so on. Why would that have any more significance than anything else that came out of his mouth?
The bottom line is, there is a tsunami of physical AND circumstantial evidence that counterbalances any lie that might have come out of his mouth.
My point is that had he killed JFK,
some thing would have surfaced showing his “Pride” or “Ideology.”
He did not seem to be afraid but confident
That he would be exonerated.
That he called himself a patsy indicates he had some knowledge of the JFK visit to Dealy Plaza.
Of course this is ancient history and the talking point are firmly entrenched.