This paper reviews existing literature on the life of Lee Harvey Oswald leading up to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Authors have analyzed four aspects of Oswald's life that may have contributed to the assassination: 1) his tumultuous childhood and relationships with his neglectful mother and lack of a father figure, 2) his growing disillusionment with the U.S. government and commitment to Marxism, 3) the possibility of mental illness or emotional problems, and 4) Freudian perspectives on his psychology and behavior. While the reasons why Oswald allegedly killed Kennedy remain debated, studying his life reveals how childhood experiences and political radicalization may have shaped him into the man who assassinated the president.

1. 1
In the Mind of an Assassin: Lee Harvey Oswald
This paper reviews the existing literature on the life Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged
assassin of President John F. Kennedy, leading up to the assassination in Dallas. Although there
have been numerous books written about Lee Oswald, the ones that will be reviewed have
researched deeply into the main, credible sources. These sources include Lee Oswald’s diaries
and extensive writing and the Warren Commission, made up almost entirely of closed session
interviews with the people closest to Lee Oswald. The books that will be reviewed give a
detailed background of the life of Lee Oswald, investigating aspects of his life that turned him
into the young adult he was. The existing literature focuses on four different topics: his parental
relationships during his childhood, disillusionment with the U.S. government, his commitment to
Marxism, and mental disease. The events that took place in each stage of Lee Oswald’s life
changed him as a person, and many of the authors attribute these events to the personality and
characteristics that would ultimately lead to the assassination of an U.S. president.
Authors focus on many different reasons as to why Lee Oswald allegedly killed JFK,
some claiming his commitment to Marxism, some blaming a tumultuous childhood, and others
considering mental disease. Today, as authors and historians research deeper into Lee Oswald’s
diaries and testimonies from the people closest to him, there is evidence of all three. The two
groundbreaking, brilliantly comprehensive books about Lee Oswald leading up to the
assassination are Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F.
Kennedy and Norman Mailer’s Oswald’s Tale. Bugliosi’s 1,600 page behemoth presents a
comprehensive look at Lee Oswald’s entire life, including every detail of his childhood, time in
Russia, and return to the U.S.. Mailer mixes interviews, testimony, and analysis to “greatly
surprise readers who have thought of Oswald as a hapless loner: socially awkward, inarticulate,
and an unremarkable loser.”1 Of the many books written about Lee Harvey Oswald’s life, each
author analyzes different stages and events throughout his life and how those may have molded
him into an alleged assassin. I recognize there are many other works concerning whether
Oswald actually did kill Kennedy or if he was apart of a larger conspiracy, but the purpose of this
paper is to review the existing literature on Oswald and his life leading up to November 22,
1963, that may have led to his alleged assassination of Kennedy.
I. Parental Relationships
Bugliosi cites a New York social worker who was assigned to a young Lee Oswald,
summing up what many authors see as one of Lee Oswald’s main problems faced as a child -- the
relationship with his mother Marguerite. Evenlyn Strickman concluded that Lee Oswald’s
difficulties stemmed from his relationship with his mother. She said that Marguerite always
cared for his material needs, she never was very involved with him or concerned with what
happened to him.2
The relationship between Lee Oswald and Marguerite was a tumultuous one. When Lee
Oswald was three, Marguerite turned to the Bethlehem Children’s Home that aided single parents
1 Norman Mailer, Oswald's Tale (New York: Random House, 1995), 1.
2 Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History (New York: Norton, 2007), 533.

2. 2
in raising kids. According to Bugliosi, Lee Oswald’s brother
Robert thought Marguerite considered all of her boys a tribulation
to her; “certainly by age three he had sense that, you know, we were
a burden.”3 Marguerite’s neglect of Lee Oswald continued through
his youth, which led to many major warning signals of the type of
person Lee Oswald was beginning to become. Bugliosi tells the
anecdote of a neighbor of Marguerite, Otis R. Carlton, who visited
the Oswald house when Lee Oswald was twelve and an incident
that happened between Lee and his brother John. According to
Carlton, “He was chasing John through the kitchen door
brandishing a long butcher knife. He threw the knife at John but
missed, hitting the wall. Marguerite passed it off by saying, ‘They
have these little scuffles all the time...Don’t worry about it.’”4
Lee Harvey Oswald in 1952 According to Mailer, Lee Oswald also witnessed the tempestuous
relationship between Marguerite and her two husbands. Marguerite’s
attitude towards Lee Oswald changed many different
times depending on the family’s economic security,
especially bad when Marguerite’s marriages would fall
apart.5 According to John, “There’s no doubt the
turmoil in the household had its effect on Lee
Oswald.”6 Both Mailer and Bugliosi see Marguerite as
an important person is the molding of Lee Oswald.
Her relationship with him and the way she raised him,
sometimes intentional and sometimes unintentional
made his childhood a roller coaster. His childhood,
being raised by a forgetful, single mother is summed
up in a diary entry written by Lee Oswald himself:
“The son of a Insurance Salesman whose early death
left a far mean streak of independence brought on by
neglect.”7
Bugliosi and Mailer also attribute Lee
Oswald’s childhood problems with his paternal
relationships. Lee Oswald’s father died two months
before Lee Oswald was born, leaving him without a
father figure for the first five years of his life. During
this time, the family faced economic difficulties, with
Marguerite living off life insurance money for years.8
When Lee Oswald was six, Marguerite married Edwin Edwin Ekdahl and Marguerite Oswald in 1957
3 Ibid., 513.
4 Ibid., 523.
5 Mailer, 358.
6 Bugliosi, 521.
7 Ibid., 515.
8 Ibid.

3. 3
Ekdahl, an engineer who brought the family out of economic hardship. In the beginning, it
looked as though Ekdahl was a sufficient father figure for a young Lee Oswald. John said, “I
think Lee Oswald found in him the father he never had. He had treated us real good and I am
sure that Lee Oswald felt the same way.”9 A short time later, Marguerite separated from Ekdahl
after finding out he was in an affair. Again, Lee Oswald was left without a father in his life.
The psychological report done by Dr. Renatus Hartogs in 1953 sheds light on a
professional’s assessment of Lee Oswald’s childhood. Hartogs recommended that, “he should be
placed on probation under the condition that he should be treated by a male psychiatrist who
could substitute for the lack of a father figure.”10 Bugliosi argues that lack of a father figure
impacted Lee Oswald through its “existing emotional isolation and deprivation, lack of affection,
and absence of family life.”11 According to both Bugliosi and Mailer, the lack of a strong,
consistent father figure made Lee Oswald’s childhood a lost, neglected one, lacking the guidance
he needed to cope with all the family problems he faced throughout his youth.
II. Disillusionment with U.S. Government
Lee Oswald’s protest against the U.S. government began in 1953 when he received a
pamphlet to free the convicted Soviet spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. According to one of his
teachers: “he has consistently refused to salute the flag during early morning exercises,” which is
thought by many authors to be the beginning of Lee Oswald’s opposition to the U.S. and
transformation into a Marxist.12 Although the previous authors argued Lee Oswald’s childhood
as a cause of the person he would become, most authors have argued that Lee Oswald’s
disillusionment with the U.S. government is the reason he assassinated Kennedy.
In The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: The Reasons Why, Albert Newman argues that
Lee Oswald’s commitment to the USSR and anti-U.S. views motivated him to assassinate
Kennedy. Newman makes the argument that, “as a Marxist, he believed in the historical
inevitability of communism’s triumph,” where the communist movement would eventually be
victorious after a global revolution. 13 With Lee Oswald’s commitment to this idea, Newman
argues “as a would-be activist, he felt an urge to find a place in the history of the ‘struggle’ for
that victory,” where Lee Oswald’s role in the revolution would be to assassinate Kennedy, who
he saw as a threat to the revolution.14
Newman also argues many different characteristics of Lee Oswald that made him very
susceptible to communist ideas and are responsible for his anti-U.S. beliefs. Newman says that
Lee Oswald was extremely gullible, “believing every word of Marx and the Communist
propaganda he devoured.”15 Newman also argues that Lee Oswald had a “prideful
ignorance...considering himself an expert in fields of knowledge in which he did not even know
enough to realize the extent of his ignorance.”16 Lee Oswald was stubborn and set in his ways,
never questioning his own beliefs. Newman sums up his view by arguing “I submit that these
9 Mailer, 358.
10 Bugliosi, 535.
11 Ibid.
12 Albert Newman, The Reasons Why (New York: Crown Publishers, 1970), 15.
13 Newman, 175.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid., 188.
16 Ibid., 189.

4. 4
seven traits of Oswald the Marxist--secretiveness, gullibility, deviousness, ability to plan in
detail, monstrous self-esteem, opportunism, and fanaticism are accurately what formed the
background of the assassin’s capacity to risk all in cruel and irresponsible actions.”17
Lastly, Newman looks at the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and connects it to the
assassination a year later. Anti-U.S. and Kennedy propaganda was a fallout from the crisis,
which in Lee Oswald’s eyes, convinced him that Kennedy was a main threat. Lee Oswald was a
supporter of Castro’s Revolutionary government, and after the U.S. quarantine and the Soviets’
removal of their equipment, Lee Oswald saw this as a major blow to his beliefs and the
communist revolution.18
In Not In Your Lifetime, Anthony Summers argues that Lee Oswald developed his distrust
in the U.S. government while working as a radar operator in Japan in 1957. During this time,
Summers says, “Oswald lived literally in the shadow of American intelligence operations.”19
Due to Lee Oswald’s “secret” security clearance, which included knowledge of many U.S.
intelligence gathering missions, Lee Oswald saw how the U.S. was operating against the USSR.
Summers argues that this had an impact on Lee Oswald, causing him to develop a distrust of the
U.S. government and the things they were doing behind the backs of the American public.
During this time, Lee Oswald began to “openly flaunt Marxist convictions and Russophilia,”
emphasizing his loyalty to the USSR.20
In the article “Castro’s Avenger,” journalist Daniel Schorr argues that Lee Oswald
assassinated Kennedy in retaliation to U.S. government plans to kill Fidel Castro. Schorr’s
argument is based on Lee Oswald’s disillusionment with the U.S. government, but specifically
looks at one instance that may have actually motivated him to kill Kennedy. Seeing Castro as
“an extended Soviet arm in the West,” the U.S. supported many different schemes to assassinate
Castro, including enlisting the mafia by the CIA, poisoning Castro’s cigars, and recruiting ranked
Cuban officers as double agents.21 Schorr
specifically refers to an Associated Press
interview with Castro, where he said, “if
U.S. leaders do not stop their attempts to
kill Cuban leaders, they themselves will
not be safe.”22 Schorr’s conclusion is that
Lee Oswald “may have read that interview,
and when he shot Kennedy, he did it as the
self-appointed avenger of his hero, Fidel
Castro.”23
Schorr is not the only writer who
claims that Lee Oswald’s support of Castro
Oswald handing out pro-Castro pamphlets in 1963
motivated him to assassinate Kennedy.
17 Ibid., 190.
18 Ibid., 300.
19 Anthony Summers, Not In Your Lifetime (New York: Marlowe and Company, 1998), 101.
20 Ibid., 102.
21 Daniel Schorr, “Castro’s Avenger,” New Leader 91, no. 1 (Jan/Feb 2008): 5.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.

5. 5
Gus Russo and Stephen Molton argue in “Did Castro OK the Kennedy Assassination?” that Lee
Oswald’s dedication to Castro and his revolution motivated him to kill Kennedy. Russo and
Molton cite a senior Cuban spy who went by “Oscar Marino,” who had known Lee Oswald and
had corroborated on the Cuban link to Oswald. In 2005, Marino said, “Oswald volunteered to
kill Kennedy. He was so full of hatred that it gave him the idea. He wanted it himself [because]
he hated his country. He was a solider of the revolution.”24 Basing their argument off of
Marino’s claim, Russo and Molton say that Oswald wanted to relieve the pressure on Castro and
“end the secret war against the Castro brothers.”25
III. Mental Disease
Lee Oswald’s mental stability is a topic that is often overlooked by authors due to the
lack of evidence on the subject. In Accessories After The Fact, Sylvia Meagher looks at the ways
the Warren Commission avoided any conclusions on Lee Oswald’s mental health and whether it
may have contributed to his decision to assassinate Kennedy. Meagher criticizes the Warren
Commission “for failing to seek expert testimony from psychiatrists and for indulging in
unqualified pronouncements about Oswald’s
mental balance and emotional problems.”26
Meagher disagrees with the testimonies of
the people closest to Lee Oswald; his wife,
neighbors, coworkers, and fellow marines,
that Lee Oswald was mentally stable and had
no potential for violence. Instead she claims
that, because “he was not irrational,
disturbed, or psychotic” and “without a
personal or political motive for assassinating
the President,” then there is no way to claim
he killed Kennedy.27 Meagher goes against
the other authors and says that Lee Oswald
must have had some case of emotional
problems and that his mental stability
contributed to the assassination.
In The Oswald Affair, Léo Sauvage
describes Lee Oswald as a “persecuted
psychopath,” who lived “in a constant
atmosphere of hatred and suspicion, distrust
and concealment.”28 Sauvage looks at both
the characteristics Lee Oswald displayed and
his actions and is able to label him as a Oswald in 1963 with his mail-order rifle
persecuted psychopath. His mental
24 Gus Russo and Stephen Molton, “Did Castro OK the Kennedy Assassination?,” American Heritage 58, no. 6 (Winter 2009): 27.
25 Ibid., 28.
26 Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1967), 243.
27 Ibid., 246.
28 Léo Sauvage, The Oswald Affair (New York: The World Publishing Company, 1966), 268.

6. 6
instability led to a constant paranoia where he felt society was against him. Lee Oswald’s
trouble making in school, run-ins with opposition to his views, problems in the Marines, and
frustration with the U.S. may have led to this feeling that society was against him. Thus,
Sauvage argues that the assassination was Lee Oswald’s desire to “kill someone who represents
that society to avenge themselves.”29 Sauvage mixes the argument that Lee Oswald had become
disillusioned with American society with mental instability to show why Lee Oswald allegedly
killed Kennedy.
The debate over why Lee Oswald allegedly assassinated Kennedy is still widely debated,
some arguing different reasons he developed throughout his youth and young adult life, others
blaming outside forces. Microhistory and psychoanalysis are two of the many ways historians
and authors have studied Lee Oswald’s life, but a clear answer as to why Lee Oswald killed
Kennedy is up to interpretation of the events. The important part of the study of Lee Oswald is
to understand how someone can develop the desire to assassinate the President and stress the
importance of recognizing the warning signs of a child. A fragment from the writings of Lee
Oswald emphasize his views developed throughout his life right up to the day of the
assassination: “We have lived into a dark generation of tension and fear. I seek an alternative to
those systems which have brought them misery. I intend to put forward just such an
alternative.”30
IV. Freudian Theory
Despite the extensive historical literature on Lee Harvey Oswald, historians have yet to
apply the perspectives provided by the theoretical writings of Sigmund Freud to this topic. Freud
was a psychologist was interested in why people exhibited neurotic behaviors. To do so, Freud
studied the structure of the human mind, specifically the intangible structures, to try to better
understand why people exhibit neurotic behavior. This included the subconscious, what was
happening in the unconscious mind. Throughout his Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud
takes a closer look at civilization and its relationship with the individual. Freud also looks
closely the individual’s relationship with himself, focusing on instincts and the conflicts
individuals face in their own minds.
Freud’s idea of the Id, Ego, and Super Ego is his way to explain the individual’s struggle
with himself and explains why individuals are torn between their desires and their morals.
Freud’s psychoanalysis looks at this and concludes that the Id channels one’s sexual and
destructive instincts along with its desires without identifying morals, ethics, or social norms. To
counter this Id, the Super Ego is the right vs. wrong, ethical force. The Id is always making
demands while the Super Ego opposes those demands, with the Ego stuck in the middle. That
Ego represents the individual, one who is repeatedly forced to decide between desires and
restrictions. This theory explains why it is hard for the individual to decide between what their
instinctual desire is telling them to do, in some cases putting their morals or their society’s social
norm aside to do it. Freud is warning the individual of their own Id, making them aware of their
desires that could be harmful to themselves or others when he states “an unrestricted satisfaction
29 Ibid.
30 Newman, 223.

7. 7
of every need presents itself as the most enticing method of conducting one’s life, but it means
putting enjoyment before caution, and soon brings its own punishment.”31 This “enjoyment
before caution” is Freud’s warning of the Id’s demands, putting the individual’s instincts before
its safety.
When somebody is trying to deal with their desires that may be against their society or
own ethics and morals, it can be mentally harmful to them. Freud points out that this struggle
between desire and restriction will always exist, but it shouldn’t make life meaningless. He says
that there are “many paths which may lead to happiness as is attainible by men, but there is non
which does so for certain.”32 Even though Freud has a very gloomy view of nature and the
external world, he offers a postive view on how to cope with this mental dillemna. He states that
“we shall never completely master nature” and “we cannot remove all suffering” but “we can
remove some, and we can mitigate some.”33 One way humans can cope with the pains of the
world is through love, both sexual and nonsexual. Love “creates new bonds with people who
before were strangers,” bonds that help humans deal with the pains the reality principle brings. 34
Freud offers another way to cope with the desires of their Id, through sublimation. People can
use their instinctive Id energy and redirect it to be innovative in cultural activity. To deal with
the pressures, Freud argues that people can “shift the instinctual aims in such a way that they
cannot come up against frustration of the external world”, where they can use art, science, or
fantasy through this creative energy.35 He states that some people do not possess this ability, but
they can still appreciate this art or science to deal with the frustrations. This temporary
withdrawl is effective for the individual in dealing with the reality principle. Freud also
introduces the idea of “attemping to control our instinctual life”, meaning control the Id and its
desires.36 By controlling these instincts, Freud means to protect against suffering by taming both
one’s ego and the effect of not satisfying their desires. When the ego is tamed, failure to satisfy
desire is less painful because there is less reliance on being satisfied. By doing this, one can
“master the internal sources of our needs” by “killing off the instincts”, ultimatly controlling the
id’s desires.37
Freud also shows the problems of civilization by claiming even though a civilization
offers protection from a threatening external world, there are many additional costs for that
protection. Individuals have to give up personal freedoms and moral values when joining a
society. Once one is part of a society, that society puts moral commandments and rules based on
the good of the whole upon the individual. Freud calls this the Cultural Super Ego, something
that applies individual tactics on civilization and “issues a command and does not ask whether it
is possible for people to obey it” while assuming he has “unlimited mastery over his id.”38 Freud
sees this cultural super ego as a detriment to the individual because it demands too much from
the individual. Freud states that too much demand from the authority of the cultural super ego “a
31 Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents (New York: Norton, 1961), 26-27.
32 Ibid., 36.
33 Ibid., 37.
34 Ibid., 58.
35 Ibid., 29.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid., 28.
38 Ibid., 108-109.

8. 8
revolt will be produced in him or a neurosis, or he will be made unhappy.”39 Even though the
cultural super ego gives safety and order to society, it has too much authority over that
civilization, restricting its subjects to moral and ethical restrictions that thay individual may not
believe in. Although this cultural super ego can control the individual’s agression in the form of
ethical commands, these ethical commands are based on universal moral laws that may not apply
to every individual equally.
Lastly, Freud argues that agression and violence are instinctual components of who we
are, fundamental to human nature. Freud views humans as originally animals, so these
animalistic instincts still fuel the individual’s desires. Freud specifically looks at the relationship
between Eros, the desire for humans to create and sustain life, and Thanatos, a human’s instinct
for death and destruction. Part of human nature is the struggle between these two instincts. The
unconscious tells humans that they may have this death drive, convincing them that agression
and destructive acts are a way to escape the pressures of the world. Because of this agression,
civilization finds a way to alter these animalistic natural forms of agression and control these
impulses. According to Freud, “civilization obtains mastery over the individual’s dangerous
desire for aggression by weakening and disarming it.”40 Civilization controls the each individual
to control the society as a whole.
V. A Freudian Psychoanalytical Approach to Oswald
How, then, might one apply Freud’s theories to the subject of Lee Harvey Oswald’s
motives for assassinating President Kennedy? Using Freud’s ideas of the individual’s struggle
with both society and himself, human’s instinctual aggression, and the individual’s desire to
break away from a restricting, dictating civilization, I propose that Oswald dealt with these
different theories throughout his life, motivating him to assassinate Kennedy.
Freud discussed the way society restricts its individuals to establish control over them.
He argued that to be part of a society, individuals must give up certain rights and freedoms.
Living as a supporter of Marxism in the U.S. during his life was not tolerated by the majority of
Americans. In the mind of Oswald, American society was always against him. The heavily
publicized democratic, patriotic ideals that he saw as propaganda throughout the 1950s and 60s
restricted Oswald of expressing his Marxist ideas. Oswald may have saw American society as
this dictating force that restricted him from expressing his views. To Oswald, this dictating force
and everything it represented was led by President Kennedy. To escape this restriction, Oswald
had to remove the source of its power, Kennedy himself.
Oswald was frustrated by the limitations forced upon him by American society, using his
writings to vent this frustration. In many of his writings, Oswald expressed his anger with the
U.S. government and American society, saying that he would much rather live in a place free
from the American propaganda. Oswald’s view of the U.S.’s false identity paralleled Freud’s
view of a powerful society, one that creates a masked illusion. To hold on to its power, this
society presents itself as a free and progressive society, where its real intentions are not
recognized consciously. To Oswald, the U.S. masked its imperialistic motives and exploitation
39 Ibid., 109.
40 Ibid., 84.

9. 9
through messages of democracy and progress, which kept Americans oblivious to the
government’s real intentions.
Freud also argued that even though these restrictions are put upon members of a society,
there are still ways for the individual to deal with those limitations. In many instances
throughout Oswald’s life, he tried to deal with restrictions, whether it be in his childhood or adult
life, but those attempts to deal with the hardships of life usually failed. One way Freud says that
individuals can deal with the pains of the world is through love. Oswald had many meaningless
relationships with women in both the U.S. and the USSR, but finally met his wife, Marina, while
living in Russia. However even his love with his wife was strained. According to Oswald’s
diary, Marina was often unsatisfied with Oswald sexually, causing problems in their marriage.
This meant that Oswald lacked one important way to cope with the restrictions in his life.
Freud also says that fantasy is a way for the individual to escape the pains of the world.
In his diary, Oswald fantasized about a better world to live in, but when he would try to make
those fantasies a reality, he would find that they weren’t what he had imagined. During his
tumultuous childhood, Oswald had dreamt of joining the Marine Corps, idolizing his brother
Robert who had enlisted in the Marines. Although Oswald thought the Marines would be an
escape from the restraints of his childhood, he realized the secrecy of the U.S. government
leading to more disdain for the government. Oswald also fantasized of finding a better life in the
USSR, free from the American way of life. However, soon after he arrived in Russia, it was also
not as he had dreamt it to be. In his diary, Oswald said he had grown bored life in Russia
because the work was boring and there was not enough entertainment. Oswald had fantasized so
many times to escape the situations he was living in, but was always disappointed of the reality
of those fantasies. After trying to escape and withdraw from his society through fantasy and love
and continuously failing, Oswald turned to attempt to change it, assassinating Kennedy as a step
to change American society.
Freud said that aggression and violence were fundamental of human nature and that
humans had a natural instinct for destruction and death. Individuals struggle between Eros, the
instinct to create life and sustain it, and Thanatos, the instinct for destruction. When the
individual loses the struggle and becomes more inclined to Thanatos, he turns against society
and is urged to destroy it. It can be argued that with Oswald, his unconscious may have told him
that he had this death wish, wanting to escape the pressures of the world. Thanatos pushed
Oswald to assassinate Kennedy, the symbol of a society that was trying to control him. Oswald
had been pushed so far that he could no longer control his natural aggressions, leading to the
assassination.
Freud’s theories show the struggles the individuals have with both themselves and
society. Oswald’s personal battle with his own instincts combined with his struggle against
society put him in a position where he needed to relieve the pressures of a society that had turned
against him. To better understand the motives of Oswald, Freud’s theory on the self and society
shed light on why the individual acts the way they do in a restrictive, dictating society.
In conclusion, Freud’s theories on the individual’s struggle with himself and society is
valuable because it goes into the mind of the individual to try to understand why they act the way
they do. Though it does not justify Oswald’s decisions, it adds a certain complexity to his
motives, showing that there is not just one reason for the killing. This psychoanalysis looks past

10. 10
other people’s written testimonies and opinions and goes deeper into the mind of Oswald
himself, into the mind of the assassin.
Bibliography
Bugliosi, Vincent. Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President Kennedy. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company, 2007.
Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1961.
Mailer, Norman. Oswald's Tale: An American Mystery. New York: Random House, 1995.
Meagher, Sylvia. Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, The Authorities, and The
Report. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1967.
Newman, Albert H.. The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: The Reasons Why. New York:
Crown Publishers, 1970.
Russo, Gus and Stephen Molton. “Did Castro OK the Kennedy Assassination?” American
Heritage 58, no. 6 (Winter 2009): 20-29.
Sauvage, Léo. The Oswald Affair: An Examination of the Contradictions and Omissions of the
Warren Report. New York: The World Publishing Company, 1966.
Schorr, Daniel. “Castro’s Avenger.” New Leader 91, no. 1 (Jan/Feb 2008): 5-6.
Summers, Anthony. Not In Your Lifetime. New York: Marlowe & Company, 1998.