Like I said it was chapter 10. The last chapter.
This is lovely Russ. Only one problem. It has nothing to do with proving
Oswald was involved in shooting JFK.
Oh, yes it does.
And unfortunately Dr. Holloway did
not interview Oswald, did she? And what pray tell are his "extensive"
writings? His diary?
Letters to Marina, letters to his mother and Robert, letters to embassies,
job applications, his diary, WDSU interview and debate, leter to YPSL,
application to Albert Schweitzer College, a letter to INS, letters to the
Marine Corps, letters to the FPCC, application form for a visa to go to Cuba
to name a few. She also couples it with biographical data. She builds a case
that Oswald was the assassin. How is this different than all conspiracy books
that start and finish with the assumption that he is innocent? Is it just
that it doesn't fit your idea that he was innocent?
typist to type it up.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-13.html#soviet
See page 700.
operation. He attributed the lack of unemployment to the shortage of
party meetings, and received all the new propaganda as it came out. He
hung the walls of the shop with signs and slogans of the Communist Party.
Labor," and one sports meeting. All but one of them were compulsory for
interfere with work, and lasted anywhere from 10 minutes to 2 hours.
His letters to embassies? This could not, even in a
stretch, be called "extensive" writings. And of course she started with
the assumption that Oswald was innocent, correct? If not, her assertions
would be biased by her belief in his guilt, and that belief would thus
taint any conclusions she would draw. As you yourself say: "This diagnosis
is more often given to people evaluated after they have been arrested for
criminal offenses." Oh really. So the evaluation is tainted off the bat by
such "criminal" associations.
She starts with his correspondance and his biographical data. By chapter ten
she offers her diagnosis.
Interesting. Obviously, a faulty starting
In Dr. Diane Holloway's book, "The Mind of Oswald" she described
Oswald
from a psychological viewpoint. She bases her theory on his extensive
writings,
Exactly what "extensive" writings?
See above.
his behaviors
By those who knew him, such as his brother, his wife, his associates and the
police.
and other biographical factors
Exactly what biographical factors? And how specifically to they pertain
to this evaluation. Were "all" biographical factors taken into account,
or only "select" factors -- in other words, only those factors that
suited her argument?
No, she includes his life story....unbiased. I didn't find anything in her
book that hasn't been written about before. She just studies it with a solid
background in psychology. Which obviously you don't have a clue about.
leading up to the
assassination.
In Chapter 10, titled 'Analysis of Lee Harvey Oswald she offers
diagnosis's of Oswald and his criminal thinking patterns.
Criminal thinking patterns? So she starts with the assumption his
thinking is criminal and then analyzes Oswald with this bias?
No, that is her conclusion. She didn't start with this....she concludes with
it.
Lol
She bases this
on his writings and his behaviors.
His "criminal" writings and "criminal" behaviors? Hehe..putting the
cart before the horse methinks.
Again I say it's based on his life and than she offers her conclusions. If
I'm writing a psychological, I always start with factors that are significant
in one's life...and than I draw a conclusion based on my training.
If Lee had been evaluated in the 1990's at age 13, his diagnosis would
have been: Conduct disorder, unsocialized, non-aggressive. Such youths
have a persistent pattern of violating home and school rules, lying in
and out of the home, and do not display affection, empathy or bonds
with
others.
The only way this evaluation could be valid is if she had a
comprehensive and complete analysis of Oswald's personality at age 13.
As jko points out, such an analysis does not exist so this is mere
speculation.
I'd call it a trained analysis. And since you know little of psychological
diagnosis and are already biased you wouldn't have a clue as to what she's
talking about. And I'll tell you one other thing, and that Oswald by the time
he was 13 would fit exactly with a conduct disorder...or would you call him
normal for a 13 year old?
Concomitantly, if Lee had been evaluated in the 1990's as an adult,
psychiatrists would have placed him in one or the other of these
diagnosis categories.
People with a Paranoid personality Disorder are secretive,
I guess all spies are Paranoid. I guess all priests are paranoid. They
are very secretive.
Your isolating the points I briefly mentioned and summarized in his life, to
rip apart what she concluded with.
avoid blame,
search for confirmation of their biases, take unneeded precautions at
any sign of threat and are pathologically jealous. They maybe quick to
take offense, ready to counterattack, and unable to relax. They appear
cold, lack a true sense of humor, and take pride in being rational and
objective. People with an Antisocial personality Disorder have a
childhood pattern of truancy, persistent lying, chronic violations of
rules at home/school and sometimes have a history of delinquency.
During
adulthood, they don't maintain consistent work behavior or responsible
parenting, don't accept the norms of lawful behavior, have frequent
separations or divorces, fail to plan ahead, disregard the truth and
are
reckless. This diagnosis is more often given to people evaluated after
they have been arrested for criminal offenses.
Lots of people with some of these same problems are not Paranoid too.
True, but you're ignoring the totality of the data she presents.
When people with Antisocial Personality Disorders complete one of the
most popular psychological tests (The Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality
Inventory
Did Oswald do this test? If not, using it to describe Oswald is
irrelevent.
She uses it as a comparision.
which the author conducted with General Edwin Walker in 1962)
they often have a particular profile.
Oh so we are talking about E. Walker not Oswald, OK.
She only mentions Walker but doesn't compare him to Walker.
This profile usually shows
elevations on three scales (Schizophrenia, psychopathic deviate and
paranoia).They are usually described as antisocial, misanthropic,
bitter, a hostile loner, sensitive to perceived insults, ready to lash
out at others, having little contact with fathers, low in achievement
motivation, poor interpersonal relations, alienate all they meet, have
no empathy, and exploit others. Many of these adjectives fit
descriptions of Lee given by those who came into contact with him.
And may fit other people as well. So all these people must be assassins
right, or prone to assassinate someone, correct? Nothing here proves
Oswald killed JFK btw.
I didn't say it did.....but like her I believe that he's guilty as sin. You
don't and since you haven't read the book and I took only fragments of the
last chapter you reach an erroneous conclusion that fits your thinking.
A number of criminal thinking patterns have been found in people with
Antisocial Personality Disorders as well as people who commit various
crimes. These thinking patterns have been deduced by psychiatrists and
psychologists who study convicts.
OH. Was Oswald a convict? Tell me about that.
She making a trained comparision.
Many of these criminal thinking
patterns can be found in the writings and the behavior of Lee Harvey
Oswald. Some of them are enumerated here.
Probably can be found in the writing of many people..maybe even some on
this newsgroup. So what? Here again, the Dr. appears to be starting
with a template and laying it on top of Oswald. I would trust an
analysis that started without a template and used the data to discover
a proper analysis. I surely would not trust a cookie cutter approach.
You have completely missed the point. Which is what I would expect from
someone who believes in his innocence. You have a bias that's very clear.
It's easy to rip into the messanger.
The following are summaries of Dr. Holloway's factors supporting the
above mentioned disorders.
Thats ok. These comments support the disorders above, and would apply
to anyone with such a disorder. Whether Oswald had this disorder or not
cannot be determined.
She's making a trained and skilled diagnosis based on his life and his
writings. And based on my professional experience she hits the mark more
often than she misses it.
The fear of being put down and reduced to nothing is prominent in
people
who break laws. Put-downs are felt when one is told what to do, when
one
is evaluated by others, when one has to ask a question or ask for
help,
or when others don't bend to one's will. Such people will do almost
anything to avoid being seen as nothing. So important is it to be
something rather than nothing that they will often "stir things up"
which reassures them of their power and worth.
Such people must feel they are powerful, always right, superior and
they
display attitudes of smugness, aloofness and silence in social
situations. In fact, Oswald sometimes pointed a finger at co-workers
and
said"Pow" as if to shoot them, which certainly kept others at a
distance.
Oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease! Did you ever play cowboys and Indians Russ.
Watch out someone's gonna claim you have symptoms of mental illness.
Would it have been better if I wrote out the whole book???? I took bits and
pieces of it and only from the last chapter.
Such people try to maintain an image of being extraordinary,
prestigious
and unique.
Lol! Ya, and they sit around every night watching the boob tube in a
cheap rooming house too.
You have no idea what the woman wrote. Why don't you order it yourself and
draw your own conclusions. But before you do, you might want to take a few
graduate courses in personality theory and development.
Because they are so secretive and converse little with
others, they believe they are very different from others. They choose
to
believe they are so unique that they do not need to follow society's
constraints. Therefore, they refuse to accept advice or submit to any
person or program or system and believe they already know everything
worth knowing.
Criminal thinking patterns include more lying than just the kind
designed to keep one from being caught or seen in a bad light.
habitual
lying, such as on job applications, certainly build these people up.
Kinda like Hosty lying about the note he destroyed? Certainly helped
keep him from being seen in a bad light. Yup a lot of liars around.
Like Oswald. Besides you are comparing apples with oranges.
But
constant deception also allows them to be mysterious which gives them
more control over others. Interestingly enough, they may see
themselves
as virtuous and truthful because they lie more by omission than by
commission. They also often learn to master a calm facade and pride
themselves on showing no outward emotion and look almost as if they
are
acting.
That sure wasn't Oswald. He often showed emotion. Played with his kids.
Got into fights. Slapped Marina once. Laughed out loud to himself in
the lunchroom. Yelled excitedly "I am a patsy!"
She never SAID that all these fit Lee.....and she was referring to his
behavior AFTER he was arrested.
Techniques used during interrogations for crimes include building
themselves up and putting the examiner down. They feed the examiner
what
the examiner wants to hear and what the criminal thinks they ought to
know. They lie, they are vague, they attempt to confuse, they minimize
things and divert the examiner to other subjects and they use silence.
They may use polite talk ("sir", ma'am"), and they may claim not to
remember. They challenge factual information, try to put the examiner
on
the defensive, they pretend to be angry to shake up the examiner and
may
even make threats. Quite often they adopt a facade of no emotion or
lack
of any visible feeling of being threatened.
ENDQUOTE
On the four factors listed, Holloway provides behavioral examples of
Lee's behaviors. I found her book to be fascinating and would hope
that
others would discuss this book with me. I found her diagnosis's
fitting
Oswald to a large extent. I would only add that he had a Narcissitic
Personality Disorder as well.
Russ
This is the worst kind of generalized projected psychological analysis
of a dead person I have ever seen. Can anyone really take this
seriously?
Only buffs wouldn't and people with no solid background in psychological
principles, which you obviously have none.
Since no one in this NG, that I know of, are psychologists it's easy to
insult authors or myself in regard to this aspect, particularly authors that
believe in his guilt. I bet if one wrote about his innocence you'd be singing
the praises of it.
Rather than pursue this line from a psychological standpoint with people that
are ignorant with regards to psychology (other than Joyce Brothers) I will
not write again on this topic. If anyone is half interested in learning from
this book or other aspects of his psychological makeup they can order the
book. While their at it, order "American Assassins" by James Clarke or "Why
They Kill" by Richard Rhodes. They all reach similar conclusions. Or you can
also interview people who knew him......
Ever wonder why no buff writer has ever taking on this aspect of the case?
RB
--
lowkey
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/