Malcontent: Lee Harvey Oswald's Confession by Conduct examines Oswald through the words he spoke, the statements he made, and the behavior he exhibited.
The book's central forensic contribution was the unprecedented use of Computer Voice Stress Analysis (CVSA) to examine selected recorded statements from Oswald.
MALCONTENT
Lee Harvey Oswald's Confession by Conduct
Understanding the CVSA Charts
The following charts form the foundation for understanding the Computer Voice Stress Analysis of Lee Harvey Oswald. In 2018, CVSA examiner Jerry Crotty conducted an extensive analysis of recorded statements made by Oswald, using audio from different periods, locations, and circumstances. This was important because it allowed Oswald’s voice patterns to be examined not only when he was discussing the assassination, but also when answering questions for which there was little or no apparent reason for deception.
The CVSA does not simply label a person a liar. Rather, it records stress-related frequency changes within the human voice and converts those changes into visual patterns that can be examined by a trained analyst. As Crotty explained in the foreword to Malcontent, there is no device that can independently determine whether someone is lying. The CVSA instead provides patterns that assist an examiner in identifying stress associated with possible deception.
Before examining Oswald’s individual responses, it is helpful to understand what these patterns look like. The first chart contains examples of responses classified as No Deception Indicated from an actual criminal investigation. These responses provide a visual reference for patterns in which the examiner did not identify stress associated with deception.
The second chart contains responses classified as Deception Indicated, allowing the reader to see the considerably greater disruption and stress present in those patterns. These two sets of charts establish a reference point for comparing the responses that follow.
The third chart explains the anatomy of an individual CVSA response. Each response contains three principal components: the Rise, where the pattern begins moving upward from its baseline; the Body, the main portion of the response where stress-related horizontal activity is evaluated; and the Decay, where the pattern begins returning toward its baseline. Understanding these components makes it possible to see what the examiner is looking at when distinguishing between relatively unstressed responses and increasingly significant stress patterns.
As the charts that follow demonstrate, Oswald was capable of producing responses classified as No Deception Indicated, even under stressful circumstances. That point is essential. The analysis did not simply register every statement Oswald made as deceptive because he was nervous, under arrest, or surrounded by reporters. Some responses produced little or no deception-related stress, while others produced substantially different patterns—including Medium Block Stress and Hard Block Stress. The manuscript specifically uses four categories—No Stress, Tendency, Medium Block Stress, and Hard Block Stress—to help the reader understand that progression.
That distinction becomes particularly important when the analysis reaches Oswald’s statements concerning President Kennedy. His responses can then be compared not only against general examples of deceptive and non-deceptive patterns, but against Oswald’s own voice when he was answering other questions. The result is a visual comparison between the statements in which little stress was detected and those in which the CVSA recorded pronounced stress.
Computer Voice Analysis Charts
New Orleans WDSU Radio Interview by William K. Stuckey
August 17, 1963
Stuckey: Mr. Oswald, if I may, how long has the Fair Play for Cuba Committee had an organization in New Orleans?
Oswald: We have had members in the area for several months now.
Stuckey: Does your group believe that the Castro regime in Cuba is not actually a front for a Soviet colony in the Western Hemisphere?
Oswald: Very definitely.
CVSA Finding
CVSA Finding
Remarkably, the CVSA registered Oswald’s statement that “we have had members in this area for several months now” as truthful. This finding suggests one of two possibilities: either Oswald did, in fact, believe that other members of a local Fair Play for Cuba Committee branch existed—despite the absence of credible evidence supporting such a branch—or he had convinced himself that his claim was true. In either case, the result is significant because the CVSA indicates that Oswald was not experiencing the stress response typically associated with knowingly making a deceptive statement.
Stuckey: Mr. Oswald, I am curious about your personal background. If you could tell us something about where you come from, your education and your career to date, it would be interesting.
Oswald: ...I entered the United States Marine Corps in 1956. I spent three years in the United States Marine Corps, working my way up through the ranks to the position of buck sergeant...
The CVSA registered Oswald’s response as showing no deception. More importantly, the response offers a revealing glimpse into Oswald’s political ideology. He did not appear to view Castro’s socialist, Marxist-Leninist Cuba as a Soviet-controlled satellite or merely an extension of Moscow’s influence in the Western Hemisphere. Rather, Oswald appears to have regarded the Cuban Revolution as a legitimate and independent socialist movement, one worthy of defense against what he saw as American hostility and interference. His emphatic response suggests that this was not simply rhetoric he used while promoting the Fair Play for Cuba Committee; it reflected a political belief he genuinely held.
CVSA Finding
The CVSA registered deception in Oswald’s response as he began describing his personal background, first during his hesitant “uh...uh” response and again when he claimed that he had attained the rank of “buck sergeant” in the Marine Corps. That claim was false. Oswald was discharged at the rank of private. The significance of the CVSA finding is that it suggests this was not simply a mistake in recollection. Oswald appears to have been consciously misrepresenting his military record, embellishing his rank while presenting his background to the radio audience. The stress detected by the CVSA provides further evidence that Oswald knew the account he was giving was inaccurate.
New Orleans WDSU Radio Interview
August 21, 1963
Stuckey: Are you a Marxist?
Oswald: Yes, I am a Marxist.
CVSA Finding
The CVSA registered Oswald’s response as showing no deception. The significance of this finding is that Oswald’s identification with Marxism appears to have been genuine rather than a provocative label adopted for effect. He was not simply defending Marxist ideas, borrowing Marxist language, or associating himself loosely with the ideology. He was explicitly identifying himself as a Marxist, and the CVSA indicates that he believed that statement to be true. His answer suggests a conscious ideological commitment rather than a casual sympathy with selected Marxist ideas. This finding provides an important window into Oswald’s political identity and reinforces the importance of examining his writings and public statements as expressions of a belief system he sincerely embraced.
Dallas Police Department - 3rd Floor Hallway
November 22, 1963
Context and CVSA Finding
On the evening of November 22, 1963, Oswald was repeatedly moved through the crowded third floor corridor of Dallas police headquarters while reporters shouted questions at him. Shortly after 7:00 p.m., Captain Will Fritz signed the complaint charging Oswald with Tippit’s murder. At approximately 7:10 p.m., Justice of the Peace David L. Johnston arraigned Oswald on that charge in Fritz’s office.
Oswald had not yet been charged with the murder of President Kennedy. The complaint charging him with Kennedy’s murder was not signed until later that night, and his arraignment on that charge did not occur until the early morning hours of November 23.
As Oswald was subsequently escorted through the third-floor corridor, he complained: “These people have given me a hearing without legal representation or anything.”
The significance of the word “hearing” is often overlooked. At that point in the evening, Oswald had undergone only one formal judicial proceeding, his arraignment for the murder of Officer Tippit. Therefore, when Oswald referred to having been given “a hearing,” he was referring to the Tippit arraignment that had just taken place.
Immediately afterward, a reporter asked Oswald whether he had shot President Kennedy. Oswald responded “I didn’t shoot anybody, no sir.”
The wording of Oswald’s answer is important. He did not simply say, “I didn’t shoot the President.” Instead, he issued a much broader denial: “I didn’t shoot anybody.”
That statement was made in a very specific context. Oswald had just been formally accused and arraigned for shooting and killing Officer Tippit. He was then being questioned by reporters about whether he had also shot President Kennedy. His response therefore amounted to a categorical denial of having shot anyone.
Several hours later, during the midnight press conference, Oswald again referred to the proceeding involving the judge, describing it as a very brief hearing. He also stated that the only formal accusation he had been informed of concerned the murder of a policeman. At that point, he had still not yet been arraigned for President Kennedy’s murder. This further supports the conclusion that his earlier reference to “a hearing” concerned the Tippit charge.
The CVSA analysis indicates deception during Oswald’s categorical denial. However, the statement cannot properly be treated as a denial concerning Kennedy alone. Because Oswald had just been arraigned for Tippit’s murder and was then questioned about Kennedy, the statement encompasses both shootings.
Accordingly, the most defensible interpretation of the CVSA chart is not that it proves Oswald was deceptive specifically when denying that he shot President Kennedy. Rather, it demonstrates deception associated with Oswald’s broader assertion that he “didn’t shoot anybody.” The CVSA chart itself cannot determine whether the deceptive response was associated with the shooting of Tippit, the shooting of Kennedy, or both.
The modern CVSA finding of deception therefore applies most accurately to Oswald’s categorical denial that he had shot anyone, rather than exclusively to his denial of involvement in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Context and CVSA Finding
The “I’m just a patsy” statement was made at approximately 7:55 p.m. on November 22, 1963, as Lee Harvey Oswald was escorted through the third-floor corridor of Dallas police headquarters. The timing is supported by reporter Seth Kantor’s contemporaneous handwritten notes, later introduced as Kantor Exhibit No. 3.
During the exchange, reporters repeatedly questioned Oswald about President Kennedy. He was asked whether he had killed the President and whether he had shot the President. When the question was repeated, Oswald responded:
“No. They’ve taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I’m just a patsy.”
The context of the statement is important. At approximately 7:55 p.m., Oswald had not yet been formally charged with President Kennedy’s murder. Captain Will Fritz did not sign the Kennedy murder complaint until 11:26 p.m., and Oswald was not arraigned on that charge until the early morning hours of November 23. Nevertheless, by this point Oswald was clearly being questioned and publicly treated as a suspect in the assassination.
Oswald also appears to explain, in his own words, what he meant by “I’m just a patsy.” The statement should not be separated from the sentence immediately preceding it. Oswald was claiming that he believed he was being targeted because of his unusual Soviet background—he had left the United States, gone to the Soviet Union, attempted to renounce his American citizenship, and lived there for several years before returning to the United States.
In the Cold War atmosphere of 1963, such a background would naturally have attracted extraordinary attention. A rough modern comparison would be an American who attempted to defect to a nation viewed as hostile to the United States, lived there for several years, returned home, and then became a suspect following a major national-security event. Oswald’s point was that he believed his Soviet history made him an obvious person for authorities to suspect.
Therefore, the statement “I’m just a patsy” does not necessarily stand alone as an assertion that he was part of some larger conspiracy. Oswald himself connected the “patsy” claim directly to his belief that he was being singled out because he had lived in the Soviet Union.
The CVSA analysis indicates deception during this response. Because Oswald’s denial of shooting Kennedy, his explanation concerning his Soviet background, and his declaration that he was “just a patsy” occur together in the same exchange, the CVSA cannot determine precisely which portion of the response produced the deceptive indication.
What the historical context does establish, however, is that the entire exchange concerned Oswald’s suspected involvement in the assassination of President Kennedy, and that Oswald’s own explanation for being a “patsy” was that he believed his Soviet background had caused authorities to target him.
Finding: Deception indicated.
modern twist. It's easy to read on screens of every shape and size, and perfect for long blocks of text.
Dallas Police Department - Assembly Room
November 23, 1963
Context
Question: Did you kill the President?
Oswald: No, I have not been charged with that. In fact nobody has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question.
CVSA Finding
Both CVSA charts registered hard-block stress during Oswald’s response: “No, I have not been charged with that... the first time I heard about it was when a newspaper reporter in the hall asked me that question.” Within the CVSA analysis, this level of stress is interpreted as a strong indication of deception. The significance of the response becomes even greater when compared with the known sequence of events. A newspaper reporter was not the first person to confront Oswald about killing President Kennedy; Captain Will Fritz of the Dallas Police Department had already questioned him about the assassination.
This makes Oswald’s statement particularly important. His response contained both a denial and an explanation of when he supposedly first learned he was being accused, yet the CVSA registered hard-block stress across these portions of his answer. The finding suggests that Oswald was not simply confused about the chronology. Rather, the CVSA indicates that he was experiencing substantial stress while giving an account that conflicted with what had already occurred during his police interrogation. Taken together, the two charts provide a strong indication that Oswald was being deceptive not only in his denial, but also in his attempt to portray the accusation as something he first encountered from reporters in the hallway.
Context
Reporter: Mr. Oswald, how did you hurt your eye?
Oswald: A policeman hit me.
CVSA Finding
The CVSA registered Oswald’s statement as showing no deception. In this instance, the finding is consistent with the circumstances of his arrest at the Texas Theatre. During the violent struggle with Dallas police officers—after Oswald attempted to shoot one of the arresting officers—he was struck several times while being subdued and taken into custody.
The importance of this response is that it provides a useful contrast with the deceptive answers identified elsewhere in the examination. When Oswald described something that had actually happened to him, the CVSA showed no significant stress response associated with deception. His explanation for the injury to his eye was therefore not an attempt to manufacture a story or mislead reporters; he was describing an event that had in fact occurred during his arrest. The absence of stress in this response also provides an important comparison point for the pronounced stress observed when Oswald answered more consequential questions concerning the assassination.
Dallas Police Department - 3rd Floor Hallway
November 23, 1963
Context
Oswald: I don't know what press dispatches you people have been given, but I emphatically deny these charges!"
CVSA Response
The statement “I emphatically deny these charges” was made at approximately 7:12 p.m. on Saturday, November 23, 1963, as Oswald was being escorted toward the jail elevator following an interrogation in Captain Will Fritz’s office. Moments earlier, a reporter had asked Oswald directly whether he had purchased the rifle, placing his denial in the context of one of the central pieces of evidence then being developed against him.
The CVSA registered hard-block stress. The strength of the response is particularly notable because Oswald was making an unequivocal denial at a point when the accusations against him had become increasingly serious and direct. Rather than producing the comparatively calm response seen in some of his other statements, this denial generated one of the stronger stress reactions identified in the CVSA analysis.
By this point, Oswald had been charged with the murders of both Officer J. D. Tippit and President Kennedy, and investigators were connecting him to the rifle recovered from the Texas School Book Depository. His emphatic public denial therefore came as the evidentiary pressure surrounding him was increasing substantially. The intensity of the CVSA response suggests that the certainty of Oswald’s words was not matched by the internal stress reflected in his voice.