[Sample B: Approval/Signature Sheet] - George Mason University

Manchester suggesting someone viewing the relics with no knowledge of their
provenance might wonder what had befallen their wearer and who was to blame.
It was not enough for Manchester to blame Oswald, who was described as such a
nonentity that he was almost beneath Manchester’s contempt. In recounting Oswald’s
defection to the Soviet Union, Manchester called Oswald’s writings “ravings” that
“stamp him as an incoherent hater, nothing more. Looking for doctrine in them is like
looking for bone in a polyp.” 120 Similarly, Oswald’s work record demonstrated for
Manchester that “he couldn’t do anything right…Bit by bit the sickening truth was
emerging: no one wanted him, no one had ever wanted him.” 121 Manchester explicitly
drew the comparison between Kennedy and Oswald as the very best and the very worst
of the nation: “Lee Harvey Oswald had become the most rejected man of his time. It is
not too much to say that he was the diametric opposite of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.” 122
Whereas Kennedy was “all-powerful, “cheered,” “noble,” “beloved,” and a “hero,”
Oswald was “impotent,” ignored,” “ignoble,” “despised,” and “a victim.” 123 Even in
death, Kennedy appeared powerful and vibrant compared to the pipsqueak Oswald.
Manchester related how General Philip Wehle looked upon Kennedy’s naked body as it
lay on a table awaiting the autopsy. In a scene redolent of homoeroticism, the general felt
“a great welling love, an unendurable sadness, the cruelty of a personal life.” The
president’s body appeared “unmarred,” and the general thought “What a magnificent
120 Manchester, 31.
121 Manchester, 93.
122 Manchester, 93.
123 Manchester, 93.
68