Updated facts about Lee Harvey Oswald and his verified role in JFK's assassination.

1. Arrest, accusation and the immediate record — how contemporary sources present Oswald

Police records and retrospective “Today in History” pieces say Oswald was apprehended within hours of the Dallas shooting and was publicly identified as the accused assassin of President Kennedy ^{[1] [2]}. These pieces describe a rapid police response, eyewitness identifications that linked a suspect to the events of Nov. 22, 1963, and Oswald’s being held in custody in Dallas, which set the stage for the next dramatic event: his being shot two days later ^{[2] [1]}.

2. Jack Ruby’s killing of Oswald — the televised climax that shaped public perception

Multiple news roundups mark Nov. 24 as the date Jack Ruby shot and mortally wounded Oswald while he was escorted through the Dallas police basement; the shooting was captured live on television and is routinely cited as a defining, almost cinematic, postscript to the assassination ^{[3] [4] [5]}. Those accounts emphasize how Ruby’s act, seen on TV by millions, deprived the public of a criminal trial that would otherwise have tested the evidence in court ^{[3] [2]}.

3. Historical summaries and the “accused assassin” phrasing — what the sources say and don’t

Reference summaries—including encyclopedic entries cited in the provided list—describe Oswald as the “accused assassin” and note he “allegedly” killed Kennedy; such language reflects that he was charged and widely held responsible by authorities at the time ^[6]. The materials in the search set do not supply trial records proving conviction (Oswald died before any criminal trial), and the phrasing in contemporary summaries underscores that legal adjudication never occurred ^{[6] [2]}.

4. Evidence, investigations and enduring debates — available reporting in this set

The search results here are chiefly commemorative and encyclopedic summaries; they do not supply primary forensic reports, Warren Commission findings, later re-analyses, or declassified-document details in this packet ^{[3] [2] [6]}. Therefore, available sources do not mention detailed ballistic, zeppelin‑photograph or multiagency investigative conclusions in this collection, nor do they present full arguments from proponents of single‑shooter versus multiple‑shooter theories (not found in current reporting).

5. Scholarly and journalistic threads hinted at in the material

One extended source in the set (the Wikipedia page excerpt) notes historians and journalists have debated Oswald’s motives, contacts and movements; it references later works and mock trials that reached differing conclusions about culpability and conspiracy, indicating that historical interpretation remains contested among researchers ^[6]. The excerpt cites writers like Jefferson Morley and mentions mock trials with mixed results, signaling that the historical literature contains competing viewpoints as to whether Oswald “acted alone” ^[6].

6. What these sources allow you to say — and what they do not permit

From the provided reporting you can state that Oswald was arrested soon after the assassination and was the accused assassin; that Jack Ruby shot Oswald in a widely witnessed and televised event two days later; and that many modern “Today in History” accounts repeat these core facts ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The sources in this set do not provide direct access to the Warren Commission report, forensic evidence, CIA/FBI internal files, or the extensive later scholarship required to adjudicate competing theories about motive, co‑conspirators or the full factual record—so claims beyond arrest, accusation and the televised killing exceed what these particular sources supply (not found in current reporting).

7. How to follow up if you want definitive, source-level answers

To move from summary to verification you should consult the Warren Commission report and subsequent official releases, declassified FBI/CIA files, peer-reviewed forensic studies and major investigative histories (these authoritative documents are not in the current source list) (not found in current reporting). The Wikipedia excerpt points to broader debates and secondary sources that a researcher could use as a roadmap to primary documents and competing interpretations ^[6].

Limitations: this brief draws only on the provided search set, which emphasizes historical summaries and commemorative pieces rather than primary investigative documents; where the set lacks specifics, I’ve flagged that the available sources do not mention them ^{[3] [2] [6] [1]}.