MovieChat Forums > Oppenheimer (2023) Discussion > Oppenheimer tried to murder his professo...

Oppenheimer tried to murder his professor

posted a year ago by SolarisPatchwork (280)
26 replies | jump to latest

Little known Oppenheimer facts:

1. He tried to murder his professor and mentor, Patrick Blackett, with a poisoned apple. He put the poisoned apple on his desk and left for vacation, telling no one.
2. He bragged (or confided) to his friends on vacation about what he did. They were appalled and alerted the university, which found the apple.
3. Oppenheimer was going to be expelled (and likely worse) but his powerful family intervened and caused a stir. He only got three months probation. Modern articles call his actions "attempted murder."
4. He was on a train when he saw a husband kiss or possibly have sex with his wife. When the husband got up he launched himself on the woman and sexually assaulted her, kissing her forcefully. Then fell to his knees and cried for forgiveness.
5. After that train ride he was on a staircase and saw a random woman below him. He put his suitcase over the railing and tried to drop it on her head, but missed. That could've caused serious injury or death.
6. His friend, Francis Fergusson, announced the news that he got engaged. Enraged, Oppenheimer threw his friend to the ground and tried to choke him to death
7. He was verbally abusive to his students
8. After his fame he started backstabbing old colleagues to further his career, claiming they worked with the communists so that he could get more clout or remove rivals from his field. Ironically his own career was prematurely ended when he was accused of this very thing.

He was a narcissistic psychopath that was clearly preoccupied with how he would be perceived by history in pivotal moments, like quoting that Hindu text when journalists were around him at the Trinity test.

[–] Pete314 (3010) a year ago

No doubt that inventors of WMDs tend to have severe mental problems.

[–] AndyKing1967 (38138) a year ago

So no spoilers then 🙄

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) a year ago

There are many kinds of poison. Not all poisons are meant to kill. To suggest that Oppenheimer would be so phenomenally stupid as to attempt murder by poison and then BRAG about it to his friends is, well, stupid. He did not try to murder his professor, he did not brag about it... He did poison an apple, and confided to a friend - and according to said friend, the poison was meant to make the professor sick.

Oppenheimer's parents had to intervene to prevent expulsion - which is NOT what they would have to do if we were talking about an attempted murder. In that case, Oppenheimer would have been ARRESTED, and conviction for attempted murder would have been a foregone conclusion.

[–] SolarisPatchwork (280) a year ago

>To suggest that Oppenheimer would be so phenomenally stupid as to attempt murder by poison and then BRAG about it to his friends is, well, stupid.

Or mentally unstable and psychotic. Which is consistent with his other bizarre, violent, and erratic behavior. Also making mankind's ultimate tool to kill itself.

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) a year ago

Or mentally unstable and psychotic. Which is consistent with his other bizarre, violent, and erratic behavior. Also making mankind's ultimate tool to kill itself.

No, it would still be unbelievably STUPID and out of character. And your version of events fail to explain why he was not ARRESTED.

[–] SolarisPatchwork (280) a year ago

>And your version of events fail to explain why he was not ARRESTED.

Because they decided not to press charges after intervention from his family. Get to reading

>No, it would still be unbelievably STUPID and out of character.

You mean the character of a woman-assaulting predator who tried to strangle his friend to death?

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) a year ago

And your version of events fail to explain why he was not ARRESTED.

Because they decided not to press charges after intervention from his family. Get to reading

Felonies get prosecuted regardless. Oppenheimer's parents intervened so he didn't get EXPELLED. Get to reading

You mean the character of a woman-assaulting predator who tried to strangle his friend to death?

What you are doing is called "poisoning the well". It's a logical fallacy.

[–] SolarisPatchwork (280) a year ago

>Felonies get prosecuted regardless. Oppenheimer's parents intervened so he didn't get EXPELLED. Get to reading

No, they don't. Prosecutors have discretion. And the articles you yourself have refused to read say "almost charged with attempted murder." They call it attempted murder.

"Thankfully, Blackett never ate the apple. But Oppenheimer’s Corsica companions spilled the beans, and when Cambridge University found out, the administrators decided to press charges of attempted murder. And they would have. Except, Oppenheimer’s rich father happened to be visiting that week. He begged Cambridge to spare his precious, genius son. So, Oppenheimer got off with mere probation. " https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/disappearing-pod/the-real-tragedy-of-robert-oppenheimer/

>What you are doing is called "poisoning the well". It's a logical fallacy.

"It doesn't matter that he sexually assaulted a woman and tried to strangle his best friend to death, because I don't want to lose this argument." -You

And before you call that a strawman maybe step back and think about the fact that you made an argument based on the character of the man. I gave you further evidence of his character. And now you're trying to lie your way out of it. Shameful.

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) a year ago

No, they don't. Prosecutors have discretion. And the articles you yourself have refused to read say "almost charged with attempted murder." They call it attempted murder.

Prosecutors never turn a blind eye to attempted murder - especially when there's premeditation. It's kind of a big deal.

"Thankfully, Blackett never ate the apple. But Oppenheimer’s Corsica companions spilled the beans, and when Cambridge University found out, the administrators decided to press charges of attempted murder. And they would have. Except, Oppenheimer’s rich father happened to be visiting that week. He begged Cambridge to spare his precious, genius son. So, Oppenheimer got off with mere probation. " https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/disappearing-pod/the-real-tragedy-of-robert-oppenheimer/

So you linked to an unsources podcast. Good for you. Here's mine:

According to Oppenheimer's friend Francis Fergusson, Oppenheimer once confessed to leaving an apple doused with noxious chemicals on Blackett's desk. Oppenheimer's parents convinced the university authorities not to press criminal charges or expel him, but Oppenheimer was placed on probation and had to have regular sessions with a psychiatrist in Harley Street, London.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer
That passage has two sources, Bird & Sherwin (2005) and Monk (2012).

What you are doing is called "poisoning the well". It's a logical fallacy.

"It doesn't matter that he sexually assaulted a woman and tried to strangle his best friend to death, because I don't want to lose this argument." -You

Oh, a strawman. Bet you thought that was a slam dunk, huh? Here's the difference: a poisoned apple is PREMEDITATION. Sexual assault and impromptu strangulation are acts on IMPULSE. Neither has relevance for the other. And he didn't BRAG about assault to anyone either, did he?

And before you call that a strawman

And you KNEW it was a strawman!

[–] fc31 (5394) a year ago

Prosecutors never turn a blind eye to attempted murder - especially when there's premeditation.

Prosecutors SHOULD never turn a blind eye to attempted murder, I doubt it would always be the case in reality, if the perpetrator were someone very high up, or influential in their political party.

But it looks like it never reached that stage.

In any case this movie clearly altered history to make Oppenheimer look good.

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) 10 months ago

In any case this movie clearly altered history to make Oppenheimer look good.

Worse, you mean. In the movie, the poisoned apple was an assassination attempt. In reality, it wasn't.

[–] fc31 (5394) 10 months ago

In reality it still was, but he did not try to throw away the apple, that part was fiction.

As OP has said before:"He put the poisoned apple on his desk and left for vacation, telling no one."

[–] maul (1635) a year ago

Why are you trying to spin this in a less negative way? It was a fucked up mentally-deranged thing he did, and he did in fact tell his friend about it. Trying to label it as "stupid" or "out of character" doesn't mean it didn't happen. It DID happen.

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) a year ago

I'm not the one who's trying to spin it in a less negative way - OP is factually wrong, as he is trying to spin it in a more negative way. Yes, it was fucked up, but if you have to LIE about it, clearly you don't think it was bad enough on its own.....

[–] maul (1635) a year ago

The man literally poisoned an apple in an "act of jealousy" (his friend's words) to feed to someone... that's perfectly believable to you, but apparently it crosses the line into being "phenomenally stupid" and out of character if he meant to kill the professor with this devious scheme?

The act of what he did should give more than enough insight into his mental state at the time, and the prospect of him wanting to kill the professor seems perfectly in line with it. Instead of "oh, I was only trying to poison him a little bit, it was only a prank bro."

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) a year ago

The man literally poisoned an apple in an "act of jealousy" (his friend's words) to feed to someone... that's perfectly believable to you, but apparently it crosses the line into being "phenomenally stupid" and out of character if he meant to kill the professor with this devious scheme.

You don't think there's a difference between a tummy ache, the runs or whatever and MURDER? There's no line there?

The act of what he did should give more than enough insight into his mental state at the time, and the prospect of him wanting to kill the professor seems perfectly in line with it. "Oh, I was only trying to poison him a little bit, it was only a prank bro."

How do you figure? You really don't see the difference between discomfort - and DEATH?

[–] maul (1635) a year ago

I think that someone in a hateful, deranged mental state to where they'd poison an apple with toxic lab chemicals to give to one of their enemies probably does in fact mean that person great harm.

You however seem to be wanting to severely downplay this act for some reason, and apparently think it's acceptably in-character and not "phenomenally stupid" on its own.

[–] SolarisPatchwork (280) a year ago

>You don't think there's a difference between a tummy ache, the runs or whatever and MURDER? There's no line there?

Every source says he tried to poison his professor. Many use the phrase "attempted murder." You're the one gaslighting everyone into thinking it's some innocent prank to make his professor go poo poo in his pants.

On top of that you make arguments that it would be out of character for him to have done something serious. He sexually assaulted a random woman after being jealous of her husband, attempted to strangle his friend to death, and other acts of depravity and psychopathy. You then claim bringing these up is "poisoning the well." When you yourself made an argument as to his character.

You're really bad at this.

[–] Karl Aksel (1487) a year ago

Every source says he tried to poison his professor. Many use the phrase "attempted murder."

Not many, no - and none who do are able to source that claim.

You're the one gaslighting everyone into thinking it's some innocent prank to make his professor go poo poo in his pants.

Who's doing the gaslighting here? The person who INSISTS on the worst possible interpretation, in spite of having evidence to the contrary (statements from Oppenheimer's friend whom they pretend is their source), or the person who does not go beyond what the source material reveals? Besides, YOUR claim makes no sense, for reasons I have already explained, and you have yet to be able to reply with something which isn't obnoxiously fallacious.

On top of that you make arguments that it would be out of character for him to have done something serious.On top of that you make arguments that it would be out of character for him to have done something serious.

See, this is what I'm talking about. I never said it was out of character for him to "have done something serious". I said it was out of character for him to have done something so STUPID. Stupid being making an ACTUAL ATTEMPT AT MURDER and then BRAGGING about it, as if his friend wouldn't have reacted to that in some way.

[–] MartyDeniro (4171) a year ago

Wouldn't it also be in his character to exaggerate to a friend? I see that in these articles as well. Confiding to "attempted murder" or massaging a prank into something more sinister because it makes for a better "You know what I did??" story?

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6360) a year ago

>4. He was on a train when he saw a husband kiss his wife.

Whose wife? To whom does "his" refer to?

[–] SolarisPatchwork (280) a year ago

Oppenheimer observed a woman and her husband, fellow passengers on the train. The woman's husband kissed her and then left the carriage. In an act of apparent neurotic rage he set himself on the woman and forcibly kissed her, then fell to his knees and began to cry for forgiveness. That's sexual assault and probably psychopathy or NPD or some shit. Definitely neurotic and deeply fucked up.

Here's a source, though curiously this one says the couple were having sex rather than just kissing, and that's what set him off: https://kierongillen.tumblr.com/post/35477483616/one-day-in-1925-j-robert-oppenheimer-was

Bonus I wasn't even aware of, after getting off that train Oppenheimer attempted to drop his suitcase on a woman's height from the top of a staircase, but missed. That could've resulted in serious injury or death.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6360) a year ago

Wow, very weird. A prostitute perhaps?

[–] SolarisPatchwork (280) a year ago

Five months on and it seems people believe the movie, and don't know these facts

[–] Stratego (30511) a year ago

"He was a narcissistic psychopath that was clearly preoccupied with how he would be perceived by history in pivotal moments, like quoting that Hindu text when journalists were around him at the Trinity test."

Thank you. Strauss was right that this guy shouldn't have gotten the highest security clearance.

[–] 22radians (22) a year ago

I wonder whether the apple was partly a nod to Manzanar Internment Camp, the first of the internment camps for Japanese Americans to open in 1942.