Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

This is really a very important image and for two reasons:

The first is that it proves that Will Fritz lied. He told the WC that Oswald told him that he was "eating lunch with other employees" during the shooting. And he was referring to Junior Jarman and Harold Norman whom you see above.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been? Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened.

In reality, Oswald told Fritz that he ate his lunch in the Domino room before the assassination. It had to have been 12:15/12:20. He said he had a cheese sandwich and an apple from Mrs. Paine's house. And he said that around at the time was a guy known as "Junior" and "another short negro" whose name he didn't remember. But, he was referring to Harold Norman, whom you see above. He didn't mean to say that that they were eating lunch with him, just that they were around at the time, and they were. And after that, they went outside with the intention of watching the motorcade from out there. But then, they changed their minds and decided to watch it from a window. So, they took the elevator up to the 5th floor and planted themselves at the southeast corner window, which was right below the Sniper's Nest.

And that brings us to the second reason why this is a very important image. And that's because they wound up at the southeast corner window on the 5th floor, and there was just as good a chance that they could have wound up at the southeast corner window on the 6th floor. Or, one or more other persons could have decided to go to the southeast corner window of the 6th floor. There were a number of people watching the parade from the windows. Gloria Hine is another person who did that.

So, on what basis could Oswald assume that he would not be disturbed at the 6th floor window? That he had it all to himself? That no one else would decide to go there not to kill Kennedy but to view the spectacle of the Presidential motorcade? It was the perfect spot to view the event because it provided a good look down Houston as Kennedy was approaching Dealey Plaza, and also a good look down Elm as he was meandering through the Plaza. If the southeast 5th floor window was a good spot, then why not the southeast 6th floor window?

So, what assurance did Oswald have that no one else would be there? None. What confidence could he have that the entire 6th floor would be vacated? No confidence at all. What actions could he take to make sure he wasn't observed or interrupted? None. There was nothing he could do. All he could do was cross his fingers and hope for the best.   

But, this is a degree of criminal recklessness that is breathtaking. It's staggering- first with the idea that Oswald decided to do this so instantaneously, that he was reading the paper, caught a glimpse of the motorcade route and decided on the spot to kill Kennedy. He had never expressed the slightest displeasure with Kennedy to anybody in his life.

It's a sick thing to want to kill somebody, but it's even sicker to do it for no reason. Nobody has ever come up with a motive for Oswald. Was it fame? So that he could be somebody? Then why didn't he own up to it? Do you know how many times he denied killing Kennedy? I counted them once, and I think it was 13 times.

No, the evidence is clear that he did NOT want this fame. He adamantly denied doing it. So, we are really left with a motiveless crime. 

But why would he undertake this motiveless crime and do it in such a reckless manner as to have no control over the circumstances, where any of many different people could have barged in on him in the very commission of the dastardly act? For Goodness sake, they could have walked in and snapped a Polaroid of him doing it. 

Criminals are bad, but they are not necessarily dumb. They know they're taking a chance, and they know that they are risking a lot. But, it's a calculation, and they calculate that they can get away with it. And it's based on the perception of having control of the situation, of anticipating all the variables, and overcoming all the things that could sabotage the outcome. Of course, they never have complete control, but they think they have enough control to make it their baby. Control is the thing. 

But, Oswald had NO control. Somehow, he had to go up to the 6th floor, size up the situation, set up the sniper's nest by moving and arranging those heavy boxes of books, assemble the rifle, and anyone barging in during any part of that would have sunk the whole thing for him. He had no control. This didn't begin to meet the threshold of control that most criminals think they need in order to proceed with a crime.   

So, Oswald had no motive, and he had no control of the situation, and he had no reasonable basis to assume the kind of mastery of the domain that any criminal wants and needs. It would have been insane for him to have tried to do it the way that they say he did. And it is insane to think that he had that kind of insanity going on. There is no evidence for it.