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

I just thought of something else. Look at this exchange between Ball and Arce:

Mr. BALL. I am not going to mark this purposely because other witnesses have to see it. 
Mr. ARCE. Yes. 

The date was April 7, 1964, and the time was 2:15. An hour later, Ball was going to show that picture to Lovelady and have him mark it. But, the picture that Ball showed to Lovelady was ALREADY marked with Frazier's arrow. That was from a month earlier: March 11, 1964. And that means that the picture Ball showed to Arce was definitely ALREADY marked with Frazier's arrow. 

So, there was Joseph Ball- holding a photograph in his hands that had a big mark on it consisting of an arrow drawn by Buell Frazier, and while holding that marked photo, Ball had the audacity to say:"I'm not going to mark this purposely because other witnesses have to see it."  

IT WAS ALREADY MARKED! Ball said that as if it were unmarked. Think about the loonyness of holding a marked photo and saying that you don't want to put any marks on it.

So, the situation was that the same photo was shown to all three. The first one, Frazier, was made to mark. Then with Arce, there was no marking, just pointing and responding. And then an hour later with Lovelady, it went back to marking WITHOUT REFERRING TO DOORMAN AT ALL. 

Mr. BALL - I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are you on that picture? 
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL - Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are. 

Now compare that to this:

Mr. BALL. Just 1 minute, I want to show you a picture. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 369. I show you this picture. See this man in this picture? Recognize him?

Ball must have been pointing to Doorman when he said that. And you can't get any more direct than that. You point to the guy and ask, who is he? Ball did that with Frazier, and he could have done it with Lovelady an hour later, but he didn't. You'd think that he would have, but he didn't. 

But right now, I just want you to dwell on Ball holding a marked photo- one with a big glaring black arrow- and saying I don't want it marked because other witnesses have to see it. 

And let's go further because it was just as weird with Lovelady. How weird was it for Ball to ask Lovelady to draw an arrow on a photo which already had an arrow? If you were in charge, wouldn't you have used a fresh photo? DIdn't they have copy machines in those days? Wasn't there an unlimited supply of Altgens photos? Was Ball trying to save the taxpayers  a few pennies? Wasn't it possible that the pre-existing arrow would bias Lovelady, and wouldn't Ball, being a lawyer, realize that?

Here's an idea: maybe Ball was trying to bias Lovelady. Maybe Ball was trying to give Lovelady a not-so-subtle hint as to where his arrow should go. But, Lovelady didn't take it. Lovelady drew his arrow to Black Hole Man.   

So, Danny Arce was sandwiched in-between two guys who were asked to draw arrows on the same photograph. But, there was no arrow-drawing for Danny. For Danny, it was a simple matter: a point to Doorman, and: "Who is he?"  

Danny Arce said Doorman was Lovelady even though Doorman was wearing Oswald's distinctive clothing; had Oswald's slender build; and was doing Oswald's distinctive stance of clasping his hands in front, left over right. Arce admitted to seeing Oswald when he arrived at 8:00 AM. He admitted seeing him again during the morning. He admitted to seeing him again when they broke for lunch. And he admitted to seeing him again at the Dallas PD where we all saw him- wearing his distinctive clothing, the same clothes we see on Doorman. And yet, three times Danny Arce said, "That's Billy Lovelady." "That's Billy Lovelady." "That's Billy Lovelady." He didn't elaborate. He didn't break it down. He didn't say how he knew or what he recognized. Rather, he just sparsely, flatly, and abruptly said without the slightest explanation,  "That's Billy Lovelady." That's bull shit is what it is.