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

David Von Pein

For clarification, I've added some further explanation about the "two
arrows" in the "footnote" on my "Doorway Man Part 1" webpage.

Thank you, Ralph, for pointing out that such clarification was, indeed,
required on that page. 

Ralph Cinque:

David, I read what you wrote, and it was good of you to back off the claim the way you did. It's definitely a step in the right direction. However, you offered no explanation as to why Lovelady's arrow in CE 369 isn't visible. What do you think we would find if we looked at it directly? Surely, there would have to be a hint of it somewhere, don't you think?  

But, what you wrote about the Fritz Notes and "out with Bill Shelley in front" is woefully lacking in rationality. You say it must have referred to AFTER the assassination, as when Oswald was leaving for home. And you base that on the order of the statements, assuming that they must be chronological. But, it was based on a conversation, and since when are conversations always chronological? 

But, there is a worse problem than that. We know for absolute certain that Shelley wasn't out in front when Oswald left for home. Shelley left the entrance soon after the shots with Lovelady to join the throng that descended on the railway area. Then, they re-entered the TSBD building through the back door. Neither reported going out front again until it was time to leave for City Hall. 

So, Oswald definitely didn't see Shelley out front when he left for home. Shelley wasn't there at that time. So, why would Oswald claim it? He would have known that they were going to ask Shelley about it, and that Shelley would deny it (as he did). So, what would be the point of lying about it? People tell lies which they think they can get away with. They don't tell lies for which they are certain to be exposed. 

And why would Oswald have to provide a witness for where he was AFTER the assassination? He wasn't accused of committing any crime when he left for home. And there's no doubt that he did it, so there was no need to provide a witness to it. "Out with Bill Shelley in front" was definitely a reference to DURING the motorcade, and Oswald correctly identified someone who was, in fact, in the doorway. And, he was, in effect, saying "go ask Shelley." 

And I realize that they did go ask Shelley, and Shelley denied that Oswald was there, but the question: who was lying? You think it's a foregone conclusion that Oswald lied, but I say Shelley lied. Again: how could Oswald know that Shelley was there during the motorcade unless he saw him there? And that means he, Oswald, must have been there himself. 

And, look at it from Fritz' point of view. What mattered to him? What did he need to know? Not who Oswald saw when he left for home, but who he saw during the time of the motorcade. Oswald didn't need an alibi for his departure. He needed an alibi for the assassination. That's what Fritz wanted to know and what he wrote down.

And look what Fritz told the WC about what Oswald told him, that he was eating lunch with other employees during the shooting. That was ridiculous, and Oswald never said it. He was too smart to say it. Why would he say it knowing that the employees would deny it? So, why would Fritz claim that Oswald claimed it? BECAUSE OSWALD WAS DEAD! And look what happened. Joseph Ball didn't even ask Fritz to name the two employees. You would think Ball would have said, "Who were those guys? I need to talk to them." But no; Fritz didn't say, and Ball didn't ask.

David, you are like the little Dutch boy holding his finger in the hole in the dike. That is just a legend, and it wouldn't work in real life. Neither is what you're doing. Oswald was innocent. The truth of that is going to flow everywhere, and there is no way for you to stop it.