Thursday, June 16, 2016

The issue of Lovelady's arrow on CE 369 has reared its head again on McAdams' forum, and I am going to address it here in a series. In this Part I, I am going to make some preliminary remarks- for sake of perspective.

It's certainly historically important to know where Lovelady drew his arrow- to establish what he was claiming in April 1964. However, it is not important to determining Doorman's identity. He was Oswald, and that has already been determined beyond doubt. That's because the collages prove that he has Oswald's features and he was wearing Oswald's clothes. Both the man and the clothing match to him.

And let's remember what happened on the evening of November 23, which was the very next day after the shooting. That evening, FBI agents stormed Lovelady's house to show him the crop of Doorman from the Altgens photo, which according to Mrs. Lovelady, was "as large as a desk." Well, why didn't they do the same with Oswald? He was just sitting in his cell, and I'm pretty sure that if they had come by to show him the photograph he would have looked at it. So, why talk to one and not the other? In Oswald's case, they were afraid of what he would say, such as: 

"Yeah, that's me. Like I told you, I was out with Bill Shelley in front."  

And in Lovelady's case, they weren't so much asking him if he was Doorman as they were telling him.

But, what cinches it are the images, and nobody's lip-flapping can overrule it- not if you are a mature person. Even if Oswald himself flat-out denied that he was in the doorway (and of course, he didn't) it still wouldn't negate it. That's how compelling the images are. Same shirt; same t-shirt; same man. 

The above one is by the late Mark Lane, and it has become one of my favorites. 

So, the case for Oswald's innocence based on Oswald in the doorway is made without needing any help from Lovelady. But still, it's nice to know that as of April 1964, he was NOT claiming to be Doorman. 

Now, let's review the history of CE 369. It was never presented cohesively. You've got the separate testimonies of Frazier and Lovelady, and you've got the marked photograph which was in with the exhibits. But, they weren't put together. So, you couldn't read about CE 369 in the testimonies and then refer to it. Today, you can do it because of the Internet. But, going back to when the Warren Report was published, there was a division there. 

And the whole thing about how CE 369 came to be is mired in mystery. First, it's baffling that Joseph Ball would give Lovelady a photo that already had an arrow pointing to Doorman.  Was that supposed to be a not-so-subtle hint? And then, after Lovelady drew his arrow, why didn't Ball have him add his name or at least his initials? You don't have to be Lt. Colombo to see the sense in that. It's like signing a written statement that you make. Frankly, I think it was very inappropriate for Ball to give Lovelady a photo which already had an arrow on it. Wasn't that biasing? In fact, if it happened to me, I'm sure I would have said something.

"Do you know that there is already an arrow on this? 

It's weird that neither one of them said anything about that beforehand. Afterwards, Ball said something about two arrows, one in the white and the other in the dark. But, the whole exchange is just plain weird. 

So, we are going to talk about the arrows. We are going to talk about what an arrow is. So, we are going to talk about the informative nature of the photograph, and what an honest and responsible investigator would do. Let no one call Joseph Ball an honest and responsible investigator. Ball was responsible to the conspirators and to nothing and no one else. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.