When Bernard Wilds asked me to let him publish some of my writings from the OIC blog in order to raise money to help homeless people in Manchester, England, where he lives, I instantly said yes. I am very grateful to Bernard for the help he has given me, artistically and otherwise, and I am honored that he thinks enough of my work to think that it will sell and generate funds for this noble cause, for which I very much hope that he is right.
Lee Harvey Oswald was and is innocent. He is completely and totally innocent of all crimes of which he is accused: including murdering President Kennedy, murdering Officer Tippit, and shooting at General Walker with intent to kill. If Oswald isn't the most wronged man in history, he is certainly one of the most wronged, and close to the top.
As I type this, we are just days away from the 55th anniversary of the JFK assassination, so where do things stand? First, the mainstream media continues to brandish the official story of the assassination, and they do not even acknowledge the existence of Oswald defenders. Instead, they spread the wrong impression that those who dispute the official story do so only on the basis of whether Oswald had accomplices. They falsely state or imply that the only challenge is whether Oswald acted alone. They carry on as if nobody doubts that he acted (to kill Kennedy). The corporate media will simply not allow Oswald innocence to be voiced. But, I don't see it as a sign of strength, but rather, of weakness. They fear debating it because they know they cannot withstand such a debate.
What is the evidence that Oswald as innocent? First, he had a rock-solid alibi: that he was standing in the doorway of the Book Depository at the time of the shots and was photographed there. Oswald did not live long enough to find out that he was photographed there. On the evening of November 23, FBI agents went to the home of Billy Lovelady to show him the Altgens photo and ask him to identify the figure in the doorway. So, why didn't they, simultaneously, go to the cell of Lee Oswald and do the exact same thing? The answer is very simple: they knew better. There never was an investigation; there was only a frame-up. It wasn't about learning the truth; it was about dealing with a logistical problem and putting out a fire.
Oswald in the doorway is, by itself, sufficient to establish Oswald's innocence. But, there is more. There is the fact that the paper trail linking Oswald to the purchase of the rifle from Chicago is patently bogus. As many have pointed out: it isn't even credible that Oswald could have gotten it from the post office since the name A. Hidell wasn't listed as a signatory of the P.O. box. But, the whole timeline falls apart when you realize that he supposedly mailed his order on one day and it arrived in Chicago and got processed the very next day. From Dallas to Chicago? That's impossible! It's impossible today, even with all the advances in automation, but it was super-impossible back then. Overnight delivery wasn't even available as an option in 1963.
The so-called fingerprint evidence against Oswald stinks out loud, with the Dallas Police finding nothing, and then the FBI changing the story to finding a partial fingerprint of Oswald's on the triggerguard. But, rest assured that had Oswald lived and been tried, that evidence would have been challenged by the defense in court with their own expert witnesses.
The Backyard photos would have been exposed as the frauds that they are. Marina Oswald, instead of being the foremost witness against Oswald, would have been his defender. Had Oswald lived and been tried, she never would have said all the lies she told the Warren Commission. Exactly how they "flipped" Marina and got her to say all those awful things about Oswald- lies through and through- remains a mystery. What MK-ULTRA tricks did they play on her? But, she wouldn't have said them had he lived, and we can be sure of that.
There really is no significant and sustainable evidence against Oswald, and that includes the so-called eye-witness testimonies, from people who thought they saw him in the 6th floor window or at the Tippit murder scene. And keep in mind that that kind of evidence is notoriously weak and unreliable. The many dozens of men whom the Innocence Project has gotten off Death Row wound up there because of such evidence. And in this case, especially, it was like a Stalinist show trial where pressure was applied to witnesses to report seeing Oswald. It took extremely strong character to resist the tsunami of pressure from the State that Oswald did it, and few had it, and none of the witnesses did. The Gestapo was saying that Oswald did it, and you don't argue with the Gestapo.
Although Oswald in the doorway was and is the centerpiece of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, there are other discoveries in this case that are far less widely known but just as important, at least to me. One is the fraudulence of the Moorman photo. And keep in mind that I do not accuse Mary Moorman of any wrongdoing, except perhaps of trusting authority. But, even that is an innocent mistake. Whatever photo Mary took got replaced with another image which I believe came from the set of photos that "Babushka Lady" took (whoever she was, and note that I do not support the claim of Beverly Oliver of being Babushka Lady) But, Mary's photo must have contained some incriminating revelation against the official story, which is why they had to get rid of it. And note that for you to believe that Moorman photo is authentic, you must believe that the FBI borrowed it from her and then accidentally got a white thumbprint on it. Do you believe that? If you do, you just bought the Brooklyn Bridge.
And then, there is the issue of Jack Ruby, whom everybody and his brother on both sides of the debate thinks killed Oswald, but everybody and his brother are wrong. Jack Ruby was innocent. Jack Ruby was finagled, through drugs and suggestion, to go to that garage. He got there earlier than reported. He was pounced upon and hustled up to the 5th floor. And that's where he learned, for the first time, that he shot Oswald- something he believed only because he was told it. Jack Ruby was mentally ill, and part of his mental illness consisted of having an extreme and bizarre admiration of and fascination with the Dallas Police. I have to wonder if it was infused in him, as in The Manchurian Candidate, with soldiers saying, "Raymond Shaw is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful man I've ever met." What we got from Jack Ruby is that he had no desire to shoot Oswald, no intention of shooting Oswald, and no awareness of shooting Oswald. He didn't even expect to see Oswald. He accepted that he did it only because his heroes, the Dallas Police, told him that he did. But, the fact is: THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT RUBY HAVING DONE IT. THE IMAGE OF THE GARAGE SHOOTER IS NOT A MATCH TO JACK RUBY, RATHER IT IS A MATCH TO FBI AGENT JAMES BOOKHOUT.
Besides Bernard Wilds, I want to thank American Amy Joyce for her contributions to my blog, and also another British man whom we refer to as The Wizard. I also want to thank Dr. James Fetzer for having me on The Real Deal, Gary King for having me on The New JFK Show, and OIC Chairman Larry Rivera for his excellent leadership and copious research, culminating in his recently published book, a masterpiece: The JFK Horsemen.
Going forward, I have no doubt whatsoever that JFK truth will prevail and Lee Harvey Oswald will be vindicated. The killing of Kennedy was a State Crime followed by a State Lie. But, State Lies don't last forever. They didn't in the Soviet Union, and they won't here. And when this lie collapses, the big question will be, not who killed Kennedy, but who covered it up and how that cover-up became systemic so fast and for so long. Thank you, Bernard.