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

One of the most fallacious arguments that comes down the pike concerning Oswald is the idea that none of the TSBD employees reported seeing him in the doorway. 

First, it's not true. Carolyn Arnold reported seeing him at the doorway; still on the other side of the glass but at the threshold of the doorway. That materialized in her first statement to the FBI on November 26, and the agent writing it felt satisfied that as long as he designated the time as 12:15, that it left enough time for Oswald to get upstairs.  

But, when the higher-ups back at the office saw it, they realized that it still looked real bad. So they went back and got Carolyn Arnold to sign a statement stating that she didn't see Oswald at all.

Nobody could say that Oswald was in the doorway. It was not OK. He couldn't have been there because he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. I'm being facetious, but I assure you they weren't. 

You do realize that Warren Commission hearings were a Stalinist show trial. 

"A show trial is a public trial in which the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant. The actual trial has as its only goal the presentation of both the accusation and the verdict to the public so they will serve as both an impressive example and a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors.^[1] Show trials tend to be retributive rather than corrective and they are also conducted for propagandistic purposes.^[2] The term was first recorded in 1928."

Show  trial, show trial, show trial. That is what it was. And at that show trial, they were not going to let anyone say that they saw Oswald in the doorway. And even though Carolyn Arnold recanted her original statement (and one can only imagine the grief they poured on that poor woman)  the Warren Commission still refrained from talking to her. 

It was a Stalinist  show trial. Just  think: Will Fritz testified that  Oswald said he was eating with other employees at the time of the shooting. Of course, it's not true; not true that Oswald did it, and not true that Oswald said it. But, Fritz said it. So, what was the logical thing for Joseph Ball to say? "Then, who were these other employees?... because we need to talk to them." 

But, Ball didn't ask i t, and Fritz didn't offer it. 

The point is that if the Warren Report had included a statement from somebody, anybody, that they saw Oswald in the doorway, it would have eviscerated the whole Warren Report. So, there is no chance they were going to allow it.

Stop thinking of it as a legitimate investigation. It was a show trial where the theory of the crime was completely decided upon before they started. And that isn't even in dispute. It is a historical fact that Lyndon Johnson told Earl Warren that he needed to find for the lone gunman or else it was going to be nuclear war with the Soviets and 100 million dead. 

Do you understand that that was the mission, to find for Oswald's sole guilt?

It doesn't bother me when defenders of the official story point to the lack of witnesses who saw Oswald in the doorway or who recognized Doorway Man as Oswald.  They are just automations, and they are stupid people, including John McAdams. He is just  smart enough to know better than to debate me or attack me on his website. As Dirty Harry taught us: a good man knows his limitations. But, don't assume John McAdams is good because he is not. 

But what  really irks me, what  really grinds my gears, is when a supposed Oswald defender makes the same argument, pointing to the witnesses at the show trial, as if the whole investigation had any legitimacy. It did not. 

Oswald WAS in the doorway. Image comparison alone proves it, without having to depend on anyone's testimony. And it has reached the point that any Oswald defender who can't see it and admit it should no longer be considered an Oswald defender. Oswald was in the doorway during the shooting, and there is no place else he could have been- not even theoretically.