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

What did Lee Harvey Oswald say? All we can be sure of are the things he said on tape, where we can see and hear him say it. We know that he declared his innocence numerous times on tape. I think when I counted, it was 13x that he denied killing anyone. He denied it adamantly, although the word he used was "emphatically." He said, "I emphatically deny these charges."

The next thing he said in greatest volume and repetition was that he was being denied a lawyer. "These police officers won't let me have one." He said that on tape. Now, would he say that if he would settle only for John Abt? There was no way the police officers could provide him with John Abt, and he had to know that. So, that statement is evidence that Oswald was willing to accept another lawyer.

And that's why I keep telling you, and pleading with you, not to believe that Oswald ever met with H. Louis Nichols and turned down his offer to get him a lawyer. Never happened. Not a chance. They had an Oswald double fool Nichols, and regretably, fool the world. That was Saturday evening, and they had to know that Oswald was going to be killed the next morning. That's because the genie was out of the bottle. Nichols had already announced it on television- to the world. But, imagine if Oswald had lived. Surely, he would have gotten a lawyer eventually, and surely they would have discussed it. And when the lawyer found out that Oswald never met with Nichols, the shit would have hit the fan- for the prosecution. The FBI and the Dallas Police would have been screwed. What they did they knew they could get away with because they knew Oswald was going to be dead.

There are other things that Oswald said that are not in doubt and which were very exonerating. He said that he did NOT own a rifle. Now, if he did, and if someone else shot Kennedy with it, he surely wasn't stupid enough to deny owning the rifle. How many times has someone used someone else's gun to shoot someone? "It's my rifle, but I didn't shoot anyone with it. Someone used my rifle in order to frame me." How hard is it to say that? He would have said it.

Then there was the so-called evidence of him having ordered the rifle from Chicago under the name A. Hidell. He didn't do that. He probably didn't even possess a P.O. box, as they claimed. But, here's the most damning thing- to them. They didn't show that evidence to him. They could have. They supposedly tracked the rifle to Chicago that very evening. Before the sun rose on Saturday morning, they had it. So, why didn't they show it to him? I mean: to get him to stop lying. There can only be one answer: Because they were the ones lying. It was all bogus. Completely, totally, bogus.

And I don't assume that the decision not to show it to him came from Fritz. It came from Bookhout. Do you remember how Karl Rove was called Bush's brain? Well, James Bookhout was Fritz' brain. He was the real boss at the interrogations, not Fritz. Fritz did what he was told.

But, think about it. The perpetrators knew that Oswald didn't own a rifle and that their evidence was fake and phony, and they also knew that the moment he told a lawyer that he didn't own a rifle, that they were screwed up the yin-yang. That's why there was no way that they were going to let Oswald speak to a lawyer. And that decision had to come from Bookhout too. Think about it: Fritz arranged for Ruby to have a lawyer, and he let Ruby consult with that lawyer before Fritz interrogated him. So, why didn't he do the same with Oswald?

Oswald denied ever telling Frazier that he was bringing back curtain rods. And note that it follows from the previous point that he couldn't have. If he didn't own a rifle, then he didn't need to lie about taking one to work. People only tell the lies they need to tell.

I don't know how they got Frazier to say that. But, I do know that they put Frazier under a tremendous amount of pressure. They threatened to charge him as Oswald's accomplice. And, I find it very unnerving that Frazier only started working at the TSBD a month before Oswald. It seems awfully convenient. And they only moved into that building a month before that. So, the whole operation was in the works before Frazier got there.

And they must have ridden Frazier hard.

"He must have told you something. What did he say was in the long narrow bag? It was about as long as curtain rods. Did he say it was curtain rods? Look: you need to give us an answer. If you don't, we're going to take out the handcuffs. You are going to the electric chair, boy. You are going to fry. Now, did he say it was curtain rods?"

I suspect it was something like that.

Oswald denied ever going to Mexico City. And of course, he didn't. Supposedly, the CIA trailed Oswald the whole time he was in Mexico City, and of course, if they had, they would have taken numerous photographs of him. But, they had none. They had less than none because they tried to pass off phony ones, which didn't work. Nobody bought it. Then they had to drum up excuses for the bogus images.

The purpose of fabricating the trip to Mexico City was to link Oswald to Russia or Cuba or both. That was before the lone gunman narrative got written. Once they decided to go "lone nut" they didn't need Mexico City any more, but they were stuck with it. And do you know that to this day, Fox News runs specials about Oswald in Mexico City. Who did he see? Who did he meet with? Who did he conspire with? Why is the government lying to us about this? We demand answers. The idiocy just keeps growing.

Oswald denied the authenticiy of the Backyard photos, and that was a flub of the FBI. They must have intended for those photos to be discovered after Oswald's death. After all, they didn't show him or tell him about the bogus invoice for the rifle. They didn't ask him about the bogus P.O. box. So, why would they ask him about bogus photographs? And just imagine what must have gone through Oswald's head. If he had any doubt that he was being framed, those doubts had to vanish once he saw those bogus images of himself.

The killing of Kennedy and the framing and killing of Oswald was a monstrous plot comitted by monstrous men. But then, thousands more followed in their wake, perpetuating the lies, and, in effect, pumping more bullets into the bodies of Kennedy and Oswald.

This comes down to Good vs. Evil. Anyone who supports the official story of the JFK assassination is endorsing and practicing evil. If truth and decency matter to you at all, then you will categorically reject the official story.