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

There was a very interesting and astute comment tonight from Anthony Marsh, who is not a guy I am aligned with. He is a CT, but he advocates that Oswald did not shoot Kennedy but did shoot Tippit. I have to say that that is a ridiculous idea. I asked him why he thinks that, and he said that Oswald was probably afraid that Tippit was going to take him for having tried to shoot General Walker.

Well first, Oswald did not try to shoot General Walker. That was a made-up story. But second, even if he had, he didn't actually shoot him or hurt it. So why compound that with an actual murder? Oswald would have had to be insane to do that, and he wasn't insane.

So, Anthony Marsh is not someone that I generally respect. But, he said something very astute tonight. It was in response to bpete's oft-repeated refrain about Oswald's response to the reporter when he was asked "Were you in the building at the time?" and Oswald said, "Naturally, if I work in that building."

Just being in the building is not an alibi. You prejudice his comment by 
leaving out the context. The reporters were framing their questions to 
imply that he WENT to the TSBD only to shoot the President. Why else 
would be be there? So he pointed out that "naturally" he would be in the 
building since he worked there. He did not know the exact second that 
the shots were  fired. Anthony Marsh

Oswald was definitely in the doorway when Altgens snapped his picture. However, not a single spectator in the Altgene photo is showing any awareness of the reality of the situation even though JFK was already struck at least twice: once in the back and once in the neck. Even people who were much closer to JFK than Oswald was are showing no awareness of anything wrong. 

When did that change? When did reality dawn on them? 

I imagine it was very soon, meaning within a few seconds. Still, at that particular moment- and it is the only moment that we can see Oswald- there are no signs of awareness. 

What happened to Oswald after that? Well, we know he left for the lunch room very soon after that, and perhaps immediately. That's because he had to beat Baker there, and Oswald only walked; he didn't run like Baker did. 

So, what did Oswald know about what was happening to JFK when he turned around and began his trek to the lunch room? I don't know. But, it's possible that his mind didn't cross the threshold of awareness that JFK was being slaughtered. 

And there is some evidence that suggests that that is the case: When Baker encountered Oswald in the lunch room, he reported him as being calm. If Oswald left those steps knowing the President was being gunned down, would he be calm?  

So, when did Oswald become aware of what happened to JFK? We just don't know. But, it's possible that it was after he left the doorway. And it's also possible that his mindset was that it happened when he was in the building. 

But, let's get back to Anthony Marsh's statement. He makes a good point, that the reporter may have been challenging the very legitimacy of Oswald being in the building at all, and Oswald may have interpreted it that way. And so he emphasized the fact that it was legitimate for him to be in there because he worked there.

So, in this case, as in many cases, the positive answer of "yes" may have been perceived by Oswald as the way to deny the seeming accusation.

And having been there, I can tell you that being on the top of that landing feels more "in the building" than it does "outside." You are surrounded, engulfed by the building on four sides. Plus, you're very deep and far away from the street. You really don't feel that you've left the building.

So, in that context, Oswald defended his right to be in the building. But later, in talking to Fritz in a different context, he said that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front."

The whole idea that Oswald's response to the reporter constitutes a denial by him of having been in the doorway is completely and totally bogus. But, it's worse than that; it's insane. It's insane because we can see him in the doorway in the Altgens photo, and it can't possibly not be him. Oswald is the only one who wore an outer shirt that was unbuttoned and sprawled open in the manner that we see. Oswald is the only one who wore a t-shirt that was deformed into a vee. There is no possibility that Lovelady was wearing those clothes. So, that alone utterly clinches it. But, we actually have more, a lot more. We have the Oswald stance of clasping his hands in front- something he did multiple times over the last two days of his life, both in and out of handcuff, including the very moment he was shot by Jack Ruby. It was his habit. It was not Billy Lovelady's habit.

Doorman's slender build is also a match to Oswald and not Lovelady. Does Doorman look like he weighs 131 pounds or 170 pounds? Those are your two choices, and there is nothing in-between. The figure of 170 pounds comes from the FBI report. The figure of 131 pounds comes directly from Professor Gerald McKnight, but I arrived at it by myself. That's because we know, with certainty, that Oswald's weight in New Orleans was 140 pounds, as the N.O. police weighed him after his arrest. And we know emphatically that Oswald lost considerable weight between N.O. and Dallas. I had pegged his weight at 132, as an educated guess. But then I learned from Dr. McKnight that his actual weight was 131. But, I still consider it an accurate call for me.

So, was Doorman 5'9" 131 or 5'8" 170? I think the honest appraiser will admit that it's the former. Doorman does not look stocky.

Then, there are also some of the facial features which are a dead ringer for Oswald, such as his chin and his right ear. Put it all together, and it simply has to be him.

So, these people like bpete and his alter ego Lance Uppercut, are just trying to distract with their preoccupation with parsing Oswald's words. Remember "pay not attention to the man behind the curtain? Well, they're just saying pay no attention to the man in the doorway who is wearing Oswald's clothes and has Oswald's build, mannerisms, and facial features. It's over the top, friends. It's definitely him, Oswald, and these guys are trying to deny something that is patently obvious.

So, weak as it was, the argument that rested on parsing Oswald's response to the battery of reporter's questions in the hallway just got weaker, thanks to Anthony Marsh. Way to go, Tony. You did good this time.