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

I was confusing Bookout and Kelley; my mistake. But the good thing is that human discourse tends to be logical; it is sequential; one thing follows another. And I'm afraid that Kelley's statement about what Oswald said makes no more sense than Fritz' or Bookout's, as I'll explain. First Fritz: 

WC: Where did Oswald say he was during the motorcade?
Fritz: He said he was having lunch with other employees.

To the best of my knowledge, Fritz was the only one who was asked that question by the WC. We know who the "other employees" were to whom Fritz was referring: Junior Jarman and Harold Norman. But, during the motorcade, Junior Jarman and Harold Norman were not eating lunch. They were perched at the 5th floor window, right below the Sniper's Nest, watching the motorcade. They didn't eat with Oswald, and Oswald never said they did. He said they were hanging around the Domino Room as he was eating lunch there- alone- and well before the assassination. Even Vincent Bugliosi admits that it was well before the assassination that Oswald ate his lunch.  

So, that was a terrible, wicked lie that Fritz told the Warren Commission. Oswald did NOT say he was eating lunch with other employees during the assassination, and Fritz knew it. He lied.   

And as for Bookout, he told some whoppers too. 

Mr. BOOKHOUT - He accused the FBI of, generally, unfair tactics in interviewing his wife on some previous occasion.
Mr. STERN - Was this directed specifically at either you or Hosty, or to the general----
Mr. BOOKHOUT - It was directed against Hosty.
Mr. STERN - He did not, Oswald did not indicate that he knew Hosty himself, did he?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No.

But wait, the facts that are well known. 

On Nov. 12, 1963, Oswald visited the FBI office and left a terse handwritten
note to Hosty, who was in the field at the time. It reportedly stated: "If you
have anything you want to learn about me, come talk to me directly. If you don't
cease bothering my wife, I will take appropriate action and report this to the
proper authorities."

So, what gives, Bookout? Oswald did know Hosty himself. So, why'd you lie? 

Here is Bookout's testimony to Stern. Anybody feel free to check it (friend or enemy) but I don't believe Attorney Stern ever found it appropriate to ask Bookout where Oswald said he was at the time of the shooting. They did cover the nature of Oswald's denial and argued about the right adverb to describe it, whether he maintained his innocence "frantically" or "emphatically". Bookout liked to go with "frantically". 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bookhout.htm

But, the thing is, when people deny things- whether frantically or emphatically- they don't just deny it; they provide an alibi. 

"I couldn't have shot the President! I was XXXXX at the time!"

So, what was Oswald's alibi, and why didn't Bookout cite it? Here's why:

Why didn't Stern ask Bookout about Oswald's alibi? How hard was that? How brilliant a lawyer do you have to be to ask, "Where did Oswald say he was at the time of the shooting?" Pages and pages of questioning, but Stern never asked Bookout that???? Are you kidding?  

And that brings us to Kelley:

And it also brings us back to my original statement about human discourse, that it follows a logic, a sequence, a progression. "I asked him if he viewed the parade and he said he had not." 

Now, what is the next logical question after that? Isn't it: "Then, where were you and what were you doing during the parade?" 

But, Kelley didn't ask that. He went right to: "Did you shoot the President?" And then, "Did you shoot the Governor?" And then, according to him, Oswald cut off the questioning and asked for a lawyer.

So, according to Thomas Kelley, Oswald denied guilt without providing an alibi. 

But, that makes no sense. The implication is that Oswald refused to give an alibi. But, it's only natural when you're accused of something you didn't do to provide an alibi. 

So, Oswald must have said something. He must have accounted for himself somehow. 

You see, what I am saying here is that there was a natural tendency for the interrogator to go to that question, and there was also a natural tendency for the subject to go to it by his own free will. "No, I didn't kill the President. At the time, I was ..." 

Do you think Oswald was self-destructive? Do you think he was a masochist? Anybody in that situation, unless he had a secret desire to be electrocuted, would provide an alibi. I am absolutely positive that Oswald must have provided an alibi, and repeatedly. Aren't you? So, why did Fritz lie to the Warren Commission about it, giving a phony alibi that Oswald never told, and why did FBI Agent Bookout and SS Agent Kelley act like Oswald never gave any alibi at all?  I'm going to run this by John Armstrong.