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

This letter came about because someone was impersonating Vincent Bugliosi on John McAdam's JFK website. I asked him directly if he was the real Vincent Bugliosi, and he said that he was, and John McAdams approved it. However, once I published this Open Letter, then John McAdams informed me that it was all a prank.

But, I am leaving this letter up anyway because the content, the case that it makes, is very good. And it is what I would tell Vincent Bugliosi. And who knows? Maybe somebody will get this to him.  

AN OPEN LETTER TO VINCENT BUGLIOSI

Vince,

How ironic it is for me to address you by that name when it is also what I call another outspoken attorney who expounds on the JFK assassination: Vincent Salandria. You could say that the feelings involved are polar opposite for me, but I want you to know that there is a part of me that likes you. Long ago, I read your book on the OJ Simpson case and was very impressed. And not so long ago, I read your book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder and was more than impressed; I was deeply moved. 

But, your book on JFK, Reclaiming History, is an abomination. I have only read parts of it online; I haven't read the whole thing. I would never buy it- for me, that would be unethical. But, I have read a number of detailed reviews of it by people I respect, a good one being "Reframing History or Reframing Oswald" by Gary Aguilar, and how clever it was of him to buy the domain reclaiminghistory.org. 

http://reclaiminghistory.org/ 

You've often said that it was the mock trial of LHO that led you to write Reclaiming History. There is a segment of that trial that your supporters, such as David Von Pein, like to tout. I am referring to the testimony of Buell Frazier. Are you aware that he contradicted himself about his location in the doorway? At the mock trial, Frazier said that he was 2 or 3 steps up behind Lovelady, "back in the shadows." But, in his WC testimony, Lovelady said that he was "on your top level" so there were no steps behind him. Shouldn't Frazier have known that? And this is what Frazier told Joseph Ball:

Mr. BALL - Were you near the steps?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I was, I was standing about, I believe, one step down from the top there.
Mr. BALL - One step down from the top of the steps?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; standing there by the rail.
Mr. BALL - By steps we are talking about the steps of the entrance to the Building?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Shown in this picture?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Which is Commission's Exhibit No. 362. Can you come over here and show us about where you were standing?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Like I told you this was an entrance right here.
Mr. BALL - Yes, sir.
Mr. FRAZIER - We have a bar rail running about half way up here. This was the first step and I was standing right around there. 

   

Frazier said repeatedly that he was one step down from the top next to the median handrail, below Doorman, and we can see him there in the Wiegman film:

So, Frazier lied when he told you on the stand that he was behind Lovelady "in the shadows." But, there is something else that Frazier said at the mock trial, and it is of great importance. You asked him if Oswald and Lovelady looked alike, and he shook his head and said "No." He said that they both had a high forehead, but that Billy Lovelady was a stocky, husky individual whereas Oswald "was more of a slender individual." 

We have some numbers to apply to that, starting with Oswald's weight of 140 pounds as measured by the New Orleans Police in August 1963. However, we also have pictures of him from that time, and you can see that he was a lot fuller in the face and body than he was in November. Comparing his New Orleans pictures to his Dallas ones, I estimated for him an 8 pound weight loss and hence arrived at a Dallas weight for him of 132 pounds. I found out later from Dr. Gerald McKnight that the Dallas police did get Oswald's weight, and it was 131 pounds. So, I was only off by a pound. Not bad, eh? So, Oswald was 5'9", 131 pounds. 

We also have a figure for Billy Lovelady whom the FBI measured and weighed on Feb 29, 1964, and this is what they reported:

So, there you have it: 5'8" 170 pounds for Lovelady. However, it's important to realize that he may have been heavier on 11/22/63 because he started to lose weight after the assassination, and eventually he got quite thin. So, he may have been 175 or more on the day of the assassination. 

But, if we round it off, then Lovelady, on that fateful day, was an inch shorter than Oswald and about 40 pounds heavier. That's a big difference. It's almost a Laurel and Hardy difference. 

And that brings us to the image of Lovelady you chose to use to compare to Doorman: (Note: it was the VP impostor who submitted it, not the real Vincent Bugliosi.) 

Are you aware that that picture is from 1967? Taken 4 years later? 

People change over time. Obviously, they age. But independent of that, their weight can change; their hair can change; and obviously, their clothes are almost certain to be different. 

Doorman was either Lee Harvey Oswald or Billy Lovelady- but on that day: November 22, 1963. So, it is essential to use images of them from that day to compare to Doorman. 

And it is especially important in this case because the clothes are such a crucial factor: we are comparing not just the men but the clothing. You could argue that when Lovelady posed in 1967 he was wearing the same clothing, but was he? The issue is in contention. It's not a point that we are willing to grant. The fact is that the 1967 image was planned, staged, and contrived, and therefore, artificial. And that is sufficient reason to disqualify it. 

But worse than that, in my view, is the fact that Lovelady had definitely lost considerable weight. He doesn't look to be 170 pounds any more, and he doesn't look to be husky or stocky either, as Frazier described him. So, that constitutes cheating.

You can squeeze a square peg into a round hole if you take out your pocket knife and whittle it down, but again, that's cheating. 

Vince, there are so many ways in which your analysis of the JFK assassination is dead-wrong. I'll describe one, and it harkens back to the first time I met Jim Marrs. He was giving a speech in Austin, Texas, which I attended, and he walked up to the podium carrying a Mannlicher/Carcano rifle. The first thing he did was to dare any man who wanted to, to come up and try to get off 3 shots in 6 seconds as Oswald supposedly did. 

Keep in mind that not only did it not involve hitting a moving target 2 out of 3 times, as Oswald supposedly did, but it didn't even involve finding a target and aiming at all. It only required bringing the rifle up to shoulder level and squeezing the trigger. Jim requested that only men with military experience or ample experience at shooting bolt-action rifles try it. So, that left me out. But, it was a large audience and quite a few men went up to do it. Not one of them got close.  

So, the Single Bullet Theory is nonsense, and that alone exonerates Oswald. And there is so much more that exonerates Oswald. However, I am just going to stick to one thing and one thing only: Oswald in the doorway. 

Keep in mind that if we didn't have Oswald in the doorway, the other things we have are more than sufficient to vindicate Oswald. But, the fact is, we do have Oswald in the doorway, and there is nothing else quite like it. A picture is worth a thousand words, and seeing him standing there, his hands clasped in front of his body, right as the shots rang out, is breathtaking. I assure you that Oswald in the doorway is going to lead the way to JFK truth- for all.  

What makes it so compelling is that not only is the match-up of the men excellent, but the match-up of the clothing is spot-on too. The fact is that Oswald beat his framers that morning when he got dressed. He probably didn't give much thought about what to wear, but unwittingly, he foiled them with his clothes. 

It was a very unusual shirt that Oswald wore and almost certainly one that he brought back with him from Russia. It was really a hybrid between a shirt and a jacket. It was lightweight like a shirt, but it had the lay of a jacket, and I mean particularly the way it folded over. 

1. 

Look at that lapel on his left side, which is on our right. Notice that in size and shape it compares to the lapel on the jacket of the big cop next to him. That is no ordinary shirt. It's no wonder that some people, including Officer Marrion Baker, who was the first one to see him after the assassination, described it as a jacket. Baker described it as a "light brown jacket." 

And remember that the buttons on that jacket were largely missing, and that's why it was unbuttoned. And because of the unbuttoning and the unusual lay of the jacket, it created an immense open sprawl that we see on Oswald and on Doorman.

 There is no comparable sprawl like that on Lovelady, including the shot of him from 1967 which you favor. There, it looks primped and pressed and artificial, and the opening isn't anywhere near as big. And who is kidding who? Lovelady didn't primp his shirt that way on 11/22/63. He was going to work to lay flooring on the dusty, dirty 6th floor; he wasn't going to a hootenanney. And notice above that there is evidence of Oswald's long left lapel on Doorman. His collar is covered up by the freaky presence of Black Tie Man, whose juxtaposition next to him is physically, anatomically, and photographically impossible. It's like they are conjoined twins. But, if you look closely you can see that there is a double layer of material on Doorman's left side (our right). That's the lapel running down the left side of his shirt, just as we see on Oswald. 

Notice also the matching notched t-shirts:

Nobody was wearing a store-bought v-neck t-shirt that day. It wasn't the thing. Oswald's t-shirt got notched from his habit of tugging on the margin, in which he stretched it and deformed it. But, Lovelady didn't have that habit; only Oswald did. In every picture we have of Lovelady- from 11/22/63 onward, including the posed picture you like from 1967, his t-shirt looks round. The fact is that the peculiarity of Doorman's t-shirt was something that sailed right over their heads. And, it clinches it for Oswald. Who could be wearing Oswald's one-of-a-kind t-shirt except Oswald? 

Notice how the right collars match perfectly:

What, do you think Lovelady's collar also looked like that? No way! Are you out of you mind? It must certainly did not.

Which two match, Vince? 

And notice how Oswald was clasping his hands. He did that a lot. 

He was even doing it at the last conscious moment of his life when Jack Ruby shot him:

Doorman is doing it too. You can tell because his wrist is directly below his chin at the midline of his body. Why would that be happening? It's because he was clasping his hands. 

Look how perfectly in sync they are. They're doing the same thing. What, do you think Lovelady was standing like that too? 

That is Oswald, Vince. Everything matches Oswald: the man, the clothing, even his face. We're seeing spot-on matches of his ear, his nose, and his chin. However, the top of Doorman's head, from above his eyes to the limit, is a match to Lovelady. 

That came about through alteration, Vince. They altered the Altgens photo. They Lovelady-ified Oswald by moving the "cap" of Lovelady's head over to him. If you want to see how Doorman looked before they messed with it, here it is:

That is what happened, Vince. They had several hours to do it, to work on it, and they did. I'm sure they had a crack team; probably the best people in the world. 

So, the bottom line is that, geographically and mathematically, Doorman is at least 80% Oswald; and maybe 85%. That "cap" is the only thing about him that corresponds to Lovelady. 

Obviously, centaurs of man and horse do not exist, and neither do centaurs of Oswald and Lovelady. 

So, did someone install the 85% that corresponds to Oswald in order to falsely vindicate him or did someone install the 15% that corresponds to Lovelady in order to destroy Oswald's airtight alibi? 

It could only have been the latter, Vince, and it WAS the latter. 

I don't expect you to reverse your position because of this; I know full-well that your mind is closed. It's too late for you. You are so vested in the official story from having written that awful book and having devoted so much of your time and energy to it, that you are going to cover your ears and close your eyes to the truth. C'est la vie.  

But, others won't do that, Vince. They are not vested in your book. And what I want you to realize and take away from this is that the truth is going to prevail. The official story- the official lie- is going down. It is as doomed and hopeless as the Titanic. And I sincerely hope that you live long enough to see it utterly destroyed. 

The Soviet Union tried very hard to suppress the truth about what the Bolsheviks did, how they savagely murdered the Romanov family and tried to cover it up. But, even after 70 years of suppression, the truth came out, and statues of Lenin and Stalin were torn down. The Russians also admitted to committing the Katan Forest Massacre in Poland during World War II. 

It has been a catharsis for Russia to face up to its evil past, but facing up to it is the only way to overcome it, and Russia is a better country for having done so. None of the present leaders of Russia or any of the people of Russia are personally guilty of those horrendous crimes. But, they still had the responsibility to own up to what their forebearers did. But, they did that, and they are better off for it. 

And, it is going to be the same in the USA concerning the JFK assassination, in which our leaders savagely murdered President Kennedy, the difference being that at this point in time, some of the guilty are still alive and roaming around freely, in fact, living exalted lives. Nevertheless, a reckoning is coming, and whether it happens before or after every last culprit is dead, really doesn't matter- not to me. The truth is going to prevail, Vince. It can't be stopped.