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

Let's examine the whole question of the extent to which Oswald was truthful or lied to police. It's an important question, don't you think?

One of the first things out of Oswald's mouth was an admission that he did take a swing at a cop. And the implication was that, yes, he did that, but he didn't do anything else. 

To me, it indicates an earnest desire to be truthful and even to take responsibility for something that he should not have done. It sounds to me like there may have been a mea culpa in there. 

Then, at the first interrogation, he brought up the bus ride, but it wasn't until the next morning that he brought up the cab ride. But, he apologized for that omission. My impression is that he apologized for that rather profusely. 

Again, to me, it shows an earnest desire to be truthful and a recognition of the need to be truthful. 

But then, we come to something that is just plain a mystery. In the first Fritz Notes, he apparently told Fritz that he went home by bus and changed his britches, his pants. We don't know if he actually used the word britches. It's a rather old-fashioned word, even for 1963. I was around in 1963, and I don't recall using the term britches. But, whether Oswald used the term or not, the idea was put into Fritz' head that Oswald changed his pants.

But, the next morning, he apparently told Fritz that he changed both his shirt and trousers. Fritz abbreviated trousers "tr". Again, we don't know what word Oswald used. But, it said that:

"At apartment, changed shirt + trousers. Put in dirty clothes. Long-sleeved  red shirt + grey trousers."

Now, the Warren Commission determined that Oswald did not change his shirt but did change his pants. That would mean his first statement about this to Fritz was correct, and his second statement was false. As Oswald stated, he wore grey pants to work, and he changed out of them. And, Mary Bledsoe confirmed that she saw him wearing grey pants on the bus and the same shirt in which he was arrested. She even recalled the hole in the right elbow. 

There is no question that Oswald did NOT change his shirt at his room, and that's because we can see it on him in the doorway. Even the folds and crinkles match perfectly. There is just no way that his arrest shirt was not the same shirt that he wore to work. 

So, how did that misstatement come about? Was it a deliberate lie? Maybe. I can't rule it out. In fact, I can't think of a more likely explanation. But, if he lied about it, I can't imagine why. 

So, that is just a mystery, and it may always be a mystery. 

It's interesting that when asked about Mexico City, Oswald said that he never went there, that the only place in Mexico he'd been to was Tijuana, presumably back in his Marine days when he was stationed near there. But, I think it's interesting that he volunteered that because, it shows an intent to be truthful and tell the whole truth. 

When shown the Backyard Photos, he denied that they were legit, that they involved moving his face to the body of another man. And he said that he could do it himself, presumably from what he learned at Jaggars/Chiles/Stovall in Dallas. That is certainly ironic. Was Oswald inadvertently telling us who altered his image in the Altgens photo?

Oswald denied bringing curtain rods to work, and he also denied telling Frazier that he was bringing curtain rods to work. He also insisted that he brought his lunch to work, a cheese sandwich and an apple from Mrs. Paine's house, and I have no reason to think he was lying about that.

The bottom line for me is that I have strong reason to believe that Oswald was very honest with police. The only "lie" that he may have told is the one about changing his shirt. But, in his first telling of it, he said correctly that he changed only his pants.

So, this is a discrepancy which exists by itself. It's an island. And we may never understand it. As I said, it is a mystery. 

But, if we just put that mystery aside, we are left with Oswald being very truthful with police. 

There is NO indication that Oswald related any of the wild, fanciful, and imaginative story that Richard Hooke is telling about him. And as I said: the very fact that they allowed Oswald to speak freely to the press assures you that he was saying no such thing behind closed doors. And the idea that, following that, Oswald announced to them that he was going to come clean now and tell them the real truth is PREPOSTEROUS. There is no basis whatsoever to claim such a thing.

Oswald was truthful to police. That is the bottom line. But, there is no reason to think that he told them any startling story about having infiltrated the plot to kill Kennedy. He didn't tell them that because he didn't do that. He was being truthful when he said: 

"I don't know what this is about. Nobody has told me anything. I know I am accused of murdering a policeman. I know nothing more than that."