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

Oswald took his lunch to work: a cheese sandwich and an apple "from Mrs. Paine's house". He said that, and his wife confirmed it. She told the Warren Commission that the only thing he took to work, that she knew of, was his lunch. 

But, Buell Frazier said that the bag that Oswald put on the back seat was bigger than a lunch bag- substantially bigger. However, he said that it was definitely NOT big enough to contain a disassembled rifle. He said that then, and he says it today. In fact, today he says it adamantly and with a great deal of passion, that Oswald did NOT have a rifle with him and is therefore innocent. 

But, let's stay on Oswald's lunch. If we presume- hypothetically- that Frazier is right that Oswald had a bag with him that was no more than 2 feet long (not long enough for the stock of the rifle) then where was the lunch bag? Would Oswald have put the bag with the cheese sandwich and the apple inside the other bag, the larger bag? I don't see him doing that. And it's because the food is fragile, and it would get banged up inside the bag with the gun parts. It's not as though Oswald had a hard metal lunch box to protect the food. Furthermore, rifle parts are dirty and oily, and a paper bag is flimsy. And paper absorbs oil; it doesn't keep the oil out. The correct word is: porous. So, would you really want to put your thin, porous paper bag with your food in it in with the greasy, drity gun parts? Why on Earth would anybody do that? 

So, having brought his lunch, shouldn't Oswald have had two bags? One for the rifle (if you believe that) and one for the lunch? What's the alternative? That he had no lunch bag? That he just threw a sandwich and an apple in with dirty rifle parts, where they would have direct contact? He wouldn't do that, and nobody would. 

So, I don't see Oswald putting his paper lunch bag in with dirty, oily rifle parts. He would have kept his lunch bag separate, and it would have been visible- small but visible. He would have had to carry the larger bag with the rifle in one arm and the lunch bag in his other hand. Period. 

But, several times, Frazier described the one bag that he saw as a grocery bag. He used the word: grocery. Well, how could anyone describe this as a grocery bag?

Obviously, that is a lot longer than 2 feet, but look at the shape of it. It's wide at the base, narrow at the top (although it's inverted). That is obviously NOT a grocery bag. We've all been going to grocery stores our whole lives and looking at grocery bags, and we know what they look like. They haven't changed. They are rectangular, not pyramidal. That is nothing like a grocery bag.

Then there is this testimony of Jack Dougherty:

Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.
Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.
Mr. BALL - About what time of day was that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That was 8 o'clock. 

David Von Peinhead likes to point out that before that Dougherty said that he only saw Oswald "through the corner of my eye."  But, let's consider that a small lunch bag containing a sandwich and an apple might go unnoticed, under that circumstance, but not a large bag with a rifle.

I know that Frazier said that he "slept late" and Oswald was ready to go before he was; so waiting for him. So, there is no reason to think that they got to work early. No, no, on the contrary, they got to work a little late. Plus, Frazier parked a long distance from the building, and they had to walk that distance. So, when Oswald reached the entrance of that building, he definitely was a little late. There were people there already. Plenty of them. There was activity going on. It was after 8:00, and it was reported that the floor-laying on the 6th floor started at 8:00. So, if Oswald is walking in the door after 8:00, we have to assume that there were already men on the 6th floor, either working or about ready to work. But either way: they were there. 

So, where did Oswald hide the rifle? He couldn't have hidden it on the 6th floor. Why assume that? There were men up there working. You can't claim that he waltzed onto the 6th floor with that rifle in a bag, and he hid it somewhere, and nobody noticed a thing? They didn't see him with the rifle nor him hiding the rifle? They saw nothing?  

So, did he go to some other floor and hide the rifle? Which one? But, weren't there people on all those floors? The problem with the official story (were it the only one) is that we have to assume two things: that people were in view of Oswald with a big bag- big enough to contain a disassembled rifle, the longest piece of which was almost 35 inches long, which is to say almost a yard long- but they didn't notice it. And that he went to hide it somewhere so that it would be completely out of sight- but they didn't notice that either, him doing that- that activity. Remember that while hiding the rifle, he, himself, also had to be hidden while hiding it.  

But, we'll assume that he got the rifle hidden somewhere/somehow, but what about his lunch? He didn't carry it around with him all morning, did he? Of course not. He must have put it in the domino room where he intended to eat and did eat. But, did he do that first or second? Did he go into the domino room with the rifle bag and the lunch bag and drop off the lunch bag? Or did he go hide the rifle and then go down to the domino room to drop off his lunch? 

I would think that he would drop his lunch off first. Why not? He's going by there. Why take the lunch up and down? Why not relieve yourself of having to carry two things as quickly as possible?

Oswald claimed to have only brought his lunch in a brown paper bag. So, he went to the domino room between noon and 12:15, and he got his lunch, and he took his food from the bag, and he started eating the food. What did he do with the bag? He must have thrown it away, right? What else was he going to do with it?  I suppose he could have just left it on the table, but most people clean up after themselves. They know that somebody else might want to use the table after them, so they clear it. It's common courtesy, right? Odds are great that Oswald put the paper bag in the trash can. 

And there must have been a trash can, right? It was a lunch room, and people always have scraps and wrappers and bags to throw away. So, there must have been one. 

It was in his very first interrogation that Oswald told Fritz and Bookhout and Hosty that that he ate lunch in the first floor lunch room.  This is from the Warren Report:

Now, I am no Columbo, but even I can see that considering its proximity in time to the assassination that they would want to confirm that. So, why didn't they go to the domino room and look for Oswald's lunch bag? Again, there had to be one. Whether you think it was the only bag or one of two bags, there had to be a lunch bag. Don't you think it was important to see that bag? Why didn't they go get it?  It had to still be there.

"Junior" was a reference to James Jarman, and the other whom he could not name but described as "a short negro" was undoubtedly Harold Norman.   

Now, they were both there. That is not in dispute. So, of the 75 TSBD employees, Oswald did name the two who were there. Neither admitted to seeing Oswald at the time, but let's remember something: IT WAS LETHAL TO THE OFFICIAL STORY FOR THEM TO HAVE SEEN OSWALD. This was like 12:15. How could Oswald be in the domino room at 12:15- and not just there, but settled in there, eating lunch and still have time to get upstairs, retrieve his rifle from wherever he hid it, and then go through the arduous process of assembling the rifle, and presumably using a dime as a screwdriver- because no screwdriver was found, and then set up the Sniper's Nest by moving the boxes of books around- and apparently he had to move quite a few boxes. How could he possibly do all that in that short amount of time? It's impossible. He couldn't! 

For Jarman and Norman to admit to seeing Oswald in the domino room at 12:15 was as lethal to the official story as for people in the doorway to admit to seeing Oswald in the doorway during the motorcade. So, when Jarman and Norman were interrogated about this, they must have realized that interrogators did not want to hear them say that they saw Oswald calmly eating his lunch there. That was tantamount to saying that he was innocent. 

Am I saying that there was some lying involved? That's right. Here's Harold Norman. 

Mr. BALL. Where were you when you ate your lunch?
Mr. NORMAN. In the domino room, as I recall.
Mr. BALL. Who was with you at that time?
Mr. NORMAN. I can't remember who ate in the lunchroom, I mean the domino room, with me.
Mr. BALL. Did some other employees eat there?
Mr. NORMAN. I think there was someone else in there...

He thinks there was someone else in there???? He thinks???? Either there was or there wasn't. It was a small room with no obstructions. If there was someone else in there, he had to see the person.

Out of all of the employees of the TSBD, Oswald was able to pick out two who were together as he claimed, on the same floor as he claimed, in the same room as he claimed and at the same time as he claimed. Oswald could not have told the FBI that Jarman and a short Negro employee (Norman) were together on the first floor unless he saw them there himself . 

And for Oswald to have observed this, he would have had to have been there on the first floor at 12:15- and beyond. There is no reason to think he fled at 12:15. It must have been as late as 12:20 that he was still there. It may have been later than that, but even that is TOO LATE for there to be any chance of him getting upstairs, retrieving his rifle, assembling his rifle, assembling the sniper's nest, in time to shoot President Kennedy. It completely exonerates him.

The official story of the JFK assassination is in total collapse. The only thing sustaining it is: official decree. That's it, and that can't last.