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

The official story has it that Oswald conceived the idea to kill Kennedy from reading the newspaper and seeing the motorcade route displayed. There is no actual evidence that that happened; it is just a presumption. But, it is a very crucial presumption that is just as essential to the official story as the Single Bullet Theory. 

Again, they have no evidence that Oswald had prior knowledge of the parade route. But, the fact is that there is evidence- plain, uncontested evidence- that he had NO such knowledge. And, it comes from the testimony of James Jarman, also known as Junior Jarman.

Mr. BALL - Did you talk to him (Oswald) again that morning?
Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir. I talked to him again later on that morning.
Mr. BALL - About what time?
Mr. JARMAN - It was between 9:30 and 10 o'clock, I believe.
Mr. BALL - Where were you when you talked to him?
Mr. JARMAN - In between two rows of bins.
Mr. BALL - On what floor?
Mr. JARMAN - On the first floor.
Mr. BALL - And what was said by him and by you?
Mr. JARMAN - Well, he was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all. 

First, is there any basis to think that Jarman lied and made up the above narrative? I can't think of any basis to assume that; it would be totally arbitrary and capricious to do so.  

So, Jarman wasn't lying; the conversation really did happen. 

Second, is there any basis to think that Oswald was lying to Jarman?  That he was putting on an act, trying to establish that he didn't know that the President would be passing the building that day?   

I say no, but I should start by pointing out that if you know Oswald was innocent, then there is no reason to even ponder the question. Oswald did not need an alibi for something he wasn't going to do. If he wasn't planning to kill Kennedy, then he would have had no mindset to lie about what he knew or didn't know. And if you're going to say that he knew Kennedy was going to be killed but he was afraid he was going to be framed for it, then why did he go to work that day? How could they frame him if he wasn't there? So, that whole line of reasoning is completely wacky. 

But, if you believe the official story, then you have to claim that Oswald was putting on airs for James Jarman. But, if you just think it through, you realize that it doesn't make a lick of sense. 

That's because if Oswald was going to shoot at Kennedy, there were only two possible outcomes that he could anticipate.

The first was that he did it and got away with it, in which case nobody was going to ask him anything. And the second was that he did it and got caught, in which case whatever it was that pointed to him, that implicated him, would completely override any prior claim of opportunity ignorance. 

In other words, if things went wrong for Oswald, if they went south for him, then this claim of opportunity ignorance wasn't going to work. Say that, unbeknownst to Oswald, someone was up on the sixth floor and saw him do it. I mean actually saw him kachung, kachung, kachung. How could Oswald claim that he didn't even know the President would be passing by? To set up a phony alibi of opportunity ignorance would have been pointless because under any conceivable circumstance of doing it and getting caught, it could never have succeeded. 

Note that most of the time, an accused person's alibi is based on geography: that they were physically located someplace else at the time the crime was committed. 

In all the annals of crime, when has a criminal ever plotted to commit a violent crime and set up a phony alibi of opportunity ignorance beforehand in case he got caught? That is what we are talking about here. That's what they are saying Oswald did. But, when has anybody done that? Name any other case besides this one. 

Now, if Oswald was trying to create a phony alibi of opportunity ignorance, then that was a scheme in itself. So, why would he pick Junior Jarman to witness this? I should think that he would have tried to get Buell Frazier to say something about it in the car. Then he could have responded by saying, "You mean the President is going to be passing our building today? I did not know that." 

But, the truth is that neither Frazier nor Oswald knew that JFK would be passing their building that day, and they did not discuss it in the car. Don't you think Oswald would have tried to fish it out of Frazier?

But again, the most important thing to realize is that if Oswald were arrested afterwards for the crime, and not for being framed but for actually doing it and getting caught, then claiming opportunity ignorance was never going to work. 

We are talking about him going up to the 6th floor and shooting Kennedy from the northeast window. But, the northeast window was in plain view. Anybody up there would have seen him, and of course, they would have heard him. Nobody has ever suggested that Oswald went up there to do this and started by inspecting the 6th floor to make absolutely sure that nobody else was there. Would he have had time to do that? And of course, Oswald had no way to close off the 6th floor so that nobody else could go there after he got there. So, the official story has it that Oswald just took a chance that nobody would be there and nobody would walk in on him. Therefore, since he was risking all that, what was the point of setting up a phony alibi of opportunity ignorance?      

The entire case against Oswald hinges on the idea that he had prior knowledge of the motorcade route, which he presumably got from reading the newspaper. But, the testimony of James Jarman proves that Oswald did NOT have prior knowledge of the motorcade route. Therefore, the entire case against him collapses.