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

Jesue Christie, how stupid are you, Backes? The obvious tone of what she wrote, the attitude of it, is to question the WC conclusion that Doorman was Lovelady.

The obvious implication of the above is the recognition of the possibility and the likelihood that Doorman was Oswald and the need to delve into it. Why bring it up otherwise? Would she have written the above if her conviction was that Doorman was Lovelady? Is that what you think? Do you think the above statement was her way of saying that she supports the WC claim of Lovelady being Doorman? Is that how you read it?

Holy Mother of God, you're stupid.