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

I have a strong conviction about who was involved in the vandalism attack against me.

I am stating publicly that I think the ruthless cyber hit-man who goes by "bpete", and who is located in the UK, was involved. 

bpete and I have been at combat for a long time, years. He is vicious, and if you have any doubts about whose side he's on, I'll inform you that bpete has said that Oswald "locked and loaded" on the 6th floor and "pumped rounds into Kennedy." His words.  

It is also my considered opinion that bpete was involved in hacking into my computer and my email accounts. So, I maintain it has been one continuous criminal enterprise of which bpete is a central participant.  

But, what happened recently was not a cyber attack but a physical act. Someone scraped a slur into the paint on my truck. 

bpete's initial response was to say this:

"Rest assured, Ralph, that instead of keying your truck, I'd have taken a Sharpie and written hemorrhoid on your forehead, cheeks and chin."

Now, why would he assume to know that the damage was done with a key? It may have been. It well could have been. But, why would bpete presume to know that? It could have been done with a pocket knife, with a straight edge, or any number of other sharp objects, including a key, but why would bpete presume to know that? I didn't say anything about the size of it. Then he said:

"Is his girlfriend writing 'asshole' in the dirt on his truck on the way to her car each morning?"

Why would he bring up dirt on my truck, and why would he presume that there was enough dirt on my truck in which to write? In fact, that is what happened: somebody did write a slur into the dirt on my truck; but how did bpete know?  I didn't say anything about dirt. I did say that prior to this scratching incident there was a writing incident, but that's all I said. I didn't say anything about dirt.   

But, there's more. Why would he matter-of-factly say that my girlfriend, on her way to her car goes by my truck? First of all, how does he even know she has a car? I'm sure I never mentioned whether she does or doesn't. Why would I?  And second, how does he claim to know that her getting to her car involves her passing my truck? That my truck is "on the way" to her car? bpete is in the UK, although I should point out that he recently warned me that he was coming to Texas. 

But, the point is that all of this involves information that he has that clearly indicates that, if he is not doing it himself, he is directly involved with and connected with the people who are stalking me.  

And I am definitely being stalked. There is no chance that they gained access to my truck while it was parked on my property.  It means that when I come and go, they have a means of following me. They may have installed a tracking device on my truck, and that is being investigated. 

I am 100% convinced that bpete has been involved in all the crimes that have been committed against me. And I am just as certain that he is a mercenary; that he is paid to do what he does. He is not just some avid JFK enthusiast who happens to have all this free time to blog about JFK. And be aware that he never initiates anything. He reacts. He is a hit-man. 

And, I believe that bpete and the people he works for have no limits. And when I say no limits, I mean that they have no moral limits. 

You know very well that JFK people have been killed to silence them, and not just witnesses and participants but also investigators, such as Dorothy Kilgallen and Mary Pinchot Meyer, to name two. 

Would they kill me? Huh! I have no doubt it has been considered. Why? Because I champion the most dangerous thing there is: Oswald in the doorway. There is nothing that compares to it when it comes to exonerating Oswald. 

Let me give you an example. Two years ago, during the run-up to the 50th, there was a lot of coverage and a lot of interviews. Occasionally, they would bring on opponents of the official story. A very popular one was Dr. Cyril Wecht. Dr. Wecht's main approach (well, really his only approach) is to challenge the Single Bullet Theory. He maintains that the forensic evidence proves that there was a shot from the front, specifically, a Grassy Knoll shooter. He doesn't challenge the idea that Oswald was the 6th floor shooter, but he insists that there had to be at least one other.  

Repeatedly, I have explained why this is really a nonsense position because Oswald was not an assassin nor was he a sniper. He had NEVER in his life done the kind of shooting that was involved from the 6th floor. Nobody- not the CIA and not the Mafia- would have wanted him to be a shooter, when he could have just as likely blown Jackie's brain out as JFK's. And then who would have stood next to LBJ at the swearing-in ceremony? 

So, once you move to the idea of a conspiracy or multiple shooters, you lose Oswald as a shooter because in a conspiracy, especially one involving the CIA and/or the Mafia, nobody would want Oswald to be a shooter.  A patsy? Yes. A shooter? No. 

But, Dr. Wecht ignores all that, and therefore, he is about the friendliest, least hostile, and most media-friendly disputer of the official story that there is. And that's why he is so often invited. 

In fact, Dr. Wecht's position mirrors the whole media concept that the choices are limited to: Oswald shooting as a lone-gunman or Oswald shooting as part of a conspiracy. That's it! And when the media conducts polls, that's how they do it. They never give the person the chance to vote for Oswald innocence. It's either Oswald did alone, or Oswald did it with others: take your pick.  One way or another, OSWALD DID IT.

But, here's my point: What if instead of talking about the preposterousness of the Single Bullet Theory (and note that I realize that it is preposterous) Dr. Wecht talked about Oswald in the doorway? 

"Oswald could not have done it because he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots."   

What if Cyril Wecht said that on national television? It's only a theoretical question because they wouldn't let him say it. First note that there is a broadcast delay involved:

"In radio and television, broadcast delay refers to the practice of intentionally delaying broadcast  of live material. A short delay is often used to prevent profanity, bloopers, violence, or other undesirable material from making it to air, including more mundane problems such as technical malfunctions (i.e. an anchor's lapel microphone goes dead) or coughing. In this instance, it is often referred to as a seven-second delay or profanity delay."

What I'm saying is that if Cyril Wecht or anybody tried to state on national television that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots, they would break away. They would go to commercial. They would claim a technical breach. They would do something. They would never allow it.   

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that they would increase the length of the broadcast delay if someone who was truly adversarial were appearing on national television to discuss the case.

So, what about the preposterousness of the Single Bullet Theory? Ten years ago, they were making jokes about it on Seinfeld. They devoted a whole episode to it: The Magic Loogie. The Single Bullet Theory is actually safe to talk about- from their perspective. They don't care; they'll let you fire away.

 But, Oswald in the doorway? It makes grown men tremble and shudder because it is the most powerful piece of evidence there is in the whole JFK case.  

And why shouldn't it be? Oswald is a defendant, and like every defendant, he has the right to say where he was at the time the crime was committed. "I couldn't possibly have done it because I was at XXX doing YYY at the time it happened." It's the cardinal basis of anybody's defense- including Oswald's. And he happened to be in the doorway. 

And I happen to be one who says that- a lot. I say it loud and I say it often, and because of the threat it poses to the official story, I am targeted; I am stalked; and crimes are committed against me. And that's why they stick vicious attack dogs like bpete on me. 

Yes, bpete is vicious; but, he is not smart. If he were smart, he would not foolishly make incriminating statements like these: 

I've pointed out that there is a lot of wisecracking and smart-aleking that goes on by bpete and his cronies, but all that is fake. These people, and the people they work for, are deadly serious. Deadly, like in all the JFK people who have been killed over the decades.