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

Let's take a look at this article about the death of Billy Lovelady. It's not very long, so please read it word for word, and then continue. 

First, I do believe that this is the ONLY time in the 240 year history of the United States that a government lawyer quit his job in order to represent a witness in a case under investigation. 

Now, what would provoke a lawyer to do that? And Brooten wasn't just a counsel but the chief counsel of the HSCA. Money? I seriously doubt that. You can't tell me that Brooten stood to make more money as Lovelady's lawyer than as the HSCA's lawyer. The HSCA had the unlimited financial resources of the United States government, which can print any amount of money it wants out of thin air. So, it could not have been because of money. Was it out of friendship? No. Brooten and Lovelady didn't know each other. So, what was the motive? And whose idea was it? Do you think Lovelady contacted Brooten and said:

"Mr. Brooten, I know you are chief counsel for the HSCA, but I am asking you to quit your job with them and start representing me instead." 

Is it even remotely possible that he or any other person would even fathom such an idea? No, it is not. Therefore, it MUST have been Brooten's idea. 

So, why would Brooten want to do it? 

Let's start at the beginning. Somebody connected with the HSCA must have talked to Lovelady early-on. Surely, they had to consider having him come to Washington to testify. They were calling hundreds of others to Washington to testify, so they must have considered calling him. But, they must have been told that it would be RISKY to do that, that Lovelady didn't make a good witness, that he didn't talk the talk and walk the walk convincingly. And, you can be damn sure that they were informed of what happened when Lovelady testified to Joseph Ball of the Warren Commission, where he drew an arrow to Black Hole Man to indicate himself in the Altgens photo.

The big arrow on the left is DEFINITELY Frazier's arrow. And why 19 year old Buell Frazier let them pressure him to say that Oswald was Lovelady, I do not know.  And the only other mark on the photo is the one I found, which is the tail of Lovelady's arrow. The head is in the black space and is difficult to see. Lovelady drew the arrow very small because he didn't want to piss Joseph Ball off any more than necessary. He knew he wasn't telling him what he wanted to hear. 

So, after that debacle with the WC, how could they possibly trust Lovelady with the HSCA? So, somebody must have visited Lovelady to size him up as a witness. And then the decision was made, based on that preliminary contact, NOT to bring him to Washington- that there was more to lose than to gain, that the risk was too great.  

And, Brooten must have been involved in that process, and he must have gotten a sense about how volatile and mercurial Lovelady was. By that time, 1976, Lovelady may have been completely bonkers or on the verge of being completely bonkers. Imagine if YOU had to carry on such a colossal lie like that one for 13 years, and imagine if from the very beginning, you had no desire to do it. Lovelady tried, gently, to tell the truth to Joseph Ball. Billy didn't want to make a scene, but, he didn't want to lie either. And, he was hoping that they would just leave him alone after that. Of course, that hope weren't realized. 

So, either directly or indirectly, Brooten must become aware of how unstable Lovelady was and what a risk he was. If he was going to be anything but rock-solid about the Doorman claim, it would be a disaster.

So, to control the situation, i.e. to control Lovelady and keep him under wraps, Brooten quit his job for the HSCA and began representing Lovelady. Again: IT WAS THE FIRST AND ONLY TIME IN US LEGAL HISTORY. And who knows, they may have worked some financial slip and tuck, a severance payment, a golden parachute (call it what you want) so that Brooten got his full remuneration- from the money printers.

So, why did Lovelady need a lawyer? It wasn't so much that he did, rather, the government needed to control him. Once you have a lawyer, your lawyer gets to speak for you. Once you have a lawyer, you don't have to make statements except through your lawyer. And once you have a lawyer, it's likely that your lawyer is going to give you strong advice about what to do and say and what not to do and what not to say, and they needed to have that kind of control over Lovelady. But, imagine if he got a lawyer who was independent of the government or who had an adversarial attitude towards the government? That would have been a disaster too. They couldn't take a chance like that. Lovelady had to have a government-friendly lawyer. So, they gave him Brooten. I bet you it didn't cost Lovelady anything, or if it did, just a pittance.    

Now, let's analyze the article. It said that Lovelady had gone into "self-imposed" seclusion. Do you really think it was self-imposed? Don't you think it's very likely that his lawyer, Ken Brooten, instructed him not to talk to anybody and to go into seclusion? It's not very likely; it is 100% certain. You can bet the farm that that is what Brooten advised. And I am using the word "advised" advisedly.

It said Lovelady died in his sleep at the age or 41. It said that a post-mortem would be performed. Of course, as with James Altgens, we never got the results of the autopsy. We were told that he had a "heart attack," but to die of a heart attack at the age of 41 is very rare. He had no history of heart disease that we know of. 

The article states that he had an UNCANNY resemblance to Oswald. I put the word in caps because they did in the article. Actually, Oswald was 5'9" 131 pounds, and Lovelady was 5'8" and at least 170 pounds. So, how uncanny could it have been?  Buell Frazier said that Lovelady was stocky at the time of the assassination, whereas Oswald was a very slender individual. And Roy Lewis (who is still alive and living in Dallas) said that Lovelady was practically bald at the time of the assassination, whereas Oswald had some recession but still had most of his hair. So, how uncanny was the resemblance? Isn't that just another big lie?

Brooten said that conspiracy theorists pestered Lovelady. Really? Because Tink Thompson didn't bother Lovelady at all. He was entirely willing to take the word of CBS about what Lovelady said. I can't imagine that there were too many people pestering Lovelady. And do you really think that being pestered can give you a heart attack? No. It can't. Forget it. It wasn't the pestering. I'm pestered plenty by the Kennedy-killers, but my heart is strong as an ox. But, I think the stress of knowing that he was lying weighed heavily on Lovelady. But, I also think the odds are great that the CIA killed him. I really do. They have drugs that can mimic heart attacks. Otherwise, you have to believe that Billy Lovelady conveniently died of a heart attack at age 41; David Sanchez Morales conveniently died of a heart attack at age 53; and others as well, such as Richard Case Nagell, who died a month before James Altgens during the ARRB.  But, the death count during the HSCA is absolutely appalling, including quite a few FBI agents.

Brooten said that Lovelady was "hounded out of Dallas" and took his family into hiding in Colorado. No. Lovelady started his own trucking company in Dallas in broad daylight. He actually had the financial means to do that. He died wealthy, and so did his wife Patricia, with vast real estate holdings in Colorado. America, what a country, right? 

Then, Brooten said that people, both good-intentioned and bad-intentioned, tried to contact Lovelady, but I would like to see the evidence of that. I think it's more likely that he was contacted by people who said, "You're keeping your mouth shut, right? You know what's expected of you, don't you?"

What could a conspiracy theorist do to put pressure on Lovelady? If they called him, and he didn't want to talk to them, he didn't have to. He could tell them to go to Hell. They had no way whatsoever to force him to say anything.

Brooten pointed out the the HSCA had reached the same conclusion as the WC, that Lovelady was the Man in the Doorway. But, as I have pointed out before, the HSCA investigation of this issue involved  two things: a deplorable photo analysis by Robert Groden in which he failed to compare a single image of Oswald to Doorway Man. The closest he got to Oswald was to include a photo of Oswald's shirt in the mix, although it didn't look at all like the shirt on Oswald's back.

What if Groden had included this collage in his study?

 Remember that Robert Groden was HIRED. He was PAID. And I'm sure he was paid VERY WELL. And I'm sure that before they hired him, they made it clear to him what they wanted, what they expected of him, which was to find for Lovelady as Doorman. "Can you do it, Mr. Groden?" "Yes, I can." 

So, it was NEVER an honest investigation. Then, the second part involved the forensic anthropologists. They did a very minute anatomical comparison of Oswald and Lovelady, involving measurements, but then they said that they couldn't include Doorman because his image was too blurry. What the hay? Then, what was the point of doing the other two?

But, the one thing they did recognize is the likeness of Doorman's 
hairline and baldness pattern to Young Lovelady, and I can't argue with that. But, that's because the likeness was fabricated. Back in 1963, they used the photo of Young Lovelady to give Doorman a new hairline. 

That picture of Lovelady on the left was from 1957, and he had a lot more hair then than he had in 1963. By 1963, he was practically bald on top already, as Mark Lane proved with this photo:

The above picture was taken in the winter of 1964, so just a few months after the assassination.

So, the HSCA investigation, in both its parts, was a complete whitewash, a complete fraud.

But, in contrast, Brooten said that the HSCA examination of it "closed the last chapter on it." 

No, Ken. But, it is true that Lovelady's death closed the last chapter on him making explosive statements denying being Doorman, and that is really what you were worried about, isn't it? And that's really why he died in 1979, isn't it? It was January 1979, right before the HSCA Final Report was to come out, and with the analysis of the Doorman issue contained therein, it was likely that people would have wanted to get Lovelady's reaction to it. True? Of course, true. But, as the saying goes, dead men tell no tales.