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

This photo couldn't possibly have been provided by the Loveladys, and I'll tell you why.

It's been referred to as the Wedding picture, but it can't be from the Loveladys' wedding because they didn't get married until 1961, and this was obviously taken before that due to his young age. The HSCA designated it as 1959, although I believe it was from earlier than that. However, even if they're right and it was 1959, it was definitely before their 1961 wedding.

So, what would Lovelady himself be doing with it if it was from before their wedding? Did he bring it into the marriage? He had gone through a hell of a lot. In 1960, he got in trouble in the Air Force for stealing guns and trying to sell them.. He served time in prison and went through a trial.  He wound up with a $200 fine of which $125 he was able to pay. But, he skipped down on the rest and fled Maryland-illegally. As a fugitive from justice, he was tracked down to the TSBD by the FBI where he was arrested. He was going to be returned to Maryland to go back to prison, but the VP of the TSBD, O.V. Campbell, offered to put up the $75 to resolve the matter. 

But, that photo from the 1950s stayed with him through all that so that he could turn it over to the HSCA in the late 1970s? How likely is that?

And undoubtedly, if the HSCA asked for pictures of him, they would have asked for a picture from the time of the assassination. After all, they needed to compare him to a figure who was photographed on 11/22/63, right? So, wouldn't his picture have to be very close to that date to be relevant? The closer the better, right?

But wait! He married Patricia in 1961, and surely they had pictures from their own wedding.  Isn't 1961 closer to 1963 than 1959 or earlier? So, if the Loveladys were going to provide a picture at all, wouldn't they have provided one from their own wedding? Why go back to the 1950s? 

That is unanswerable, but so is the idea that this young guy who was on the lamb, a fugitive from justice, fleeing halfway across the country, would still have in his possession a picture of himself from someone else's wedding in the 1950s. Doesn't it seem like it would have gotten lost in the shuffle?  

And it's a very strange picture too. It was flipped when published by the HSCA.

So, did Lovelady flip it, or did the HSCA flip it? Obviously, it is insane to think that Lovelady flipped it. And how could there be a totally black background at a wedding? Aren't weddings supposed to be bright and cheery? There are other people in the HSCA photo of Oswald, which was also flipped:

It is clear that besides flipping this image they darkened it considerably.

But, you are seeing the other men behind him. So, how did it wind up with a totally black background at a wedding?

And how did that black mark wind up on his forehead, appearing like a birthmark? 

That picture was NOT from the Loveladys, and there is no reason to think they would have provided it even if they had it. If asked for a picture of him close in time to the assassination, surely they would have provided a picture of him from their own wedding in 1961. 

This picture undoubtedly came from a government file, either an FBI file or a CIA file. The idea that it came from the Loveladys is laughably stupid and totally unfounded.