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

Carolyn Arnold made her first statement 4 days after the assassination to an FBI agent. And her statement was written in the 3rd person by Special Agent Richard E. Harrison. 

Does that make it weaker? Maybe a little but not much. 

What's the implication? That Harrison made it up? What possible reason could he have for wanting to put words in her mouth that she saw Oswald just inside the doorway close to the time of the assassination? 

Don't you think that 4 days after the assassination, FBI agents were well aware of the game plan, of what was expected of them? Oswald was the undisputed assassin; that was the story, and it was not subject to review. For him to be at the doorway even at 12:15 is highly detrimental to that story. 

So, the idea that Agent Harrison would have concocted it is preposterous. 

So, what's left? That he misunderstood her? That she said something else that he got wrong? That isn't tenable either. He put Oswald's name in caps: twice.

Mrs. R. E. ARNOLD, Secretary, Texas School Book Depository, advised she was in her office on the second floor of the building on November 22, 1963, and left that office between 12:00 and 12:15 PM, to go downstairs and stand in front of the building to view the Presidential Motorcade. As she was standing in front of the building, she stated she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the first floor. She could not be sure that this was OSWALD, but said she felt it was and believed the time to be a few minutes before 12:15 PM.
She stated thereafter she viewed the Presidential Motorcade and heard the shots that were fired at the President; however, she could furnish no information of value as to the individual firing the shots or any other information concerning OSWALD, whom she stated she did not know and had merely seen him working in the building.
on 11/26/1963 at Dallas, Texas
File # DL 89–43
by Special Agent Richard E. Harrison

So, he could not have meant anyone else. He knew what he was doing; he knew what he was saying. Something like this- as big as this- could be not possibly be misconstrued or misunderstood. 

So, in this case, I don't care that it's a 3rd person statement. It is still very compelling. 

And what BPete is doing here is something he has done before: arguing vigorously for something he doesn't even believe in- just for the sake of argument. 

He's pushing Carolyn Arnold's revised statement from 1978. He points out that she made it twice to two different journalists: Earl Goltz and Anthony Summers. Wow, that's impressive.

But, think about what it means: If Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald sprawled at a table in the 2nd floor lunch room eating at 12:25, then obviously he didn't shoot Kennedy at 12:30. And that means that there can never again be any more talk about Oswald "locking and loading" and "pumping rounds into Kennedy." 

So, is BPete ready and willing to renounce forevermore the official story of the JFK assassination and admit that Oswald was completely innocent- framed and innocent?

Actually, no. He's just arguing for the sake of arguing. He's not willing to declare that Oswald was innocent. After all, if Oswald was innocent, it means that he was framed. If Oswald was innocent, it means that somebody at the Dallas Police or the FBI falsely put his palm print on the butt of the rifle. If Oswald was innocent, it means that almost everything Vincent Bugliosi put in his 1600 page book is WRONG. If Oswald was innocent, John McAdams is completely full of crap. If Oswald was innocent, it means that the US government and the US media have been lying to us for 51 and 1/2 years. If Oswald was innocent, it means that the US government killed Kennedy, that it was a coup d'etat, and we have been living under an illegitimate government since November 22, 1963. All of that is subsumed in Oswald being innocent. Do you think BPete wants to admit all that?

No, of course not. But, all of that is also subsumed in honoring Carolyn Arnold's 1978 statement about seeing Oswald in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25.

Remember what Jack White said about "Larry Peters". He said he was just a spoiler; just a debunker; that he never lays out his theory of the crime; he just attacks other people's ideas. And that's all that BPete does. And, he'll cross back and forth from LN to CT at will depending on the needs of the moment. Plus, he knows very well that anyone who might listen to me or consider what I have to say is definitely a CT. And he knows that his chance of influencing them is greatly improved if he postures himself as a CT.  Look what he puts on his Facebook page, speaking of Oswald: 


He may be innocent but he wasn't in the doorway...

He MAY be innocent? MAY? What's the implication of that? The implication is that BPete doesn't know if Oswald was innocent or guilty, and that he doesn't care if Oswald was innocent or guilty, and he doesn't care what you believe about it either; he just wants you to steer clear of thinking Oswald was in the doorway. 

There isn't a honest impulse in any of that. Really, it's despicable and disgusting disinfo.   

BPete is one those This Ain't Hell guys, a follower of Jonn Lilyea. And I'll tell you something about Jonn Lilyea. Jonn Lilyea won't even admit that our atrocious, abominable, and genocidal war in Iraq was wrong. He got mad recently when he heard that Presidential candidates saying that it was a mistake, including Jeb Bush. But,, Jonn doesn't think it was a mistake. He'd do it all over again. And if he can't admit that the US government committed war crimes in Iraq, do you think there is any chance he'll admit that the US government framed an innocent Oswald for killing Kennedy? 

But, getting back to Carolyn Arnold, her statement about seeing Oswald appearing to be eating lunch in the 2nd floor lunch room can't be true because Oswald ate lunch in the 1st floor lunch room. And that is firmly established; it is not in doubt or dispute.  

But, it still behooves us to ask: why didn't she say that about the 2nd floor encounter in 1963 or 1964? Are we to believe that her mind went blank after the assassination? That it suddenly popped into her head like a suppressed memory in 1978? Or, are we to believe that she told Agent Harrison about the lunch room encounter with Oswald, but instead, for reasons unknown, he wrote down that she said she saw Oswald between the two double doors? 

I will NEVER accept that someone's memory of an event can be better 15 years after it happened than it was at the time that it happened. 

So, I throw out Carolyn Arnold's 15 year revision, and I urge you to do the same. And I do put stock in the her original statement, as made to the FBI agent. And let's remember: she said she saw Oswald at the doorway, just inside the glass door. And what did he do next? He went out that glass door. And we have images of him there, two of them; one from the Altgens photo and the other from the Wiegman film. And we can be absolutely sure it's him because it looks like him and because the guy is wearing Oswald's clothes: the unbuttoned, sprawled-open outer shirt over the vastly exposed white t-shirt. That was his outfit; not Lovelady's. So, it is definitely him, Oswald, in the doorway. And that confirms Carolyn Arnold's original statement told to the FBI agent. It confirms it perfectly.