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

If you're going to say that somebody lied, you can't do it just because what he said conflicts with your paradigm. You can only do it if you have evidence that he lied. 

For instance: I say Fritz lied when he told the Warren Commission that Oswald said he was eating lunch with other employees at 12:30 during the assassination. And the evidence that he lied is this photograph:

This is one of the employees that Fritz was talking about (Norman) and he obviously wasn't eating lunch with Oswald at 12:30. 

And, in case you're thinking that Oswald was the one who lied, I say no. And that's on the grounds that Oswald wasn't an idiot. 

What does a guilty person do to create an alibi? He might falsely say that he was with someone else when the crime occurred but only if he worked it out in advance with that person- to lie. Otherwise, it's self-sabotage because he has to know the police will talk to the person.   

So, if he didn't work it out in advance with someone to lie, then he'll create a phony alibi that involves himself alone. "I was home alone. I had a headache, so I went to bed early." You don't cite someone as your alibi witness unless you know he's going to back you up. So, that's why I say that Oswald NEVER would have said that- even if he was on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. 

So, Fritz lied, and there is a good basis to say that he lied. 

Besides, the whole exchange was bizarre because after Fritz said what he did, Joseph Ball never responded appropriately. He never said: "He said he was eating lunch with other employees? Which employees? What are their names? We need to talk to them about this."

But, in this case, it just got glossed over.

Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don't punch a clock and they don't keep very close time on our work and I just left." 

This whole exchange is terribly evasive- on both their parts. Why did Ball phrase it that way: Did you ask him what happened that day, where he had been? Why did Ball leave out the most crucial thing: "during the shooting"?  That was the critical thing to define. 

But, Fritz got the gist of it; he and Ball were both talking in code. So, he answered and then tried to segue to something else immediately before Ball could even respond to what he said. 

So, according to Fritz, Oswald said he was eating lunch with other employees when 'this' happened. "This." Then, Oswald saw all the excitement resulting from it. Then, he didn't think something- which got cut off. And then presto: Fritz moved on to something else: why Oswald left work to go home. 

So, cryptically, Ball asked Fritz about Oswald's alibi. Fritz replied with the story about eating lunch with other employees, and without saying who the other employees were or giving Ball a chance to inquire about who they were, he moved on to something else.   And Ball welcomed the segue and took full advantage of it.

Mr. BALL. At that time didn't you know that one of your officers, Baker, had seen Oswald on the second floor? 

What the fuck? So now Ball was ready to talk about Oswald's lunch room encounter with Baker and Truly which occurred after the assassination? But, they were talking about Oswald's alibi for the assassination.

So, Fritz didn't want to say who the other employees were whom Oswald said he was eating lunch with during the assassination, and Ball didn't want to know. They both quickly moved on to something else. 

So, Fritz lied, and Ball cooperated with the lie. They didn't want to go down that road, which is the exact opposite of what good investigative police work would entail.

So, that was a lie, and there is solid evidence for saying it was a lie- evidence that we can look at.

But, what evidence is there that Hosty and Bookhout lied when they said that Oswald said that he rode the bus? There is none. It conforms with what Fritz wrote down- repeatedly- in his notes. It conforms with the discovery of the bus transfer ticket on Oswald. There is no photograph of Oswald being somewhere else when he supposedly rode the bus. And, the only alternative story to the bus story is the Roger Craig story which entailed Oswald getting in a Nash Rambler at 12:45. but, if Oswald had said he had done that, then why would Hosty and Bookhout say that he claimed to ride a bus? Hosty and Bookhout were not being interrogated. It wasn't a hostile cross-examination. They weren't being put on the spot. They didn't have to say anything about what Oswald said about how he left Dealey Plaza. They could have just left it out, and that way, if something were to surface about it later- such as the driver coming forward- they wouldn't be seen as liars. The idea that they would bold-faced lie and say that Oswald said he rode a bus when he said something entirely different is preposterous. It is wild and preposterous. Such an accusation is childish, thoughtless, and very stupid.