They did no photographic analysis even though it was a photographic issue. The whole thing began because of a photograph: what people saw in a photograph. So, even though they had numerous pictures of Oswald, and clear new images of Lovelady that were taken by the FBI which they could have used to compare to Doorman, they didn't do it. They never even spoke of doing it.
They relied entirely on witness testimonies, but it was a carefully controlled process. What if there were someone who was extolling Oswald in the doorway? What do you think would have happened to that person? You think he or she would have been called in to testify to the Warren Commission? No, of course not. That person would have been excluded, for sure. But, that's not all. That person would have been visited by big FBI agents in dark suits and sunglasses who spoke in gruff voices. And those agents would have told that person that he or she did not see Oswald in the doorway, and he or she had better not say it again- in public or in private- if they know what's good for them.
The Warren Commission published a photo of Oswald's shirt, but it looked nothing like the shirt that appeared on Oswald's back.
As for witnesses, they got Buell Frazier and Danny Arce to identify Doorman as Lovelady. They could not get Lovelady to do it, and they decided not to take the chance of asking him. Instead, they just asked him to draw an arrow to himself in the photo, the indirectness of which cries out chicanery. If they had asked him to draw his arrow AFTER they asked him directly who Doorman was, it would have been OK. But, Ball didn't ask Lovelady directly, the way he did Frazier and Arce. That may be OK with James Norwood, but it is not OK with me. To me, it cries blood.
If you want to know who someone was in a photo, you ask him directly. You don't hand him a photo with an arrow already on it that is pointing to the person you want it to be, as to give a hint, and then ask for another arrow. That is bull shit, but that is what Ball did with Billy Lovelady. And, at no time did Lovelady claim to be Doorman. And, he drew an arrow to another figure to indicate himself.
Note that for 50 years, the JFK "community" was content to call Frazier's arrow Lovelady's, but I put a stop to it. Nobody better try it today.
So, the primary ones who identified Doorman as Lovelady were Frazier and Arce. Shelley didn't, and Lovelady didn't. I believe there were one or two others, but I'm still waiting for that list of 7 that James Norwood claims. Either provide the list or retract the statement, James.
And let's recognize something: this was a photographic identification; the photo was used and shown. It was not only appropriate but mandatory that that photo be compared to images of Oswald and Lovelady, but the WC didn't do it. Even Mark Lane did it in Rush to Judgment.
It is ridiculous that the WC did not do photographic comparisons. They never used or even acknowledged the FBI images of Lovelady that were taken on 2/29/64. Those were left within the mountain of Documents as an attachment to an FBI letter from J. Edgar Hoover, but that was it. There is no evidence they even looked at them.
So, the entire case for Lovelady being Doorman was based on witness testimonies and primarily those of just two people: Buell Frazier and Danny Arce. So, let's consider those two individuals.
Larry Rivera gave a 40 minute presentation on Buell Frazier at the OIC conference in Santa Barbara. Here is the link to it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX2Jk05XAUg
In it, Larry detailed the lies, the inconsistencies, and the changed stories of Buell Frazier. Note that Oswald denied that he ever told Frazier anything about curtain rods. If you are an Oswald defender, who are you going to believe, Lee Harvey Oswald or Buell Frazier? Why would Oswald have lied about that? Why curtain rods have even been on his radar considering that there were already curtains in his room, and it wasn't even his place?
Yet, Frazier insists that Oswald said he brought curtain rods for his room in a bag that was 2 feet long. Yet, Oswald said he only brought his lunch to work and presumably in a bag that was less than 2 feet long. I'm sure he wasn't that big of an eater. So, who are you going to believe, Oswald or Frazier?
Frazier said at the mock trial that Billy Lovelady was only 5'2". That's right. That's what he told Vince Bugliosi. Lovelady was 5'8". Frazier also told Bugliosi that in the doorway he was several steps up and behind and back of Lovelady, but that was impossible because both Oswald and Lovelady were on the top level. Lovelady said he was on the top level. Ball: "Where were you standing, which step?" Lovelady: "It would be your top level."
But, in 2013, Frazier said that Lovelady was at ground level, that he couldn't see for being so short, and that on Frazier's advice, he went down to ground level.
Frazier has changed his story again and again and again. The idea that he could be trusted, then or now, is preposterous.
Danny Arce told Joseph Ball that he was west of the entrance, but we can see him east of the entrance.
It appears that Danny Arce was at a CIA anti-Castro Cuban training camp in the Florida Keys.
Joseph Ball didn't ask Danny to draw any arrows. He took a very direct approach with him. He pointed to the image of Doorman and said, "who's he?"
Mr. BALL. Just 1 minute, I want to show you a picture. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 369. I show you this picture. See this man in this picture?
Mr. ARCE. Yeah.
Mr. BALL. Recognize him?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, that's Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL. Just to identify it clearly, the man on the steps---well, you see the man on the steps, do you not?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. He is a white man, isn't he?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And you see his picture just above the picture of two colored people, is that correct; would you describe it like that?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. I am not going to mark this purposely because other witnesses have to see it.
Mr. ARCE. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Did you say that is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL. Now, there is only one face that is clearly shown within the entrance-way of the Texas School Book Depository Building, isn't there?
Mr. ARCE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And only one face of a person who is standing on the steps of the Depository Building entrance?
Mr. ARCE. Yeah.
Mr. BALL. And that one man you see there---
Mr. ARCE. Yes, that's Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL. When you came to work that morning, Danny---
Mr. ARCE. Yeah.
Why didn't Ball take the same direct approach with Lovelady? Why didn't Ball say to Lovelady, "See this man in this picture? Recognize him?" ???? Where did Ball's confidence come from with Arce? Why'd Ball take such a big chance with Arce but not with Lovelady? It's because Ball and Arce had it worked out in advance. Arce was on the team. Arce was working for "them" the perpetrators.
Suffice it to say that I have cast doubt on the credibility of the two major WC witnesses for it being Lovelady as Doorman: Frazier and Arce. And the witnesses comprised the whole case! What it means is that the whole case is extremely weak and hanging by a thread.
I'm still waiting for that list of 7 witnesses from James.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.