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

By far, the most damaging witness to Oswald to the Warren Commission was Marina Oswald. She did more to convict him than anyone else. She made ridiculous statements, such as him going to a bull fight in Mexico City. She also said that she had to lock him in the bathroom to keep him from killing Richard Nixon in Dallas. It was at a time that Richard Nixon wasn't even in Dallas.

So, why did she say these things? Out of self-interest. It was going to be much better for her if she went along and told them what they wanted to hear. I also think there was some Stockholm Syndrome going on. Remember Patty Hearst? Do you recall how, after being kidnapped, she wielded a weapon for the Symbionese Liberation Army? Same thing. But, I'm not here to fault Marina Oswald; I feel sorry for her. However, her state of mind in late 1963/64 cannot be trusted. She was overwhelmed by the circumstances. It doesn't mean that everything she said was a lie, but everything she said back then needs to be looked at critically. 

But, the one who did the second-most damage to Oswald was, in my opinion, his friend Buell Frazier. 

The authorities had a problem: how to explain how Oswald brought his rifle to work. Buell Frazier was the solution to the problem. They got him to say that Oswald's brown paper bag was 24 inches long. It wasn't long enough for the rifle, but that was as long as Frazier was willing to go. But really, the whole story is ridiculous, that Oswald stored his rifle at Ruth Paine's house without telling her, and without her knowing. Why didn't he tell her? Did he think she would say no? Then, why did he do it?  And, according to officialdom, he went shooting at the Sport Drome Rifle Range many times in October and November and as late as November 17. But, how did he get the rifle back to Ruth Paine's house? The last time he was at Ruth Paine's house, prior to November 21, was November 10. So, how did he get the rifle back there? Or, are we to assume that he used another rifle at the range? What other rifle? And if he was boning up for the assassination, wasn't it important to use the same rifle, to get used to it, to get comfortable with it?

Then, they produced this bag as the bag Oswald used to carry the disassembled rifle. 

But, Frazier said it was a grocery bag, and that's obviously not a grocery bag. So, there is disparity there. There is the disparity that no one saw Oswald with such a bag inside the TSBD. Where did he hide it? When and where did he assemble it? Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor eating his chicken until he heard James Jarman and Harold Norman making noise on the 5th floor, so he went down to join them. But, that was very close to the time of the motorcade because Jarman and Norman had first gone outside, planning to watch it from out there, but then decided, at the last minute, to go up to the 5th floor. 

The point is that if you view Oswald being on the 6th floor with his rifle as a journey that involves connecting dots, they had only one dot: that of Frazier saying that Oswald had a bag. But, the bag wasn't big enough, and his description of it did not match the bag that they found. Therefore, they really didn't even have even one dot. It's more like they had a line that went half-way to a dot. All the rest went unexplained, unanswered, and unaddressed. But, they took that paltry piece of evidence as sufficient to cover Oswald being on the 6th floor with a rifle. 

But, Frazier also betrayed Oswald over the Doorman issue. Frazier had to know that Doorman was Oswald. From his clothes alone, he would have known it. I presume Oswald wore the same clothes on Thursday as he did on Friday. That's because he spent Thursday night at Ruth Paine's house, and nobody has suggested that he kept clothes there. So, that would mean that Frazier got to see those clothes on Oswald: twice. That's two days in a row. 

Plus, they were standing quite close to each other in the doorway. When first asked, Frazier said that he was standing one step down from the top landing. So, he was just one step below Oswald. Oswald was breathing on him. Read this:

Mr. BALL - When you stood out on the front looking at the parade, where was Shelley standing and where was Lovelady standing with reference to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, see, I was standing, like I say, one step down from the top, and Mr. Shelley was standing, you know, back from the top step and over toward the side of the wall there. See, he was standing right over there, and then Billy was a couple of steps down from me over toward more the wall also.

What??? Lovelady was a couple of steps down? Then, how could he be Doorman when Doorman was on the top level? And how could Lovelady be Doorman if he was "over by the side of the wall" when Doorman was in the center of the doorway, as clearly seen in the Wiegman film. In the Altgens photo, it looks like Doorman is next to the wall, and his right shoulder seems to be obscured by the column, as if he was behind it. But, it is an optical illusion, the result of the parallax effect. I myself proved that Doorman was standing in the center of the doorway, and that's because I had to stand in the center in order to duplicate the Altgens photo.

Mr. BALL - Do you recognize this fellow?
Mr. FRAZIER - That is Billy, that is Billy Lovelady.
Mr. BALL - Billy?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right
Mr. BALL - Let's take a marker and make an arrow down that way. That mark is Billy Lovelady?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - That is where you told us you were standing a moment ago.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - In front of you to the right over to the wall?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. 

In front of you? To the right? Over to the wall? No, no, no. Frazier already said that he was one-step down, which means that Doorman (who was on the top landing) was above him. And since the steps go forward as they descend, it means that Frazier was in front of Doorman, not the other way around. And as far as being to the right and over to the wall, that was not the case. The Altgens Doorman was in the center just like the Wiegman Doorman was in the center, and that's because they were the same guy at the same time. 

So, all that testimony of Frazier's was mangled, and that was just the start. He said something else again at Garrison hearings. He said something else again to the HSCA. He said something else again at the mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald in 1984. It seems that Buell Frazier never tells the story the same way twice. In 2013, I heard Frazier say that Lovelady was originally at the top, but that he encouraged him to go to the bottom of the steps in order to see better, and he did. That was new. In 50 years, he had never said that before. It is my sincere opinion that Frazier is mentally troubled. He has been living with his lie and with the burden of what he did for so long, that he is now incapable of telling the truth- even to himself, never mind others. 

But, here is what I really came here to say: 

The Warren Commission was a classic example of a show trial. And here's the definition of show trial from Wikipedia:

A show trial is a public trial in which there is a strong connotation that the judicial authorities have already determined the guilt of the defendant. The actual trial has as its only goal to present the accusation and the verdict to the public as an impressive example and as a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors. Show trials tend to be retributive rather than correctional justice and also conducted for propagandistic purposes. The term was first recorded in the 1930s.

The 1930s is a reference to Stalinist Russia. To get rid of his enemies, Joseph Stalin conducted more show trials than anyone else. Mao's China had show trials. Many strong-arm fiefdoms in Africa have had show trials. I'm sure North Korea has had them. Essentially, all totalitarian countries have them, large and small. Saddam Hussein had them in Iraq. 

And at show trials, witnesses are brought in to testify as to the crimes of the accused- testimonies that are usually false. 

What I am saying is that the Warren Commission was an American-style show trial. That's really what it was. And, Marina Oswald and Wesley Frazier are examples of witnesses who were brought in, manipulated, and made to say things that would secure the judicial outcome that was sought: the conviction of Oswald. And it involved the use of similar tactics, including the tactic of reward, especially for Marina. In case you're unaware of it, she lived much better after the assassination than she did before. I am referring to her standard of living: the amount of money she had. Did you know that right away she acquired an agent to manage the offers she had coming in? 

With Frazier, it wasn't so much reward as it was the threat of punishment. And lo and behold, Frazier wound up going into the US Military. But, they never sent him to Vietnam. Huh. That was lucky. I hear lots of guys got killed over there. But, I am sure it's true that they always kept a close eye and ear on Wesley Buell Frazier, and I mean for 52 years and counting.