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

What if someone were to start an Oswald Innocence organization but without endorsing Oswald in the doorway? How would it go?

Not too well, unfortunately. You see, the case starts with the accusation, that Oswald was up on the 6th floor, locking and loading, and pumping rounds into Kennedy. That's the first talking point. And the very first thing you get to from there, the next talking point, is: then where was he instead? 

It's not just a logical follow-through; it is a legal one. 

That's because an Oswald innocence organization is essentially and primarily acting like Oswald's defense lawyer. And no lawyer could defend Oswald in court without stipulating where he was.

"Oswald could not have shot Kennedy because he was at xxx doing yyy." 

It's the whole basis of his defense. Everything else is ancillary. If you don't have that, you don't have anything. 

Imagine if Oswald had lived, and his lawyer tried to defend him WITHOUT stipulating where he was. "I can't tell you where Mr. Oswald was at the time of the shots, but I can tell you that he was innocent." How would that have gone over with the jury? 

So, it is not a matter of choice. To defend Oswald at all, you HAVE to stipulate where he was and what he was doing at the time of the shots. 

But, let's say you honestly don't know. After all, Lance Uppercut claims to know that Oswald was innocent, but he has never claimed to know where Oswald was. The same is true of Joseph Backes and Rob Clark.  

Well, even if they don't know where he was, as his lawyers, they would still have to address it, and that's because we are talking about a very limited and finite situation. There aren't that many places he could have been. If you're going to say that he was not up on the 6th floor and he wasn't in the doorway, then that leaves the rest of the inside of the building. But, since it was the lunch hour, you can hardly say that he was working. Oswald was never known to work on his lunch hour. So, that eliminates the 7th, 5th, 4th, and 3rd floors, as well as the 6th. And on the second floor, there was only the snack room, even theoretically as a location for him, because the rest of that floor was offices. The snack room was the only place on the 2nd floor that would have had any interest to a grunt worker like Oswald.

So, that leaves the first floor or the snack room on the 2nd floor as the only alternatives to the 6th floor or the doorway for Oswald to be at the time of the shots. 

So, with so few alternatives, you would be have to address the issue of where he was. 

So, how would you address it? By just saying that you don't know where he was? But, if you don't know where he was, then you don't know that he wasn't in the doorway. How could you rule it out if you don't know where he was? 

So, now your case differs from the OIC only to the extent of saying that Oswald could have been in the doorway, but you're just not sure; that you consider it inconclusive.

Well, that's a weak case. Again: if you tried it in court, you'd surely lose. If you are going to defend Oswald vigorously, you HAVE to stipulate where he was. Otherwise, you've got a hole in your case a mile wide. 

But, that's not your only problem. Your other problem is that there is another talking point that rears its ugly head. And that is: if Oswald wasn't out viewing Kennedy, then why not? Why would Oswald, of all people, have no interest in seeing Kennedy? Why would Oswald, of all people, be given 45 minutes to eat his lunch before the motorcade arrived but put off eating it until the motorcade arrived? And if you think that he ate his lunch before the motorcade (and you should because he did) then what was it that he preferred to do during the motorcade rather than watch the motorcade? 

And if you don't know, or if you think he was doing nothing, then what kind of defense is that? It is very rare for an awake and conscious human being to do nothing.  There is a very strong inclination for a human being to always be doing something. There was no bed where he could be lying down. And if you were going to say that he was just off somewhere thinking, first, you don't have any basis to say that, and second, what could he have been thinking about that would outweigh his chance to see President Kennedy? 

The moronic Robert Groden actually tried to claim that Oswald was getting change for a Coke when Kennedy was being killed. But, why would Oswald decide to do that right when Kennedy was passing? What right does Robert Groden have to assume that Oswald, who had 45 minutes to eat and drink before Kennedy arrived, would wait until the critical moment to do it? Oswald knew what was coming- not the assassination but the motorcade. The whole idea was that the employees had 45 minutes to get their eating and drinking done before JFK arrived. Oswald knew it just as well as the others. So, why wouldn't he conform to that? Who wouldn't? 

And realize that there is no case for Groden's claim. He's trying to claim that Geraldine Reid maintained that she was making change for Oswald when the shots occurred. Well, you can read her testimony to the Warren Commission; she said no such thing. She claimed that she was outside watching the motorcade- as you would expect. 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/reid.htm  

But, let's return to the theoretical idea of another Oswald Innocence organization to rival the OIC. If you don't stipulate where Oswald was and what he was doing at the time of the shots, then you don't have anything. You might as well not bother. You might actually do him more harm than good. You would very likely sabotage his whole defense. You might actually become an aid to the prosecution. 

If you are going to defend him, there is NOTHING more important than establishing where Oswald was and what he was doing at the time of the shots. If you can't do that then you can't defend him.  If you don't do that, then you are NOT an Oswald defender. You'll just be spinning your wheels. 

You should realize that those assigned to defend the official story of the JFK assassination decided long ago that some of them- and I mean a significant number of them- would pretend to be Oswald defenders. And that was to gain influence with real Oswald defenders. That way, when something really dangerous to the official story came along, they might be able to defuse it. Pay no attention to Oswald as the man in the doorway is like saying pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

The very idea of having an organization to defend Oswald without establishing where he was at the time of the shots is, in a word, preposterous. It would be so devoid of exculpatory value that, in reality, there would be no point in having it. It would truly do more harm than good. If you are going to defend Oswald, you have to do it like his lawyer would have done it- by establishing his alibi.  

And I'm sure Oswald, had he lived, would have had good lawyers. I'm sure Mark Lane would have volunteered to represent him- gratis, and so would have Vincent Salandria.  And they would have talked to him. And what do you think they would have asked him? They would have asked him, "Where were you at the time of the shots?" If that wasn't the very first thing out of their mouths, it would have been close to it. And Oswald would have told them. He would have told them the truth.

And you know what I think: that he would have told them that he was in the doorway. He would have told them the same thing he told Will Fritz, that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." 

In fact, it may be that the very reason why the plotters felt compelled to kill Oswald on November 24; i.e., because of the Altgens photo; because they knew that he had a rock-solid alibi. And they knew that his lawyer was going to find out about it- sooner rather than later. Therefore, they had to kill him before he spoke to his lawyer.

Let's remember that the night before Oswald's murder, i.e., the 23rd, FBI agents stormed the home of Billy Lovelady with an image of Doorway Man that was "as big as a desk" according to Mrs. Patricia Lovelady. Well, why didn't they storm Oswald's cell similarly? If they wanted to know what Lovelady thought about the identity of the Man in the Doorway, why didn't they want to know what Oswald thought? There was a figure, whom they had to identify, which they knew had to be one of two men. So, why not ask both of them? Why is it true that Oswald died without ever being told about the Altgens photo? 

It's because they knew. They knew the truth. They knew that Oswald was the Man in the Doorway, so they weren't going to ask him about it. And regarding Lovelady, they went to see him not so much to ask him if he was the Man in the Doorway but to tell him that he was. They needed to lay the law down to him: "That's you, Buddy. Get used to it." 

If you are going to defend Oswald, you have to give him an ALIBI. An alibi is the cornerstone of every innocent person's defense. 

"I could not have killed him because I was at xxx doing yyy." 

Without an alibi, there is no defense.   

So, now you know why there is no rival organization to the OIC, and why there is never going to be one. It's because there can't be one- except a totally impotent one. 

Oswald was innocent. He did NOT kill President Kennedy. And he has an alibi. His alibi is that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots.