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

Imagine that the police accused you of killing the President. What would you say? What would you tell them? 

You might tell them that it's insane because a) you had nothing against President, and b) even if you did, you're not a killer, and you don't go around killing anyone.

But, there isn't any substance to that. You might be inclined to say it, and I know I would, but the police aren't going to be moved by it. It would just be lip-flapping as far as they're concerned. You would have to do a lot better than that.

It's hard to prove that you had no motive, but it shouldn't be hard to prove that you had no opportunity. And if you had no opportunity, then you didn't do it. 

So, it would have been practically useless for Oswald to cite his lack of motive, but, it would have been very useful for him to demonstrate his lack of opportunity. 

How could he do that? How could he prove his lack of opportunity? That's what it hinged on. Not anything else.

He could only prove his lack of opportunity by establishing his alibi, that is, his presence somewhere else when the crime took place.

What I'm saying is that it really would have been, well, stupid, for Oswald to deny doing it based on, "I had nothing against Kennedy; I had no reason to kill him; etc. etc." 

You prove your innocence not by vouching for yourself, your character, your politics, etc. but establishing your whereabouts when the crime occurred. 

And that's why people like Joseph Backes, Lee Farley, and James Norwood are NOT Oswald defenders. They claim to dispute the official story, but they are not defenders of Lee Harvey Oswald. They don't care about Oswald. They don't care about him as a human being. 

The issue of his alibi is so important, so crucial to exonerating him, that if exonerating him was their objective, they would make it their top priority to establish his alibi. 

I've done it. I've determined that he was in the doorway during the shooting. But, if they're not sure where he was, they would be so driven to find out- and not leaving a stone unturned until they did- but only if they were true Oswald defenders, which they're not. 

You see, for them as for others, Oswald gets lost in the shuffle. It becomes about disputing the official story of the assassination, where Oswald is just a figure in it, just one of the cast of characters. They have no more feeling for Oswald than they do for Carolyn Arnold or George Hickey or Roy Truly or any other character from the script. It's just like a game of Clue to them. They have as much feeling for Oswald as they do for Colonel Mustard.

But, if you really care about Oswald, if vindicating him is your highest concern, as if he were, say, your brother, then establishing his whereabouts during the crime matters to you- it matters to you a lot. 

And the importance of his alibi in vindicating him was so great, that we can assume that if they didn't ask him right away, he must have told them right away.

"Look, I didn't do this. I was standing in front, right outside the door, watching it- just like everyone else. If you don't believe me, ask Bill Shelley. He was there. He saw me. He'll tell you."

Now, I realize that Bill Shelley did NOT vouch for Oswald, but there are several things that the smart observer will note:

1) Even though Shelley didn't vouch for Oswald, Oswald did vouch for Shelley. Oswald correctly said he was there, and Shelley admitted that he was. How did Oswald know that Shelley was there unless he was there himself?

2) The fact that Oswald cited Shelley proves HIS EXPECTATION that Shelley would vouch for him. Otherwise, why cite Shelley? If Oswald knew that Shelley was NOT going to vouch for him, better not to mention him. If he was lying, better not to mention anyone. Who would be stupid enough to send the police to someone to vouch for you whom you knew was not going to vouch for you?

3) There is NO EVIDENCE that the police ever confronted Shelley about what Oswald said. 

"You know, Oswald said that he was out front with you. It sounded like he expected you to vouch for him. Did you see him there?"

There is no record of them saying that to Shelley. But then again, Officialdom never told us what Oswald gave as his alibi. They never told us that Oswald said he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." So, for over 30 years, it was left unresolved. The truth just fell into our laps like pennies from heaven when the Fritz Notes surfaced in the late 1990s. 

Officialdom never told us anything about Oswald's alibi. Fritz lied to the Warren Commission about it. He told them that Oswald said he was "eating lunch with other employees" at the time of the murder. That particular lie is so outrageous, it is stomach-churning. There were also vague statements from others who attended the interrogations (Hosty, Bookhout, etc.) but the whole issue of OSWALD'S ALIBI- the most important issue of his defense- was left clouded by the Warren Commission.  

And it's weird because we've been watching Law and Order and other cop shows all our lives, and we're used to hearing them say, "What's his alibi?" or "He's got a rock-solid alibi" or "There are holes in his alibi." The idea of the importance of the alibi comes through in every episode. 

And then, the real laugh is that when the Warren Commissioners heard Fritz say that he was eating lunch with other employees during the commission of the crime, they didn't even ask who the other employees were.

"Other employees? OTHER EMPLOYEES?? Well, who are these other employees? Provide their names. We need to talk to these persons. We need to tell them that Oswald said that he was with them when the crime took place. We need to tell them that they are Oswald's alibi. And we need to hear what they have to say about it. You know, I'm more than a little bit surprised, Captain Fritz, because you're supposed to be a seasoned police detective. So, I should think that you would follow-up on that without needing any push from me. A suspect tells you that he was eating with co-workers at the time of the crime, and you don't even talk to them about it? I'm not a detective, but even I know to do that."

But, of course, that never happened. The Warren Commissioners just brushed it off. 

That was a bold-faced lie, but Fritz knew that they didn't want to hear the truth: that Oswald said he was out with Bill Shelley in front.  But, picture yourself as Will Fritz. You hear Oswald say that he was out with Bill Shelley in front. Osawld cited Bill Shelley as his alibi. How do you not go up to Shelley yourself and tell him, "You know, Oswald said he was with you" to get his response? 

And it was so easy to do. Shelley was right there the same time Oswald was. Shelley was in the building when Oswald told Fritz that he was out with Bill Shelley in front. So, as soon as the first interview with Oswald was over, and he was taken to the lineup, why didn't Fritz go to Shelley who had to be nearby (after all, if Lovelady was in the Squad room, the very place they brought Oswald, cough, cough, then how far away could Shelley have been?) and ask him? 

But, let's get back to the idea of being an Oswald defender- a real Oswald defender, where that is your priority. What do you do? 

If you're smart, you'll come up with an alibi for him. And it doesn't matter where it is. He would have been just as innocent if he was in the first floor lunch room not killing Kennedy, or in the second floor lunch room not killing Kennedy, or in the bathroom not killing Kennedy, etc. It doesn't matter. And think about it: even if you could narrow it down to two places, and you couldn't prove which of the two it was, it wouldn't matter so long as neither place was the 6th floor.

But, when have Backes or Farley or Norwood ever devoted one second of their time to establishing Oswald's alibi?

They're not Oswald defenders. They're not in this for him. They're in this for JFK assassination glory. They want the glory of disputing the official story, not defending Oswald. 

I'm in it to defend Oswald. That's why from me, he gets an alibi.