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

Now, the Idiot Backes has taken to comparing Likes for a single post with Likes for a whole page. 

"Cinque is proud to have his latest post liked by a grand total of 11 people. I have 181 people liking my "The Oswald Innocence Campaign is a Fraud" Facebook page, and unlike Dorothy I never felt there was any need to brag about it."

Does the term "apples and oranges" mean anything thing to that blithering idiot? Apparently not. 

You're stupid, Backes. You were born stupid. You stumble through your life stupid. And, you stupidly keep slamming into walls, knocking yourself out, and when you wake up, you stagger up and do it all over again. You're stupid. 

Then, the Idiot tries to lampoon the idea that a lawyer would notice  that a suspect wasn't getting a lawyer and was complaining about it, loudly and publicly. 

"He thinks the number one paramount thing in RFK's mind in the immediate aftermath of the assassination of President Kennedy, his brother, was the fact that Oswald has not been provided with an attorney."

I didn't use the term "number one" and I didn't use the term "paramount" either. But yes, if RFK thought immediately that his brother's enemies had him killed, then it was significant that Oswald was being kept away from a lawyer. He lived for about 46 hours from the time he was captured, and considering the gravity of the crimes for which he was charged, it is an outrage that he was not provided a lawyer. 

And let's remember what happened after the 46 hours: he was killed while in police custody. But, let's consider if he hadn't been. When were they going to provide him a lawyer? Were they going to do it later that afternoon? The next day? When? I have to believe that the urgency to kill him stemmed largely from the need to get it done BEFORE he could speak to a lawyer. And that's because I know how the conversation between him and his lawyer would have went. The first thing the lawyer would have asked him was, "Did you commit these crimes?" And Oswald would have said "No." Then the lawyer would have asked, "Then, where were you when the President got shot?" And Oswald would have said, "I was out in the doorway watching." And, if the lawyer didn't already know about the controversy swirling around the Altgens photo, he would have soon found out. And then, he would have gone to Oswald and showed him the Altgens photo and asked him, "Is that you?" And Oswald would have said "Yes, that's me. You can see that it's my shirt, my t-shirt, my face. It looks like they did something to the top of my head, but the rest of the image is me." Then, the battle would have been on. So, they had to get Oswald killed before that got started. 

Now, I'm not saying that Robert Kennedy was aware of all that, but, he should have noticed that the suspect's right to an attorney was being denied. Vince Salandria noticed it. 

Backes makes little of the fact that Oswald had no attorney. Backes, don't you EVER claim to be an Oswald defender. You are NOT one, you begging bastard. 

You are a fake. You are a phony. You are just like Debra Conway, Jeremy Bojczuk (if that's his real name), and all the other pretenders.

Backes claims that Robert Kennedy had no way of knowing that Dallas Police weren't recording or transcribing Oswald's interviews. Well, he would have known that they weren't saying that they were. And the moment that Oswald was killed, the question of whether or not Dallas Police recorded what he told them would have become "paramount." And, at that point, Robert Kennedy could have inquired, and he would have found out that they didn't.    

My point is that the totality of the way that Oswald was being treated, handled, and ultimately killed led one attorney, Vincent Salandria, to conclude that he was framed and that the whole story was a lie. I should say two attorneys because Mark Lane also is an attorney. And, I am very proud to say that they are both senior members of the Oswald Innocence Campaign.

We are discussing this within the OIC, and Vince is involved in the discussion. Here is his most recent offering:

Dear Hugh, Ralph, Tony and Marty,

             This is the high-level thinking primarily about the terminology which  should be applied to the historical event of the assassination of President John f. Kennedy  I submit that you are arguing about specific terminology, but that you good people are very much in agreement with one another on substance.  

             You all have my sincere and deep thanks for your the application of your excellent intelligences and deep social consciousness to this event of historical importance.

             Gratefully yours,

             Vince

What Vince is referring to is the question of whether the assassination of JFK should rightly be considered a "coup." Marty Schotz is making the interesting argument that it wasn't really a coup because in a coup, it's not just one guy, the top man, who gets replaced; his whole administration gets ousted with him. But, in this case, nobody (except JFK) got ousted and everybody who worked for him stayed on, including his own brother! Therefore, how can you call it a coup?

Well, I would argue that it was still a coup; but, it was a very unusual and bizarre coup. Marty is right that usually it doesn't go that way. It didn't go that way in Iran in the CIA-sponsored coup, known as Operation AJAX.  Mohammed Mossadegh was removed from power and so were his people. They didn't stay on. They didn't start working for the Shah.  I'm not saying that every janitor and groundskeeper was replaced, but his top people had to go. That's what you expect in a coup. 

But, they wanted this to be a coup without looking like a coup. So, they very much wanted all of Kennedy's people to stay. And, they all did, including JFK's own brother. And that is why it's so terrible. Robert Kennedy should never have sanctioned the new government. He should have gone rogue. He should have fought them. He's the one who should have said, "this was a coup." 

So, I am definitely among those who say that the JFK assassination was a coup d' etat.

The fact is that Robert Kennedy made, literally, a fatal mistake when he decided to visibly cooperate.  Why did he do it? There were probably multiple reasons. If anyone was going to lead the Kennedy community, meaning the extended Kennedy family and their most trusted and loyal friends, to resist and fight, it was him. And if he wasn't going to, then they weren't going to. Robert Kennedy capitulated.  I hate to say it, but it's true. And if I had to succinctly sum up the reason why, I would say that "the power of officialdom got to him." It really did. It was just too much for him.