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

An Open Letter to Larry Schnapf
from Ralph Cinque

Larry, the upcoming mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald in Houston in November 2017 is going to be different from all the previous ones, with a much greater potential to change the JFK landscape. Here's why:

The mainstream media is going ignore it- until the verdict comes in. If Oswald is found guilty, then they are going to broadcast it widely, and you'll hear about it on every station, large and small. But, if he's found not-guilty, then they will just continue to ignore it. And if it's a hung jury, I suspect that some will report it but not all. It definitely won't be as big a story. 

So, you might say that they've got the system rigged. However, today, unlike before, there is a large alternative media- on the internet, including Alex Jones, blogs galore, internet radio, Youtube, etc.

Look what just happened with the Rafael Cruz story. The alternative media forced the mainstream media to address it. But, it started with just one guy, Wayne Madsen. Imagine if this was pre-internet, and he had a physical newsletter that went out to say a thousand people. It never would have caught fire. It never would have taken off.

Well, the same thing can happen with this trial. Even if the mainstream media ignores a not-guilty verdict, the alternative media won't. And they may very well force it on to front pages everywhere. 

So, even though they've got the system rigged, it isn't rigged as well as it used to be. It isn't air-tight. It could easily explode on the blogosphere and alter the whole JFK debate. 

That's why getting that not-guilty verdict is so important. There is so much riding on it. 

So, let's talk about how you are going to do that: secure a not-guilty verdict. And, it really has to be not guilty. A hung jury has happened before and more than once. So, that would be same old/same old. It won't impress anybody, and I would consider it more a victory for the other side. You have to get him acquitted, Larry. Nothing less will suffice.

So, how are you going to do that, Larry? I urge you to approach it as you would in 1963 if you were called in to represent the living Oswald. You get to the Dallas jail; they take you to his cell; you go in there, and you're there alone with him. The first thing he says to you is, "I didn't do this. I didn't kill anybody. I didn't shoot at anybody." What then are you going to say to him, Larry? What are you going to ask him?

I presume you would ask him, "Then, where were you at the time of the shots?" And of course, he would have told you. And then, you would have built his defense around that.

Well, it's the same way now, Larry, even though Oswald isn't here. You still have to present his alibi, and it is still the bulwark of his defense. 

Imagine if you tried to defend him without establishing his alibi. It would be tantamount to telling the jury, "I can't tell you where Oswald was at 12:30, but I can tell you that he wasn't on the 6th floor shooting at JFK."

It isn't going to sell, Larry. It's going to leave a bad taste and a bad feeling among the jurors. Their attitude is going to be that if you can't establish where he was, then it must be because he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy. 

If you don't establish Oswald's alibi, you are probably going to lose. It's that simple.

So, it's not a matter of choice. You have to do it. The only question is: what are you going to claim as his alibi?

Well, first of all, since the trial is a year and a half away, I hope you are going to give it a lot of thought. It is the most crucial decision you have to make. I'll tell you that right now.

And, I'll tell you candidly that if you carefully and objectively weigh all the evidence, you'll realize that the doorway was exactly where he was, and with a high degree of certainty.

Permit me to lay out that evidence for you. There is first the image of Oswald in the Altgens photo. There is also an image of him in the Wiegman film, although it's not nearly as good. I would definitely bring up both if it were me, but if you settled on just presenting Altgens, I wouldn't fault you for it. 

I realize that you are no stranger to this debate. But, I must point out that the arguments against it being Oswald are completely without merit. The visible match we have is to both the man and the clothing, and it was a very unique outfit he was wearing. There is no chance that Billy Lovelady was dressed the same way.

  

I cut off the tops of the heads in some of the collages because they altered the top of Doorman's head to turn him into Lovelady. They worked off a photo of Lovelady from the 1950s. 

But, that is Oswald on the right. He just has Lovelady's "cap." And I'll tell you something else, Larry: it's already been vetted by photo experts. I can't reveal who they are at this time, but indeed, the identification of that man as Oswald has already been vetted by photo experts. 

So, that's one thing, and it's a very big thing, but there is more, Larry: 

1) There are the Fritz Notes in which Oswald told Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front". Oswald must have been talking about during the motorcade because Shelley left for the railroad tracks with Lovelady almost immediately after the last shot. Shelley definitely was not out front when Oswald left for home. So, Oswald must have been talking about DURING and not AFTER the assassination. Furthermore, how did Oswald know that Shelley was out there unless he saw him there? Even if he thought that Shelley had to be outside SOMEWHERE, he could have been ANYWHERE. Oswald would not have made that up. He knew that Shelley was out front in the doorway because that is where he (Oswald) was. His knowledge that Shelley was there proves that he (Oswald) was there.

2. There is the testimony of Anthony Botelho, Oswald's Marine buddy, who upon seeing the Altgens photo, immediately recognized Oswald. He even recognized his stretched t-shirt with the sunken collar, being aware, as he was, of Oswald's habit of stretching his t-shirts. Anthony Botelho is still alive, and you could have him testify at the trial.

3. You could have someone testify concerning the testimony of Officer Marrion Baker. Baker said that he first saw Oswald through the glass window in the door between the 2nd floor landing and the vestibule of the lunch room. So, Baker first saw Oswald not in the lunch room but in the vestibule to the lunch room. It was just a small passageway room that provided access to the lunch room from both sides. And when you analyze the mechanics of it, you realize that Oswald had entered the vestibule from the office area. It has great significance, Larry.

It proves that Oswald didn't use those back stairs. He used the front stairs, which only went to the 2nd floor. So, there is NO CHANCE that he came down from the 6th floor. 

And note that no one doubts that he left the lunch room that way, walking through the office area where he encountered Mrs. Geraldine Reid who saw him with a Coke. So, all you have to say is that he took the same route to leave that he took to get there. And, it makes sense because, most of the time, that's what people do.

Look at the diagram again, Larry. I don't know who made it. I didn't make it. And I don't know the viewpoint of the person who made it concerning Oswald's guilt or innocence. But notice that it shows Oswald getting downstairs by using that front staircase which went only from the first floor to the second.

So, it's widely accepted that Oswald used those stairs to go back downstairs. Don't you think it's highly probable that he also used them to go upstairs? And, they were right next to the doorway.

So, that's the doorway, the infamous doorway, in the center. And he just had to walk around that partition to get to the stairs which were along the east wall. That's what he did: going up and going down. 

4. You know that Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor, but he had to be somewhere. The doorway was certainly a credible and logical place for him to be. I say "logical" because it's logical to assume that he would have wanted to watch the motorcade. After all, why not? Didn't most people want to watch it? Why wouldn't Oswald? The default is that he would want to watch it, right? Is there any reason to think that Oswald, being Oswald, wouldn't? 

So, what about the idea that he was eating lunch during the motorcade? That doesn't make sense because like everyone else, Oswald got off work at 11:45, which was 15 minutes earlier than usual, just so that there would be sufficient time for everyone to eat their lunch. Oswald definitely knew that the motorcade was coming because of the testimony of James Jarman, who told him why people were gathering on the sidewalk. They discussed it. They even discussed the direction that the motorcade would be going.

So, Oswald definitely knew that the motorcade was coming. And he got off work at 11:45. He told Fritz and the others that he ate his lunch in the 1st floor lunch room- as he always did. That's where the grunt workers ate. The smaller lunch room on the 2nd floor, also called the snack room, was for the clerical workers who worked up there. Grunt workers (order-fillers) like Oswald might go up there to use the vending machines, but not to sit and eat. 

We have multiple witnesses saying that Oswald typically and always ate lunch in the Domino room on the first floor. That was his habit. That was his consistent practice. And there is no reason to think he did otherwise on 11/22/63. But, the most important thing is that Oswald, himself, said that he ate his lunch there that day. It's in the Fritz Notes, and it's also in the reports of the two FBI agents (Hosty and Bookhout) that that is what Oswald said: that he ate his lunch in the first floor lunch room.

And, Oswald gave a time reference for when he did that. He said he did it when James Jarman and Harold Norman were milling around. And it turns out that they both reported going in there and being in the vicinity early during the lunch break. Eventually, they went outside to watch the motorcade, and before it arrived, and close to the last minute, they changed their minds and decided to go up to the 5th floor and watch it from the window- which they did. But, it was early in the lunch break, essentially as soon as it began, that they were milling around inside the building on the first floor in keeping with what Oswald said- where he would have seen them and did see them. Both Jarman and Norman had to go into the domino room to get their lunch. Although we don't have it on record that Jarman and Norman acknowledged seeing Oswald there, it still counts for a lot that he correctly ID'd 2 out of 75 employees who were there at that time.

5. I urge you to dismiss the claim that Carolyn Arnold made in 1978. It was pure revisionism, and it was said over 5000 days after the fact. Nobody gets to change her story after 5000+ days. The only statement of Carolyn Arnold that matters is the one she gave on Tuesday, November 26, 1963 when she was interviewed by the FBI. And what she said then was that she saw Oswald at the doorway, right behind the glass, shortly before the motorcade arrived. Her statement was taken by an FBI agent and written by him- not her. And that's unfortunate. He wrote that the time was 12:15, but did that come from him or from her? I suspect that he pegged it as 12:15 to leave Oswald enough time to get up to the 6th floor. The FBI came back in March 1964 and asked her again, and that time, when she was no doubt scared for her life, she dutifully said that she didn't see Oswald at all- which is what they wanted to hear. 

But, there is no reason not to put stock in her first statement. That was closest in time to the event, and it was before the Gestapo-like pressure of the FBI weighing down on all of them to tell the right story or else had time to register. There is no reason to think she was lying in what she first said.

And in her 5000+ days revisionism, she actually said that Oswald was sprawled in front of food in the 2nd floor lunch room- as if he was eating there. But again: he NEVER ate there, and on that day he reported eating in the first floor lunch room, as usual, as always. So, who are you going to believe? Her or him? What reason did Oswald have to lie about where he ate his lunch? Another alternative would be to assume that he ate two lunches that day, but how plausible is that? Skinny as he was, he was lucky if he got two meals in a day, never mind two lunches. 

So, the idea that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:30 makes no sense at all. If he was there at 12:30, how could he be arriving there at 12:31.5 when Baker saw him getting there? And he certainly wasn't eating in the first floor lunch room at 12:30. Again: he got off work at 11:45 just like everybody else. So, why would he wait 45 minutes to eat only to have to miss the motorcade? It's wacky as a behavior. Who would do that? Why assume Lee Harvey Oswald would do it? It's not as though he had anything else he needed to do between 11:45 and 12:30 that kept him from eating before the motorcade.   

Oswald was NOT in the 1st floor lunch at 12:30, and he was not in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:30. Neither of those is a plausible alternative to him being in the doorway. 

So, what else is left, Larry? There is nothing else left. Once you get him off the 6th floor at 12:30, there is NO PLACE ELSE but the doorway that he could have been. And the images confirm it. 

And don't be stymied by fallacious arguments, such as no witnesses placed him in the doorway, so how could he be there? No one was allowed to place him there. It was not OK to place him there. If someone had tried to place him there, that person would have been stopped and told that he or she was wrong, and they better not say it again. And they certainly would not have been invited to testify to the Warren Commission. You couldn't speak to the Warren Commission if you were going to say that Oswald was in the doorway. It was a controlled tribunal. It was like a Stalinist show trial. So, it means NOTHING that there were no witnesses placing him in the doorway. The word spread very quickly that it was not OK to say that.  

And what about Buell Frazier who to this day denies that Oswald was in the doorway and insists that Doorman was Lovelady? You need to cross-examine him as a hostile witness, Larry. You need to trap him. You need to trip him up. And you can. It won't be hard to do. 

I think Oswald in the doorway should comprise at least half your defense of him. I wouldn't waste any time challenging the Single Bullet Theory since the most it could do is establish that Oswald wasn't the only shooter. Big deal. 

So, what else is there?

a) I would harp on the bag, Montgomery's bag; the fact that it is way too good, too polished, too refined, and too manufactured for Oswald to have made it with paper and tape. And the fact is, it disappeared, and we never saw it again after that day. 

That ain't no paper and tape made by a guy with an 8th grade education. 

b) I would attack the whole timeline and acquisition of the rifle, and I refer you to the work of John Armstrong and Gil Jesus in that regard. Oswald denied owning any rifle. Why would he do that if he was innocent? If it had appeared that someone else had used (stolen) his rifle to kill someone, he would have acknowledged it. Wouldn't you? He wouldn't lie about the rifle being his if it was his if he was innocent. And as you know, he was innocent. 

c) I would attack Buell Frazier's claims about the curtain rods and the bag that Oswald supposedly carried, which NO ONE in the TSBD confirmed- and the place was full of people. Jack Dougherty saw Oswald as soon as he came in, and he denied seeing that bag. 

d) It would be great if you could cross-examine Marina, challenging the things she told the Warren Commission about Oswald's insane behavior. But, she's not going to be willing to testify, and no one can make her.

e) I would challenge the veracity of Oswald's trip to Mexico City because if that was a frame-up, then undoubtedly, Dallas was also a frame-up. So, you point out that there are NO legitimate images of Oswald in Mexico City, and there are phony ones.

  

Any of those guys look like Oswald to you?

Then, there is the fact that Oswald denied going there, and he had no reason to lie about it. Certainly, nothing he theoretically and allegedly did in Mexico City could have any relation to the JFK assassination, since he didn't know about his upcoming job at the TSBD and the opportunity it would afford him. So, why would he have been thinking about or talking about killing Kennedy? That's true even if he hated JFK, and he didn't hate him. 

So, he would have had no reason to lie about an innocuous trip to Mexico City- if he took it. But, he didn't take it, and that's why he denied going there. If Oswald in Mexico City was a CIA stunt (and JFK researcher John Newman says that it was) then the Dallas plot must also have been CIA. It can't be that Oswald was targeted for impersonation in Mexico City and then went on to kill Kennedy. Come on. If that isn't "reasonable doubt" what is?

Larry, there is plenty more- tons. And I'm passionate about all of it. But, there is nothing more crucial and important than establishing Oswald's alibi, which was that he was in the doorway watching the motorcade at the time of the shots. If you try to defend him without giving him a solid alibi, you will lose, and he will lose. And that would be a tragedy. So, don't listen to the people who would urge you to stay away from Oswald in the doorway because it isn't politically correct, because it isn't "legitimate", because you'll lose respect among the respectable researchers. Pluck the respectable researchers! Oswald was in that doorway, and that is a proven, demonstrable fact. You can't win the case without it. And anything less than a win will be a loss. A hung jury will be much better for the other side than it will be for you. You shouldn't settle for a draw. You have got to play this to win. And you can, Larry. I hope you are as confident about it as I am.