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

Professor James Norwood

Professor James Norwood, who is a professor of humanities, has chosen to enter the Bookhout debate. And I'm glad he did, in the hope that it will get more people looking at and talking about this new discovery of James Bookhout being the real garage shooter of Lee Harvey Oswald. But, once again, Dr. Norwood is showing a complete inability to grasp the issues involved and to assess the evidence in the case. I'll tell you in advance that he did not do any damage to us at all; our case is as strong as ever.  

First, Norwood cites a film which, reportedly, captured the face of the shooter, which we don't see elsewhere. This film was taken by Jim Davidson. Dr. Norwood provided the link to the video, and this is the image:

So, on the basis of that image, James Norwood is claiming to be able to know that that man was Jack Ruby.

But, is there enough visual information, enough visual data in that image to make any such an assessment? No, there is not.

Here is the same image compared to Detective Charles Dhority:

Hmm. I dare say that the match to Detective Charles Dhority is much better. So, I guess he killed Oswald. I'm just kidding. And I am quite amazed that James Norwood- a university professor- could be so hapless and obtuse. I pity his students. The bottom line is: the image on the left is useless. It simply does not meet the threshold of photographic integrity to match it to anyone. If Dr. Norwood was a more mature person- in his mind, in his ability to think- he would know that. 

And remember, we have been through this already in a very similar situation. Recall that Backes cited the WFAA footage which supposedly captured this image of the shooter's face.

So, that's supposed to the shooter too, even though he doesn't look anything like Ruby, and he doesn't look like Norwood's guy either.

What reason is there to think that those two are the same guy or that either one of them is Jack Ruby?

And, as usual, I will remind my readers that this is the JFK assassination we're talking about- the most photographically and cinematically altered event in the history of Mankind. So, what reason is there to even put trust in the validity of this? Look at what they're selling and who's selling it.

That image came from a propaganda film, made by the Sixth Floor Museum, that was selling the official story of the Oswald killing, the same way they sell the official story of the Kennedy killing. The clip from the Davidson film was included- with great gusto. You hear Gary Mack say that, "Now, for the first time, you can look into the face of one of the most notorious killers in history." But, Gary Mack also proclaimed that Oswald shot Kennedy from the 6th floor. He devoted his life to proclaiming it. So, is James Norwood going to quote Gary Mack about that too and consider it Gospel?

So, I guess Norwood's advice is: "Pay no attention to Gary Mack concerning the Kennedy killing, but take his word religiously about the Oswald killing."    

There is no reason why anyone of intelligence should see this as anything but propaganda. It's just the selling of the official story. And presumably, Dr. Norwood doesn't accept the official story of the JFK assassination. But, he does accept- lock, stock, and barrel- the official story of the Oswald assassination. Well, Dr. Fetzer and I do not. 

Next, Dr. Norwood raises the issue of witness testimonies, and of course we addressed that issue concerning Oswald in the doorway. And I shall state again, for the record, that the images rule. Images trump testimonies. It's like in court where DNA trumps testimonies. How do you think Barry Scheck gets wrongfully convicted prisoners off death row or life imprisonment? Invariably, these people were convicted on the basis of eye-witness testimony that was wrong, and the DNA evidence overrules the lip-flapping. It's the same way here. 

But, let's consider directly the eye witnesses who testified to seeing Ruby do it. For some reason, Dr. Norwood didn't name any. 

Detective Jim Leavelle is one who claimed to recognize Jack Ruby as he approached. But, let's consider the lies of Detective Leavelle

Leavelle claimed to have spotted Ruby in advance, but the films show that he was NOT looking in Ruby's direction at the time.

There you see the shooter, and he has his gun pointed at Oswald. He is about to pull the trigger. That is a split-second- a tiny split-second before the blast. Leavelle isn't even looking at Ruby. Furthermore, Leavelle claimed that, upon seeing Ruby in advance, and recognizing him, and seeing his gun, that he "jerked" Oswald behind him, or at least he tried to. But, the result, according to Leavelle, was that he only turned Oswald- twisted him, so that he was facing straight ahead any more. Well, as you can see, Oswald is faced straight ahead, and he hasn't been jerked anywhere. 

Jim Leavelle bold-faced lied. I'll say it again: Jim Leavelle bold-faced lied. And he's been lying for 53 years. He's turned lying about the Oswald shooting into a cottage industry. And he lied on the very day. In an interview that very afternoon, he told his cock-n-bull story about seeing Ruby and jerking Oswald. He even said that with his right hand, he shoved Ruby on his left shoulder. You can listen to him spewing this crap right here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzKvMKkwvmc

"I did jerk Oswald to try to jerk him behind me. I also reached up and caught a hold of Jack Ruby's shoulder, his left shoulder."

And here Leavelle is demonstrating what he claimed to do to Ruby:

So, that is Leavelle demonstrating his grab for Ruby's left shoulder, which he NEVER made. Then he added, "and shoved back on him."  And he proceeded to demonstrate the shove too:

So, that's him showing how he shoved on Jack Ruby's left shoulder, which he never did.

Here is an image after the shot. You know it's after the shot because Oswald is grimacing. You see the pained look on his face, right? That wasn't from gas pain.

So, Oswald was grimacing and cringing from being shot. Right? But, Leavelle is nowhere near the shooter. He is not looking at the shooter. And he has not jerked Oswald anywhere. He hasn't jerked. He hasn't grabbed. He hasn't shoved. All of that are lies, lies, lies. Here is Jim Levealle spewing his lies on 11/24/63.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phEhz4sRWVQ

Alright, so now we know that Jim Leavelle lied and has been lying for over half a century. Therefore, why should we believe his claim about recognizing Ruby?

Look: if James Bookhout was pretending to be Ruby, and he was, then obviously the Dallas Police had to be in on it. And they were! After it happened, they swarmed upon the shooter, but they didn't even cuff him. They were really just trying to cover him up. One cop even went and covered the shooter's head after his hat came off.

Then, they dragged him into the building without cuffing him. Cite me one other time in the entire history of police work that that was done, where police took a violent offender somewhere without cuffing him first, where they just struggled/wrestled/herded him into some building. When has that ever happened except here?

And another thing, Norwood: name one reporter who claimed to recognize Ruby in the garage. 

Then, except for a bunch of general denunciation and derision, Norwood had nothing more to say. Amazingly, Norwood never addressed a single issue, point, photo, or anything else we presented about James Bookhout.  He criticized and trashed our article without citing a single thing from it. We didn't just say, "Bookhout shot Oswald" and walk away. We made a case based on many images, based on James Bookhout's testimony, based on James Hosty's testimony, and more, much more, but James Norwood did not address a single point, a single element from the long, painstaking article.  With one stroke of his broad brush, Norwood just trashed the idea without addressing any of the evidence we provided. But, let's go back to Norwood's first claim that we should regard this as conclusive evidence of Ruby being the shooter:

Well, if you're going to consider that conclusive evidence, what about this?

I dare say that ours is much more conclusive. And what about this?

Can you not see that the man on the left had a pyramidal-shaped nose while the man on the right did not? Can you not see that the man on the left had a longer forehead and a longer, narrower face than the man on the right, whose face was very round? He really had a round face.

And what about the clear images of the back of the shooter's neck showing how razored clean it was compared to Ruby who was scruffy with hair growth?

How do you reconcile those two images, James Norwood? How do you reconcile those two images, James Norwood? How do you reconcile those two images, James Norwood?

James Norwood didn't lay a glove on us. He didn't land a punch. All he did was demonstrate his complete incompetence as a researcher, and as a thinker. He doesn't know how to think. He is a college professor who does not know how to think. I pity his students.