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

One of the biggest deficiencies of Oliver Stone's JFK movie is his depiction of Oswald's alibi. He went with the claim attributed to Carolyn Arnold in 1978 that she saw Oswald eating in the 2nd floor lunch room at 12:25.

There is no chance that that was true. Oswald ate in the 1st floor lunch room. All the grunt workers did. They put their lunch on a long rack by the window until it was time to eat. Oswald always ate there, as reported by several employees, and then he would read the newspaper, which they had there. Oswald, himself, said that he ate in the 1st floor lunch room, and why would he lie about that? He cited seeing James Jarman and Harold Norman (short negro) there, and that is where they were. They weren't on the 2nd floor; they were on the 1st floor.  And it was much earlier than 12:25. It was soon after the lunch break began. And why not? Oswald hadn't eaten yet that day. He worked all morning. Why wouldn't he be ready to eat? What did he have to do instead? Nothing. Plus, by that time, he knew that the President was going to be passing the building because James Jarman told him so. So, why wouldn't he want to watch it? Who has the right to assume that, of course, weird wild, wacky, anti-social, hermetic, people-hating Oswald would have no interest in seeing the President? No one has that right. 

In her original statement made on November 26, 1963, 4 days after the assassination, so on the Tuesday following, Carolyn Arnold told the FBI that she believed she saw Oswald at the doorway shortly before the shooting. We don't know her exact words because we only have an FBI agent's account of what she said. But, there is no reason to think she lied or made anything up. We have no reason to think she was not being completely truthful. Why would this 19 year old girl lie to the FBI? So, the weirdness of her coming up with a completely different story 5000+ days later stands askew. And because it conflicts with her timely statement from 1963, and with Oswald's statement from 1963, and with multiple reports about where Oswald ate lunch, we have every good reason to soundly and summarily dismiss it.

If Oliver Stone had depicted Oswald's alibi correctly, that he was standing in the doorway watching the motorcade during the shooting, it would have made the movie 10X more powerful than it was, and it is very unfortunate that he didn't do that. 

Of course, that was before the discovery of the Fritz Notes, in which Oswald told his interrogators that he was out with Bill Shelley in front during the shooting. And it's interesting that James Bookhout and James Hosty, in their joint report, said that Oswald said that he was "on the 1st floor" during the shooting. But, when it's a building as big as a city block, nobody would use a whole floor as his alibi. He would be more specific than that. And, Oswald was, but they just didn't want to admit that he said he was in the doorway with Shelley. 

And if you read Marrion Baker's testimony, he said that Oswald was just getting to the 2nd floor lunch room when he saw him, that he was just walking in. So, if Oswald was just getting there at 12:31.5, how could he have already been there? 

There is no longer any doubt that the doorway is the correct alibi for Oswald during the shooting. Other claims of him eating or drinking somewhere else at the time are completely unfounded and have been refuted. Oswald in the doorway is on ice.