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

Amazingly, Robert Tanenbaum, in his final remarks to the court, said that he wasn't there as Oswald's lawyer. What??? Then what was he doing being Oswald's lawyer? 

What he was doing was advocating for multiple shooters and conspiracy. That's all he was doing. That's all he cares about. He doesn't care about Oswald. 

Tanenbaum thanked Josiah Thompson, who was there, for helping him prepare the case.  And that's what it was, a case for conspiracy, not a defense of Oswald. 

Josiah "Tink" Thompson is the quintessential "respectable" CT. He gets along with LNs. He doesn't trash them the way he trashes Oswald defenders. 

Tink trashed Oswald in the doorway on the basis that CBS told him that Lovelady told them that he was the Doorman. CBS? We're supposed to believe CBS? They didn't even tell us the truth about Dan Rather, never mind Billy Lovelady. Dan Rather was in the garage during the Oswald shooting spectacle, and he lied about it.

This is a new collage, but I have made many others like it. Look at the matching bushy eyebrows. Look at the matching ears. Look at the jowly cheeks on both. and even the noses match well, if you factor in the different angle. Don't tell me that isn't Dan Rather.

It would be an incredible likeness if the guy was standing in a supermarket. But, we're talking about the police garage where Lee Harvey Oswald was shot. There just happened to be a Dan Rather lookalike there, of all places?

But, getting back to Tink, that was at a time (1967) that Billy Lovelady was alive and well. So, why didn't Tink go talk to Lovelady himself, not just to hear what he had to say, but how he said it? Because: if Lovelady was intimidated or even threatened, then he might have been lying- in fear of his life. Is it so imponderable to consider that? In this case, the JFK assassination? Where, at various times, witnesses were dropping like flies?  

Robert Tanenbaum had the whole first day for the defense. And keep in mind that the prosecution only called one witness in the whole entire trial: Lucien Haag, the ballistics expert. 

I expected the prosecution to call in Buell Frazier to retell his story about the long bag and the curtain rods. But, maybe they tried to get him, and he turned them down. They weren't offering any pay, so that may have been a factor. 

Citing the dubious fingerprint/palmprint evidence is the ONLY thing that Tanenbaum offered in defense of Oswald, for the whole day, and for the whole trial. That's it. And, he didn't even do a good job of presenting it. 

I can't believe that Tanenbaum is so stupid as to not realize that establishing multiple shooters does NOTHING to exonerate Oswald. It would just mean that one or more might be swinging from the gallows with him. But, that's what Tanenbaum strove for the whole time, except for the one very brief exception, the prints. 

And just think: none of those idiot lawyers EVER made a definitive statement on Oswald's behalf, that he was innocent. Don't you think Oswald would have? How many times did he emphatically deny the charges? He even said, "I emphatically deny these charges!" Since he couldn't speak for himself, being dead, why didn't his lawyers do it? 

And, one of Oswald's lawyers (I think Simpich) actually talked about Oswald going to Mexico City and what he did there at the Consulate. 

Is Bill Simpich unaware that Lee Harvey Oswald denied ever going to Mexico City? 

So, what are you saying, Bill? That Oswald was innocent of murder, but you think he lied to police about going to Mexico City? 

If you think he's innocent, then why would an innocent man lie to police about the harmless and legal act of taking a trip to Mexico City? Nobody ever said he committed any crimes in Mexico City. Nobody ever claimed that he collaborated with anyone in Mexico City to kill Kennedy. Nobody ever claimed he had any thought to kill Kennedy until November 19 or whatever day he, supposedly, saw the motorcade route in the newspaper, and it flipped an evil switch in his brain. Of course, it's ridiculous. Oswald was focused on his family; he wanted very much to get them back under his wing. On Thursday night, he asked Marina about moving back in with him if he got a larger apartment. She turned him down, but it shows you where his mind was.   

So, Bill Simpich, Oswald's lawyer, thinks his client, Oswald, is a liar, and that he lied, of all things, about going to Mexico City?

You know, I'm not the brilliant legal mind that Bill Simpich supposedly is (cough, cough) but when you're accused by the police of committing two murders, for which you are professing complete and total innocence, why WHY WHY would you lie about going to Mexico City???

How could Oswald wind up with such lousy lawyers? And just think, if he had lived, do you know who would have been defending him? Mark Lane, who is the lawyer who won, on appeal, the one only civil lawsuit concerning the JFK assassination. And keep in mind that Mark Lane wasn't involved in the first trial. He wasn't responsible for that loss. But, he came in and picked up the pieces, and beat the daylights out of the plaintiff, who happened to be E.Howard Hunt and his backers. That's how good a lawyer Mark Lane was, and there's absolutely no doubt that he would have defended Oswald, and for free, of course. 

We, Oswald's true defenders, dodged a bullet today. And I learned a lesson from this. I guarantee you that if, years from now, there is an announcement about another mock trial, I'll look at it with a jaundiced eye and a bitter taste in my mouth.