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

The Wizard responds...

Ralph,

Thanks for the work you have put in on the blog.

I think that what Oswald is saying during the more animated incident is: "(I don't know what kind of?) dispatches you people have been given, but I emphatically deny these charges! 

After he has been ushered into the elevator vestibule he says: "I have nothing against anybody. I have committed no act of violence." This would be difficult to discern if the reporters had not repeated it, but it is audible.

RC: So, the Wizard has better hearing than I do, but my assumption was correct, that the reason the reporter used that formal expression is because that is exactly what Oswald said, that he  committed no act of violence. 

And now as I listen to it again, it does sound like he said "dispatches" which again strikes me as a rather formal word.  

It's nice that the reporter repeated clearly what Oswald said,  denying that he had anything to do with either murder.  A guilty person doesn't usually do that so repeatedly, and never has that I know of. Why?  Because he knows he's guilty, and therefore, he knows he can't say it with conviction.  A guilty person is more likely to say nothing.  So, Oswald's repeated and vociferous denials should have given all the reporters pause about his guilt, and the police too.  He was impassioned about it. Wasn't he? He would have had to be quite the great actor to do that if he was guilty. The plain truth is that in the hallways and at the Midnight Press Conference, Oswald made a great impression- that of an innocent man.  It would have been even more so with a jury. 

In truth, the case against Oswald would have fallen apart immediately. He had a solid alibi; he was standing in the doorway during the shooting, and with photographic proof of it. And even though the State addressed it and issued a fiat denouncing it, it would have held up in court. And I have to laugh when I imagine Billy Lovelady being cross-examined on the witness stand by Oswald's lawyers. How convincing do you think he would have been, considering that he wasn't comfortable talking about it even in friendly circumstances.  THEY HAD TO KILL OSWALD, and they had to do it before he saw a lawyer, even once.  Otherwise, they would have had to kill the lawyer too. 

And now that I have seen that it wasn't Oswald in the garage during the televised spectacle, it makes perfect sense that it wouldn't be because: how could they trust Oswald? It was live television. There was no taking it back.  There was no doing it over. They weren't going to risk everything by relying on Oswald to act along. 

And now that we know that they had an Oswald double there on Sunday, they must have had him there on Saturday, and it was he, the double, who met with H. Louis Nichols, not the real Oswald.