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

Who told Oswald to go to the theater? I don't know, but it's an interesting question. Someone had to tell him to go there. He certainly didn't go there to watch a war movie. The official story has it that he "ducked" into the theater and actually took the risk of sneaking in, which is ridiculous. Why would he do that? To avoid being seen by the attendant? Very easily, he could have just looked down and scratched his forehead as he was paying her. He had nothing to worry about there. And there is no evidence he had been to that theater before, so how would he know that certain door would be open and give him access? It's just ridiculous to think he would have tried it. 

It's also ridiculous to think he would have been at 10th and Patton. In route to where? WC  Atty David Belin said Mexico. How did he claim to know that, and why would any intelligent person accept it?

Oswald's actions in the theater suggest that he was looking for someone, and not someone he had met before. He kept getting up the sitting next to a different person. So, it was a rendezvous, but not the kind that he expected.   

So, who told him to go there? And where was he told? 

I think it's unlikely that it was someone at the TSBD. The most likely person would have been Shelley, but Oswald did not encounter him after the assassination. There is no possibility that Oswald saw Shelley as he was leaving because Shelley wasn't there. Who else could it have been? I can't even give you a name. Oswald was not good with names at the TSBD. Recall that when he tried to cite James Jarman, all he could think of was his nickname, "Junior." He didn't remember Harold Norman's name at all and just described him as a "short negro." But, when it was time to establish his presence in the doorway, Oswald quickly said that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front." So, Oswald knew who Shelley was, and he knew who Truly was, and presumably he knew Frazier's name, but that may be it. 

John Armstrong thinks it was JD Tippit who went to Oswald's rooming house and waited for him. His reasoning is that Tippit's location was missing from the police records, that he turned off his transponder, or whatever it was. Armstrong argues that Oswald must have been driven to the theater because Butch Burroughs, the Popcorn Man, said that Oswald got there no later than 1:07, and since he didn't leave his room until shortly after 1:00, there is no way that he walked there. 

So, since a police car apparently honked for him at his house, and since time alone dictates that Oswald was driven to the theater, and since there is no basis to think that he took public transportation, then that mysterious police car becomes Oswald's most likely ride to the theater. 

But, was it Tippit who drove him? It's possible, although I am a bit haunted by the fact that Oswald referred to Tippit as "a policeman."  To me, that has the air that he didn't know him. Unless he was being clever and pretending not to know him. But, Oswald was innocent, so how much pretending did he need to do?

But, whether it was Tippit or someone else, that lingering police car is the only prospect that we have for get ting Oswald to the theater.  And, it's very possible that the driver produced the destination and the reason for going there. And that's true whether it was Tippit or someone else. 

The eeriest thing of all is that there is nothing in any report  or any testimony from anyone in law enforcement about what Oswald said about any of this. And that is unpardonable. Oswald was arrested for shooting Tippit. He was arraigned for it that evening, before he was arraigned for shooting Kennedy.  

And remember that if Oswald denied shooting Tippit, and he definitely did because it was reported that he did, and he denied it to the world as well, and we can hear him denying it, then that denial had to include denying that he was ever at 10th and Patton. Because obviously: he didn't say that he was there, but someone else shot Tippit. The likelihood of that is zero. Oswald was not at 10th and Patton, and there is every reason to believe that that is what he told investigators. But, they didn't report anything about it. 

So, there are just two possibilities, and this Okkom talking to you, and you mess with that friar at your own ridk:

Either this was a murder investigation in which the only thing police asked the suspect is whether he did it, and no other questions, OR Oswald told them stuff, and they didn't write it down or report it. 

So, what do you think? I think Oswald told them stuff that they didn't write it down or report it. 

Why did they cover it up? It must have been extremely exonerating, such as that he was aided to get to the theater by a police officer. 

The absence of this information really is a smoking gun. It shows the fundamental corruption of the investigation. And I have to think that the one who steered it that way and was really controlling the interrogation wasn't Fritz but rather Bookhout. It's no accident that Bookhout attended every single session. 

I want to finish by citing something from Fritz' testimony when he was asked about Oswald going to Mexico City. He only reported that Oswald denied going there. Now, don't you think that if he heard Oswald reverse himself about Mexico City at the last interrogation, he would have said so?

Mr. BALL. What did he say when he was asked if he had been to Mexico City?
Mr. FRITZ. He said he had not been. He did say he had been to Russia, he was in Russia, I believe he said for some time.
Mr. BALL. He said he had not been in Mexico City?
Mr. FRITZ. At that time he told me he had not been in Mexico City.
Mr. BALL. Who asked the question whether or not he had been to Mexico City?
Mr. FRITZ. Mr. Hosty. I wouldn't have known anything about Mexico City.

Mr. BALL. In his first interview you say that Hosty asked him if he had been to Mexico.
Mr. FRITZ. Yes; he did.
Mr. BALL. He denied it. Did he say he had been at Tijuana once?
Mr. FRITZ. I don't remember him saying he had been at Tijuana.
Mr. BALL. What did you remember him saying?
Mr. FRITZ. I remember him saying he had been to Russia, told me he had been to Russia, and was over there for some time, and he told Hosty that he had a record of that, knew he had been there, told him a number of things so far as that is concerned.
Mr. BALL. What did he say about Mexico?
Mr. FRITZ. Mexico, I don't remember him admitting that he had been to any part of Mexico.
Mr. BALL. What do you remember him saying?
Mr. FRITZ. I remember he said he did not go to Mexico City and I don't remember him saying he ever went to Tijuana. 

That's it. That is the totality of what Fritz reported about what Oswald said about Mexico City. Don't you think that if he heard Oswald reverse himself and admit going there, he would have said so?

I'll rephrase that: It is obvious that Ball was trying to learn everything Oswald said about Mexico City, so if Fritz knew that Oswald reversed himself and admitted going there, then Fritz was being evasive and duplicitous to Ball. In other words, Fritz was obstructing justice. 

So, why didn't Fritz want to say that Oswald finally admitted going to Mexico City? BECAUSE OSWALD NEVER ADMITTED GOING THERE, AND THE TESTIMONY OF HARRY HOLMES WAS A COMPLETE FABRICATION. 

There really isn't any way around that. 

So why, in the year of Our Lord 2019, does anyone still think that Oswald shot Kennedy?