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

I am going to address, again, the reasons why there is NO CHANCE that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the JFK shooting. 

This has come up again because of a certain someone who is wavering, and I have written this for him. And I am reminded of the mock trial in Houston where Larry Rivera was set to testify and show his overlays to the jury, which would have won the case, but at the last minute, Attorneys Bill Simpich and Larry Schnapf pulled Rivera and replaced him with another guy who claimed that Oswald was in the 2nd floor lunch room during the shooting. The majority of the jurors voted to convict, and that is a disgrace for Oswald's so-called Defense team.   

Oswald SAID he ate lunch in the 1st floor lunch room, early in the lunch break, at a time when James Jarman and Harold Norman were in the vicinity, and by 12:30, they were perched up on the 5th floor, and we have a picture of them there. Oswald ALWAYS ate in the 1st floor lunch room because he stored his lunch there on the shelf, and there was usually a newspaper there, which he liked to read. If you know that Oswald was innocent, that he was telling the truth about not killing Kennedy or Tippit, then you have no reason to think he lied about where he ate lunch. OSWALD DEFENDERS NEED TO BELIEVE OSWALD. I shouldn't have to say it. 

The entire story about Oswald having been in the 2nd floor lunch room during the motorcade was derived from one source: Earl Golz, and the year was 1978. Until then, no one had ever proposed it. And he proposed it in the Dallas Morning News. Do you realize that the Dallas Morning News has been at the journalistic forefront to defend the official story? So, why would they publish such a story exonerating Oswald? It was to distract attention away from Oswald in the doorway which was in the spotlight again because of the HSCA.  And the DMN knew there was no danger in expounding an exonerating story that was false because it would just muddy the waters- and it did.  

Earl Golz claimed to have interviewed Carolyn Arnold, who  supposedly decided to tell the truth, finally, after over 5000 days.  Did Golz really talk to Carolyn Arnold? Who knows? She never came forward publicly. It may have been an impostor.   

But, according to Golz, she denied telling the FBI on 11/26/63 that she believed she saw Oswald at the doorway shortly before the shooting. And she ignored completely that she signed a statement in March 1964 claiming that she didn't see Oswald at all on 11/22/63. So now, she was telling a different story a third time.  But keep in mind, as Professor Gerald McKnight pointed out in his book Breach of Trust that there is no reason to doubt her first story. There is no reason to think this naive, innocent 19 year old girl had any inclination to lie to the FBI. And there is no reason to think that the FBI made it up. Why would they make up a story exonerating Oswald? It was only after she realized she had touched the third rail by being truthful that she scrambled to save herself. So, her first revision in March 1964 needs to be rejected, and her second revision in November 1978 needs to be rejected with extreme prejudice. And I mean to the point of questioning whether it was even her. Golz may have been set up.  But regardless, TWO OTHER SECRETARIES CLAIMED TO LEAVE THE BUILDING WITH HER, PASSING THROUGH THE 2ND FLOOR LUNCH ROOM, AND THEY DENIED THAT OSWALD WAS THERE. THEIR NAMES ARE VIRGIE RACHLEY AND BETTY DRAGOO. 

Carolyn Arnold reportedly did an interview with Anthony Summers, but in 1988, she was invited to state her convictions on camera for the film series The Men Who Killed Kennedy, and she refused. 

Again, it is PREPOSTEROUS to think this pregnant 19 year old girl did not tell the truth when first asked about it by the FBI. As Dr. McKnight pointed out in his book, it is only her first statement that has any credibility. 

But, there is another basis on which to reject the 2nd floor lunch room claim and that is the testimony of Officer Marrion Baker, who said that when he first saw Oswald at 12:31, that Oswald was on the move. He was moving from the vestibule into the 2nd floor lunch room. Therefore, Oswald was just getting to that lunch room when Baker first saw him. So, IF OSWALD WAS JUST GETTING TO THE 2ND FLOOR LUNCH ROOM AT 12:31, HOW COULD HE BE THERE AT 12:30? I realize that it's physically possible that he could have been there at 12:30, departed, and then returned at 12:31, but there is no basis to claim that, and that mean Friar Occum will slash your throat with his razor if you try. Furthermore, the 1978 story had Oswald sitting in the lunch room, sprawled in front of the remnants of his lunch, and planted there. You can hardly go from that to him arriving at the lunch room a minute later. All the indications are that Oswald was just reaching the 2nd floor lunch room, for the first time, at 12:31 when Baker first saw him, and there is no reason to twist it into something else. 

But, in addition, there is all the evidence that Oswald was in the doorway, particularly the photographic evidence, but also Oswald's own statement to investigators that he was "out with Billy Shelley in front." And remember that he must have meant during the assassination because Shelley was not out front after the assassination. He left immediately with Lovelady to scour the railway area, as many did, and then they re-entered the building through the back door.  They never returned to the front.

This matter is settled. If you don't know that Oswald was in the doorway during the JFK assassination, then you don't know anything about the JFK assassination. It is 2020, and Oswald in the doorway is written in stone. We have identified the man, as well as his clothes. There is no disputing it, and there is no denying it - unless you are a blithering idiot or an Op.