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

I am old enough to remember what it was like at the time of the JFK assassination, the overwhelming certainty that Oswald was the lone assassin which filled the airways like an ether. It really did seem like the only thing left to do was flip the switch and fry the scumbag. 

But, it was all an illusion. There was no rock-solid case against Oswald. There was no case against him at all. There was no evidence that would have stood up in court. The trial of Oswald would have become a trial of the FBI.

The most important thing to realize is how quickly Oswald would have convinced his lawyer or lawyers of his innocence and how ardently they would have fought for him.  And the authorities knew that. It’s why they couldn’t let him see a lawyer.

And just think: to this very day, they are withholding exonerating information from us, for instance, what Oswald told investigators about how he got to the theater. Have you thought about the fact that they told us that Oswald said that he rode the bus and then the cab to get home, but from there, there’s no “Oswald said.” It’s just what they’re saying, which is that he started walking without a destination until he encountered Tippit, who they presume stopped him because he fit the description of Kennedy’s killer. But wait. If Tippit suspected Oswald of being JFK’s killer, he would have called for backup BEFORE he engaged with him.  And he wouldn’t have just started talking to him; he would have subdued him on the spot. With gun drawn, he would have ordered him to lie down on the ground, or stand against the wall, or what-have-you.  A cop does not approach an armed killer any other way. You subdue him first; then ask him questions. You treat him according to your suspicions; you don’t wait until you confirm those suspicions.

Of course, I'm speaking theoretically because it wasn't even Oswald there. But, whoever the guy was, Tippit did not suspect him of shooting JFK. But, it could have been someone who was involved, and it may be that Tippit was involved. There are prominent researchers, whom I respect, such as John Armstrong, who think so.  

So, where was Oswald going when he was supposedly stopped at 10^th and Patton. Warren Commission David Belin said, “Mexico” which he pulled from straight out his ass.  And even if there were some basis for it other than his wild imagination, the question would still remain: what was he doing at 10^th and Patton if he was heading to Mexico? How does that get you to Mexico?

To this day, they act as though Oswald’s leaving work was incriminating; a sure sign of his guilt. Consider the jackknife that Roy Truly did: When Officer Baker saw Oswald entering the lunch room at 12:31, Truly was completely sure that Oswald could not have been involved. Baker had Oswald at gunpoint, so obviously his suspicions were sky-high. And let’s take a moment and compare Baker’s action to Tippit’s. Baker did what I described a moment ago: he drew his gun. He took no chances with Oswald. So, why didn’t Tippit draw his gun if he suspected the same?

So, Baker had his gun drawn, but reportedly, Oswald never said a word. The only thing that made Baker move on was the reassurance he got from Truly that Oswald was OK. Truly told him, “this man works for me.” But, he must have said it in a way that conveyed, “he could never have done it.”

So, at 12:31, Truly did not have the slightest suspicion about Oswald. But then, a few minutes later, Oswald’s absence triggered him to suspect him of being the killer?  

First, who was it that informed Truly that Oswald left? It certainly wasn’t any of the grunt workers or “order fillers.” They would not have given any thought to whether Oswald was there or not.  It must have been Bill Shelley.  But if Truly didn’t suspect Oswald when he saw him, what sense does it make to start suspecting him a few minutes later just because his whereabouts were unknown?

Supposedly, Shelley took a roll call of his workers, but did he? Wouldn’t they have to be all huddled together to do that?  What does it take to suspect someone of murder? Is their mere absence from a roll call enough to make you think, “Oh My God! He must have killed Kennedy!”

The rifle was found on the 6^th floor, and supposedly, from the unit number on it, they traced it Klien’s Sporting Goods in Chicago. But remember, this was a pre-digital era. There were no computers and no digital records.  Supposedly, from paper records alone, they were able to do that, as if from paper records alone, one could track any gun in America.

But, let’s remember that Oswald not only never admitted ordering the rifle, he vehemently denied it. There is absolutely no basis to think that he would have stopped denying it. There is absolutely no basis to think that his lawyer or lawyers would not have challenged and disputed the claim that he ordered the rifle. The FBI could glibly claim that he did it- to the press. But, could they defend it in court? That Oswald even had a P.O. Box would most likely have been disputed. He didn’t need one. He had no reason to have one. And he never admitted having one. Do you realize that there was no mention of a P.O. box until after he was dead?

The fact that they refrained from showing him any of the evidence about him having ordered the rifle speaks volumes. Why didn’t they use it to force a confession from him? But, they couldn’t show him that evidence because they (meaning the FBI) knew it was phony, and they certainly knew that he would deny it. Not only did they now show it to him; they didn’t even make him aware of its existence. They did show him one of the Backyard photos, and look how he responded. It would have been the same with the other stuff.

Oswald’s alibi would have been the centerpiece of his defense. WHERE HE WAS AT 12:30 was the single most important issue in the case. Obviously, he would have told his lawyers that he was standing in the entranceway with other employees. It’s what he told the police, and he would have told his lawyers the same thing. And then the whole issue of the Altgens photo would have become the top legal concern- and not just whether it was Oswald in the photo, but whether the photo was altered to hide that fact. And of course, it was.

And as I mentioned recently, the FBI’s so-called print evidence would have been strongly disputed by the Defense, and it would have gotten them, the FBI, in a lot of trouble.

Do you realize that the case against Oswald was so bad that not only would his innocence have come out, but the criminality of the FBI would have come out as well?

They couldn’t let Oswald have a trial. Are you kidding? They couldn’t even let him have a lawyer. They would have had to kill the lawyer.