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

Did Oswald tell police that he was working as an FBI informant in the plot to kill Kennedy and that he knew all about it? Did he also tell them that he was a CIA agent working to develop a bio-weapon to kill Castro?

No matter what anybody believes about that, there is no evidence that he said any such things. In fact, the evidence contradicts the idea. When allowed to speak to the whole world, Oswald said that he didn't know what the whole situation was about, that nobody had told him anything, and that all he knew was that he was being accused of murdering a policeman. So, if that's what he told the world, why assume that he said anything different to police? And why assume that if he had said something different to police that they would have let him speak to the whole world?

However, Oswald underwent 13 hours of interrogation, and he obviously must have said more than what they have ever revealed. I have pointed out repeatedly that authorities have never said a word about what Oswald said about his movement from his room to the theater. After releasing so much detail about what he said about how he got from Dealey Plaza to his room, including the cab fare, they said nothing about his story of how he got from his room on Beckley to the theater. I understand that they claimed he walked there by way of 10th and Patton, but the question is: what did he say? And it must have come up. Right? He must have said something. I mean: they were accusing him of killing Tippit during that very time, and we know he denied killing Tippit. Repeatedly, and with our own ears, we have heard him deny doing that. So, when they first accused him of killing Tippit, he must have said, "I couldn't have killed him because I was at such and such doing so and so." It is only natural for anybody, when falsely accused of a wrongdoing, to provide an alibi. So, Oswald must have given them one.  How come we have never heard it? I don't know but I suspect that whatever he told them about that was so damaging to the official story that they completely avoided the subject. They weren't going to make up something false and say that he said it. So instead, they just said nothing. 

So, the fact that they have never told us- in 51 years- what Oswald said about his transit from his room to the theater is striking proof that Oswald gave answers and provided information that has never been revealed.  And, I have absolutely no doubt about that.

However, did that information include information about the assassination?  Did he tell them that he was involved in it as an undercover agent? Did he tell them that he tried to stop it? Did he tell them who did it and who was involved and how it went down?  

I maintain there is no rational basis to believe any of that, and it is for the reasons I gave, that when given the opportunity to speak to the whole world Oswald said nothing about it and denied knowing anything about it AND the very fact that they allowed him to speak to the whole world tells you that they had no fear of him saying anything except a denial. Would they have put him before world microphones if they thought he was going to announce to the world that Malcolm Wallace, LBJ's hitman, killed Kennedy?

So, he wasn't saying anything like that to them in private. That we can be sure of. Regarding the assassination, there is every good reason to believe that Oswald told police in private the exact same thing that he told the whole world: that he knew nothing about it.

But, in private, he may have dropped some names and mentioned some contacts he had within the intelligence community. That's only a speculation, but I think it's reasonable.  But, I don't mean in relation to the assassination, and I certainly don't mean in relation to any alleged plot to poison Castro with a cancer-causing agent.

And again, it's all speculation. The fact is: all we know about Oswald said are the things that we can hear him saying, plus the things that others reported him to say. And of those things, I think the most reliable are the Fritz Notes precisely because they were never released or published or even acknowledged at the time. But, beyond that, there is only rank speculation which, unfortunately, is not worth much. 

However, there is also the claim that Oswald said nothing about his role in the assassination as an informant and under-cover agent because he couldn't trust any of the people who were questioning him.  But, it's ironic because these same people claim that Oswald put it in writing in a note to James Hosty, but, when he was sitting across from Hosty at the interrogation, he clammed up. That makes no sense. If he could put it in writing to Hosty, why couldn't he tell it to Hosty?

The whole idea that Oswald would lie to the police with the intention of later reversing himself and telling the truth is ridiculous. 

"Listen, guys, everything I've told you up to now is bull shit. Yes, I know about the assassination. I know all about it.  I was in on it. Well, not really; I was really just an informant- pretending to be in on it.  They, the real culprits, thought I was in on it, but I was really just going along with them as an under-cover agent. You might say I was acting. Had 'em fooled too; you should have seen me. And this followed my other gig in which I was involved in helping to develop a bio-weapon to use against Castro, to give him cancer, to kill him with it, but that's a whole other story. I couldn't tell you right off because I thought that if I did they would kill my family and my mistress, Judyth Baker."

But, if he thought that, how could he ever tell them? What would cause the threat to go away? 

Does it sound preposterous? That's because it is. And I mean preposterous through and through, the whole story, from beginning to end. It's time to just dump it. As I waded through Haslam's book, it was hard to suppress nausea. What is wrong with people to believe all that stuff? Credulity, gullibility, fancifulness- what a horrible state of mind.