MT: Let me put it this way:
Barry Ernst say's that she signed it and that it's her handwriting on the document. From what I see, the handwriting for "there" was made by the same had as the signature on the last page. As such, there is no reason not assign "there" and the signature and the other writing as Adams'. If you want to argue that it's not Adams' writing on that page, or any other, you're free to do so. But don't think anyone else is going to notice unless you can provide any evidence.
Remember this?
MW: And finally it should be noted that on 04/04/64 WC assistant counsel Leon Hubert wrote a remarkable memo in which he refered to a recent staff meeting in which he had objected to what he called "editing of the transcripts of depositions". In the same memo he also complains about the practice of waiving signatures by the witnesses and advocates to have witnesses read and sign the transcript even if it contains errors, which according to him can later be rectified.
Now, isn't it just remarkable that Victoria Adams initially waived signing her testimony, as that would save her from having to return to sign it, only to be confronted by somebody at work a few days later who insisted she would sign after all. And isn't it just as remarkable that Victoria Adams told Barry Ernest that she never testified that she saw Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor?
Btw, How do you reconcile these two statements?;
Nothing needs to be reconciled. Her signature is on the transcript, and her writing (it matches the signature) is on the page in question. That is, she accepted what's in the transcript, and what's on that specific page. In light of this, any internal policy arguments within the WC staff do not matter. Any policy changes made by the WC staff as a result of those arguments do not matter. Whatever Adams herself may have initially decided to do does not matter. In the end, she signed off on it and she put her correction on the page with the Shelley/Lovelady bit. Or, as I previously said, "Adams handwritten corrections and signature on the original transcript trump any objection that you or Ernst can come up with." All the innuendo and insinuation that you can muster won't change that one bit."
Barry Ernst say's that she signed it and that it's her handwriting on the document.
Amazing, isn't it? You rely on Ernest for confirming that Adams signed the document, yet at the same time you dismiss whatever else Adams told Ernest....
The only issues I've taken with Adams' WC testimony is the amount of time she put between the last shot and her proceeding to the stairs. The only problem I see with what Ernest said she told him was the amount of initial delay and whether or not she remembered seeing Shelley and Lovelady. How that gets turned into "whatever else Adams told Ernest" is a mystery. Or, maybe the better way to say it is that you've misrepresented what I've already said.
If she signed off on it, that's what she said that she said.
Sure about that? Perhaps you should have a closer look at WC assistant counsel Leon Hubert's memo.....
If any of the WC staff attorneys edited a deposition, that does not prove or demonstrate that they edited all of them. Nor does it demonstrate or prove that they edited Adams' testimony without her knowledge or consent. Again, the presence of her writing on the page with her recollection of seeing Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor proves that she read the page--and tried to correct something in it. And the lack of any other editing on the page demonstrates that she did not see an issue with the inccusion of her Lovelady-Shelley recollection. And the combination of her edit on that page along with her signature at the end of the transcript shows that she signed off on both. Including the Shelley-Lovelady bit.
In the face of this, any argument based on "well, Hubert wrote...." or "well, Adams didn't remember saying...." is simply pointless.
And you seem to be struggling to make up your mind about Dorothy Garner as well;
First you dismiss what Garner said by qualifying a letter from the office of a United States Attorney to the Chief Counsel of a Presidential Commission as "hearsay"
Then you have the ladies (by which I pressume you mean Adams, Styles and Garner) nowhere near the stairs, implying that Garner made up what she told Stroud (and Barry Ernest)
And then you have Garner simply misinterpreting what she saw, when she was at the stairs;
So, what is it? Was Garner not near the stairs? Or was she near the stairs but lied to Stroud, or did Stroud perhaps lie to Rankin? Or was she near the stairs and saw Truly coming down and somehow figured he was coming up?
I'm not the one struggling here. I pointed out that Truly said he encountered a DPD officer on the 4th floor as he was descending from the roof. I posited that Garner could have seen some part of this, then later associated the encounter that she saw with the initial Truly/Baker ascent when she later heard about it. I've also said that Adams and Styles left the 4th floor office window minutes rather than seconds after the last shot. IIRC, that's what Styles herself has said.
I said nothing about Garner's location at any time. You're trying so hard to create some kind of gotcha that you confused yourself.
Plus, there is this:
First you dismiss what Garner said by qualifying a letter from the office of a United States Attorney to the Chief Counsel of a Presidential Commission as "hearsay"
That's because it is hearsay,
by definition.
And how about this beauty;
MT: For my "alternative timeline" to work, all I need are two things:
1.) For Adams to have left later than she remembered (IIRC, Styles thought it was minutes, not seconds, after the last shot was fired)
2.) for Garner to have misinterpreted seeing a later pairing of Truly and a DPD officer with the original Truly/Baker stairmaster episode.
Only to say a little bit later;
MT:I don't think you can really make a simple timeline out of all this.
So, on the one hand you claim your timeline would work, and on the other hand you say you can't make a simple timeline. Pray tell, how can a timeline, you say you can't make, still work?
You no doubt notice the quotation marks around the words "alternative timeline". I used those for two reasons. First, I was quoting what you said. Second, I used the quotes because I wouldn't call what I was doing a "timeline", "alternative" or not. In a roundabout way, you stuffed your own words into my mouth, then tried to cast shade what what I'd said.. except it was you who'd said it! I figure this counts as another instance where you've
misrepresented me. Or maybe you misrepresented yourself this time.
And, no, I don't think the data is anywhere near complete enough to create a simple timeline that includes everyone. However, the evidence creates constraints that limit when certain events in witness statements could have occurred. That being said, the police activity around the TSBD in the shooting's aftermath can be accounted for relatively well if imperfectly. In part, that's because any number of cops involved at the scene have been interviewed over the years. More importantly, we have the radio logs as a near-real time reference.
Apart from the obvious fact that you are making a number of erroneous assumptions - the main one being that the officer who told Adams to return to the building was Harkness - the real reason why you can't make a simple timeline is that the parts you've challenged in my timeline don't compute with the other known facts making it impossible to make a conclusive timeline.
Btw, the officer that told Adams to return to the building would IMO never have allowed her to run to the front of the building, if he was indeed locking down the building. Instead he would have told her to go back in the same way she came out (at the back) where he could have seen her go in, rather than risking she would not re-enter, out of his sight, at the front entrance.
I never assumed that Harkness was the officer who ordered Adams and Styles back to the building, nor have I claimed so. Once again, you've
misrepresented what I've said.
As for your take on the officer, I don't get that he would have needed her to actually go in, just that she stayed on the premises. He doesn't necessarily need to keep them inside; in fact, it might be a bad idea if there's an armed, desperate man inside. He just wanted them to remain at the facility.
