Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview

[Michael Capasse]

So, instead of taking my up on my offer to discuss the time line (which I already expected) you edit a previous post to include a childish ad hom attack on me. How pathetic, but also how absolutely typical of the LNs.

It's becoming more and more clear they beyond a massive amount of dubious rhetoric, filled with half-truths and complete misrepresentations of the evidence, the LNs are utterly incapable to actually argue their case in an honest conversation. All guys like you do, on a daily basis, is telling the same lies and misrepresentations hoping that some day they will actually become true.

You can't even get it straight that I am not a conspiracy theorist. I have never had and never will put forward a conspiracy theory, because that's not where my interests lie. My only purpose is to find out if the case against Oswald can indeed withstand scrutiny and obviously if it can't than the only alternative is a conspiracy of some kind, but I'll gladly leave that to others.

Btw, I just had a quick look at part one of Oswald's time line on your sight, and found it filled with assumptions and speculation. Time after time you say things like "I believe", "It's possible", "I assume" and you make claims for which there is not a shred of evidence. The whole saga of Oswald hiding in the snipers nest when Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor is pure fiction. The truth is that you can't place Oswald on the 6th floor anywhere after a couple of minutes past 12 noon. The story about Oswald going down the stairs is also a mere assumption for which there is no evidence. Not only that but your time line simply ignores completely the testimony of Victoria Adams and the information provided by Dorothy Garner. The entire piece is nothing more than blatant propaganda with utter disregard for the truth and the actual available evidence. In other words, it's exactly what I expected from you.

 

[David Von Pein]

All guys like you do, on a daily basis, is [tell] the same lies and misrepresentations hoping that some day they will actually become true.

I've never told any "lies" about the JFK case. (And an "opinion" that doesn't agree with your conspiracy-slanted version of events is not a "lie". I hope you'll keep that fact in mind if you ever decide to call me a liar again in the future.)

You can't even get it straight that I am not a conspiracy theorist.

Yeah, sure, Martin. Whatever you say. 

Btw, I just had a quick look at part one of Oswald's time line on your site, and found it filled with assumptions and speculation. Time after time you say things like "I believe", "It's possible", "I assume" and you make claims for which there is not a shred of evidence.

Well, since there was absolutely nobody else up there on the 6th floor when Oswald was doing the things that I think he did just before 12:30 on 11/22/63, then OF COURSE I've used terms like "I believe" and "It's possible" on my Timeline Page. Isn't that better than saying Oswald "definitely did this" or "positively did that at exactly this time"?

Since there are no 6th-Floor witnesses to anything the assassin did, all I can possibly do is "assume" the things that "I believe" are most certainly "possible" regarding Oswald's exact actions and movements on the sixth floor on 11/22. It's either engaging in some guesswork or just forget about making up a "Timeline" at all. I chose the former option.

Obligatory ----> Duh!!

The whole saga of Oswald hiding in the snipers nest when Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor is pure fiction.

No, it's a reasonable inference (i.e., a good guess) as to where Oswald was located during the few minutes when Bonnie Ray was up there eating his chicken-on-the-bone sandwich lunch.

The truth is that you can't place Oswald on the 6th floor anywhere after a couple of minutes past 12 noon.

Wrong. I can place him in the Sniper's Nest shooting at JFK at exactly 12:30 --- via the witness all CTers love to hate, Howard L. Brennan.

But, like it or not, Brennan (in front of the WC) did positively I.D. Oswald as the assassin.

Plus: Via another "reasonable inference", I can place Oswald on the west side of the sixth floor, holding his Carcano rifle (another wholly "reasonable inference" there), at approximately 12:15 PM. Those reasonable inferences (guesses) come, of course, via the testimony of Arnold Rowland.

The story about Oswald going down the stairs is also a mere assumption for which there is no evidence.

Once again, it's a "reasonable inference" based on the evidence AS A WHOLE, which is telling any reasonable and sensible person looking at that totality of evidence that Lee Oswald (and his rifle) were, indeed, on the sixth floor shooting at the President at exactly 12:30 PM.

And since we have irrefutable proof (via Marrion Baker and Roy Truly) that Mr. Oswald was positively in the second-floor lunchroom (near the back stairway) within just two minutes or so after the President was shot by Oswald and his Carcano, then the reasonable inference to reach here is:

Lee Oswald must have utilized that back staircase between 12:30 PM and 12:32 PM CST on November 22nd. (And this inference/conclusion can easily still be reached regardless of the observations of Dorothy Garner, Victoria Adams, or anyone else. With the simple answer to the Garner/Adams/Styles controversy being: Adams and Styles beat everybody else to the stairs that day.)

[Martin Weidmann]

I've never told any "lies" about the JFK case. (And an "opinion" that doesn't agree with your conspiracy-slanted version of events is not a "lie". I hope you'll keep that fact in mind if you ever decide to call me a liar again in the future.)


Yeah, sure, Martin. Whatever you say. 


Well, since there was absolutely nobody else up there on the 6th floor when Oswald was doing the things that I think he did just before 12:30 on 11/22/63, then OF COURSE I've used terms like "I believe" and "It's possible" on my Timeline Page. Isn't that better than saying Oswald "definitely did this" or "positively did that at exactly this time"?

Since there are no 6th-Floor witnesses to anything the assassin did, all I can possibly do is "assume" the things that "I believe" are most certainly "possible" regarding Oswald's exact actions and movements on the sixth floor on 11/22. It's either engaging in some guesswork or just forget about making up a "Timeline" at all. I chose the former option.

Obligatory ----> Duh!!


No, it's a reasonable inference (i.e., a good guess) as to where Oswald was located during the few minutes when Bonnie Ray was up there eating his chicken-on-the-bone sandwich lunch.


Wrong. I can place him in the Sniper's Nest shooting at JFK at exactly 12:30 --- via the witness all CTers love to hate, Howard L. Brennan.

But, like it or not, Brennan (in front of the WC) did positively I.D. Oswald as the assassin.

Plus: Via another "reasonable inference", I can place Oswald on the west side of the sixth floor, holding his Carcano rifle (another wholly "reasonable inference" there), at approximately 12:15 PM. Those reasonable inferences (guesses) come, of course, via the testimony of Arnold Rowland.


Once again, it's a "reasonable inference" based on the evidence AS A WHOLE, which is telling any reasonable and sensible person looking at that totality of evidence that Lee Oswald (and his rifle) were, indeed, on the sixth floor shooting at the President at exactly 12:30 PM.

And since we have irrefutable proof (via Marrion Baker and Roy Truly) that Mr. Oswald was positively in the second-floor lunchroom (near the back stairway) within just two minutes or so after the President was shot by Oswald and his Carcano, then the reasonable inference to reach here is:

Lee Oswald must have utilized that back staircase between 12:30 PM and 12:32 PM CST on November 22nd. (And this inference/conclusion can easily still be reached regardless of the observations of Dorothy Garner, Victoria Adams, or anyone else. With the simple answer to the Garner/Adams/Styles controversy being: Adams and Styles beat everybody else to the stairs that day.)

I've never told any "lies" about the JFK case. (And an "opinion" that doesn't agree with your conspiracy-slanted version of events is not a "lie". I hope you'll keep that fact in mind if you ever decide to call me a liar again in the future.)

I apologize, David. I am sure you haven't told a lie on purpose. Providing an opinion based on flawed evidence and conclusions isn't a lie when you don't (want to) understand that it isn't true.

Yeah, sure, Martin. Whatever you say. 

So, now you are calling me a liar?

Well, since there was absolutely nobody else up there on the 6th floor when Oswald was doing the things that I think he did just before 12:30 on 11/22/63, then OF COURSE I've used terms like "I believe" and "It's possible" on my Timeline Page. Isn't that better than saying Oswald "definitely did this" or "positively did that at exactly this time"?

Since there are no 6th-Floor witnesses to anything the assassin did, all I can possibly do is "assume" the things that "I believe" are most certainly "possible" regarding Oswald's exact actions and movements on the sixth floor on 11/22. It's either engaging in some guesswork or just forget about making up a "Timeline" at all. I chose the former option.

Obligatory ----> Duh!!

The key element here is that you think what Oswald was doing. Whatever you think, isn't evidence. If you had real evidence you would be saying Oswald "definitely did this" or "positively did that at exactly this time". So, the fact that you don't do that means that you haven't got credible evidence for what you think

But thank you for admitting that your timeline is based on assumptions.

No, it's a reasonable inference (i.e., a good guess) as to where Oswald was located during the few minutes when Bonnie Ray was up there eating his chicken-on-the-bone sandwich lunch.

How can it be a reasonable inference when your timeline is based on assumptions?

Wrong. I can place him in the Sniper's Nest shooting at JFK at exactly 12:30 --- via the witness all CTers love to hate, Howard L. Brennan.

But, like it or not, Brennan (in front of the WC) did positively I.D. Oswald as the assassin.

You mean the guy who lied about where he was sitting and looking when the shots were fired. Who gave a description of the killer that most certainly didn't fit Oswald and who failed to identify Oswald in the line up, only to change his mind after some pressure had been applied to him. The guy who then wrote a book in which he told a different story again... That guy? Sorry, David, but Brennan has no credibility at all. But I can understand why you, in desperation, would go with his statements nevertheless.

Plus: Via another "reasonable inference", I can place Oswald on the west side of the sixth floor, holding his Carcano rifle (another wholly "reasonable inference" there), at approximately 12:15 PM. Those reasonable inferences (guesses) come, of course, via the testimony of Arnold Rowland.

Rowald never identified Oswald. All he saw was a man with a rifle. Calling an inference "reasonable" just because it is useful, doesn't mean it is reasonable at all.

Once again, it's a "reasonable inference" based on the evidence AS A WHOLE, which is telling any reasonable and sensible person looking at that totality of evidence that Lee Oswald (and his rifle) were, indeed, on the sixth floor shooting at the President at exactly 12:30 PM.

So, now you've got a "reasonable inference" based on another "reasonable inference"? What I am trying to figure out is what you mean exactly with "totality of evidence" when you haven't presented a shred of actual evidence at all.

And since we have irrefutable proof (via Marrion Baker and Roy Truly) that Mr. Oswald was positively in the second-floor lunchroom (near the back stairway) within just two minutes or so after the President was shot by Oswald and his Carcano, then the reasonable inference to reach here is:

Lee Oswald must have utilized that back staircase between 12:30 PM and 12:32 PM CST on November 22nd.

Or, alternatively the conclusion is that Oswald never came down the stairs at all and was on the 2nd floor all along, getting a drink.

(And this inference/conclusion can easily still be reached regardless of the observations of Dorothy Garner, Victoria Adams, or anyone else. With the simple answer to the Garner/Adams/Styles controversy being: Adams and Styles beat everybody else to the stairs that day.)

Another inference? Really?

It's more than likely that Adams and Styles did indeed go down the stairs before anybody coming from the 6th floor could have done so. The problem is that a time trial has the shooter arriving at the stairs on the the 6th floor at around 30 seconds after the shots. Adams and Styles started going the stairs at roughly the same time and they didn't hear anybody else coming down behind them. The biggest problem is Dorothy Garner, who told Barry Ernest that she heard the girls going down the stair before Truly and Baker came up. IMO there is no way that Garner would not have seen Oswald or anybody else coming down from the 6th floor. I seriously doubt, all your "reasonable inferences" aside that in fact nobody came down the stairs within 90 seconds after the shots.

But let me ask you this; when you say that Adams and Styles beat everybody else to the stairs, meaning they were ahead of the killer, you must agree that Adams and Styles immediately left the 4th floor window after the last shot. Right? That means that the conclusion of the WC that Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady at the bottom of the stairs was wrong, as those men couldn't possibly have been there at that time. Do you agree?

[David Von Pein]

When you say that Adams and Styles beat everybody else to the stairs, meaning they were ahead of the killer, you must agree that Adams and Styles immediately left the 4th floor window after the last shot. Right? That means that the conclusion of the WC that Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady at the bottom of the stairs was wrong, as those men couldn't possibly have been there at that time. Do you agree?

The "Adams & Styles Beat Everybody Else To The Stairs" conclusion is probably not what happened, IMO. I offered it up in my previous post as merely a POSSIBLE solution to the controversy involving Adams, Styles, and Garner. But, like you said, that "possible" solution brings about other snags and problems---like the Lovelady/Shelley timing.

But we must always keep in mind when evaluating "timeline" type evidence and testimony that nobody on Nov. 22 had a stopwatch to provide any to-the-second exactitude relating to their movements. And that goes for everybody involved---from Adams to Garner to Shelley to Lovelady to Baker.

And although Baker's movements were timed in two re-creations done for the WC, we also must remember that Baker himself said that he probably took LONGER to do the things he did on Nov. 22 itself than he did in his reconstructions in March of '64. So that fact (alone) could affect the "timelines" of multiple people, and it could mean that (just perhaps) Adams & Styles didn't get to the stairs quite as fast as Adams says they did (even if they DID beat Truly & Baker to those same stairs).

Anyway, after evaluating all of the various "timeline" issues associated with the race down the back stairs, it's my own opinion that Adams & Styles were very likely on the stairs only AFTER Truly and Baker had started up those same stairs.

And a possible scenario to account for Dorothy Garner's observations (which first came to light in the Stroud document) would be that Adams & Styles were on the second-floor landing at the precise time when Truly, Baker, and Oswald were all in the lunchroom/vestibule, which would have placed all of those men in a location where they could not have been seen by Adams/Styles. Perhaps that scenario isn't very likely, but it's certainly not impossible. And, in fact, it's a scenario that is even mentioned as a possibility on Page 154 of the Warren Report.

All of my thoughts on the Adams/Styles/Garner Staircase Controversy are archived at my site HERE.

[Tom Scully]

I've never told any "lies" about the JFK case. (And an "opinion" that doesn't agree with your conspiracy-slanted version of events is not a "lie". I hope you'll keep that fact in mind if you ever decide to call me a liar again in the future.)


Yeah, sure, Martin. Whatever you say. 


Well, since there was absolutely nobody else up there on the 6th floor when Oswald was doing the things that I think he did just before 12:30 on 11/22/63, then OF COURSE I've used terms like "I believe" and "It's possible" on my Timeline Page. Isn't that better than saying Oswald "definitely did this" or "positively did that at exactly this time"?

Since there are no 6th-Floor witnesses to anything the assassin did, all I can possibly do is "assume" the things that "I believe" are most certainly "possible" regarding Oswald's exact actions and movements on the sixth floor on 11/22. It's either engaging in some guesswork or just forget about making up a "Timeline" at all. I chose the former option.

Obligatory ----> Duh!!


No, it's a reasonable inference (i.e., a good guess) as to where Oswald was located during the few minutes when Bonnie Ray was up there eating his chicken-on-the-bone sandwich lunch.


Wrong. I can place him in the Sniper's Nest shooting at JFK at exactly 12:30 --- via the witness all CTers love to hate, Howard L. Brennan.

But, like it or not, Brennan (in front of the WC) did positively I.D. Oswald as the assassin.

Plus: Via another "reasonable inference", I can place Oswald on the west side of the sixth floor, holding his Carcano rifle (another wholly "reasonable inference" there), at approximately 12:15 PM. Those reasonable inferences (guesses) come, of course, via the testimony of Arnold Rowland.


Once again, it's a "reasonable inference" based on the evidence AS A WHOLE, which is telling any reasonable and sensible person looking at that totality of evidence that Lee Oswald (and his rifle) were, indeed, on the sixth floor shooting at the President at exactly 12:30 PM.

And since we have irrefutable proof (via Marrion Baker and Roy Truly) that Mr. Oswald was positively in the second-floor lunchroom (near the back stairway) within just two minutes or so after the President was shot by Oswald and his Carcano, then the reasonable inference to reach here is:

Lee Oswald must have utilized that back staircase between 12:30 PM and 12:32 PM CST on November 22nd. (And this inference/conclusion can easily still be reached regardless of the observations of Dorothy Garner, Victoria Adams, or anyone else. With the simple answer to the Garner/Adams/Styles controversy being: Adams and Styles beat everybody else to the stairs that day.)

I'm sorry, David, no!

http://www.22november1963.org.uk/who-saw-oswald-in-the-sixth-floor-window

Of course, you have this to "fall back" on! :

Author Epstein,

Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald - Page 209
books.google.com › books
Edward Jay Epstein · 1978 · ‎Snippet view
Found inside – Page 209
... the rifle arrived in Dallas . Oswald picked it up at the post office and brought it back to his office , where he showed it to one of his fellow employees , Jack Bowen . Things had not been going well for Oswald at Jaggars- Chiles ...

Bowen's sister-in-law...

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3862.msg152757.html#msg152757

"..In the 1966 Irving City Directory, (page image @bottom of this post) Dial Ryder's father-in-law is still listed as residing at 2434 W. 5th, almost directly across from the Frazier-Randall 1963 residence at 2439 W. 5th.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/15159367/peggie-jo-ryder

DPD and or FBI was leaking details of the content of Oswald's wallet(s). Ferrie had allegedly used the alias Bowen.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62253#relPageId=154&search=gill_wray%20bowen%20library%20card
 1. FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section 3, pg 154
Found in: FBI JFK Assassination File (62-109060)
P A G E E TWO FERRIE REINTERVIEWED TODAY AND STATED ALLEGATIION RE OSWALD J r~ BEING IN POSSESSION OF HIS LIBRARY CARD WAS MADE BY JACK_ MARTIN. 4TTORNEY G.
WRAY GILL TOL FERRIE THIS AND STATED GILL/S S SOURCE OF INFORMATION WAS ONE HARDY AVIS, A FOR~~ER NEW ORLEAN) BOUND:' N. r 17 C1'_ li 3 1 END AND ACK PLS HOLD FOR ONE MORE WA 1-38 AM OK FBIWA HFL HOLDIN DL 1-3-7 AM CST OK FBI DL FLL HOLDING

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=233276#relPageId=100&search=gill_wray%20bowen%20library%20card
Bowen stated that on one occasion he was present while OSWALD was discussing obtaining a library card so that he could charge out books on the Russian language at the Public Library.
Bowen told I : J . im that he would have to furnish the library with a reference prior to obtaining a card. BOWEN gave him his full name and address so that OSWALD could use it as a reference.
He did not give OSWALD his own library card and is positive that OSWALD never used hi card to obtain books. BOWEN did state that OSWALD could have secured a library and used BOWEN ' s name.

Roy E. Jones @ 2434 W. 5th, on middle left of page image,
1966 Irving City Directory..."

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3862.msg152705.html#msg152705

"..In 1973, when Grossi (AKA Jack Bowen) and his girlfriend stole a $17,000 motor home in Lodi, CA, the FBI launched an exhaustive investigation, something they showed no sign of doing, here, despite investigators by nature being dismissive of coincidences!

www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=137435#relPageId=1

[Martin Weidmann]

The "Adams & Styles Beat Everybody Else To The Stairs" conclusion is probably not what happened, IMO. I offered it up in my previous post as merely a POSSIBLE solution to the controversy involving Adams, Styles, and Garner. But, like you said, that "possible" solution brings about other snags and problems---like the Lovelady/Shelley timing.

But we must always keep in mind when evaluating "timeline" type evidence and testimony that nobody on Nov. 22 had a stopwatch to provide any to-the-second exactitude relating to their movements. And that goes for everybody involved---from Adams to Garner to Shelley to Lovelady to Baker. (And although Baker's movements were timed in two re-creations done for the WC, we also must remember that Baker himself said that he probably took LONGER to do the things he did on Nov. 22 itself than he did in his reconstructions in March of '64. So that fact (alone) could affect the "timelines" of multiple people, and it could mean that (just perhaps) Adams & Styles didn't get to the stairs quite as fast as Adams says they did (even if they DID beat Truly & Baker to those same stairs).

Anyway, after evaluating all of the various "timeline" issues associated with the race down the back stairs, it's my own opinion that Adams & Styles were very likely on the stairs only AFTER Truly, Baker, and Oswald had started up those same stairs.

And a possible scenario to account for Dorothy Garner's observations that came out in the Stroud document would be that Adams & Styles were on the second-floor landing at the precise time when Truly, Baker, and Oswald were all in the lunchroom/vestibule, which would have placed them in a location where they couldn't have been seen by Adams/Styles. Perhaps that scenario isn't very likely, but it's certainly not impossible.

All of my thoughts on the Adams/Styles/Garner Staircase Controversy are archived at my site HERE.

Anyway, after evaluating all of the various "timeline" issues associated with the race down the back stairs, it's my own opinion that Adams & Styles were very likely on the stairs only AFTER Truly, Baker, and Oswald had started up those same stairs.

But that contradicts what Dororthy Garner said. What I find extremely troubling about this affair is that Belin wasn't interested at all in Adams' offer to do a time trial (according to Adams they even left it out of her testimony), that they did not call Styles and although they did interview Garner several times they ultimately decided to bury the Stroud letter in Adams' file.

And a possible scenario to account for Dorothy Garner's observations that came out in the Stroud document would be that Adams & Styles were on the second-floor landing at the precise time when Truly, Baker, and Oswald were all in the lunchroom/vestibule, which would have placed them in a location where they couldn't have been seen by Adams/Styles. Perhaps that scenario isn't very likely, but it's certainly not impossible.

I agree. It's unlikely but not impossible. It would however destroy the WC conclusion about Adams seeing Lovelady and Shelley on the first floor, because their testimony clearly shows they did not re-enter the annex of the TSBD until at least 5 minutes after the shows (an estimate without a stopwatch, so it could have been more or less).

Another problem with this theory is that Truly was already at the 3rd floor before he noticed Baker wasn't behind him anymore. So, the likelihood that Adams and Styles passed by Truly and Baker, while they were in the 2nd floor lunchroom together is (IMO) remote.

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm, sorry, David, no!

http://www.22november1963.org.uk/who-saw-oswald-in-the-sixth-floor-window

Of course, you have this to "fall back" on! :

Author Epstein,

Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald - Page 209
books.google.com › books
Edward Jay Epstein · 1978 · ‎Snippet view
Found inside – Page 209
... the rifle arrived in Dallas . Oswald picked it up at the post office and brought it back to his office , where he showed it to one of his fellow employees , Jack Bowen . Things had not been going well for Oswald at Jaggars- Chiles ...

I really wish that David, or any other LN, could conclusively place Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 on 11/22/63 because that would close the book on the assassination of Kennedy. Unfortunately, all we get is assumptions disguised as "reasonable  inference".

The problem with assumptions is that with enough of them you can find anybody guilty of anything. Is this really what the most important murder case of the century is coming down to? 

[Tom Scully]

I really wish that David, or any other LN, could conclusively place Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 on 11/22/63 because that would close the book on the assassination of Kennedy. Unfortunately, all we get is assumptions disguised as "reasonable  inference".

The problem with assumptions is that with enough of them you can find anybody guilty of anything. Is this really what the most important murder case of the century is coming down to?

We know two things as direct results of my research, instigated by my curiousity spurred on by my refusal to adopt David von Pein's "case closed" stance to the JFK Assassination Investigation.

AFAIK, I discovered what William Hoyt Shelley looked like and that Dial Ryder was the uncle of Jack Bowen's son (Why didn't the FBI discover it and inform the WC?). Are we better off knowing such things? Isn't that what this pursuit is really all about...reaching conclusions based on maximum awareness and not concluding where reasonable doubt  persists? Is it mere coincidence that brothers-in-law Bowen and Ryder are associated with cementing "Oswald and the rifle" despite neither having to testify to that?

BTW, the FBI didn't identify who the other Bowen, the one Albert Osbourne was impersonating, despite reporting that two agents had searched the Chester County, PA newspaper morgues less than two years after this...

I did, using the information provided in the Warren report,

Loads slowly,
https://web.archive.org/web/20170828042556/http://jfk.education/node/16
Bowen or Osborne, "just one of those things?"
Submitted by Admin on Sat, 12/12/2015 -
....
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/wh25_ce_2195.pdf