Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview

[Jack Nessan]

You could just as easily be talking Chinese. You are not making any kind of sense. West of the building was a parking space and railroad tracks. The grassy knoll was much further away. You clearly have never been to the scene of the crime!

This seems about par. That is right, you do not know what it means and no amount of explaining seems to be able to reach you. Maybe that is because you are so unbiased in assessing evidence.

You do not seem to even understand that the front was locked down at 12:37. The back at 12:36. Those are different times. They were turned back by the cops Harkness placed there at 12:36.

Can you be more stupid than this? Styles re-entered the TSBD at the front entrance before it was sealed off. If it was sealed of at 12:37, it means that Styles entered the building prior to 12:37.

You, however claim that Adams and Styles were stopped by and officer at the back of the building at 12:36 and were told to re-enter.

You don't even understand you've just destroyed your own argument. It's hilarious!

How about explain the argument? Make sure you use your timeline. Give up on it? You know with your imaginary cop?

Apparently, you did not know that Adams and Styles in their statements stated they were told by a cop to go back at 12:36. You think they just went back on their own. Adams was stopped before she reentered the building.

[Jack Nessan]

Questions are never meaningless, except perhaps to those who can not answer them.

If your and John's fairytale is true, you should be able to easily answer the questions asked, right? So why don't you?

Sure they are. Absolutely meaningless.

They have been answered. Over and Over and Over again.

[Martin Weidmann]

How about explain the argument? Make sure you use your timeline. Give up on it? You know with your imaginary cop?

Apparently, you did not know that Adams and Styles in their statements stated they were told by a cop to go back at 12:36. You think they just went back on their own. Adams was stopped before she reentered the building.

How about explain the argument?

Explain what argument?

You know with your imaginary cop?

There is no imaginary cop. There is a fool who thinks there is an imaginary cop.

Apparently, you did not know that Adams and Styles in their statements stated they were told by a cop to go back at 12:36

Well I do know that they never made any such statement.  You just made it up. But, by all means, prove me wrong and show me where they said that?

You think they just went back on their own.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean

Adams was stopped before she reentered the building.

Indeed, but Styles wasn't, which means that she re-entered the building before 12:37!

[Martin Weidmann]

Sure they are. Absolutely meaningless.

They have been answered. Over and Over and Over again.

You just can't answer them again, right?   

Don't you understand just how pathetic you come across?

[Jack Nessan]

How about explain the argument?

Explain what argument?

You know with your imaginary cop?

There is no imaginary cop. There is a fool who thinks there is an imaginary cop.

Apparently, you did not know that Adams and Styles in their statements stated they were told by a cop to go back at 12:36

Well I do know that they never made any such statement.  You just made it up. But, by all means, prove me wrong and show me where they said that?

You think they just went back on their own.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean

Adams was stopped before she reentered the building.

Indeed, but Styles wasn't, which means that she re-entered the building before 12:37!

Typical, nothing to say or add but this useless tripe. Just a second, no, I read it again and sure enough not one thing worth remembering.
--------------------------

Then: MW--”You don't even understand you've just destroyed your own argument.”

 Now: MW-”Explain what argument?”

Really? Completely unable to track a simple thought from one post to the next. Anything to ask a question. It is not a good place for you to be, trying to hide behind ignorance.

The only question you should be asking is would the rest of us help you understand the assassination. I know John and myself have been trying to help you, it would be easier if we were explaining it to a box of rocks.

In all your time here playing the role of the fool, have you ever added one piece of information that helps understand what transpired. Not one I am aware of. Just asking meaningless questions and claiming no one will answer them. That is what is truly pathetic. You obviously cannot stop waffling in between thoughts and contradicting yourself to figure it out on your own. 

JN--"Adams was stopped before she reentered the building."
 
MW--"Indeed, but Styles wasn't, which means that she re-entered the building before 12:37!"

Which proves what Sawyer stated that he locked down the front at 12:37. They walked from the back after being told to go back by Sgt Harkness and his men at 12:36 to return to the front.
----------------------------------------------
MW--”You just can't answer them again, right?”

No, it just means you need a babysitter to hold your hand and dumb it down for you, but even that is not helping. I don’t know how to make it simpler. Whatever can be done? 

Here is a question for you. How can this be worded to get you past your own ignorance?

Having an imaginary cop in your timeline is over now?

[Martin Weidmann]

Typical, nothing to say or add but this useless tripe. Just a second, no, I read it again and sure enough not one thing worth remembering.
--------------------------

Then: MW--”You don't even understand you've just destroyed your own argument.”

 Now: MW-”Explain what argument?”

Really? Completely unable to track a simple thought from one post to the next. Anything to ask a question. It is not a good place for you to be, trying to hide behind ignorance.

The only question you should be asking is would the rest of us help you understand the assassination. I know John and myself have been trying to help you, it would be easier if we were explaining it to a box of rocks.

In all your time here playing the role of the fool, have you ever added one piece of information that helps understand what transpired. Not one I am aware of. Just asking meaningless questions and claiming no one will answer them. That is what is truly pathetic. You obviously cannot stop waffling in between thoughts and contradicting yourself to figure it out on your own. 

JN--"Adams was stopped before she reentered the building."
 
MW--"Indeed, but Styles wasn't, which means that she re-entered the building before 12:37!"

Which proves what Sawyer stated that he locked down the front at 12:37. They walked from the back after being told to go back by Sgt Harkness and his men at 12:36 to return to the front.
----------------------------------------------
MW--”You just can't answer them again, right?”

No, it just means you need a babysitter to hold your hand and dumb it down for you, but even that is not helping. I don’t know how to make it simpler. Whatever can be done? 

Here is a question for you. How can this be worded to get you past your own ignorance?

Having an imaginary cop in your timeline is over now?

I'm sorry, did you just say something? Oh yeah, I see you have continued to ignore, misrepresent or dismiss completely what I have been telling you.

Evasive, making stuff up, not being able to present a shred of evidence for any of your bogus claims and a total inability to have a normal discussion..... and let's not forget making a total fool of yourself.

You could have at least tried to be somewhat original in your little ad hom attack instead of merely projecting, but it seems even that is too much to expect from you.

You have claimed (without evidence) that Adams and Styles stayed at the 4th floor for four minutes after the shots, despite the fact that Adams and Garner contradict that, but your main idiotic claim is that Harkness sealed of the back of the TSBD at 12:36 and was the officer who told Adams and Styles to go back in. In doing so, you completely ignore the fact that Shelley and Lovelady confirm they saw police officers running to the area west of the building and checking cars when they got there about two minutes after the shots. Obviously, you offer not a shred of evidence for the alleged Harkness/Adams/Styles encounter, because it does not exist. But even worse, we know that Styles re-entered the building at the front entrance before it was locked down at 12:37.

So, what you want the readers of this forum to believe (again without offering any evidence) is that Harkness, at the back of the building, told the women to return to the building, and that they did not simply turn around and went back by way of the loading dock, but instead decided to walk/run (in high heels) three sides of the building to enter at the front entrance, and did so within less than a minute. Really? You don't understand just how crazy that claim is?

This "discussion" with you is utterly pathetic and not worth to waste anymore time on, but by all means keep on trolling and provoke massive laughter.

[Martin Weidmann]

Bump for David Von Pein.

After a few pages of time wasting with a guy who makes up stuff as he goes along and makes wild claims for which he can not provide a shred of evidence, I was wondering if you cared to resume our conversation of two days ago.

This was my recent post in that conversation.

Well, Martin, it sure would be ideal if I could offer up a photo or a film of Oswald shooting Kennedy. And it would be equally as handy if I could offer up a sixth-floor witness who happened to see Lee Oswald as he was pulling the trigger. But, unfortunately, Oswald got extremely lucky to have the entire sixth floor to himself for that brief period of time it took him to kill the President. So what else is there except a certain amount of "inference" and "guesswork" to be done when it comes to what you want me to "prove"? There are no sixth-floor witnesses....period.

But what we DO have are the things Oswald left behind --- HIS rifle, HIS prints at the exact spot where JFK's assassin was located (i.e., deep within the Sniper's Nest), and the EMPTY 38-inch paper bag with HIS prints on it.

And there's also the fact that Oswald had no provable alibi for the exact time of the assassination. (Is there any other Depository employee who can be placed in that "No Alibi" category? I doubt that there is.)

Therefore, why on Earth shouldn't I be pointing a finger of guilt at Lee Harvey Oswald, the man to whom all of the physical evidence leads?

Should I just IGNORE all of that evidence or pretend it's all been "planted" there to frame an innocent Oswald? Sorry, but that idea is beyond silly and foolish (IMHO).

Well, Martin, it sure would be ideal if I could offer up a photo or a film of Oswald shooting Kennedy. And it would be equally as handy if I could offer up a sixth-floor witness who happened to see Lee Oswald as he was pulling the trigger. But, unfortunately, Oswald got extremely lucky to have the entire sixth floor to himself for that brief period of time it took him to kill the President. So what else is there except a certain amount of "inference" and "guesswork" to be done when it comes to what you want me to "prove"? There are no sixth-floor witnesses....period.

So, you agree there is no real direct evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired? That's progress.

But what we DO have are the things Oswald left behind --- HIS rifle, HIS prints at the exact spot where JFK's assassin was located (i.e., deep within the Sniper's Nest), and the EMPTY 38-inch paper bag with HIS prints on it.

And how exactly do you know that it was Oswald who left those things behind? You talk about "his rifle" but even if he did purchase it and even if he was photographed with it, in late March 1963, how do you know that particular rifle was still in his possession on 11/22/63 for him to leave behind? As far as "his prints at the exact spot..." goes, the evidentiary value of prints found of an employee who's job it was to open and move boxes on that particular floor is pretty low. The "empty 38-inch paper  bag" is IMO a somewhat mysterious and contentious item. That bag would have had to be made at the TSBD, yet nobody saw Oswald ever near or operating the wrapping machine. Frazier did not see Oswald carry a paper bag to Irving on Thursday and he denies to this day that the bag found at the TSBD was not the bag he had seen Oswald carry on Friday morning. I can't explain how Oswald's print got on that bag, but I do have several theories about it. Theories, however, are not evidence.

To conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired based on these three points is like building a house on quicksand. I won't go into the issue of the rifle purchase at this point, but that's another pandora's box.

And there's also the fact that Oswald had no provable alibi for the exact time of the assassination. (Is there any other Depository employee who can be placed in that "No Alibi" category? I doubt that there is.)

As we don't have a verbatim record of what Oswald actually said to his interrogators we will never know for sure if Oswald had a provable alibi or not. The summary reports by the interrogators, written days later, simply do not provide sufficient information to make any kind of sound determination (IMO). Besides, not having an alibi doesn't automatically make somebody guilty!

Therefore, why on Earth shouldn't I be pointing a finger of guilt at Lee Harvey Oswald, the man to whom all of the physical evidence leads?

I do agree that what scant physical evidence there is can indeed be linked to Oswald, however, we don't know if there was other evidence pointing in another direction as well or not. We have to rely totally on what the WC provided and they, in turn, for a large part had to rely on what Hoover's FBI provided to them. Over the years it has become very clear that there are all sorts of evidentiary problems with the physical evidence that we, most likely, will never be able to resolve.

A few examples;

There is no chain of custody for C399 before it reached the FBI lab in Washington. O.V. Wright denies the bullet now in evidence is the bullet he handled. In his deposition, Tomlinson was never shown C399 and asked to identify it. And then there is FBI agent Odum who denies having ever shown C399 to Tomlinson and Wright in April 1964, despite what Shanklin wrote in his airtel.

Then there are the bullet fragments that were allegedly found in the limo. We will never know for certain if those fragments did in fact come from the limo. Frazier and his team were supposed to examine the limo as a crime scene, but before he could get to the Secret Service garage two men (I'm writing this from memory and can't instantly recall their names) went through the limo, not only contaminating the crime scene but also allegedly removing evidence without first photographing it in situ. When Frazier finally arrived at the garage he was just given the fragments and told they had come from the limo. In any other murder case, this kind of "evidence" would be instantly declared inadmissible.

And then we have the three shells found at the sniper's nest. It is a matter of record that Fritz, when he entered the nest, picked up the shells and later threw them back on the floor again. The evidentiary problem is of course that we don't and can't know for sure if the shells he threw on the floor were the same ones that he picked up. Now, before you get all worked up about this, you do know, don't you, that the purpose of the chain of custody rules is to preserve the evidence and project it, as much as possible, against any kind of manipulation?

And the paper bag wasn't seen by the first six officers in the nest and then was seen by several others. Studebaker failed to photograph it in situ and although it was allegedly folded up when it was found, it was carried out of the TSBD unfolded and upside down, allowing items that were perhaps in the bag to fall out. Later that same bag was photographed at the FBI lab in Washington lying next to the blanket taken from Ruth Paine's garage which was, to say the least, a violation of the way evidence is supposed to be protected against cross contamination.

Obviously I am playing Devil's advocate here and I could go on and on, but you get the picture. So, on a superficial level the physical evidence may point to Oswald but upon closer inspection things get IMO very blurred and convoluted.

Should I just IGNORE all of that evidence or pretend it's all been "planted" there to frame an innocent Oswald? Sorry, but that idea is beyond silly and foolish (IMHO).

Nobody is asking you to ignore any of the evidence and you don't have to pretend that all of it has been planted, because that's certainly not the case IMO. What you perhaps should do is deal with the evidence honestly with an open mind and in a less superficial manner and consider the possibility that some of the evidence could have been manipulated after the fact to wrap the case around a man who was already deemed to be guilty before the first pieces of evidence were collected and examined.

[David Von Pein]

Hello again Martin,

As you no doubt already know, it's my opinion that absolutely none of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases has been faked or manufactured or planted, and as such it is fairly obvious that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of the two murders he was charged with committing on 11/22/63.

I also fully realize, of course, that most (if not all) people who lean toward believing in a conspiracy in the Kennedy and Tippit cases think that it is highly likely that at least some (and probably most) of the physical evidence that points toward Oswald was in some way tainted by the police and/or FBI following the two murders. So that's a disagreement that is always going to exist and will likely never be reconciled to please both sides of the debate.

But in addition to the physical evidence itself, a good deal of attention also needs to be focused on Oswald's own actions and movements on both November 21st and 22nd---which are things that I don't think even the most imaginative conspiracy theorist on the planet could possibly believe were "manufactured" by the authorities).

And when those actions and movements are examined, it becomes quite clear that Mr. Oswald did several unusual things on each of those days, such as:

.... Going out to Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Texas, with Buell Frazier on a Thursday (instead of his normal Friday).

.... Telling a lie about why he wanted a ride to Irving on Thursday, Nov. 21st. (And it's fairly clear that Oswald's "curtain rods" story was, indeed, nothing but a lie.)

.... Bringing a large-ish paper package with him to work on 11/22 (and telling a lie to Frazier about the contents of that package).

.... Walking ahead of Frazier into the TSBD Building on the morning of 11/22.

.... Asking for an elevator to be sent back up to him on an upper floor of the TSBD at about 11:45 AM on 11/22. (Now, why do you suppose Oswald wanted that to be done?)

.... Leaving the TSBD Building within about three minutes of the Presidential shooting and then proceeding to walk several blocks east on Elm Street in order to get on a bus that he only stayed on for a matter of a few minutes before getting off and catching a cab at the Greyhound bus terminal (which was likely the only time in his life that Lee Oswald paid for a taxicab ride while in the United States of America).

.... And after getting into William Whaley's cab on 11/22, where does Oswald tell the driver to drop him off? Not at the front doorstep of 1026 N. Beckley (which Whaley could have easily done), but instead Oswald tells Whaley to drop him off three whole blocks beyond his Beckley roominghouse.

.... Oswald then backtracks to his rented room, grabs his revolver and a jacket, and quickly leaves the roominghouse.

... Oswald then shoots and kills police officer J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street.
(Continual reminder for conspiracy theorists ----> Click Here.)

.... Oswald is next seen acting "funny" and "scared" while he has his back turned to the wailing police cars on Jefferson Boulevard in front of Johnny Brewer's shoe store.

.... Then it's on to the Texas Theater for LHO, as he sneaks in without bothering to pay for the cheap ticket.

.... Oswald then pulls his gun on police officer McDonald inside the theater.

.... And the comments made by Oswald at the time of his arrest in the theater certainly don't conjure up visions of an "innocent patsy" either.

So, as we can see, Oswald's movements certainly can't be ignored or swept under the rug---because, in my opinion, Lee Oswald's own movements and actions on Nov. 21 and Nov. 22 add up to the actions of a guilty person.

And when we add the physical evidence (plus the Tippit eyewitnesses) to Oswald's own guilty-like actions, then the only conceivable way to exonerate Mr. Oswald for the murders of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit would be to do what most conspiracy theorists do, and that is to make the following bold claim (sans any proof at all):

All of that evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald was fake!

Also....

The chain of possession/custody for Bullet CE399 is, in my opinion, a lot stronger than most conspiracists believe it is. And it got even stronger in June 2022 when researcher Steve Roe discovered Elmer Todd's initials on the bullet:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-initials-of-elmer-todd-are-on-ce399.html

More discussion on CE399's chain of custody HERE and HERE.

Lots more proof of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt at the link below:

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com