Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview

[Dan O'meara]

While the Nutters run for the hills, I'd like to make a final point about the lies of Lovelady and Shelley.
Reading through the wildly varying statements provided by them there can be little doubt both men are lying about their movements in the aftermath of the immediate shooting. Just to put the last nail in that particular coffin, I came across this in Speer's website:

(George and Patricia Nash-penned article The Other Witnesses, published in the 10-12-64 issue of The New Leader) "Bill Shelley. Oswald's foreman. and others who worked in the building told us that Charles Givens was missing from the sixth floor work crew. Shelley said he was sent outside in an unsuccessful attempt to locate Givens. and there was talk of sending out an 'all-points bulletin' on the missing man... (On the timing of Baker's entry into the building) "Bill Shelley told us that Truly and Baker entered five or six minutes after the shooting."

This is the most brazen aspect of their lying - the insistence that Baker and Truly did not enter the TSBD building for 3 - 6 minutes after the shooting. It's unbelievable they got away with repeatedly telling this whopper, but it is the fact they were not questioned about this lie in their WC testimonies that really stands out. For part of the Commission's investigation, time trials were undertaken by Baker and Truly to establish how quickly they got up to the second floor lunchroom. The results of these time trials were well known to the Commission but when both Shelley and Lovelady openly stated that Baker and Truly were still outside the TSBD building at least 3 minutes after the shooting (in fact, Baker and Truly reached the lunchroom in less than half this time), the Commission never questioned them about this.

Instead, the Commission used the timings given by Shelley and Lovelady to undermine the testimony of Adams!!

This should be a major source of concern about the validity of their testimonies but the WC hearings are such a monumental travesty it hardly gets noticed.
It should be interesting to see how the Nutters try to negotiate this particular hurdle.
 

[Richard Smith]

"It shows a "lack of character" to conclude that Oswald was guilty based upon the evidence.  Wow."

This shows how devious you are.
The "lack of character" reference was with regard to your constant peddling of the lie that the evidence places Oswald in the SN at 12:30pm taking the shots.
It's a lie - a deliberate falsehood. You know that the evidence does not show this yet you constantly peddle this lie.
This does indeed show a lack of character. As does your devious attempt to squirm out of your lie.
Luckily, your deviousness is as pathetic as your "logic".

If a thing has been done, that is the absolute best proof that it can be done.  Nothing further is required to prove that point.

 
And hear we have a prime example of "Smith's Logic"

IF OSWALD DID IT, THAT IS THE ABSOLUTE BEST PROOF THAT IT CAN BE DONE. NOTHING FURTHER IS REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT POINT!!

A child would be embarrassed by this logic.

Past experience of crushing you in front of the forum has taught me a very simple lesson - introduce some evidence and ask you a question you can't answer:

Where are Adams and Styles in the Dillard picture?

Goodbye 

You sound like a petulant child who is slowly learning that there is no Santa Claus and is throwing a tantrum.  Very amusing.  Try this.  Here is what a mature adult would do if they actually believed they had evidence that suggests a conspiracy to kill JFK or creates doubt as to the historically accepted fact that Oswald did it.  Take your argument/evidence to the NY Times or the DPD or FBI and explain that you have proven a conspiracy to assassinate JFK or at least created doubt or whatever you are calling this endless pedantic nonsense.   Let us know what they say.  I bet it's not that you have "crushed" the official conclusion.  Or are they all still "in" on the plot?  LOL.

How is it a "lie" that the evidence places Oswald in the SN?  Perhaps you have a different interpretation of that evidence, but it is not a "lie" to characterize that evidence as placing him there.  Every official investigation has come to that conclusion based on the evidence.  None have accepted your silly theory.   It is immature to get that emotional when someone disagrees with your pedantic nonsense.  Even the most outlandish CTer must acknowledge that the evidence suggests Oswald was in the SN.  Why?  Because even in a conspiracy to frame Oswald, the evidence would have been planted to frame Oswald for the crime by placing him in the SN!  That would be the entire purpose of planting the evidence in a conspiracy.  To place Oswald in the SN.

As a result, the difference of opinion is not the sufficiency of the evidence to place Oswald in the SN as you stupidly suggest.   It is not a "lie" to conclude that the evidence places him in the SN.  It was either left by Oswald during the commission of the crime or by a fantasy conspirator to frame him for that crime.   Now assume the fetal position and try to think like an adult for once since I realize this is going beyond the short attention span of the younger generation.  If you were planning to frame someone for the assassination of the president and spent months or years doing so, what would be arguably the most important factor to control?  Here is a hint.  In a conspiracy scenario, no plan to frame Oswald would allow the patsy to freely move about the building and be in the 2nd floor lunchroom at the moment of the assassination.  They wouldn't leave that to chance.  The location of the "patsy" at the moment the crime was committed to ensure that he doesn't have an alibi is critical to that plan!   Good grief.   No one can seriously suggest that in a conspiracy scenario that involves framing Oswald that he would be allowed to sit in the 2nd floor lunchroom or move about the building of his own free will including doing the most likely thing in that circumstance like going outside to watch the motorcade with his coworkers.  It is so absurd as to be laughable.  Try to see the forest for once instead of just the trees.  The evidence places Oswald in the SN.   If it was planted to frame Oswald, the conspirators would have ensured that he was not roaming about the building.   His movements would be controlled either with or without his cooperation.  He is not sitting in the 2nd floor lunchroom, and therefore, all your pedantic nonsense on this topic (most of which is a projection of your own subjective opinions onto imprecise testimony and witness recollection to reach a desired outcome) is superfluous.

[Jack Nessan]

Exactly right what is not seen but should be seen is important.

Yeah Jack, that's what I'm saying.
If Adams and Styles don't immediately race down the steps then they should still be at the window. But they're not. They're nowhere to be seen.
The reason for this is because, as Adams states in various different ways, within a few short seconds after the last shot is taken both she and Styles are running towards the back stairs.
I know you think she's lying, but the Dillard pic shows otherwise.

What is known is Adams and styles were behind Dorman. If you can’t see Dorman, you definitely would not be able to see Adams and Styles.

 
This is a piece of logic Dick would be proud of.
And your fixation with Harold Norman is really odd.

You don’t know if they are there or not.

 
They are definitely not there Jack.
What a bizarre thing to say!

One last time - in the last crop of the Dillard pic I posted there is a woman (either Yola Hopson or Ruth Nelson) stood in the set of windows to the west of the open window Adams and Styles were looking out of before they raced downstairs (I won't bother posting the pic again). She is stood as close to the window as Adams would need to be to see down towards the underpass and we can see her from the knees upwards as the window sills are only a few inches off the floor.
But when we look at the open window Adams and Styles and Dorman are supposed to be at there is absolutely no sign of them.
How far back in the room would they need to be before we couldn't see them ?
It would have to be a few feet at least. Why would they be stood a few feet back from the window? How could they see down towards the underpass if they were stood a few feet back in the room?
The scenario you are presenting is completely nuts (mind you, you are a Nutter).
It's incomprehensible how you can stand by such a ridiculous assertion and still consider yourself serious.

Adams isn't there because she and Styles are already racing towards the back stairs. She decides to race downstairs immediately after the third shot and before the limo has reached the underpass. Less than five seconds later the Dillard pic is taken, proving Adams was true to her words.
Your denial of this evidence is disappointing.

You can stand back from the window and see the roadway. The window is only 14 inches off the ground.

I know it's possible to see the road if you stand back from the window. That's not what I was saying - you're starting to come across a bit like Tricky Dicky.
The point I was making was that she would need to be stood close to the window to see towards the underpass as it's off to her right.
You know that's the point I was making as well.
Once this sort of trickiness is required it's a sure sign you're not interested in evidence, reason or honest debate.

Here's a question I will be requiring an answer to - in your  scenario, how far back from the window are Adams and Styles stood?

From day 1 Shelley states he went across the street to the park area where he encountered Calvery. So based on your timeline it would be impossible for him to be at the elevator.

How so?
I too accept that after the first shot Shelley ran across the Elm Street extension and encountered Calvery.

Det Sawyer, Sgt Harkness, Patrolman Barnett, and Shelley and Lovelady provide time stamps that coincide with the movement of Adams and Styles.

Sawyer, Barnett and Harkness have absolutely nothing to do with providing timestamps for the movements of Adams and Styles.
Only Shelley and Lovelady do, and they were lying to cover their tracks.

But only hers and not anybody else's, they are being called liars.

In regard to the movements of Adams and Styles, the only people I'm calling liars are Shelley and Lovelady.

True. They said it was at 5 minutes post shot, not one minute later.

I'm not going to ask you to cite where Shelley and Lovelady state they were near the elevators "5 minutes post shot".
We both know they said nothing of the sort.
You think Adams is a liar - you don't believe her when she says she took off at a run after the last shot and before the limo reached the underpass. Even though  the Dillard pic is photographic evidence perfectly confirming this account.
It is also the only way the Stroud document makes sense - for Adams and Styles to go down the stairs before Truly and Baker come up them, and for neither pair to see the other, can only happen if Adams and Styles race off immediately. It can happen no other way.
So ignore all this evidence like a good Nutter.

I think Shelley and Lovelady are liars but you think they're solid, but we've never really established which version of events you think they're telling the truth about.
Is it the version where Lovelady never leaves the steps and both men immediately re-enter the TSBD after the shooting and never go down to the railroad yard?
Or is it the version where they both race down to where the limo was and stay there for about 5 five minutes? - adding the time it would take to get there, get back to the TSBD and then to the elevators, it's difficult to understand how they could be seen by Adams 5 minutes after the shooting.
Or is it the version where they accompany some police officers to the railroad yard and stay there for ten minutes? - again, it's very difficult to imagine how they could be at the elevators within 5 five minutes, as you keep on insisting.
Or is it the version where they see Baker and Truly still stood outside the TSBD at least 3 minutes after the shooting, and they spend a few more minutes at the "little old island" then down at the railroad yard?
Or is it the version where Lovelady doesn't go back inside the TSBD building for 15 to 20 minutes after the shooting?


Which version is it Jack?

But they're not. They're nowhere to be seen

Once again that is correct. How do you know they are gone and not just out of sight in the room? No different than Norman and Dorman can not be seen in the photo. They should be seen in the windows and are not, but neither Dorman or Norman are heading down the steps to go outside.

They are definitely not there Jack.
What a bizarre thing to say!

No, if they are behind Dorman and Dorman cannot be seen, why would you think you would be able to see Adams and Styles or know if they have left or not?
 
absolutely no sign of them.
How far back in the room would they need to be before we couldn't see them ?

Ask Garner. Far enough to not be seen through the window to their left.

The point I was making was that she would need to be stood close to the window to see towards the underpass as it's off to her right.
You know that's the point I was making as well.

No they would not to just look out the window. 

Here's a question I will be requiring an answer to - in your  scenario, how far back from the window are Adams and Styles stood?

Far enough to not be visible. How far back was Norman and Dorman. Both are known to be there but are not seen in your photo. To imply Adams and Styles have definitely left the floor is just wishful thinking and cannot be known by looking at the photo.

 

Sawyer, Barnett and Harkness have absolutely nothing to do with providing timestamps for the movements of Adams and Styles.
Only Shelley and Lovelady do, and they were lying to cover their tracks.

The statements of Adams and Styles contain interactions with the police, so the timestamps of the police most certainly do matter.

Shelley and Lovelady state they went out to see what was happening and then returned. At no time does that place them back at the elevator within a minute of the assassination. They do not return until an estimated 5 minutes later which makes all the movements of the various people mesh.

I'm not going to ask you to cite where Shelley and Lovelady state they were near the elevators "5 minutes post shot".

Not a problem -----FBI March 19—Lovelady
“William Shelley and myself stayed in that area for approximately 5 minutes when we then re-entered the Depository building by the side door located on the west side of the building.”

It is also the only way the Stroud document makes sense - for Adams and Styles to go down the stairs before Truly and Baker come up them, and for neither pair to see the other, can only happen if Adams and Styles race off immediately. It can happen no other way.
So ignore all this evidence like a good Nutter.

No, or Adams and Styles leave later and then their travels flange up with all the various statements.
 
I think Shelley and Lovelady are liars but you think they're solid, but we've never really established which version of events you think they're telling the truth about.
Which version is it Jack?
 
Their WC testimony and Affidavits,
Stick to the basics and do not get caught up in time altered memories.

 
 

[Jack Nessan]

While the Nutters run for the hills, I'd like to make a final point about the lies of Lovelady and Shelley.
Reading through the wildly varying statements provided by them there can be little doubt both men are lying about their movements in the aftermath of the immediate shooting. Just to put the last nail in that particular coffin, I came across this in Speer's website:

(George and Patricia Nash-penned article The Other Witnesses, published in the 10-12-64 issue of The New Leader) "Bill Shelley. Oswald's foreman. and others who worked in the building told us that Charles Givens was missing from the sixth floor work crew. Shelley said he was sent outside in an unsuccessful attempt to locate Givens. and there was talk of sending out an 'all-points bulletin' on the missing man... (On the timing of Baker's entry into the building) "Bill Shelley told us that Truly and Baker entered five or six minutes after the shooting."

This is the most brazen aspect of their lying - the insistence that Baker and Truly did not enter the TSBD building for 3 - 6 minutes after the shooting. It's unbelievable they got away with repeatedly telling this whopper, but it is the fact they were not questioned about this lie in their WC testimonies that really stands out. For part of the Commission's investigation, time trials were undertaken by Baker and Truly to establish how quickly they got up to the second floor lunchroom. The results of these time trials were well known to the Commission but when both Shelley and Lovelady openly stated that Baker and Truly were still outside the TSBD building at least 3 minutes after the shooting (in fact, Baker and Truly reached the lunchroom in less than half this time), the Commission never questioned them about this.

Instead, the Commission used the timings given by Shelley and Lovelady to undermine the testimony of Adams!!

This should be a major source of concern about the validity of their testimonies but the WC hearings are such a monumental travesty it hardly gets noticed.
It should be interesting to see how the Nutters try to negotiate this particular hurdle.

Why does this even matter? Baker entering the TSBD is on film and is a known time event. Adams and Styles "immediately" turned out to be a number of minutes.

[Martin Weidmann]

You sound like a petulant child who is slowly learning that there is no Santa Claus and is throwing a tantrum.  Very amusing.  Try this.  Here is what a mature adult would do if they actually believed they had evidence that suggests a conspiracy to kill JFK or creates doubt as to the historically accepted fact that Oswald did it.  Take your argument/evidence to the NY Times or the DPD or FBI and explain that you have proven a conspiracy to assassinate JFK or at least created doubt or whatever you are calling this endless pedantic nonsense.   Let us know what they say.  I bet it's not that you have "crushed" the official conclusion.  Or are they all still "in" on the plot?  LOL.

How is it a "lie" that the evidence places Oswald in the SN?  Perhaps you have a different interpretation of that evidence, but it is not a "lie" to characterize that evidence as placing him there.  Every official investigation has come to that conclusion based on the evidence.  None have accepted your silly theory.   It is immature to get that emotional when someone disagrees with your pedantic nonsense.  Even the most outlandish CTer must acknowledge that the evidence suggests Oswald was in the SN.  Why?  Because even in a conspiracy to frame Oswald, the evidence would have been planted to frame Oswald for the crime by placing him in the SN!  That would be the entire purpose of planting the evidence in a conspiracy.  To place Oswald in the SN.

As a result, the difference of opinion is not the sufficiency of the evidence to place Oswald in the SN as you stupidly suggest.   It is not a "lie" to conclude that the evidence places him in the SN.  It was either left by Oswald during the commission of the crime or by a fantasy conspirator to frame him for that crime.   Now assume the fetal position and try to think like an adult for once since I realize this is going beyond the short attention span of the younger generation.  If you were planning to frame someone for the assassination of the president and spent months or years doing so, what would be arguably the most important factor to control?  Here is a hint.  In a conspiracy scenario, no plan to frame Oswald would allow the patsy to freely move about the building and be in the 2nd floor lunchroom at the moment of the assassination.  They wouldn't leave that to chance.  The location of the "patsy" at the moment the crime was committed to ensure that he doesn't have an alibi is critical to that plan!   Good grief.   No one can seriously suggest that in a conspiracy scenario that involves framing Oswald that he would be allowed to sit in the 2nd floor lunchroom or move about the building of his own free will including doing the most likely thing in that circumstance like going outside to watch the motorcade with his coworkers.  It is so absurd as to be laughable.  Try to see the forest for once instead of just the trees.  The evidence places Oswald in the SN.   If it was planted to frame Oswald, the conspirators would have ensured that he was not roaming about the building.   His movements would be controlled either with or without his cooperation.  He is not sitting in the 2nd floor lunchroom, and therefore, all your pedantic nonsense on this topic (most of which is a projection of your own subjective opinions onto imprecise testimony and witness recollection to reach a desired outcome) is superfluous.

You sound like a petulant child who is slowly learning that there is no Santa Claus and is throwing a tantrum.  Very amusing.  Try this.  Here is what a mature adult would do if they actually believed they had evidence that suggests a conspiracy to kill JFK or creates doubt as to the historically accepted fact that Oswald did it.  Take your argument/evidence to the NY Times or the DPD or FBI and explain that you have proven a conspiracy to assassinate JFK or at least created doubt or whatever you are calling this endless pedantic nonsense.   Let us know what they say.  I bet it's not that you have "crushed" the official conclusion.  Or are they all still "in" on the plot?  LOL.

And here we have one of the classic ways in which "Richard Smith" responds when he gets stuck and can not provide a conclusive or persuasive answer to a simple question.

Dan never claimed to "have proven a conspiracy to assassinate JFK". He merely exposed discrepancies in the statements made by Shelley and Lovelady. The usual "take it to the press or the authorities" is completely idiotic.

Btw, there is no "historically accepted fact that Oswald did it". The only historically accepted fact there really is that there has always been a majority of people who doubt or simply do not believe the official narrative!


How is it a "lie" that the evidence places Oswald in the SN?  Perhaps you have a different interpretation of that evidence, but it is not a "lie" to characterize that evidence as placing him there.  Every official investigation has come to that conclusion based on the evidence.  None have accepted your silly theory.   It is immature to get that emotional when someone disagrees with your pedantic nonsense.  Even the most outlandish CTer must acknowledge that the evidence suggests Oswald was in the SN.  Why?  Because even in a conspiracy to frame Oswald, the evidence would have been planted to frame Oswald for the crime by placing him in the SN!  That would be the entire purpose of planting the evidence in a conspiracy.  To place Oswald in the SN.

So much BS...  It's a lie that "the evidence places Oswald in the SN", because no such evidence exists. Not even the presence of a rifle that allegedly belonged to Oswald is actual evidence that Oswald himself was in the SN when the shots were fired. No flawed appeal to authority will change that fact!

[Martin Weidmann]

Why does this even matter? Baker entering the TSBD is on film and is a known time event. Adams and Styles "immediately" turned out to be a number of minutes.

Really? And how did Styles manage to re-enter the TSBD through the front door before the building was sealed of at around 12:36?

[Jack Nessan]

Really? And how did Styles manage to re-enter the TSBD through the front door before the building was sealed of at around 12:36?

I thought you weren't going to discuss this with me anymore, not a man of your word?

[Martin Weidmann]

I thought you weren't going to discuss this with me anymore, not a man of your word?

Asking you for clarification of a bogus claim is not the same as a discussion.

So, no answer.? ... How unsurprisingly predictable!