Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview

[Martin Weidmann]

Rather than marvel at the relentless nothingness of your posts, let's see if you can actually take part in a debate without simply parroting your spoon-fed beliefs.

Why do you think Oswald included Shelley as part of his alibi?

Why do you think Lovelady and Shelley lied about their movements after the assassination?

As completely expected "Richard Smith" is unable and unwilling to answer. In fact, it's a mystery to me why he is even a member of this forum, as all he does is post his superficial opinions as if they are conclusive and then completely fails to provide any kind of evidence to back them up. Instead of having a reasonable discussion, all he does to cover up his own incompetence to provide proof for his idiotic claims is ridicule those who debunk his BS time after time.

[Dan O'meara]

As completely expected "Richard Smith" is unable and unwilling to answer. In fact, it's a mystery to me why he is even a member of this forum, as all he does is post his superficial opinions as if they are conclusive and then completely fails to provide any kind of evidence to back them up. Instead of having a reasonable discussion, all he does to cover up his own incompetence to provide proof for his idiotic claims is ridicule those who debunk his BS time after time.

I watched a documentary recently about the West Memphis 3, about three teenagers accused of the truly shocking murders of three little kids. As I understood it, during the trial a bunch of people came forward for one of the accused saying that he was at a wrestling meet, many miles away from the murder location, at the time of the murders. About six or seven people gave him a cast iron alibi - but the jury just ignored this evidence!!
I found this totally mind-blowing. My only understanding of it was that the members of the jury 'wanted' him to be guilty and no amount of evidence was strong enough to change this desire for his guilt. And that really reminds me of Nutters like Tricky Dicky.
To be honest though, it reminds me of most of the members of this forum regardless of their outlook on the case. They've got their theory and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to change that.
At least most members will debate what they believe, providing evidence and arguments to support their views. Tricky just parrots his spoon-fed beliefs and I'm not surprised he's avoiding any kind of debate because I show him up for what he really is every time he tries.

[Jack Nessan]

I watched a documentary recently about the West Memphis 3, about three teenagers accused of the truly shocking murders of three little kids. As I understood it, during the trial a bunch of people came forward for one of the accused saying that he was at a wrestling meet, many miles away from the murder location, at the time of the murders. About six or seven people gave him a cast iron alibi - but the jury just ignored this evidence!!
I found this totally mind-blowing. My only understanding of it was that the members of the jury 'wanted' him to be guilty and no amount of evidence was strong enough to change this desire for his guilt. And that really reminds me of Nutters like Tricky Dicky.
To be honest though, it reminds me of most of the members of this forum regardless of their outlook on the case. They've got their theory and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to change that.
At least most members will debate what they believe, providing evidence and arguments to support their views. Tricky just parrots his spoon-fed beliefs and I'm not surprised he's avoiding any kind of debate because I show him up for what he really is every time he tries.

To be honest though, it reminds me of most of the members of this forum regardless of their outlook on the case. They've got their theory and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to change that.

You do or do not see yourself in that statement?

[Richard Smith]

Rather than marvel at the relentless nothingness of your posts, let's see if you can actually take part in a debate without simply parroting your spoon-fed beliefs.

Why do you think Oswald included Shelley as part of his alibi?

Why do you think Lovelady and Shelley lied about their movements after the assassination?

Imagine a double murderer who had just assassinated the president making up an alibi.  We don't need to put that one to Sherlock Holmes.  Your second question contains a false premise since no one lied but if you think individuals were intentionally lying then perhaps you should explain what you are suggesting.  That they were "in" on the plot?  LOL.  Human beings do not have scientific level of recall of events.  That does not mean they are "lying."  Again, though, if you think you have proven that Oswald could not have made his way from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed, and that casts doubt on his guilt, why not provide that information to the DPD instead of wasting time on the Internet?  What are you hoping happens here?  It's 55 pages and counting with no end in sight.

[Jack Nessan]

Imagine a double murderer who had just assassinated the president making up an alibi.  We don't need to put that one to Sherlock Holmes.  Your second question contains a false premise since no one lied but if you think individuals were intentionally lying then perhaps you should explain what you are suggesting.  That they were "in" on the plot?  LOL.  Human beings do not have scientific level of recall of events.  That does not mean they are "lying."  Again, though, if you think you have proven that Oswald could not have made his way from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed, and that casts doubt on his guilt, why not provide that information to the DPD instead of wasting time on the Internet?  What are you hoping happens here?  It's 55 pages and counting with no end in sight.

Exactly, three policemen and Shelley and Lovelady all relate a different story but only Adams and Styles are to be believed. The depth of the conspiracy is incredible. It even encompasses issues that really don't matter. If A and S had never left the 4th floor at all, what difference would it make. Oswald was coming down the stairs, not up them. Dan has them leaving so early that they do not encounter anyone doing anything. What is the point of this whole exercise? Proving Shelley and Lovelady lied about what?

[Richard Smith]

I watched a documentary recently about the West Memphis 3, about three teenagers accused of the truly shocking murders of three little kids. As I understood it, during the trial a bunch of people came forward for one of the accused saying that he was at a wrestling meet, many miles away from the murder location, at the time of the murders. About six or seven people gave him a cast iron alibi - but the jury just ignored this evidence!!
I found this totally mind-blowing. My only understanding of it was that the members of the jury 'wanted' him to be guilty and no amount of evidence was strong enough to change this desire for his guilt. And that really reminds me of Nutters like Tricky Dicky.
To be honest though, it reminds me of most of the members of this forum regardless of their outlook on the case. They've got their theory and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to change that.
At least most members will debate what they believe, providing evidence and arguments to support their views. Tricky just parrots his spoon-fed beliefs and I'm not surprised he's avoiding any kind of debate because I show him up for what he really is every time he tries.

Innocent people sometimes confess.  Almost every guilty person claims innocence.  On occasion the criminal justice system does get it wrong.  Mostly it gets it right.  All this deflection, however, has no relevance on Oswald's situation.  The evidence that places him on the 6th floor as the assassin is lightyears more persuasive than any alibi.   His gun, his prints, his bullet casings, witness ID, no credible alibi, his nutty political background, flight from the scene, involvement in the murder of a police officer less than an hour later, resisting arrest, his rifle is missing etc.  It is a drumbeat of guilt for any objective person.  Oswald provides no explanation for this evidence and his actions.  Instead he is caught in numerous lies. The fact that in the history of criminal justice, some innocent people have been convicted does not create a scintilla of doubt as to Oswald's guilt (and you picked a particularly dubious case as an example since the Memphis 3 were never cleared of the crime.  To the contrary, many people still believe the opposite since they were convicted twice.  Rather the justice system was coerced by Hollywood pressure to release them after an Alford plea which means they plead guilty to be released.).  It's the evidence that convinces me of Oswald's guilt.  I see no reasonable or credible explanation much less actual supporting evidence that lends itself to explaining this evidence in any other way except that Oswald was the assassin.  Not because I'm closed minded.  Why would I or anyone else have a bias against Oswald or a conspiracy?  For example, I accept that there was a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln and that John Wilkes Booth was the assassin because (AGAIN) that is what the evidence demonstrates.  That conclusion has nothing to do with bias or being closed minded.  Suggesting that others don't accept your theories because they are closed minded or just accept what they are told is an immature way to dismiss dissenting views.

[Martin Weidmann]

Innocent people sometimes confess.  Almost every guilty person claims innocence.  On occasion the criminal justice system does get it wrong.  Mostly it gets it right.  All this deflection, however, has no relevance on Oswald's situation.  The evidence that places him on the 6th floor as the assassin is lightyears more persuasive than any alibi.   His gun, his prints, his bullet casings, witness ID, no credible alibi, his nutty political background, flight from the scene, involvement in the murder of a police officer less than an hour later, resisting arrest, his rifle is missing etc.  It is a drumbeat of guilt for any objective person.  Oswald provides no explanation for this evidence and his actions.  Instead he is caught in numerous lies. The fact that in the history of criminal justice, some innocent people have been convicted does not create a scintilla of doubt as to Oswald's guilt (and you picked a particularly dubious case as an example since the Memphis 3 were never cleared of the crime.  To the contrary, many people still believe the opposite since they were convicted twice.  Rather the justice system was coerced by Hollywood pressure to release them after an Alford plea which means they plead guilty to be released.).  It's the evidence that convinces me of Oswald's guilt.  I see no reasonable or credible explanation much less actual supporting evidence that lends itself to explaining this evidence in any other way except that Oswald was the assassin.  Not because I'm closed minded.  Why would I or anyone else have a bias against Oswald or a conspiracy?  For example, I accept that there was a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln and that John Wilkes Booth was the assassin because (AGAIN) that is what the evidence demonstrates.  That conclusion has nothing to do with bias or being closed minded.  Suggesting that others don't accept your theories because they are closed minded or just accept what they are told is an immature way to dismiss dissenting views.

Suggesting that others don't accept your theories because they are closed minded or just accept what they are told is an immature way to dismiss dissenting views.

Says the guy who will never discuss, accept or question anything that does not agree with his theory. Immature indeed     

The evidence that places him on the 6th floor as the assassin is lightyears more persuasive than any alibi.   His gun, his prints, his bullet casings, witness ID, no credible alibi, his nutty political background, flight from the scene, involvement in the murder of a police officer less than an hour later, resisting arrest, his rifle is missing etc.  It is a drumbeat of guilt for any objective person.

Says the least objective guy who will never understand or accept that none of this so-called "evidence" is even remotely conclusive and none of it places Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired.

If any reader wants confirmation of this basic fact, just ask "Richard Smith" how any of the "evidence" actually proves that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Go ahead, just ask him..... but don't be surprised (if you get an answer at all) that all you get is a lot of rhetorical BS that's not supported by any evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

Imagine a double murderer who had just assassinated the president making up an alibi.  We don't need to put that one to Sherlock Holmes.  Your second question contains a false premise since no one lied but if you think individuals were intentionally lying then perhaps you should explain what you are suggesting.  That they were "in" on the plot?  LOL.  Human beings do not have scientific level of recall of events.  That does not mean they are "lying."  Again, though, if you think you have proven that Oswald could not have made his way from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed, and that casts doubt on his guilt, why not provide that information to the DPD instead of wasting time on the Internet?  What are you hoping happens here?  It's 55 pages and counting with no end in sight.

Again, though, if you think you have proven that Oswald could not have made his way from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed

Classic LN reversal of the burden of proof.

The LN "logic" being that if Oswald could have made his way down the stairs unnoticed, then that's what he did! Never mind that the LNs or the WC could actually even prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired to begin with.

Pathetic!