Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview

[Dan O'meara]

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.

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.

Yet again with the child-like attempt to be devious. Are you not embarrassed by this strategy?
Everyone can see that I didn't ask - why would Oswald make up an alibi?
I asked this question:

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

It's a very simple question but you have to pretend you don't understand it.
In Reply#426 I examine Oswald's alibi in detail and it is from this analysis that the question about Shelley arises.
In your fantasy, Oswald has shot and killed JFK. The most incriminating action Oswald takes after the assassination is to leave the TSBD building and he must come up with an excuse as to why he did this.
So he says that he had a chat with Bill Shelley who advised him there wouldn't be any more work that day and this is why he left.
Oswald has introduced Bill Shelley into his alibi and I am asking you a very simple question - why would he do this?

Obviously, because you're a Nutter, you won't be able to come up with any reason that doesn't sound ridiculous so you have to pretend, like a little child, that you don't understand the question.
Surely it's the case that Shelley only knows Oswald as a quiet loner who works at the TSBD building. They are not friends, they do not socialise, they barely know each other. Yet Oswald believes that Shelley will back him up. He believes that Shelley will confirm that he gave Oswald permission to leave that day, otherwise why would he mention Shelley at all?
Oswald knows that all the authorities have to do is ask Shelley and this alibi will be blown so why does he do it?
The only rational reason is that Oswald fully expected Shelley to back him up.
The only rational reason why Oswald would expect Shelley to back him up is that Oswald really did have a conversation with Shelley just before he left the TSBD building.
Fritz makes the point that Oswald is very cool and controlled during interrogation, so this isn't a question of someone panicking under pressure and saying the wrong thing. Oswald knows exactly what he's doing when he brings Shelley into his alibi. He clearly views Shelley as an accomplice.
But in you're fantasy you have no way of answering the very simple question I've asked, so you have to pretend your way out of it.

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.

It has been established beyond doubt that Shelley and Oswald lied about their movements after the assassination. Many of my posts focus on this aspect and I cover it in detail. Rather than deal with a single argument I've presented you simply call it a "false premise" but don't give a single reason why it's a false premise. It's your usual lazy approach. You refuse to engage in any meaningful debate because you know you will be crushed once again in front of the forum. So you pretend you don't understand questions, throw out unfounded accusations and lie. You forget, the forum is a record of your constant use of underhand tactics. It is also a record of the detailed arguments I have put forward and the copious amount of evidence I've used to support these arguments.
So the question remains - "Why do you think Lovelady and Shelley lied about their movements after the assassination?"

Human beings do not have scientific level of recall of events.  That does not mean they are "lying."

You are living proof that humans do not have a scientific recall of events.
"Lying", as I am using the word against Shelley, Lovelady or anyone else, is the deliberate fabrication of events.
It is not misremembering or misunderstanding. It is not forgetting details or even putting things in the wrong order. It is making up things that didn't happen.
It's the "official" story of Shelley and Lovelady that after three minutes had passed, Gloria Calvery came running up to them and told them the President was shot, after which they made their way out to the "little, old island" at which point they saw Baker and Truly about to enter the building.
This is a made up series of events, a deliberate fabrication.
This is proved to be the case because of the Darnell footage. There is film footage of Baker reaching the area at the bottom of the front steps within seconds of the assassination. This is a fact. Lovelady and Shelley are still at the steps when this happens. The story about them waiting for 3 minutes before Gloria runs up to the steps, moving over to the concrete 'spur' then seeing Baker and Truly at the front steps is a lie - do you dispute this?
It would be one thing if only one of them told this lie, even though it would still be inexplicable. But that both men are telling exactly the same lie is damning.
So it isn't a misremembering or a misunderstanding. This is proven to be the case because Shelley goes on to repeat this lie to George and Patricia Nash.
When Lovelady says both men ran down to where the limo slowed and stayed there for 5 minutes - Lie.
When Shelley says both men accompanied police officers down to the railroad yard and stayed there for ten minutes - Lie.
When Lovelady says he didn't re-enter the TSBD for 15 to 20 minutes - Lie.

Above all, there is credible eye-witness testimony that Shelley and Lovelady are lying - Vicki Adams sees them on the first floor 30 - 60 seconds after the shooting.

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?

You keep making this point and it's kind of creepy.
For the third or fourth time now - what I'm posting has absolutely nothing to do with the movements of Oswald.
What is it you're not understanding about that?
In your fantasy Oswald has somehow teleported down to the second floor. Jarman, Williams and Norman don't hear him moving on the wooden floor just above their heads. Jack Dougherty, who is literally stood by the stairs on the fifth floor, doesn't see or hear him descending. Garner (and other woman looking out of the west windows) don't see him walking by - remember, it's not just a question of him walking down the stairs, at each floor he has to walk about 15 feet across the floor itself to get to the top of the next flight of stairs.
But none of this proves that he wasn't on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination. It just makes it very unlikely.
What proves it wasn't Oswald on the 6th floor is the 3 eye-witnesses (Rowland, Fischer and Roberts) who describe the man on the 6th floor wearing clothes Oswald didn't wear to work that day and didn't even own. Fischer and Roberts got a good look at the man and refused to identify him as Oswald (so did Brennan for that matter).
Detective F M Turner had this to say about Fischer and Roberts:

Mr. Turner: I got a Ronald Fischer and Bob Edwards.
Mr. Belin: What do you have about them?
Mr. Turner: They said they saw a white man in his twenties standing on the fifth floor of the Book Building in the east window. Had on an open-necked sports shirt and had sandy-colored hair. And said the hair was longer than a crewcut.

In their various testimonies both men state that the open-necked sports shirt was white. Oswald didn't own such a garment at the time of the assassination.
If the shooter was wearing clothes Oswald didn't own, then common sense dictates it wasn't Oswald.
Which is why Roberts, Fischer and Brennan refused to identify the man as Oswald.
Which is why Fischer thought the man on the 6th floor had a much lighter complexion than Oswald.
Which is why Brennan thought the man on the 6th floor was much older than Oswald.
Which is why Oswald was discovered on the second floor seconds after the assassination.
Which is why Oswald could see Jarman and Norman on the first floor of the TSBD building less than 5 minutes before the assassination.
Which is why Garner didn't see Oswald walking across the fourth floor.
Which is why Brennan saw the gunman still stood at the window at least 8 seconds after the shooting.
Which is why Oswald was already sipping a Coke when Baker burst in the second floor lunchroom.

But let's not stray from the topic at hand - the Lost Interview with Vicki Adams.
Her eye-witness testimony has Shelley and Lovelady towards the back of the first floor seconds after the shooting.
What were they doing there?
Why did they lie about their movements?
Other than the lies of Lovelady and Shelley, what evidence do you have that they weren't at the back of the first floor seconds after the assassination?

[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.

Yet again with the child-like attempt to be devious. Are you not embarrassed by this strategy?
Everyone can see that I didn't ask - why would Oswald make up an alibi?
I asked this question:

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

It's a very simple question but you have to pretend you don't understand it.
In Reply#426 I examine Oswald's alibi in detail and it is from this analysis that the question about Shelley arises.
In your fantasy, Oswald has shot and killed JFK. The most incriminating action Oswald takes after the assassination is to leave the TSBD building and he must come up with an excuse as to why he did this.
So he says that he had a chat with Bill Shelley who advised him there wouldn't be any more work that day and this is why he left.
Oswald has introduced Bill Shelley into his alibi and I am asking you a very simple question - why would he do this?

Obviously, because you're a Nutter, you won't be able to come up with any reason that doesn't sound ridiculous so you have to pretend, like a little child, that you don't understand the question.
Surely it's the case that Shelley only knows Oswald as a quiet loner who works at the TSBD building. They are not friends, they do not socialise, they barely know each other. Yet Oswald believes that Shelley will back him up. He believes that Shelley will confirm that he gave Oswald permission to leave that day, otherwise why would he mention Shelley at all?
Oswald knows that all the authorities have to do is ask Shelley and this alibi will be blown so why does he do it?
The only rational reason is that Oswald fully expected Shelley to back him up.
The only rational reason why Oswald would expect Shelley to back him up is that Oswald really did have a conversation with Shelley just before he left the TSBD building.
Fritz makes the point that Oswald is very cool and controlled during interrogation, so this isn't a question of someone panicking under pressure and saying the wrong thing. Oswald knows exactly what he's doing when he brings Shelley into his alibi. He clearly views Shelley as an accomplice.
But in you're fantasy you have no way of answering the very simple question I've asked, so you have to pretend your way out of it.

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.

It has been established beyond doubt that Shelley and Oswald lied about their movements after the assassination. Many of my posts focus on this aspect and I cover it in detail. Rather than deal with a single argument I've presented you simply call it a "false premise" but don't give a single reason why it's a false premise. It's your usual lazy approach. You refuse to engage in any meaningful debate because you know you will be crushed once again in front of the forum. So you pretend you don't understand questions, throw out unfounded accusations and lie. You forget, the forum is a record of your constant use of underhand tactics. It is also a record of the detailed arguments I have put forward and the copious amount of evidence I've used to support these arguments.
So the question remains - "Why do you think Lovelady and Shelley lied about their movements after the assassination?"

Human beings do not have scientific level of recall of events.  That does not mean they are "lying."

You are living proof that humans do not have a scientific recall of events.
"Lying", as I am using the word against Shelley, Lovelady or anyone else, is the deliberate fabrication of events.
It is not misremembering or misunderstanding. It is not forgetting details or even putting things in the wrong order. It is making up things that didn't happen.
It's the "official" story of Shelley and Lovelady that after three minutes had passed, Gloria Calvery came running up to them and told them the President was shot, after which they made their way out to the "little, old island" at which point they saw Baker and Truly about to enter the building.
This is a made up series of events, a deliberate fabrication.
This is proved to be the case because of the Darnell footage. There is film footage of Baker reaching the area at the bottom of the front steps within seconds of the assassination. This is a fact. Lovelady and Shelley are still at the steps when this happens. The story about them waiting for 3 minutes before Gloria runs up to the steps, moving over to the concrete 'spur' then seeing Baker and Truly at the front steps is a lie - do you dispute this?
It would be one thing if only one of them told this lie, even though it would still be inexplicable. But that both men are telling exactly the same lie is damning.
So it isn't a misremembering or a misunderstanding. This is proven to be the case because Shelley goes on to repeat this lie to George and Patricia Nash.
When Lovelady says both men ran down to where the limo slowed and stayed there for 5 minutes - Lie.
When Shelley says both men accompanied police officers down to the railroad yard and stayed there for ten minutes - Lie.
When Lovelady says he didn't re-enter the TSBD for 15 to 20 minutes - Lie.

Above all, there is credible eye-witness testimony that Shelley and Lovelady are lying - Vicki Adams sees them on the first floor 30 - 60 seconds after the shooting.

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?

You keep making this point and it's kind of creepy.
For the third or fourth time now - what I'm posting has absolutely nothing to do with the movements of Oswald.
What is it you're not understanding about that?
In your fantasy Oswald has somehow teleported down to the second floor. Jarman, Williams and Norman don't hear him moving on the wooden floor just above their heads. Jack Dougherty, who is literally stood by the stairs on the fifth floor, doesn't see or hear him descending. Garner (and other woman looking out of the west windows) don't see him walking by - remember, it's not just a question of him walking down the stairs, at each floor he has to walk about 15 feet across the floor itself to get to the top of the next flight of stairs.
But none of this proves that he wasn't on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination. It just makes it very unlikely.
What proves it wasn't Oswald on the 6th floor is the 3 eye-witnesses (Rowland, Fischer and Roberts) who describe the man on the 6th floor wearing clothes Oswald didn't wear to work that day and didn't even own. Fischer and Roberts got a good look at the man and refused to identify him as Oswald (so did Brennan for that matter).
Detective F M Turner had this to say about Fischer and Roberts:

Mr. Turner: I got a Ronald Fischer and Bob Edwards.
Mr. Belin: What do you have about them?
Mr. Turner: They said they saw a white man in his twenties standing on the fifth floor of the Book Building in the east window. Had on an open-necked sports shirt and had sandy-colored hair. And said the hair was longer than a crewcut.

In their various testimonies both men state that the open-necked sports shirt was white. Oswald didn't own such a garment at the time of the assassination.
If the shooter was wearing clothes Oswald didn't own, then common sense dictates it wasn't Oswald.
Which is why Roberts, Fischer and Brennan refused to identify the man as Oswald.
Which is why Fischer thought the man on the 6th floor had a much lighter complexion than Oswald.
Which is why Brennan thought the man on the 6th floor was much older than Oswald.
Which is why Oswald was discovered on the second floor seconds after the assassination.
Which is why Oswald could see Jarman and Norman on the first floor of the TSBD building less than 5 minutes before the assassination.
Which is why Garner didn't see Oswald walking across the fourth floor.
Which is why Brennan saw the gunman still stood at the window at least 8 seconds after the shooting.
Which is why Oswald was already sipping a Coke when Baker burst in the second floor lunchroom.

But let's not stray from the topic at hand - the Lost Interview with Vicki Adams.
Her eye-witness testimony has Shelley and Lovelady towards the back of the first floor seconds after the shooting.
What were they doing there?
Why did they lie about their movements?
Other than the lies of Lovelady and Shelley, what evidence do you have that they weren't at the back of the first floor seconds after the assassination?

From post # 426

DM:  "So let's imagine that he is the shooter and is trying to come up with a false alibi. One that will stick in a court of law.
Why on earth would he add the detail that he'd talked to Bill Shelley after the lunchroom incident and it was Bill Shelley who recommended he leave for the day? He saw Shelley as he was being taken into the interview and Shelley, who was having his affidavit taken, had to vacate the same room. So Oswald knows that all they have to do is ask Shelley if such a conversation took place. Which they did. And Shelley denied it."


And Shelley denied it. Because it never happened, not because Shelley is not telling what you and you alone believe to be the truth.

Now how does this make Shelley a liar and Oswald is telling the truth?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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.

Yet again with the child-like attempt to be devious. Are you not embarrassed by this strategy?
Everyone can see that I didn't ask - why would Oswald make up an alibi?
I asked this question:

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

It's a very simple question but you have to pretend you don't understand it.
In Reply#426 I examine Oswald's alibi in detail and it is from this analysis that the question about Shelley arises.
In your fantasy, Oswald has shot and killed JFK. The most incriminating action Oswald takes after the assassination is to leave the TSBD building and he must come up with an excuse as to why he did this.
So he says that he had a chat with Bill Shelley who advised him there wouldn't be any more work that day and this is why he left.
Oswald has introduced Bill Shelley into his alibi and I am asking you a very simple question - why would he do this?

Obviously, because you're a Nutter, you won't be able to come up with any reason that doesn't sound ridiculous so you have to pretend, like a little child, that you don't understand the question.
Surely it's the case that Shelley only knows Oswald as a quiet loner who works at the TSBD building. They are not friends, they do not socialise, they barely know each other. Yet Oswald believes that Shelley will back him up. He believes that Shelley will confirm that he gave Oswald permission to leave that day, otherwise why would he mention Shelley at all?
Oswald knows that all the authorities have to do is ask Shelley and this alibi will be blown so why does he do it?
The only rational reason is that Oswald fully expected Shelley to back him up.
The only rational reason why Oswald would expect Shelley to back him up is that Oswald really did have a conversation with Shelley just before he left the TSBD building.
Fritz makes the point that Oswald is very cool and controlled during interrogation, so this isn't a question of someone panicking under pressure and saying the wrong thing. Oswald knows exactly what he's doing when he brings Shelley into his alibi. He clearly views Shelley as an accomplice.
But in you're fantasy you have no way of answering the very simple question I've asked, so you have to pretend your way out of it.

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.

It has been established beyond doubt that Shelley and Oswald lied about their movements after the assassination. Many of my posts focus on this aspect and I cover it in detail. Rather than deal with a single argument I've presented you simply call it a "false premise" but don't give a single reason why it's a false premise. It's your usual lazy approach. You refuse to engage in any meaningful debate because you know you will be crushed once again in front of the forum. So you pretend you don't understand questions, throw out unfounded accusations and lie. You forget, the forum is a record of your constant use of underhand tactics. It is also a record of the detailed arguments I have put forward and the copious amount of evidence I've used to support these arguments.
So the question remains - "Why do you think Lovelady and Shelley lied about their movements after the assassination?"

Human beings do not have scientific level of recall of events.  That does not mean they are "lying."

You are living proof that humans do not have a scientific recall of events.
"Lying", as I am using the word against Shelley, Lovelady or anyone else, is the deliberate fabrication of events.
It is not misremembering or misunderstanding. It is not forgetting details or even putting things in the wrong order. It is making up things that didn't happen.
It's the "official" story of Shelley and Lovelady that after three minutes had passed, Gloria Calvery came running up to them and told them the President was shot, after which they made their way out to the "little, old island" at which point they saw Baker and Truly about to enter the building.
This is a made up series of events, a deliberate fabrication.
This is proved to be the case because of the Darnell footage. There is film footage of Baker reaching the area at the bottom of the front steps within seconds of the assassination. This is a fact. Lovelady and Shelley are still at the steps when this happens. The story about them waiting for 3 minutes before Gloria runs up to the steps, moving over to the concrete 'spur' then seeing Baker and Truly at the front steps is a lie - do you dispute this?
It would be one thing if only one of them told this lie, even though it would still be inexplicable. But that both men are telling exactly the same lie is damning.
So it isn't a misremembering or a misunderstanding. This is proven to be the case because Shelley goes on to repeat this lie to George and Patricia Nash.
When Lovelady says both men ran down to where the limo slowed and stayed there for 5 minutes - Lie.
When Shelley says both men accompanied police officers down to the railroad yard and stayed there for ten minutes - Lie.
When Lovelady says he didn't re-enter the TSBD for 15 to 20 minutes - Lie.

Above all, there is credible eye-witness testimony that Shelley and Lovelady are lying - Vicki Adams sees them on the first floor 30 - 60 seconds after the shooting.

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?

You keep making this point and it's kind of creepy.
For the third or fourth time now - what I'm posting has absolutely nothing to do with the movements of Oswald.
What is it you're not understanding about that?
In your fantasy Oswald has somehow teleported down to the second floor. Jarman, Williams and Norman don't hear him moving on the wooden floor just above their heads. Jack Dougherty, who is literally stood by the stairs on the fifth floor, doesn't see or hear him descending. Garner (and other woman looking out of the west windows) don't see him walking by - remember, it's not just a question of him walking down the stairs, at each floor he has to walk about 15 feet across the floor itself to get to the top of the next flight of stairs.
But none of this proves that he wasn't on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination. It just makes it very unlikely.
What proves it wasn't Oswald on the 6th floor is the 3 eye-witnesses (Rowland, Fischer and Roberts) who describe the man on the 6th floor wearing clothes Oswald didn't wear to work that day and didn't even own. Fischer and Roberts got a good look at the man and refused to identify him as Oswald (so did Brennan for that matter).
Detective F M Turner had this to say about Fischer and Roberts:

Mr. Turner: I got a Ronald Fischer and Bob Edwards.
Mr. Belin: What do you have about them?
Mr. Turner: They said they saw a white man in his twenties standing on the fifth floor of the Book Building in the east window. Had on an open-necked sports shirt and had sandy-colored hair. And said the hair was longer than a crewcut.

In their various testimonies both men state that the open-necked sports shirt was white. Oswald didn't own such a garment at the time of the assassination.
If the shooter was wearing clothes Oswald didn't own, then common sense dictates it wasn't Oswald.
Which is why Roberts, Fischer and Brennan refused to identify the man as Oswald.
Which is why Fischer thought the man on the 6th floor had a much lighter complexion than Oswald.
Which is why Brennan thought the man on the 6th floor was much older than Oswald.
Which is why Oswald was discovered on the second floor seconds after the assassination.
Which is why Oswald could see Jarman and Norman on the first floor of the TSBD building less than 5 minutes before the assassination.
Which is why Garner didn't see Oswald walking across the fourth floor.
Which is why Brennan saw the gunman still stood at the window at least 8 seconds after the shooting.
Which is why Oswald was already sipping a Coke when Baker burst in the second floor lunchroom.

But let's not stray from the topic at hand - the Lost Interview with Vicki Adams.
Her eye-witness testimony has Shelley and Lovelady towards the back of the first floor seconds after the shooting.
What were they doing there?
Why did they lie about their movements?
Other than the lies of Lovelady and Shelley, what evidence do you have that they weren't at the back of the first floor seconds after the assassination?

Dan, question: Where is the evidence that Oswald told the interrogators he talked with Shelley? I think this is a mistaken belief - I used to believe it - that's not supported by the evidence.

Fritz said this:
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don't punch a clock and they don't keep very close time on our work and I just left."

Holmes also said that Oswald told him that he (Oswald) just left. Nothing about being told by Shelley. I am aware that Hosty's notes read something to the effect of "out with Shelley" but nothing about them talking. Am I missing an account that says this?

[Dan O'meara]

Dan, question: Where is the evidence that Oswald told the interrogators he talked with Shelley? I think this is a mistaken belief - I used to believe it - that's not supported by the evidence.

Fritz said this:
Mr. BALL. Did you ask him what happened that day; where he had been?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don't punch a clock and they don't keep very close time on our work and I just left."

Holmes also said that Oswald told him that he (Oswald) just left. Nothing about being told by Shelley. I am aware that Hosty's notes read something to the effect of "out with Shelley" but nothing about them talking. Am I missing an account that says this?

Hi Steve, the bit about Shelley is covered in the James Bookhout report on the 25th:

"He thereafter went outside and stood for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelly, and thereafter went home. He stated that he left work because, in his opinion, based upon remarks of Bill Shelly, he did not believe there was going to be any more work that day due to the confusion in the building."

It's also touched on in Fritz's notes:

"out with Bill Shelley in front"

It also comes up in Shelley's WC testimony:

Mr. Ball: Did you at anytime after the President was shot see Oswald in the building?
Mr. Shelley: No, sir.
Mr. Ball: Did you at anytime after the President was shot tell Oswald to go home?
Mr. Shelley: No, sir.

[Dan O'meara]

From post # 426

DM:  "So let's imagine that he is the shooter and is trying to come up with a false alibi. One that will stick in a court of law.
Why on earth would he add the detail that he'd talked to Bill Shelley after the lunchroom incident and it was Bill Shelley who recommended he leave for the day? He saw Shelley as he was being taken into the interview and Shelley, who was having his affidavit taken, had to vacate the same room. So Oswald knows that all they have to do is ask Shelley if such a conversation took place. Which they did. And Shelley denied it."


And Shelley denied it. Because it never happened, not because Shelley is not telling what you and you alone believe to be the truth.

Now how does this make Shelley a liar and Oswald is telling the truth?

Why did Oswald include Shelley as part of his alibi?
It's a simple question Jack, so what do you think?
The only rational reason Oswald would do this, in my opinion, is because he did talk to Shelley before he left the building.
If, as you believe, Oswald didn't talk to Shelley, why would he use him in his alibi? What is your sensible explanation for this?

And to be clear - Shelley denying he spoke to Oswald isn't what makes him a liar. Shelley lies about his movements after the assassination, that's what makes him a liar. It is then important to look at Shelley's other interactions that day in the light of him being a proven liar. This is from the post you completely ignored:

"...Shelley only knows Oswald as a quiet loner who works at the TSBD building. They are not friends, they do not socialise, they barely know each other. Yet Oswald believes that Shelley will back him up. He believes that Shelley will confirm that he gave Oswald permission to leave that day, otherwise why would he mention Shelley at all?
Oswald knows that all the authorities have to do is ask Shelley and this alibi will be blown so why does he do it?
The only rational reason is that Oswald fully expected Shelley to back him up.
The only rational reason why Oswald would expect Shelley to back him up is that Oswald really did have a conversation with Shelley just before he left the TSBD building.
Fritz makes the point that Oswald is very cool and controlled during interrogation, so this isn't a question of someone panicking under pressure and saying the wrong thing. Oswald knows exactly what he's doing when he brings Shelley into his alibi. He clearly views Shelley as an accomplice."

Do you agree with this assessment? If you don't, what do you disagree with and why.
And while we're on the subject of proven liars, I see you're still peddling the lie about Sawyer, Harkness and Barnett.
For those not familiar with Jack's Lie, a few posts back Jack was insisting that statements made by Sawyer, Harkness and Barnett refuted Vicki Adams' testimony that she left the fourth floor within seconds of the last shot. Time after time after time Jack was asked to provide these statements and demonstrate how they refuted Adams' testimony. Obviously he refused to do so because no such statements exist but he continues to peddle the lie that they do exist.
Unbelievably, the sum total of Jack's accumulated evidence that "refutes" the testimony of Vicki Adams is a single statement made by Harkness.
This is how it 'works' - after they exit the TSBD building through the Houston dock door, Adams and Styles run about 20ft to a set of stairs, go down these and then run another 30ft to the end of the extension on the back of the building. They turn west and are met by a police officer who tells them to get back inside the building.
In the diagram below the route Adams and Styles took is marked out. The circle is where Shelley and Lovelady were stood, the star is where Adams and Styles run into the police officer.



In his WC testimony Harkness makes the point that at around 12:36pm he and two other officers go around the back of the building to seal it off and lock the building down:

Mr. BELIN. How soon after 12:36 p.m., would you say the building was sealed off?
Mr. HARKNESS. It was sealed off then because I was back there and two other men.

This is where things become difficult to believe.
For no given reason and with absolutely not a shred of evidence to back this up, Jack simply decides that the policeman that Adams and Styles run into is Harkness or one of the other officers he mentions. Jack simply plucks this identification out of thin air. Then his logic kicks in - well, if these officers didn't go round the back until 12:36pm then that must be the time when Adams and Styles left the building, therefore the statement made by Harkness proves Adams and Styles didn't leave the fourth floor immediately.
And that's it.
Seriously.
That is the sum total of Jack's "evidence".
A chimpanzee trying to crack open a nut with a rock uses superior logic.
The first thing to note is that Sawyer and Barnett don't come into. Neither man makes any kind of statement that has any bearing on Vicki's movements. In fact, Barnett completely undermines Jack's little fantasy as he points out that seconds after the shooting he runs down Houston Street, looks around the back of the building and sees at least one police officer already there. The officer that Barnett sees cannot be Harkness or his merry men. This must be the officer Adams and Styles run into.
The second thing to note is that Harkness doesn't make any kind of statement that relates to Vicki's movements. He simply says that he and two other officers go to the back of the building around 12:36pm. As has been said all along, not one of these officers makes any kind of statement relating to Vicki's movements. Jack knows this but he continues to peddle the lie that these officers refute Adams' timeline. This is Jack's Lie.
Just to demonstrate how poor Jack's use of logic is, let's take a closer look at his decision to identify the policeman Adams and Styles run into as Harkness (or one of his colleagues. Remember, Harkness never mentions anything about this encounter).
Jack's logic is that the officer they run into is part of the effort to lock down the building.
But there's a slight flaw - a building is locked down at the doors!
To control people entering and leaving the building, police officers must be stationed at the doors.
We see that at the front doors. The officers controlling people entering and leaving the building through the front doors are not stood around the corner of the building on Houston Street. They are not trying to do it from the railroad yard. They are stood at the doors. That's how a building is locked down.
Now look at the diagram above. The encounter with the officer occurs about 50ft away from the back door, around the side of the building.
What happens if someone comes out the back door and goes right onto Houston Street? How is this officer supposed to deal with that person?
And there's another part of the building being locked down that Jack has failed to grasp. Adams and Styles are outside the building. They are about 50ft away from the back door. If the building was locked down the police officer would be stopping them from getting back inside. Instead, this officer does the very opposite thing - he orders Adams and Styles back inside the building. It's the very opposite of what is supposed to happen!
Jack's identification of the officer as someone involved in the lock down involves logic so poor it would make a chimpanzee blush.

And, although Jack's identification of this officer with Harkness has been shown to be farcical and that there isn't a single statement by Harkness, Sawyer or Barnett that relates to Vicki's movements, he will still continue to peddle the lie that their testimonies refute Adams' testimony.
He will continue with this lie because he is a good little Nutter.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why did Oswald include Shelley as part of his alibi?
It's a simple question Jack, so what do you think?
The only rational reason Oswald would do this, in my opinion, is because he did talk to Shelley before he left the building.
If, as you believe, Oswald didn't talk to Shelley, why would he use him in his alibi? What is your sensible explanation for this?

And to be clear - Shelley denying he spoke to Oswald isn't what makes him a liar. Shelley lies about his movements after the assassination, that's what makes him a liar. It is then important to look at Shelley's other interactions that day in the light of him being a proven liar. This is from the post you completely ignored:

"...Shelley only knows Oswald as a quiet loner who works at the TSBD building. They are not friends, they do not socialise, they barely know each other. Yet Oswald believes that Shelley will back him up. He believes that Shelley will confirm that he gave Oswald permission to leave that day, otherwise why would he mention Shelley at all?
Oswald knows that all the authorities have to do is ask Shelley and this alibi will be blown so why does he do it?
The only rational reason is that Oswald fully expected Shelley to back him up.
The only rational reason why Oswald would expect Shelley to back him up is that Oswald really did have a conversation with Shelley just before he left the TSBD building.
Fritz makes the point that Oswald is very cool and controlled during interrogation, so this isn't a question of someone panicking under pressure and saying the wrong thing. Oswald knows exactly what he's doing when he brings Shelley into his alibi. He clearly views Shelley as an accomplice."

Do you agree with this assessment? If you don't, what do you disagree with and why.
And while we're on the subject of proven liars, I see you're still peddling the lie about Sawyer, Harkness and Barnett.
For those not familiar with Jack's Lie, a few posts back Jack was insisting that statements made by Sawyer, Harkness and Barnett refuted Vicki Adams' testimony that she left the fourth floor within seconds of the last shot. Time after time after time Jack was asked to provide these statements and demonstrate how they refuted Adams' testimony. Obviously he refused to do so because no such statements exist but he continues to peddle the lie that they do exist.
Unbelievably, the sum total of Jack's accumulated evidence that "refutes" the testimony of Vicki Adams is a single statement made by Harkness.
This is how it 'works' - after they exit the TSBD building through the Houston dock door, Adams and Styles run about 20ft to a set of stairs, go down these and then run another 30ft to the end of the extension on the back of the building. They turn west and are met by a police officer who tells them to get back inside the building.
In the diagram below the route Adams and Styles took is marked out. The circle is where Shelley and Lovelady were stood, the star is where Adams and Styles run into the police officer.



In his WC testimony Harkness makes the point that at around 12:36pm he and two other officers go around the back of the building to seal it off and lock the building down:

Mr. BELIN. How soon after 12:36 p.m., would you say the building was sealed off?
Mr. HARKNESS. It was sealed off then because I was back there and two other men.

This is where things become difficult to believe.
For no given reason and with absolutely not a shred of evidence to back this up, Jack simply decides that the policeman that Adams and Styles run into is Harkness or one of the other officers he mentions. Jack simply plucks this identification out of thin air. Then his logic kicks in - well, if these officers didn't go round the back until 12:36pm then that must be the time when Adams and Styles left the building, therefore the statement made by Harkness proves Adams and Styles didn't leave the fourth floor immediately.
And that's it.
Seriously.
That is the sum total of Jack's "evidence".
A chimpanzee trying to crack open a nut with a rock uses superior logic.
The first thing to note is that Sawyer and Barnett don't come into. Neither man makes any kind of statement that has any bearing on Vicki's movements. In fact, Barnett completely undermines Jack's little fantasy as he points out that seconds after the shooting he runs down Houston Street, looks around the back of the building and sees at least one police officer already there. The officer that Barnett sees cannot be Harkness or his merry men. This must be the officer Adams and Styles run into.
The second thing to note is that Harkness doesn't make any kind of statement that relates to Vicki's movements. He simply says that he and two other officers go to the back of the building around 12:36pm. As has been said all along, not one of these officers makes any kind of statement relating to Vicki's movements. Jack knows this but he continues to peddle the lie that these officers refute Adams' timeline. This is Jack's Lie.
Just to demonstrate how poor Jack's use of logic is, let's take a closer look at his decision to identify the policeman Adams and Styles run into as Harkness (or one of his colleagues. Remember, Harkness never mentions anything about this encounter).
Jack's logic is that the officer they run into is part of the effort to lock down the building.
But there's a slight flaw - a building is locked down at the doors!
To control people entering and leaving the building, police officers must be stationed at the doors.
We see that at the front doors. The officers controlling people entering and leaving the building through the front doors are not stood around the corner of the building on Houston Street. They are not trying to do it from the railroad yard. They are stood at the doors. That's how a building is locked down.
Now look at the diagram above. The encounter with the officer occurs about 50ft away from the back door, around the side of the building.
What happens if someone comes out the back door and goes right onto Houston Street? How is this officer supposed to deal with that person?
And there's another part of the building being locked down that Jack has failed to grasp. Adams and Styles are outside the building. They are about 50ft away from the back door. If the building was locked down the police officer would be stopping them from getting back inside. Instead, this officer does the very opposite thing - he orders Adams and Styles back inside the building. It's the very opposite of what is supposed to happen!
Jack's identification of the officer as someone involved in the lock down involves logic so poor it would make a chimpanzee blush.

And, although Jack's identification of this officer with Harkness has been shown to be farcical and that there isn't a single statement by Harkness, Sawyer or Barnett that relates to Vicki's movements, he will still continue to peddle the lie that their testimonies refute Adams' testimony.
He will continue with this lie because he is a good little Nutter.

And, although Jack's identification of this officer with Harkness has been shown to be farcical and that there isn't a single statement by Harkness, Sawyer or Barnett that relates to Vicki's movements, he will still continue to peddle the lie that their testimonies refute Adams' testimony.
He will continue with this lie because he is a good little Nutter.

The irony is that the testimony of Sawyer shows beyond doubt that Nessan's fairytale is bogus. In his desperation, Nessan claims that Harkness (or one of the officers with him) "sealed off" the back of the building at 12.36, which he claims is the time the officer encountered Adams and Styles as they exited the building.

However, Sawyer says he arrived at the TSBD at 12.34 and parked his car near the front door. The first thing his did was run into the building to take the stairs up to the 4th floor. He looked around, found nothing and returned to the first floor. This firmly places Sawyer on the stairs at the time that Adams and Styles must have been using the stairs to go down to the alleged encounter with Harkness (or one of the officers with him). The only way that Sawyer could not have seen the women coming down the stairs was if they went down before 12.34, but that doesn't match with Adams seeing Shelley and Lovelady 5 minutes after the shooting or an encounter with Harkness et all at 12.36.

What makes Nessan's claim completely impossible is that Styles was photographed standing near Sawyer's car (which didn't get there until 12.34) before going back into the building through the not yet sealed off front door (which happened at 12.36 or 12.37). So unless, Styles had magical powers that allowed her to be in two places at the same time, Nessan's fairytale is utterly debunked.

But I agree with you, Dan, this will not prevent him from telling the same lie over and over again.   

[Dan O'meara]

And, although Jack's identification of this officer with Harkness has been shown to be farcical and that there isn't a single statement by Harkness, Sawyer or Barnett that relates to Vicki's movements, he will still continue to peddle the lie that their testimonies refute Adams' testimony.
He will continue with this lie because he is a good little Nutter.

The irony is that the testimony of Sawyer shows beyond doubt that Nessan's fairytale is bogus. In his desperation, Nessan claims that Harkness (or one of the officers with him) "sealed off" the back of the building at 12.36, which he claims is the time the officer encountered Adams and Styles as they exited the building.

However, Sawyer says he arrived at the TSBD at 12.34 and parked his car near the front door. The first thing his did was run into the building to take the stairs up to the 4th floor. He looked around, found nothing and returned to the first floor. This firmly places Sawyer on the stairs at the time that Adams and Styles must have been using the stairs to go down to the alleged encounter with Harkness (or one of the officers with him). The only way that Sawyer could not have seen the women coming down the stairs was if they went down before 12.34, but that doesn't match with Adams seeing Shelley and Lovelady 5 minutes after the shooting or an encounter with Harkness et all at 12.36.

What makes Nessan's claim completely impossible is that Styles was photographed standing near Sawyer's car (which didn't get there until 12.34) before going back into the building through the not yet sealed off front door (which happened at 12.36 or 12.37). So unless, Styles had magical powers that allowed her to be in two places at the same time, Nessan's fairytale is utterly debunked.

But I agree with you, Dan, this will not prevent him from telling the same lie over and over again.   

I have a slightly different understanding of Sawyer's movements and timings but it has absolutely no bearing on how quickly Adams and Styles left the fourth floor. Regardless of Jack's Lie, Sawyer never makes any kind of statement that relates to how quickly Adams and Styles left the fourth floor. And neither do Harkness or Barnett. Dealing with someone who is prepared to lie makes any kind of reasoned debate almost impossible.
As I understand it, it's a good 5 or 6 minute drive from Sawyer's position near Main and Ervay down to the TSBD building and Sawyer makes it clear it is slow going at first due to the crowds. He hears Decker's voice urging people to get to the railroad yard so he heads that way. He is still in his car at 12:34pm when he hears mention of shots from the TSBD building and that becomes his focus.
I believe he pulls up outside the building about 12:36pm. Harkness has just made his call and is making his way from the railroad yard to the front of the TSBD building with Euins on board. We see Sawyer pulling up in the distance in the Martin(?) film. Harkness parks up and puts Euins in the back of Sawyer's car and Harkness sees Sawyer talking to officers by the steps. Sawyer is yet to enter the building.
Sawyer enters the building as Harkness goes round the back to seal off the rear entrance. Sawyer takes the lift in the lobby up to the fourth floor with two officers and an employee. I get the impression that Sawyer incorrectly believes he is on the floor the shooting took place. He has a very quick look round to establish there is no shooter on that floor. While he is on the fourth floor Baker and Truly show up in an elevator as they make their way back down from the roof and Baker has some kind of interaction with Sawyer, who then makes his way back down to the lobby. I believe it is about 12:38/12:39pm when Sawyer orders the lock down. He then goes outside and makes his first transmission at 12:40pm.
Around the time Sawyer is ordering the lock down, Adams, who is stood outside, hears the 12:38pm transmission mentioning the "second floor" that convinces her to go back inside the building. She almost doesn't make it back inside before the building is locked down. Styles has already re-entered unchallenged minutes earlier.

[Jack Nessan]

Why did Oswald include Shelley as part of his alibi?
It's a simple question Jack, so what do you think?
The only rational reason Oswald would do this, in my opinion, is because he did talk to Shelley before he left the building.
If, as you believe, Oswald didn't talk to Shelley, why would he use him in his alibi? What is your sensible explanation for this?

And to be clear - Shelley denying he spoke to Oswald isn't what makes him a liar. Shelley lies about his movements after the assassination, that's what makes him a liar. It is then important to look at Shelley's other interactions that day in the light of him being a proven liar. This is from the post you completely ignored:

"...Shelley only knows Oswald as a quiet loner who works at the TSBD building. They are not friends, they do not socialise, they barely know each other. Yet Oswald believes that Shelley will back him up. He believes that Shelley will confirm that he gave Oswald permission to leave that day, otherwise why would he mention Shelley at all?
Oswald knows that all the authorities have to do is ask Shelley and this alibi will be blown so why does he do it?
The only rational reason is that Oswald fully expected Shelley to back him up.
The only rational reason why Oswald would expect Shelley to back him up is that Oswald really did have a conversation with Shelley just before he left the TSBD building.
Fritz makes the point that Oswald is very cool and controlled during interrogation, so this isn't a question of someone panicking under pressure and saying the wrong thing. Oswald knows exactly what he's doing when he brings Shelley into his alibi. He clearly views Shelley as an accomplice."

Do you agree with this assessment? If you don't, what do you disagree with and why.
And while we're on the subject of proven liars, I see you're still peddling the lie about Sawyer, Harkness and Barnett.
For those not familiar with Jack's Lie, a few posts back Jack was insisting that statements made by Sawyer, Harkness and Barnett refuted Vicki Adams' testimony that she left the fourth floor within seconds of the last shot. Time after time after time Jack was asked to provide these statements and demonstrate how they refuted Adams' testimony. Obviously he refused to do so because no such statements exist but he continues to peddle the lie that they do exist.
Unbelievably, the sum total of Jack's accumulated evidence that "refutes" the testimony of Vicki Adams is a single statement made by Harkness.
This is how it 'works' - after they exit the TSBD building through the Houston dock door, Adams and Styles run about 20ft to a set of stairs, go down these and then run another 30ft to the end of the extension on the back of the building. They turn west and are met by a police officer who tells them to get back inside the building.
In the diagram below the route Adams and Styles took is marked out. The circle is where Shelley and Lovelady were stood, the star is where Adams and Styles run into the police officer.



In his WC testimony Harkness makes the point that at around 12:36pm he and two other officers go around the back of the building to seal it off and lock the building down:

Mr. BELIN. How soon after 12:36 p.m., would you say the building was sealed off?
Mr. HARKNESS. It was sealed off then because I was back there and two other men.

This is where things become difficult to believe.
For no given reason and with absolutely not a shred of evidence to back this up, Jack simply decides that the policeman that Adams and Styles run into is Harkness or one of the other officers he mentions. Jack simply plucks this identification out of thin air. Then his logic kicks in - well, if these officers didn't go round the back until 12:36pm then that must be the time when Adams and Styles left the building, therefore the statement made by Harkness proves Adams and Styles didn't leave the fourth floor immediately.
And that's it.
Seriously.
That is the sum total of Jack's "evidence".
A chimpanzee trying to crack open a nut with a rock uses superior logic.
The first thing to note is that Sawyer and Barnett don't come into. Neither man makes any kind of statement that has any bearing on Vicki's movements. In fact, Barnett completely undermines Jack's little fantasy as he points out that seconds after the shooting he runs down Houston Street, looks around the back of the building and sees at least one police officer already there. The officer that Barnett sees cannot be Harkness or his merry men. This must be the officer Adams and Styles run into.
The second thing to note is that Harkness doesn't make any kind of statement that relates to Vicki's movements. He simply says that he and two other officers go to the back of the building around 12:36pm. As has been said all along, not one of these officers makes any kind of statement relating to Vicki's movements. Jack knows this but he continues to peddle the lie that these officers refute Adams' timeline. This is Jack's Lie.
Just to demonstrate how poor Jack's use of logic is, let's take a closer look at his decision to identify the policeman Adams and Styles run into as Harkness (or one of his colleagues. Remember, Harkness never mentions anything about this encounter).
Jack's logic is that the officer they run into is part of the effort to lock down the building.
But there's a slight flaw - a building is locked down at the doors!
To control people entering and leaving the building, police officers must be stationed at the doors.
We see that at the front doors. The officers controlling people entering and leaving the building through the front doors are not stood around the corner of the building on Houston Street. They are not trying to do it from the railroad yard. They are stood at the doors. That's how a building is locked down.
Now look at the diagram above. The encounter with the officer occurs about 50ft away from the back door, around the side of the building.
What happens if someone comes out the back door and goes right onto Houston Street? How is this officer supposed to deal with that person?
And there's another part of the building being locked down that Jack has failed to grasp. Adams and Styles are outside the building. They are about 50ft away from the back door. If the building was locked down the police officer would be stopping them from getting back inside. Instead, this officer does the very opposite thing - he orders Adams and Styles back inside the building. It's the very opposite of what is supposed to happen!
Jack's identification of the officer as someone involved in the lock down involves logic so poor it would make a chimpanzee blush.

And, although Jack's identification of this officer with Harkness has been shown to be farcical and that there isn't a single statement by Harkness, Sawyer or Barnett that relates to Vicki's movements, he will still continue to peddle the lie that their testimonies refute Adams' testimony.
He will continue with this lie because he is a good little Nutter.

In this whole lengthy misguided post, these are the only facts presented. Everything else is nothing more than your imaginative conjecture and your suspect opinion. You seem to understand the importance of both girls stating they were ordered back to the building by the cop, who was not in place until 12:36, but the significance of it seems have gone straight over your head.

“after they exit the TSBD building through the Houston dock door, Adams and Styles run about 20ft to a set of stairs, go down these and then run another 30ft to the end of the extension on the back of the building. They turn west and are met by a police officer who tells them to get back inside the building.”

“Mr. BELIN. How soon after 12:36 p.m., would you say the building was sealed off?
Mr. HARKNESS. It was sealed off then because I was back there and two other men.”

“these officers didn't go round the back until 12:36pm then that must be the time when Adams and Styles left the building, therefore the statement made by Harkness proves Adams and Styles didn't leave the fourth floor immediately.”

“this officer ....orders Adams and Styles back inside the building”

You can actually read these facts, post them, but then go blank when it is time to understand them?

-----------------------------

Shelley lies about his movements after the assassination, that's what makes him a liar. It is then important to look at Shelley's other interactions that day in the light of him being a proven liar.   

Huh. Oswald never does say Shelley told him to go home.

Oswald did bring Jarmin and Norman into his story but they have no recollection of him either. 

Lock down is proven by both women, who stated they encountered the police behind the building and were told to return to the front. Too bad you weren’t there, you could have explained to the police the folly of their actions and you had a better way to do it. And there's another part of the building being locked down that Jack has failed to grasp. Adams and Styles are outside the building. They are about 50ft away from the back door. If the building was locked down the police officer would be stopping them from getting back inside. Instead, this officer does the very opposite thing - he orders Adams and Styles back inside the building. It's the very opposite of what is supposed to happen!
Jack's identification of the officer as someone involved in the lock down involves logic so poor it would make a chimpanzee blush.

Wow, great use of the imagination. Harkness seems to think otherwise. Given he was the one who did it I am going to defer to Harkness as to what a lockdown is.
 
“And, although Jack's identification of this officer with Harkness has been shown to be farcical and that there isn't a single statement by Harkness, Sawyer or Barnett that relates to Vicki's movements, he will still continue to peddle the lie that their testimonies refute Adams' testimony.
He will continue with this lie because he is a good little Nutter.”

You have not shown anything. You believe the officers should have thrown Adams and Styles onto the ground and handcuffed them and then taken them in for interregation?

 Are you suggesting that the police should have or were actually aiding people who were leaving the TSBD?