The 3 Minute Lie

[Andrew Mason]

This is simply not true.
The WC testimonies of both men are unequivocal - they were on the steps at the time of the shooting and didn't leave the steps until after the encounter with Gloria. It is only once they leave the steps that they see Truly and Baker still outside the TSBD building. There is no other way to interpret their testimonies.
It is utterly dishonest of you to insinuate otherwise.

Perhaps you need to refresh your reading and comprehension skills Dan.  Here are the excerpts you provided:

The following are excerpts from the WC testimonies of both men demonstrating, beyond any doubt, that they testify to the sequence of events I have laid out.

LOVELADY

Mr. Lovelady: ...I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.
Mr. Ball: You ate your lunch on the steps?
Mr. Lovelady: Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball: Did you stay on the steps
Mr. Lovelady: Yes.
Mr. Ball: Were you there when the President's motorcade went by
Mr. Lovelady: Right.
Mr. Ball: Did you hear anything?
Mr. Lovelady: Yes, sir; sure did.
Mr. Ball: What did you hear?
Mr. Lovelady: I thought it was firecrackers or somebody celebrating the arrival of the President. It didn't occur to me at first what had happened until this Gloria came running up to us and told us the President had been shot.

So far, it is consistent with them meeting Gloria a few minutes after they crossed Elm Street where, in their original statements, they said Gloria came running up to them.  We continue:

Mr. Ball: The top step you were standing there?
Mr. Lovelady: Right.
Mr. Ball: Now, when Gloria came up you were standing near Mr. Shelley?
Mr. Lovelady: Yeah.

This too is consistent with them meeting Gloria a few minutes after they crossed Elm Street where, in their original statements, they said Gloria came running up to them as they were standing near each other.  We continue:

Mr. Ball: When Gloria came up and said the President had been shot, Gloria Calvary, what did you do?
Mr. Lovelady: Well, I asked who told her. She said he had been shot so we asked her was she for certain or just had she seen the shot hit him or--she said yes, she had been right close to it to see and she had saw the blood and knew he had been hit but didn't know how serious it was and so the crowd had started towards the railroad tracks back, you know, behind our building there and we run towards that little, old island and kind of down there in that little street...

If we were to replace the bolded "and" with a "then" and if "run towards that little, old island" means running across Elm St. then you would be correct that this is a statement that is inconsistent with meeting Gloria after crossing Elm Street. But he used the word "and" not "then" so it is ambiguous at best.

Mr. Ball: By the time you left the steps had Mr. Truly entered the building?
Mr. Lovelady: As we left the steps I would say we were at least 15. maybe 25. steps away from the building. I looked back and I saw him and the policeman running into the building.[/b]

Nothing there to say where they met Gloria C.

SHELLEY

Mr. Ball: You were standing where?
Mr. Shelley: Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. Ball: That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. Shelley: yes.
Mr. Ball: Did you see the motorcade pass?
Mr. Shelley: Yes.
Mr. Ball: What did you hear?
Mr. Shelley: Well, I heard something sounded like it was a firecracker and a slight pause and then two more a little bit closer together.

Mr. Ball: Then what happened?
Mr. Shelley: Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said "The President has been shot" and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute.

Again, if we were to replace the bolded "and" with a "then" and if "took off across the street to that little, old island" means running across Elm St. then you would be correct that this is a statement that is inconsistent with meeting Gloria after crossing Elm Street. But he too used the word "and" not "then" so it is ambiguous at best.

Mr. Ball: Did you see Truly, Mr. Truly and an officer go into the building?
Mr. Shelley: Yeah, we saw them right at the front of the building while we were on the island.[/b]

This is consistent with them seeing Truly and Baker go into the TSBD after crossing Elm but before meeting Gloria C.  It was not until Mr. Ball asked this leading question that you can say that Lovelady contradicts his earlier statement.

"Mr. BALL. Right after you talked to Gloria. did you leave the steps and go toward the tracks?
Mr. LOVELADY. Yes.

Do you agree with the fact that both men testify to the following sequence of events in their WC testimonies:
1] They were stood on the steps when the shooting happened.

We know this from Altgens' #6 photo and other evidence. They did not leave the steps until after the shots. The question is: how long after the shots did they leave the steps?

Firstly, this is not the first time you have made the dishonest claim that both men made earlier statements that they crossed Elm immediately after the shots and met Gloria. Lovelady never made any such claim and it's dishonest of you to keep asserting he did.

First of all, your habit of accusing people who do not agree with you as being dishonest is not one of your endearing qualities.  More to the point, it only detracts from your argument.

How do you interpret this statement of Lovelady from 22Nov63: "He said immediately after hearing the shots he and Shelley started running towards the Presidential car, but it sped away west on Elm Street under the triple underpass."?

How do you interpret this statement of Shelley from 22Nov63 (24H226): "I ran across the street to the corner of the park and ran into a girl crying and she said the President had been shot."?

And it is really bizarre to suggest that, because Shelley stated in his affidavit on the day of the assassination that he ran across Elm and met Gloria, when he completely changes his story in his WC testimony we are meant to ignore it because of his earlier statement!!

I didn't say we should ignore it.  I just said that, since they were never asked to explain the contradictions we are unable to determine which statement is accurate with respect to that detail. So we cannot give any weight to the latter statement.

Shelley and Lovelady are lying about their movements after the assassination, that is what the 3 Minute Lie is part of. Shelley's change of story is yet another indication of the lies he is telling. Instead, you try to use it as a way to interpret his WC testimony in a way that suits you! Could there be a more dishonest approach to the evidence?
I don't think so.

Again, your tiresome allegations that people who disagree with you are being dishonest do not contribute to the discussion.

Shelley and Lovelady are lying about their movements after the assassination.
It's why their stories keep changing from statement to statement.

You are accusing Shelley and Lovelady as being dishonest based on speculation. Making inconsistent statements in itself is not evidence of dishonesty.  Evidence of dishonesty may arise if the witness is confronted with the previous inconsistent statement and cannot give a credible explanation. Proof of dishonesty requires clear and cogent evidence of an intent to mislead.  That did not occur here.  You cannot determine the probability that they would have been able to innocently explain the contradiction. 

The 3 Minute Lie is proven to be a lie by the Darnell footage, the Truly/Baker time trials and the testimonies/statements of Baker, Truly, Adams, Styles, Garner, Molina and Pauline Sanders.
You're assertion, that Adams lied in her testimony, is based solely on the statements/testimonies of Shelley and Lovelady, two proven liars.

I never suggested, let alone said, that Adams lied in her testimony.  There is a difference between knowingly uttering a falsehood and being mistaken.  You don't seem to grasp that essential point.

This is good enough for you and Nutters like you but not for anyone looking honestly at this issue.
Personally, I would be ashamed at the dishonest tactics you have to resort to, but for you it seems like it's just another day at the office.

I would be ashamed if I suggested that every witness who made inconsistent statements was a liar.

[Dan O'meara]

Perhaps you need to refresh your reading and comprehension skills Dan.  Here are the excerpts you provided: So far, it is consistent with them meeting Gloria a few minutes after they crossed Elm Street where, in their original statements, they said Gloria came running up to them.  We continue:
This too is consistent with them meeting Gloria a few minutes after they crossed Elm Street where, in their original statements, they said Gloria came running up to them as they were standing near each other.  We continue:If we were to replace the bolded "and" with a "then" and if "run towards that little, old island" means running across Elm St. then you would be correct that this is a statement that is inconsistent with meeting Gloria after crossing Elm Street. But he used the word "and" not "then" so it is ambiguous at best.
Nothing there to say where they met Gloria C.Again, if we were to replace the bolded "and" with a "then" and if "took off across the street to that little, old island" means running across Elm St. then you would be correct that this is a statement that is inconsistent with meeting Gloria after crossing Elm Street. But he too used the word "and" not "then" so it is ambiguous at best.This is consistent with them seeing Truly and Baker go into the TSBD after crossing Elm but before meeting Gloria C.  It was not until Mr. Ball asked this leading question that you can say that Lovelady contradicts his earlier statement.

"Mr. BALL. Right after you talked to Gloria. did you leave the steps and go toward the tracks?
Mr. LOVELADY. Yes.We know this from Altgens' #6 photo and other evidence. They did not leave the steps until after the shots. The question is: how long after the shots did they leave the steps?First of all, your habit of accusing people who do not agree with you as being dishonest is not one of your endearing qualities.  More to the point, it only detracts from your argument.

How do you interpret this statement of Lovelady from 22Nov63: "He said immediately after hearing the shots he and Shelley started running towards the Presidential car, but it sped away west on Elm Street under the triple underpass."?

How do you interpret this statement of Shelley from 22Nov63 (24H226): "I ran across the street to the corner of the park and ran into a girl crying and she said the President had been shot."?
I didn't say we should ignore it.  I just said that, since they were never asked to explain the contradictions we are unable to determine which statement is accurate with respect to that detail. So we cannot give any weight to the latter statement.Again, your tiresome allegations that people who disagree with you are being dishonest do not contribute to the discussion.
You are accusing Shelley and Lovelady as being dishonest based on speculation. Making inconsistent statements in itself is not evidence of dishonesty.  Evidence of dishonesty may arise if the witness is confronted with the previous inconsistent statement and cannot give a credible explanation. Proof of dishonesty requires clear and cogent evidence of an intent to mislead.  That did not occur here.  You cannot determine the probability that they would have been able to innocently explain the contradiction.  I never suggested, let alone said, that Adams lied in her testimony.  There is a difference between knowingly uttering a falsehood and being mistaken.  You don't seem to grasp that essential point.I would be ashamed if I suggested that every witness who made inconsistent statements was a liar.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
Before his WC testimony Lovelady NEVER claims that he ran across Elm Street and met Gloria there.
This is staggering dishonesty on your behalf to constantly assert he did and it's mind-blowing you are continuing with this falsehood when you've been caught out.
I'm well aware Shelley claims that after the shots he runs across the Elm Street extension and meets Gloria coming the other way. He then returns to the steps and re-enters the building. At no point does he mention Lovelady came with him. He refers only to himself going over.
In his affidavit Lovelady never even leaves the front steps!
After that we have Lovelady's FBI  statement that has them both running down to the area where the limo slowed down. Not the railroad yard.
Then there's Shelley's FBI statement that both men accompanied officers down to the railroad yard and stayed there for ten minutes.
Constantly changing movements and timings.
But NEVER does Lovelady state he ran across Elm Street and met Gloria away from the steps.
Am I calling it dishonest because you don't agree with me?
Not at all, I relish that debate.
I'm calling it dishonest because that is exactly what it is.

I challenge you to either produce the document that contains this earlier claim that Lovelady met Gloria away from the steps [at which point I will apologise to you] or own up to your dishonesty in front of the forum.


Mr. BALL: Do you have any idea how long it was from the time you heard those three sounds or three noises until you saw Truly and Baker going into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY: It would have to be 3 or 4 minutes I would say because this girl that ran back up there was down near where the car was when the President was hit.
Mr. BALL: She ran back up to the door and you had still remained standing there?
Mr. SHELLEY: Yes.

Explain this exchange in Shelley's WC testimony.
Your dishonest attempt to change the sequence of events that both men testified to is recorded.
You really should be ashamed.

[Andrew Mason]

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

Your misuse of the term "dishonesty" is an unfortunate part of your discussions that does nothing to enhance the points you think you are making. Either you do not understand the meaning of the term "dishonest" or you do not understand the evidence required to establish dishonesty.

Before his WC testimony Lovelady NEVER claims that he ran across Elm Street and met Gloria there.
This is staggering dishonesty on your behalf to constantly assert he did and it's mind-blowing you are continuing with this falsehood when you've been caught out.

He is reported to have said in his 22Nov63 FBI statement which can be viewed here is: "He said immediately after hearing the shots he and Shelley started running towards the Presidential car, but it sped away west on Elm Street under the triple underpass.".  Perhaps you are thinking that there was some way for them to run toward the Presidential car while remaining standing on the front steps of the TSBD.  I may have missed it but I didn't see a running treadmill on the front steps.  He doesn't say he met Gloria C. at any time but he could not have met her before he ran towards the President's car.  Gloria C. could not have been on the steps immediately after the shots before the President's car had disappeared under the Triple underpass.

I'm well aware Shelley claims that after the shots he runs across the Elm Street extension and meets Gloria coming the other way. He then returns to the steps and re-enters the building. At no point does he mention Lovelady came with him. He refers only to himself going over.

Au contraire. Shelley said in his FBI statement (22H673): "Immediately following the shooting, Billy N. Lovelady and I accompanied some uniformed police officers to the railroad yards just west of the building...".  Are we to assume you were not aware of this statement when you suggested that "at no point does he mention that Lovelady came with him"? 

In his affidavit Lovelady never even leaves the front steps!

You really aren't serious are you?  How can they both run toward the President's car and still remain standing on the front steps?

After that we have Lovelady's FBI  statement that has them both running down to the area where the limo slowed down. Not the railroad yard.
Then there's Shelley's FBI statement that both men accompanied officers down to the railroad yard and stayed there for ten minutes.
Constantly changing movements and timings.
But NEVER does Lovelady state he ran across Elm Street and met Gloria away from the steps.

I challenge you to either produce the document that contains this earlier claim that Lovelady met Gloria away from the steps [at which point I will apologise to you] or own up to your dishonesty in front of the forum.

Lovelady never mentions meeting Gloria Calvery at all in any of his earlier statements, although he does acknowledge meeting Gloria C in his WC testimony.  So we can conclude that he met Gloria C. somewhere. The question is where? Shelley says that he met Gloria C. in his first statement but does not mention that Lovelady was with him.  But Lovelady did say that Shelley was with him when they ran from the steps and he says that after the shots he and Shelley immediately started running toward the President's car.  Gloria C is seen in the Zfilm between the Thornton and Stemmons signs.

So, having a brain, we can put the statements and the zfilm together and conclude that their initial statements are inconsistent with meeting Gloria C. on the steps before they ran from the steps.

Mr. BALL: Do you have any idea how long it was from the time you heard those three sounds or three noises until you saw Truly and Baker going into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY: It would have to be 3 or 4 minutes I would say because this girl that ran back up there was down near where the car was when the President was hit.

This passage was not included in the passage you asked me to comment on.

Mr. BALL: She ran back up to the door and you had still remained standing there?
Mr. SHELLEY: Yes.[/b]

A rather leading question, don't you think?  So it is not given much weight. Since it conflicts completely with what he had said in his earlier statements, we can't determine what his real recollection was unless the previous statement is put to him. It wasn't.

[Dan O'meara]

Your misuse of the term "dishonesty" is an unfortunate part of your discussions that does nothing to enhance the points you think you are making. Either you do not understand the meaning of the term "dishonest" or you do not understand the evidence required to establish dishonesty.He is reported to have said in his 22Nov63 FBI statement which can be viewed here is: "He said immediately after hearing the shots he and Shelley started running towards the Presidential car, but it sped away west on Elm Street under the triple underpass.".  Perhaps you are thinking that there was some way for them to run toward the Presidential car while remaining standing on the front steps of the TSBD.  I may have missed it but I didn't see a running treadmill on the front steps.  He doesn't say he met Gloria C. at any time but he could not have met her before he ran towards the President's car.  Gloria C. could not have been on the steps immediately after the shots before the President's car had disappeared under the Triple underpass.Au contraire. Shelley said in his FBI statement (22H673): "Immediately following the shooting, Billy N. Lovelady and I accompanied some uniformed police officers to the railroad yards just west of the building...".  Are we to assume you were not aware of this statement when you suggested that "at no point does he mention that Lovelady came with him"?  You really aren't serious are you?  How can they both run toward the President's car and still remain standing on the front steps?Lovelady never mentions meeting Gloria Calvery at all in any of his earlier statements, although he does acknowledge meeting Gloria C in his WC testimony.  So we can conclude that he met Gloria C. somewhere. The question is where? Shelley says that he met Gloria C. in his first statement but does not mention that Lovelady was with him.  But Lovelady did say that Shelley was with him when they ran from the steps and he says that after the shots he and Shelley immediately started running toward the President's car.  Gloria C is seen in the Zfilm between the Thornton and Stemmons signs.

So, having a brain, we can put the statements and the zfilm together and conclude that their initial statements are inconsistent with meeting Gloria C. on the steps before they ran from the steps.
This passage was not included in the passage you asked me to comment on.A rather leading question, don't you think?  So it is not given much weight. Since it conflicts completely with what he had said in his earlier statements, we can't determine what his real recollection was unless the previous statement is put to him. It wasn't.

He doesn't say he met Gloria C. at any time but he could not have met her before he ran towards the President's car.

And finally, here we have it - the admission that Lovelady never mentioned seeing Gloria before his WC testimony in any statement. Time and time again making the claim he did, but knowing full well he hadn't:
Reply#18
"They said from the beginning that they met her after they crossed Elm St. as she was coming toward them from farther down Elm."
Reply#33
"...were it not for their earlier statements where they made it clear that they crossed Elm immediately after the shots and met Calvery."
Reply#40
"...in their original statements, they said Gloria came running up to them."
Reply#40
"...in their original statements, they said Gloria came running up to them as they were standing near each other."

Is this dishonesty?
Do I understand what dishonesty is?
Or should the question be - do you know what "dishonest" means?

I posted:

"I'm well aware Shelley claims that after the shots he runs across the Elm Street extension and meets Gloria coming the other way. He then returns to the steps and re-enters the building. At no point does he mention Lovelady came with him. He refers only to himself going over."

To which you responded:

"Au contraire. Shelley said in his FBI statement (22H673): "Immediately following the shooting, Billy N. Lovelady and I accompanied some uniformed police officers to the railroad yards just west of the building...".  Are we to assume you were not aware of this statement when you suggested that "at no point does he mention that Lovelady came with him"? "

Au contraire?
Really?
Here's a link to Shelley's affidavit, a document you are clearly unfamiliar with - https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337377/m1/1/
Here is the relevant excerpt from it:
"I was standing on the front steps at 411 Elm watching the President in the parade...when I heard what sounded like three shots...I ran across the street to the corner of the park and ran into a girl crying and she said the President had been shot...I went back to the building and went inside."
I ran across the street...
I went back to the building...
No mention of Lovelady being with him. As far as his affidavit is concerned he went alone and, as we shall see, this is corroborated by Lovelady's affidavit.

I posted:

"In his affidavit Lovelady never even leaves the front steps!"

To which you responded:

"You really aren't serious are you?  How can they both run toward the President's car and still remain standing on the front steps?"

Yes Andrew...I am being serious.
Here's a link to Lovelady's affidavit, another document you are clearly unfamiliar with - https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338698/
Here's the relevant excerpts from his affidavit:
"I was standing on the steps in front of the building where I work...I heard three shots...After it was over we went back into the building."
That is the sum total of Lovelady's recollection of his movements in his first statement to the police a couple of hours after the assassination.

According to their affidavits, after the shots Shelley ran across Elm, encountered Gloria and came back to the steps. Both men then re-entered the building.
And that's that.
And it is the only truthful account of their movements.
And this is how Vicki Adams not only witnessed them towards the back of the first floor less than 60 seconds after the assassination, she called out to them.
Then come the lies.
First is Lovelady's FBI statement about how "immediately after hearing the shots he and Shelley started running towards the Presidential car, but it sped away west on Elm Street under the triple underpass."
It's obviously a lie because it's impossible.
Both men were on the steps when all three shots were fired. How could they then run towards the limo and see it speed away?
If the headshot was the last shot, which isn't necessarily the case, but if it were the limo sped away instantly after it was fired so how could they see it speed away.
In his FBI statement of March 19th '64, Lovelady exacerbates he lie when he states "I recall that following the shooting, I ran toward the spot where President Kennedy's car had stopped. William Shelley and myself stayed in that area for approximately five minutes..."
So Lovelady has them both running towards the spot where the limo stopped, seeing the limo speeding away and staying in that area for about 5 minutes. Meanwhile, Shelley is telling a completely different story - "Immediately following the shooting, Billy N. Nolan and I accompanied some uniformed police officers to the railroad yards just west of the building and returned through the west side door of the building about ten minutes later."
Ten minutes?
At the railroad yards?
What happened to five minutes in the area where the limo stopped?
They get their heads together and the lie they finally settle on is a version on Shelley's FBI statement for their WC testimony.
And let's not forget Lovelady's HSCA statement where he said he didn't re-enter the TSBD building for 20 to 25 minutes after the shooting!!

You were asked to explain this part of Shelley's WC testimony where he is unequivocally clear that he was still on the steps when Gloria ran up there:

Mr. BALL: Do you have any idea how long it was from the time you heard those three sounds or three noises until you saw Truly and Baker going into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY: It would have to be 3 or 4 minutes I would say because this girl that ran back up there was down near where the car was when the President was hit.
Mr. BALL: She ran back up to the door and you had still remained standing there?
Mr. SHELLEY: Yes.

Obviously you tried to side-step it in your usual honest way.
And as for Ball's "leading question",
As you are well aware, earlier in his testimony, Ball asked where Shelley was during the shooting to which Shelley replied, "just outside the glass doors". After the shots Shelley is asked what happened next:

Mr. SHELLEY. Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said "The President has been shot" and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute.

When he says Gloria ran "back up there", he is referring to his position on the steps. After the encounter he and Lovelady "took off across the street."
Ball is simply clarifying that Shelley was still on the steps when Gloria came running up and Shelley confirms this was the case.

In reality, Shelley had run across the Elm Street extension where he encountered Gloria and followed her back to the steps as she told everyone there about the shooting.
But in their WC testimonies there can be zero doubt that both men are saying they were on the steps when Gloria came running up, after which they took off across the Elm Street extension at which point they turned round and saw Truly and Baker still outside the building over three minutes after the shooting
It must be remembered that Shelley repeated this lie to Patricia and George Nash, as reported in their October '64 article "The Other Witnesses":

"Further, Bill Shelley told us that Truly and Baker entered five or six minutes after the shooting."

The 3 Minute Lie is a co-ordinated and repeated lie.
It is proven a lie by the Darnell footage, the Truly/Baker time trials and the testimonies/statements of Adams, Truly, Baker, Molina and Sanders, not to mention the constantly changing, contradictory and, at times, impossible statements Shelley and Lovelady make regarding their movements.
It's sole purpose is to disguise the real movements of Shelley and Lovelady immediately after the assassination.
The reality of these movements were given away in their original statements - after the shooting Shelley ran across the Elm Street extension, met Gloria, came back to the steps from where Lovelady hadn't moved, and both men re-entered the building. Seconds later Adams sees them on the first floor as she and Styles  run from the stairs and exit through the back door. Seconds after that Truly and Baker arrive in the same area and Baker reports seeing two white men, who can only be Shelley and Lovelady, hanging around that area.

[Andrew Mason]

He doesn't say he met Gloria C. at any time but he could not have met her before he ran towards the President's car.

And finally, here we have it - the admission that Lovelady never mentioned seeing Gloria before his WC testimony in any statement. Time and time again making the claim he did, but knowing full well he hadn't:
Reply#18
"They said from the beginning that they met her after they crossed Elm St. as she was coming toward them from farther down Elm."
Reply#33
"...were it not for their earlier statements where they made it clear that they crossed Elm immediately after the shots and met Calvery."
Reply#40
"...in their original statements, they said Gloria came running up to them."
Reply#40
"...in their original statements, they said Gloria came running up to them as they were standing near each other."

Is this dishonesty?
Do I understand what dishonesty is?
Or should the question be - do you know what "dishonest" means?

I was referring to what what Lovelady and Shelley together said.  So long as they don't contradict each other there is nothing dishonest or misleading about referring to what they said in their statements.  If I had said "each said they met Gloria" and only one had said that then I would have been incorrect.  That would have been careless of me.  But I didn't.  When you asked me specifically what just Lovelady said I reviewed all his statements prior to his WC testimony and acknowledged that he had not - just in his WC testimony. Lovelady's failure to mention that he met Gloria Calvery doesn't mean he didn't meet her so it doesn't make it inconsistent with Shelly's statement

I posted:

"I'm well aware Shelley claims that after the shots he runs across the Elm Street extension and meets Gloria coming the other way. He then returns to the steps and re-enters the building. At no point does he mention Lovelady came with him. He refers only to himself going over."

To which you responded:

"Au contraire. Shelley said in his FBI statement (22H673): "Immediately following the shooting, Billy N. Lovelady and I accompanied some uniformed police officers to the railroad yards just west of the building...".  Are we to assume you were not aware of this statement when you suggested that "at no point does he mention that Lovelady came with him"? "

Au contraire?
Really?
Here's a link to Shelley's affidavit, a document you are clearly unfamiliar with - https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337377/m1/1/

Not only am I familiar with it, I have referred to it. It is the only prior statement either he or Lovelady made in which Gloria Calvery is mentioned.  BTW, the witness statements of all the witnesses in Dealey Plaza are conveniently compiled by Stuart Galanor here.

Here is the relevant excerpt from it:
"I was standing on the front steps at 411 Elm watching the President in the parade...when I heard what sounded like three shots...I ran across the street to the corner of the park and ran into a girl crying and she said the President had been shot...I went back to the building and went inside."
I ran across the street...
I went back to the building...
No mention of Lovelady being with him. As far as his affidavit is concerned he went alone and, as we shall see, this is corroborated by Lovelady's affidavit.

That is correct.  But that is not the only statement he made before giving his WC testimony.  That is why I quoted from his earlier FBI statement at 22H673 in which he mentions Lovelady being with him.

I posted:

"In his affidavit Lovelady never even leaves the front steps!"

To which you responded:

"You really aren't serious are you?  How can they both run toward the President's car and still remain standing on the front steps?"

Yes Andrew...I am being serious.
Here's a link to Lovelady's affidavit, another document you are clearly unfamiliar with - https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338698/
Here's the relevant excerpts from his affidavit:
"I was standing on the steps in front of the building where I work...I heard three shots...After it was over we went back into the building."
That is the sum total of Lovelady's recollection of his movements in his first statement to the police a couple of hours after the assassination.

What makes you think that that is all he recalled?  Does it say "I don't recall any other details at all"? The statement was written up by the Dallas police.  They were very busy that day.  Lovelady may not have mentioned meeting Gloria Calvery or seeing Truly walk into the building or going down to the railroad yard or going in the back door etc. Or the police officer taking the statement may not have thought those details were needed to be in the statement.  Statements are often taken for a particular purpose. In that case, it appears they were particularly interested in what he heard - the number of shots and where he thought they came from. I can guarantee you that their purpose was not to determine where he may have encountered Gloria Calvery.

According to their affidavits, after the shots Shelley ran across Elm, encountered Gloria and came back to the steps. Both men then re-entered the building.
And that's that.
And it is the only truthful account of their movements.
And this is how Vicki Adams not only witnessed them towards the back of the first floor less than 60 seconds after the assassination, she called out to them.
Then come the lies.
First is Lovelady's FBI statement about how "immediately after hearing the shots he and Shelley started running towards the Presidential car, but it sped away west on Elm Street under the triple underpass."
It's obviously a lie because it's impossible.
Both men were on the steps when all three shots were fired. How could they then run towards the limo and see it speed away?
If the headshot was the last shot, which isn't necessarily the case, but if it were the limo sped away instantly after it was fired so how could they see it speed away.
In his FBI statement of March 19th '64, Lovelady exacerbates he lie when he states "I recall that following the shooting, I ran toward the spot where President Kennedy's car had stopped. William Shelley and myself stayed in that area for approximately five minutes..."
So Lovelady has them both running towards the spot where the limo stopped, seeing the limo speeding away and staying in that area for about 5 minutes. Meanwhile, Shelley is telling a completely different story - "Immediately following the shooting, Billy N. Nolan and I accompanied some uniformed police officers to the railroad yards just west of the building and returned through the west side door of the building about ten minutes later."
Ten minutes?
At the railroad yards?
What happened to five minutes in the area where the limo stopped?
They get their heads together and the lie they finally settle on is a version on Shelley's FBI statement for their WC testimony.
And let's not forget Lovelady's HSCA statement where he said he didn't re-enter the TSBD building for 20 to 25 minutes after the shooting!!

That's your theory.  I just don't find it to be the least bit persuasive.  It does not fit the evidence provided by others or provided in their earlier statements.

You were asked to explain this part of Shelley's WC testimony where he is unequivocally clear that he was still on the steps when Gloria ran up there:

Mr. BALL: Do you have any idea how long it was from the time you heard those three sounds or three noises until you saw Truly and Baker going into the building?
Mr. SHELLEY: It would have to be 3 or 4 minutes I would say because this girl that ran back up there was down near where the car was when the President was hit.
Mr. BALL: She ran back up to the door and you had still remained standing there?
Mr. SHELLEY: Yes.

No explaining necessary.  It says what it says.  He was confused, possibly by Ball, about when he saw Truly and Baker running into the TSBD, possibly because both events occurred after they ran across Elm St. immediately after the shots.

Obviously you tried to side-step it in your usual honest way.
And as for Ball's "leading question",
As you are well aware, earlier in his testimony, Ball asked where Shelley was during the shooting to which Shelley replied, "just outside the glass doors". After the shots Shelley is asked what happened next:

Mr. SHELLEY. Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said "The President has been shot" and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute.

When he says Gloria ran "back up there", he is referring to his position on the steps. After the encounter he and Lovelady "took off across the street."
Ball is simply clarifying that Shelley was still on the steps when Gloria came running up and Shelley confirms this was the case.

In reality, Shelley had run across the Elm Street extension where he encountered Gloria and followed her back to the steps as she told everyone there about the shooting.
But in their WC testimonies there can be zero doubt that both men are saying they were on the steps when Gloria came running up, after which they took off across the Elm Street extension at which point they turned round and saw Truly and Baker still outside the building over three minutes after the shooting
It must be remembered that Shelley repeated this lie to Patricia and George Nash, as reported in their October '64 article "The Other Witnesses":

"Further, Bill Shelley told us that Truly and Baker entered five or six minutes after the shooting."

The 3 Minute Lie is a co-ordinated and repeated lie.
It is proven a lie by the Darnell footage, the Truly/Baker time trials and the testimonies/statements of Adams, Truly, Baker, Molina and Sanders, not to mention the constantly changing, contradictory and, at times, impossible statements Shelley and Lovelady make regarding their movements.
It's sole purpose is to disguise the real movements of Shelley and Lovelady immediately after the assassination.
The reality of these movements were given away in their original statements - after the shooting Shelley ran across the Elm Street extension, met Gloria, came back to the steps from where Lovelady hadn't moved, and both men re-entered the building. Seconds later Adams sees them on the first floor as she and Styles  run from the stairs and exit through the back door. Seconds after that Truly and Baker arrive in the same area and Baker reports seeing two white men, who can only be Shelley and Lovelady, hanging around that area.

I disagree with your assessment of Shelley and Lovelady as deliberately lying.  I would need some clear and cogent evidence that they had any intent to mislead the Warren Commission. Witnesses change their stories all the time. That is why we have statements taken as early as possible. If a witness later gives testimony that is inconsistent with their earlier statement they can either be corrected.  If they insist their memories are better 6 months after the events the judge or jury will take that into account in assessing their credibility.

[Dan O'meara]

I was referring to what what Lovelady and Shelley together said.  So long as they don't contradict each other there is nothing dishonest or misleading about referring to what they said in their statements.  If I had said "each said they met Gloria" and only one had said that then I would have been incorrect.  That would have been careless of me.  But I didn't.  When you asked me specifically what just Lovelady said I reviewed all his statements prior to his WC testimony and acknowledged that he had not - just in his WC testimony. Lovelady's failure to mention that he met Gloria Calvery doesn't mean he didn't meet her so it doesn't make it inconsistent with Shelly's statement

This is just utter nonsense.
You made multiple claims that from their earliest statements Lovelady and Shelley were saying they had met Gloria after they crossed Elm Street.
This is categorically untrue.
I called you out on it and then (and only then) you reviewed all Lovelady's statements and acknowledged you were incorrect to state otherwise.
At no point did Lovelady ever say he met Gloria after leaving the steps before his WC testimony.
You were wrong to make the statements I have highlighted. They were untruthful statements.
If you're saying it wasn't dishonesty because you didn't really know what you were talking about, that's fair enough. I accept that.
But just say that rather than this nonsense.

That is correct.  But that is not the only statement he made before giving his WC testimony.  That is why I quoted from his earlier FBI statement at 22H673 in which he mentions Lovelady being with him.What makes you think that that is all he recalled?  Does it say "I don't recall any other details at all"? The statement was written up by the Dallas police.  They were very busy that day.  Lovelady may not have mentioned meeting Gloria Calvery or seeing Truly walk into the building or going down to the railroad yard or going in the back door etc. Or the police officer taking the statement may not have thought those details were needed to be in the statement.  Statements are often taken for a particular purpose. In that case, it appears they were particularly interested in what he heard - the number of shots and where he thought they came from. I can guarantee you that their purpose was not to determine where he may have encountered Gloria Calvery.

One minute you're on about the importance of the first statements after an event but now, when it doesn't suit you, these first statements mean nothing.
The purpose of the affidavits was to find out what these men did and saw around the time of the assassination.
Shelley ran across Elm Street, met Gloria, came back to the steps and re-entered the building.
Lovelady never left the steps and re-entered the building.
This is what they said they did within two hours of the event.
Your, argument - that these men meant to say the things you want them to say - is really lame.
You like to use Lovelady's FBI statement but it is noteworthy that you skip over the physical impossibility of this statement.
How very convenient.

That's your theory.  I just don't find it to be the least bit persuasive.  It does not fit the evidence provided by others or provided in their earlier statements.
No explaining necessary.

It does not fit the evidence provided by others...

By "others" you mean Shelley and Lovelady. You don't mean anyone else.
So, here your argument is - Shelley and Lovelady can't be liars because their testimony/statements say otherwise.
How lame is that?

It says what it says.  He was confused, possibly by Ball, about when he saw Truly and Baker running into the TSBD, possibly because both events occurred after they ran across Elm St. immediately after the shots.

I agree Andrew, this section of his testimony does say what it says - Q: Were you on the steps when Gloria ran up to you? A: Yes!
But then you treat us to what really happened. That Shelley was confused even though he told exactly the same lie to George and Patricia Nash (you forgot about that, didn't you?). Shelley was confused and by some million-to-one shot told exactly the same lie Lovelady did about how long it was before Truly and Baker entered the building.
Yet another unbelievably lame "argument".

I disagree with your assessment of Shelley and Lovelady as deliberately lying.  I would need some clear and cogent evidence that they had any intent to mislead the Warren Commission. Witnesses change their stories all the time. That is why we have statements taken as early as possible. If a witness later gives testimony that is inconsistent with their earlier statement they can either be corrected.  If they insist their memories are better 6 months after the events the judge or jury will take that into account in assessing their credibility.

I'm glad you disagree Andrew.
There could hardly be greater validation of the arguments I'm presenting.

[Andrew Mason]

This is just utter nonsense.
You made multiple claims that from their earliest statements Lovelady and Shelley were saying they had met Gloria after they crossed Elm Street.

How can you interpret what they said before giving their WC testimony as being consistent with meeting Gloria Calvery on the steps?  Here is what they said they did after the shots:
Shelley: 
24H226: "I ran across the street to the corner of the park and ran into a girl crying and she said the President had been shot. This Girl's name is Gloria Calvery."
22H673: "Immediately following the shooting, Billy N. Lovelady and I accompanied some uniformed police officers to the railroad yards just west of the building and returned through the west side door of the building about ten minutes later."

Lovelady:
CD205 FBI 22Nov63: "He said immediately after hearing the shots he and Shelley started running towards the Presidential car, but it sped away west on Elm Street under the triple underpass. He and Shelley then returned to the Texas School Book Depository Building."

The statements mention different things.  Yet each said that immediately after the shots they did things that are inconsistent with remaining on the steps and meeting Gloria Calvery coming back to the TSBD. 

One minute you're on about the importance of the first statements after an event but now, when it doesn't suit you, these first statements mean nothing.
The purpose of the affidavits was to find out what these men did and saw around the time of the assassination.
Shelley ran across Elm Street, met Gloria, came back to the steps and re-entered the building.
Lovelady never left the steps and re-entered the building.

You have yet to tackle Lovelady's FBI statement.  How did they start running towards the President's car and not leave the front steps of the TSBD?

I'm glad you disagree Andrew.
There could hardly be greater validation of the arguments I'm presenting.

Pure speculation that they knowingly uttered statements that they knew to be false at the time they uttered them. Speculation appears to be good enough for you to call someone dishonest.

[Dan O'meara]

How can you interpret what they said before giving their WC testimony as being consistent with meeting Gloria Calvery on the steps?  Here is what they said they did after the shots:
Shelley: 
24H226: "I ran across the street to the corner of the park and ran into a girl crying and she said the President had been shot. This Girl's name is Gloria Calvery."
22H673: "Immediately following the shooting, Billy N. Lovelady and I accompanied some uniformed police officers to the railroad yards just west of the building and returned through the west side door of the building about ten minutes later."

Lovelady:
CD205 FBI 22Nov63: "He said immediately after hearing the shots he and Shelley started running towards the Presidential car, but it sped away west on Elm Street under the triple underpass. He and Shelley then returned to the Texas School Book Depository Building."

The statements mention different things.  Yet each said that immediately after the shots they did things that are inconsistent with remaining on the steps and meeting Gloria Calvery coming back to the TSBD. 

What part of 'they lied about their movements after the assassination' are you not getting?
The only time they were truthful were their very first statements, their affidavits.
They were both on the steps when the shots rang out, Shelley ran across the Elm Street extension where he met Gloria coming the other way. Shelley returned to the steps and re-entered the building with Lovelady, who never left the steps.
They both then made their way to the back of the first floor where they were seen by Vicki Adams less than 60 seconds after the shooting. Seconds later Truly and Baker show up in the same area where Baker reports seeing two white men hanging around.
What, about this scenario, are you having a problem with.

Lovelady never mentions going across Elm Street and meeting Gloria.
Lovelady lied when he said he and Shelley went to where the limo slowed down and stayed in that area for five minutes.
Shelley lied when he said he and Lovelady accompanied police officers to the railroad yard and stayed there for ten minutes.
Shelley lied in his WC testimony when he said he was on the steps when Gloria came running up.
Both men lied when they said it took Gloria at least 3 minutes to arrive.
Shelley lied to George and Patricia Nash when he said Truly and Baker didn't enter the building for five or six minutes.
Both men lied in their WC testimonies when they said that after they left the steps they turned around and saw Baker and Truly still outside the TSBD building at least 3 minutes after the assassination.
Both men lied in their WC testimonies when they said they went to the railroad yards.
Both men lied in their WC testimonies when they said they re-entered the building through the west door.
Lovelady lied in his HSCA statement when he said he didn't re-enter the building for 20 to 25 minutes.
LOVELADY NEVER LEFT THE STEPS.
BOTH MEN RE-ENTERED THE FRONT DOOR AROUND THE SAME TIME BAKER ARRIVES IN THE LOBBY.
ADAMS SAW BOTH MEN LESS THAN 60 SECONDS AFTER THE SHOOTING.
This scenario is supported by the following evidence:
1] The Darnell footage
2] The Truly/Baker time trials
3] The Dillard Picture
4] The Stroud document
5] The testimonies/statements of Adams, Styles, Garner, Truly, Baker, Molina and Sanders

The only evidence against it are the lies of Shelley and Lovelady.