Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview

[Martin Weidmann]

I am supposed to clarify your bogus claim. It would make more sense if you clarified your own bogus claim.

No, you are supposed to clarify your bogus claim. But it's obvious that you can't, because if you could you would have done it by now.

We know for a fact that Styles was photographed standing next to Sawyer's car, just before re-entering the TSBD through the front door before the building was sealed off, at around 12:36.

You claimed that "Adams and Styles "immediately" turned out to be a number of minutes". When you make such a statement you should at least be able to explain how Styles and Adams could have been at the front of the TSBD within 6 minutes after the shooting. You can either explain that or you are full of s**t. Now, which is it?

[Richard Smith]

You sound like a petulant child who is slowly learning that there is no Santa Claus and is throwing a tantrum.  Very amusing.

And you sound like a devious moron, constantly peddling an easily disprovable lie, who doesn't have the backbone to own up when he's caught out.
Not particularly amusing.

Here is what a mature adult would do if they actually believed they had evidence that suggests a conspiracy to kill JFK or creates doubt as to the historically accepted fact that Oswald did it.  Take your argument/evidence to the NY Times or the DPD or FBI

What a moronic thing to say.
Just to clarify, the posts I've made are in respect to the subject of this thread - the "lost interview" with Vicki Adams. In it she confirms the information she gave in her WC testimony - that she raced down the stairs immediately after the first shot, that she hit the first floor within 60 seconds of the last shot and that she saw Lovelady and Shelley on the first floor, near the elevators when she got there.
This is important information as it reveals that Shelley and Lovelady lied about their movements after the assassination.
I am asking the questions - why would they race towards the back of the first floor immediately after the shooting and why would they lie about their movements?

At no point have I mentioned Oswald, or whether or not he took the shots. That is not the subject of this thread.
Yet here you come, wading in like some rabid fanatic frothing at the mouth crying about Oswald's guilt.
You're an embarrassment.

How is it a "lie" that the evidence places Oswald in the SN?

And here we go again with you're deviousness.
A really unsavoury trait of some Nutters.
The lie you're constantly peddling is that the evidence places Oswald in the SN at the time of the shooting.
In fact, why don't we have your actual words:

"The evidence places Oswald on the 6th floor (his rifle, prints and absence of any alibi) at the moment the shots were fired (i.e. 12:30)    "richard smith"

PS: If you actually do come across some evidence placing Oswald in the SN at the time of the shooting I advise you to contact the NY Times 

Are you ten years old?  Let's cut to the chase.  If you believe that your evidence casts doubt on the suspect in a homicide investigation, provide that evidence to the law enforcement authorities responsible for the investigation.  Don't waste more of our time here.  Any reasonable person would do so if they geniunely believed that they had such evidence.   Let us know the results.

[Dan O'meara]

Are you ten years old?  Let's cut to the chase.  If you believe that your evidence casts doubt on the suspect in a homicide investigation, provide that evidence to the law enforcement authorities responsible for the investigation.  Don't waste more of our time here.  Any reasonable person would do so if they geniunely believed that they had such evidence.   Let us know the results.

Are you ten years old?

Are you a devious lying moron?

If you believe that your evidence casts doubt on the suspect in a homicide investigation, provide that evidence to the law enforcement authorities responsible for the investigation.

You're clearly very old and a bit slow so I'll explain one last time - this thread is about a lost interview with Vicki Adams. Do you understand that? Do you understand what this thread is about? Do you understand what I mean when I say "thread"?
My posts have been about the topic of this thread, about what Vicki says in the lost interview. Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you need me to type slower?
The evidence provided by this interview indicates three things:
1) That Vicki stands by her WC testimony - she was on the first floor within 60 seconds of the last shot and she saw Lovelady and Shelley on the first floor when she got there.
2) That Shelley and Lovelady raced towards the back of the TSBD seconds after the shooting.
3) That Shelley and Lovelady lied about their movements after the shooting.

I cannot make it any simpler than this. If you don't understand this there's nothing more I can do.
There is nothing about a "suspect in a homicide investigation". Do you understand what I'm saying? There's nothing in my posts in this thread about Oswald and his guilt or innocence. Do you understand what I'm saying?
I know there's a lot to take in here so why don't you have a nap. Maybe you'll dream of some evidence that puts Oswald in the SN at the time of the shooting. Wouldn't that be lovely?

[Jack Nessan]

No, you are supposed to clarify your bogus claim. But it's obvious that you can't, because if you could you would have done it by now.

We know for a fact that Styles was photographed standing next to Sawyer's car, just before re-entering the TSBD through the front door before the building was sealed off, at around 12:36.

You claimed that "Adams and Styles "immediately" turned out to be a number of minutes". When you make such a statement you should at least be able to explain how Styles and Adams could have been at the front of the TSBD within 6 minutes after the shooting. You can either explain that or you are full of s**t. Now, which is it?

So, you are not going to prove your claim. Instead, you want me to prove your claim for you. She was standing by Sawyers car is what?

 

[Jack Nessan]

"...it does not matter."!!??
It doesn't matter that both Shelley and Lovelady lied about how long it took Truly and Baker to enter the TSBD building??
It doesn't matter that the Commission didn't bother to question this obvious lie??

You're really starting to make a fool of yourself Jack.
Just think things through before you say anything else.
You're better than this.

And just to clarify your unbelievably poor grasp of even the most basic evidence - Baker is not filmed "running up the steps".

It doesn’t matter. Baker is entering the TSBD as he stated and is proven by the film. What matters in this discussion was being at the elevator to be seen by Adams and Styles either immediately as you claim or later as to their statements.

[Martin Weidmann]

So, you are not going to prove your claim. Instead, you want me to prove your claim for you. She was standing by Sawyers car is what?

If you can answer my question, just do so, instead of desperately trying to start a discussion.

If you can't provide evidence for your claim that Adams and Styles stayed on the 4th floor for several minutes after the shots, your claim is just as bogus as you are.

[Richard Smith]

Are you ten years old?

Are you a devious lying moron?

If you believe that your evidence casts doubt on the suspect in a homicide investigation, provide that evidence to the law enforcement authorities responsible for the investigation.

You're clearly very old and a bit slow so I'll explain one last time - this thread is about a lost interview with Vicki Adams. Do you understand that? Do you understand what this thread is about? Do you understand what I mean when I say "thread"?
My posts have been about the topic of this thread, about what Vicki says in the lost interview. Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you need me to type slower?
The evidence provided by this interview indicates three things:
1) That Vicki stands by her WC testimony - she was on the first floor within 60 seconds of the last shot and she saw Lovelady and Shelley on the first floor when she got there.
2) That Shelley and Lovelady raced towards the back of the TSBD seconds after the shooting.
3) That Shelley and Lovelady lied about their movements after the shooting.

I cannot make it any simpler than this. If you don't understand this there's nothing more I can do.
There is nothing about a "suspect in a homicide investigation". Do you understand what I'm saying? There's nothing in my posts in this thread about Oswald and his guilt or innocence. Do you understand what I'm saying?
I know there's a lot to take in here so why don't you have a nap. Maybe you'll dream of some evidence that puts Oswald in the SN at the time of the shooting. Wouldn't that be lovely?

So hostile and emotional like a spoiled child.  There is nothing in your endless posts on this topic that relate to a "homicide investigation" or Oswald's guilt?  LOL.  What is the whole point of this endless pedantic exercise then?  You are just spending countless words to analyze the movements of people 6o years ago because you find them fascinating?  HA HA HA.   I can understand why you are running away now but you have been suggesting that Oswald - the prime suspect in a homicide - could not have made his way down the stairs unnoticed after the crime.  And thus there is doubt that he is the assassin in a "homicide."   My question to you is simple and does not require another childish tantrum.  If you believe your own nonsense and think it has validity in shedding light on a homicide, why don't you take this "evidence" to the authorities and make your case?  Why repeat it endlessly here?  What do you hope to happen?  This is not a trick question.  That is what any normal person would do if they had relevant information on a homicide.   Let us know what the DPD and FBI make of your arguments.   That seems perfectly reasonable unless you have a dim awareness that your own claims are baseless under scrutiny outside of the Internet.