Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview

[Tom Scully]

I really wish that David, or any other LN, could conclusively place Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 on 11/22/63 because that would close the book on the assassination of Kennedy. Unfortunately, all we get is assumptions disguised as "reasonable  inference".

The problem with assumptions is that with enough of them you can find anybody guilty of anything. Is this really what the most important murder case of the century is coming down to?

We know two things as direct results of my research, instigated by my curiousity spurred on by my refusal to adopt David von Pein's "case closed" stance to the JFK Assassination Investigation.

AFAIK, I discovered what William Hoyt Shelley looked like and that Dial Ryder was the uncle of Jack Bowen's son (Why didn't the FBI discover it and inform the WC?). Are we better off knowing such things? Isn't that what this pursuit is really all about...reaching conclusions based on maximum awareness and not concluding where reasonable doubt  persists? Is it mere coincidence that brothers-in-law Bowen and Ryder are associated with cementing "Oswald and the rifle" despite neither having to testify to that?

BTW, the FBI didn't identify who the other Bowen, the one Albert Osbourne was impersonating, despite reporting that two agents had searched the Chester County, PA newspaper morgues less than two years after this...

I did, using the information provided in the Warren report,

Loads slowly,
https://web.archive.org/web/20170828042556/http://jfk.education/node/16
Bowen or Osborne, "just one of those things?"
Submitted by Admin on Sat, 12/12/2015 -
....
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/wh25_ce_2195.pdf

[David Von Pein]

I really wish that David, or any other LN, could conclusively place Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 on 11/22/63 because that would close the book on the assassination of Kennedy. Unfortunately, all we get is assumptions disguised as "reasonable  inference".

The problem with assumptions is that with enough of them you can find anybody guilty of anything. Is this really what the most important murder case of the century is coming down to?

Well, Martin, it sure would be ideal if I could offer up a photo or a film of Oswald shooting Kennedy. And it would be equally as handy if I could offer up a sixth-floor witness who happened to see Lee Oswald as he was pulling the trigger. But, unfortunately, Oswald got extremely lucky to have the entire sixth floor to himself for that brief period of time it took him to kill the President. So what else is there except a certain amount of "inference" and "guesswork" to be done when it comes to what you want me to "prove"? There are no sixth-floor witnesses....period.

But what we DO have are the things Oswald left behind --- HIS rifle, HIS prints at the exact spot where JFK's assassin was located (i.e., deep within the Sniper's Nest), and the EMPTY 38-inch paper bag with HIS prints on it.

And there's also the fact that Oswald had no provable alibi for the exact time of the assassination. (Is there any other Depository employee who can be placed in that "No Alibi" category? I doubt that there is.)

Therefore, why on Earth shouldn't I be pointing a finger of guilt at Lee Harvey Oswald, the man to whom all of the physical evidence leads?

Should I just IGNORE all of that evidence or pretend it's all been "planted" there to frame an innocent Oswald? Sorry, but that idea is beyond silly and foolish (IMHO).

[John Mytton]

I really wish that David, or any other LN, could conclusively place Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 on 11/22/63 because that would close the book on the assassination of Kennedy. Unfortunately, all we get is assumptions disguised as "reasonable  inference".

The problem with assumptions is that with enough of them you can find anybody guilty of anything. Is this really what the most important murder case of the century is coming down to?

The problem with assumptions is that with enough of them you can find anybody guilty of anything.

What a ludicrously naďve and excessively ignorant comment!

It's no assumption that Oswald defected to the enemy at the height of the cold war.
It's no assumption that Oswald slashed his wrist, when denied entry to Russia.
It's no assumption that Oswald wrote a letter to his brother that under certain circumstances Oswald would "Kill any American".
It's no assumption that Oswald hit his wife.
It's no assumption that Oswald ordered and purchased a rifle.
It's no assumption that Oswald ordered and purchased a revolver.
It's no assumption that Oswald was photographed with a 40 inch Carcano.
It's no assumption that Oswald was photographed with a handgun.
It's no assumption that Oswald's camera took photos of Walker's residence.
It's no assumption that Oswald had a map with an "X" marking Walker's residence.
It's no assumption that Oswald's handwriting was on a note indicating what Marina had to do after Oswald could potentially be arrested or killed.
It's no assumption that Marina saw the end of a rifle wrapped in a blanket in the Paine garage.
It's no assumption that Oswald for the first time since being employed at the Texas School Book Depository went home mid week.
It's no assumption that Oswald left the majority of his money and his wedding ring with Marina on the morning of the assassination.
It's no assumption that Oswald carried a long brown package to work on the morning of the assassination, to which Frazier said  "I didn't pay too much attention"
It's no assumption that Oswald lied about telling Frazier the Curtain rod story.
It's no assumption that Oswald lied about the contents of his long package.
It's no assumption that Oswald lied about putting the long package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
It's no assumption that Oswald had no alibi.
It's no assumption that Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor.
It's no assumption that Oswald's prints were discovered on Oswald's rifle.
It's no assumption that Oswald's prints were discovered on the long package.
It's no assumption that Oswald's fresh prints were discovered on 1 of the rifle rest boxes, which were moved over 40 feet.
It's no assumption that Oswald's fresh prints were on top of the rifle rest box were oriented down Elm street
It's no assumption that Oswald was positively identified by Howard Brennan in his testimony under oath.
It's no assumption that Brennan's close description of Oswald was broadcast at 12:45.
It's no assumption that Oswald was in the act of flight immediately after the assassination.
It's no assumption that Oswald got on and off a bus.
It's no assumption that Oswald got out of his cab way past his Rooming House.
It's no assumption that Oswald retrieved his revolver.
It's no assumption was zipping up his jacket when he left the Rooming House.
It's no assumption that Oswald killed a cop and why would anyone have the need to kill a cop doing a random check?
It's no assumption that Oswald was positively identified either at or leaving the Tippit crime scene.
It's no assumption that Oswald's jacket was discovered in a parking lot that Oswald was seen entering.
It's no assumption that Oswald was arrested without his jacket.
It's no assumption that Oswald went into a dark theater.
It's no assumption that Oswald punched a cop when the cop was simply approaching.
It's no assumption that Oswald pulled out his revolver and pulled the trigger.
It's no assumption that Oswald lied about owning a rifle.
It's no assumption that Oswald lied about the backyard photos.
It's no assumption that Oswald lied about living at Neely street, the location of the backyard photos.
It's no assumption that Oswald lied about killing Tippit.
It's no assumption that Oswald was a dirty rotten double murderer!!!

JohnM

[Tom Scully]

Well, Martin, it sure would be ideal if I could offer up a photo or a film of Oswald shooting Kennedy. And it would be equally as handy if I could offer up a sixth-floor witness who happened to see Lee Oswald as he was pulling the trigger. But, unfortunately, Oswald got extremely lucky to have the entire sixth floor to himself for that brief period of time it took him to kill the President. So what else is there except a certain amount of "inference" and "guesswork" to be done when it comes to what you want me to "prove"? There are no sixth-floor witnesses....period.

But what we DO have are the things Oswald left behind --- HIS rifle, HIS prints at the exact spot where JFK's assassin was located (i.e., deep within the Sniper's Nest), and the EMPTY 38-inch paper bag with HIS prints on it.

And there's also the fact that Oswald had no provable alibi for the exact time of the assassination. (Is there any other Depository employee who can be placed in that "No Alibi" category? I doubt that there is.)

Therefore, why on Earth shouldn't I be pointing a finger of guilt at Mr. Oswald, the man to whom all of the physical evidence leads?

Should I just IGNORE all of that evidence or pretend it's all been "planted" there to frame an innocent Oswald? Sorry, but that idea is beyond silly and foolish (IMHO).

David and John, correct me if you disagree. You both see and accept that there was a thorough, forthright investigation. Case closed?

David, did Oswald "break in" to the TSBD to obtain an opportunity to make "the 38-inch bag"?

http://22november1963.org.uk/tsbd-sixth-floor-paper-bag-genuine

http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=32875262
1878 – 1962 John Howard Bowen
(No Social Security record found)
Quote
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/FGYJ-Y18
Name: John Howard Bowen
Event Date: 31 Jan 1962
Place: Hamlet, Richmond, North Carolina
Birth: 1878
Burial Date: 04 Feb 1962
Burial Place: Chester, Pennsylvania (FBI claimed search of Chester “newspaper morgues” per CE 2195 pg.11
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/wh25_ce_21... )
Cemetery: Lawncroft

versus :

Loads slowly,
https://web.archive.org/web/20170828042556/http://jfk.education/node/16
Bowen or Osborne, "just one of those things?"
Submitted by Admin on Sat, 12/12/2015 -
....
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/wh25_ce_2195.pdf

[John Mytton]

You can't even get it straight that I am not a conspiracy theorist.

Yeah, sure, Martin. Whatever you say. 

Hilarious! I see that Martin is still persisting with this absurd claim?

Martin with every post, day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, has actively promoted a conspiracy thus Martin's theory is that there was a conspiracy therefore he's a Conspiracy Theorist! 

Just because Martin or for that matter any CT, doesn't have the deductive reasoning skills to define who did what, doesn't detract from the fact, that they are all Conspiracy Theorist's.

You'd think that after the most investigated murder of all time with millions of hours spent researching, interviewing and speculating that the CT's would have come to some sort of collective conclusion but yet, they still haven't, what a waste of so many lives!

JohnM

[Tom Scully]

Hilarious! I see that Martin is still persisting with this absurd claim?

Martin with every post, day after day, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, has actively promoted a conspiracy thus Martin's theory is that there was a conspiracy therefore he's a Conspiracy Theorist! 

Just because Martin or for that matter any CT, doesn't have the deductive reasoning skills to define who did what, doesn't detract from the fact, that they are all Conspiracy Theorist's.

You'd think that after the most investigated murder of all time with millions of hours spent researching, interviewing and speculating that the CT's would have come to some sort of collective conclusion but yet, they still haven't, what a waste of so many lives!

JohnM

It would surprise me if David dismissed me as a CT. It is not either, or...not that simple.

Should new facts be searched for and the results pursued? Will you be doing that, John? Is it helpful to learn why the PMO mailed to Klein's for a rifle purchase was recovered in Arlington, VA instead of in Kansas City? Is it helpful to learn that William Whaley made himself, after 1942, out to be exactly three years older than he really was or that his son, William, Jr. completely erased his father from his life?

https://web.archive.org/web/20170806231323/http://www.jfk.education/node/11
...

[John Mytton]

It would surprise me if David dismissed me as a CT. It is not either, or...not that simple.

Should new facts be searched for and the results pursued? Will you be doing that, John? Is it helpful to learn why the PMO mailed to Klein's for a rifle purchase was recovered in Arlington, VA instead of in Kansas City? Is it helpful to learn that William Whaley made himself, after 1942, out to be exactly three years older than he really was or that his son, William, Jr. completely erased his father from his life?

https://web.archive.org/web/20170806231323/http://www.jfk.education/node/11
...

Should new facts be searched for and the results pursued?

Sure, why not.

Will you be doing that, John?

My work with the JFKA images have helped many see details they never knew existed and my proving the authenticity of the Stereoscopic Autopsy photos with my smoothly rotating three dimensional morphing images speak for themselves!

Is it helpful to learn why the PMO mailed to Klein's for a rifle purchase was recovered in Arlington, VA instead of in Kansas City?

I have no idea what you are talking about, are you saying that Kleins mixed up an address and if so I don't find that particularly unusual or proof of anything. And please explain what the connection is to the fact that Oswald received the same rifle that Kleins sent?

Is it helpful to learn that William Whaley made himself, after 1942, out to be exactly three years older than he really was..

Not really, Whaley was a very minor player in this case, but tell me Tom, what do you think a three year age difference actually proves?

or that his son, William, Jr. completely erased his father from his life?

So what? Again, tell me why you think this is significant?

JohnM