Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview

[Tom Scully]

Sure, why not.

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!

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?

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?

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

JohnM

If you move to the third column, on the right, of the late 1962 Postal Bulletin document image (quoted in your post) I presented in 2015, the text should confirm the argument you are making in your post of less than a month ago,

I know the above post is a few years old but I hope in the meantime you have thought this through because these two ideas, seem to be at cross purposes.

The first part of your post looks like the entire process was fraudulent from the start but your second idea is that the money order was actually sent? So what do you think happened?
Now, if someone(who ever it was), bought the money order and sent it to Kleins with the rifle coupon, what stopped the order from being completed in the usual way that Kleins processed all their orders?

Anyway, let's go deeper, the money order was retrieved from the Federal reserve and as Tom and Tim have pointed out, the Oswald Money Order was retrieved by locating the "File Locator Number"? -SNIP-

...

And we know it was retrieved because the money order has a chain of custody from the National Archive until it was submitted into evidence

.....
JohnM

Whaley was so meticulous about details in his background, he corrected the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS over an irrelevant comment,

Whaley's first wife died from TB in 1934. His relationship and reputation with his deceased wife's family was so poor the Whaley family describes the custody of Whaley's son with his deceased wife's sister as a kidnapping.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/28682630/sylvia-whaley

Whaley and Earline Roberts established the timeline leading to the Tippit shooting. Roberts claimed DPD detectives arrived at the rooming house at 1:30 pm. Detective Potts said his DPD team arrived at 3:00 pm.

The point is that Roberts and Whaley offered worse than no supporting evidence!

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/whaley1.htm

Mr. BALL. How much time, in that experiment, when you hit the lights right, how long did it take you?
Mr. WHALEY. Nine minutes.
Mr. BALL. Nine minutes?
Mr. WHALEY. Nine minutes.
Representative FORD. Now on this particular trip with Oswald, do you recall the lights being with you?
Mr. WHALEY. They were with me, sir; for I timed them that way before I took off. Because I made that so much that I know the light system and how they are going to turn.
Representative FORD. So this was a typical trip?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. The witness has been driving a taxicab in Dallas for 36 years.
Mr. WHALEY. Thirty-seven, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thirty-seven.
Mr. WHALEY. You name an intersection in the city of Dallas and I will tell you what is on all four corners. .."

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/13730776/william-wayne-whaley
Birth   19 Jun 1905

Son:
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/254286834/william-w-whaley

"Abductor":
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/1166607/alice-patterson-seales

"Abductor":
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/1166608/alvin-s-seales

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Whaley-18
"... Biography

William Wayne Whaley was born June 19, 1908, in Sulphur Springs, Texas. [1] He was the son of Oscar and Lona Whaley.

His first marriage, about 1929, to Sylvia Patterson produced one son, Billy Wayne, who was, unfortunately, abducted. ..."

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/157070315/
Tuesday, June 24, 1997

 Rio Rancho. WHALEY William Wayne Whaley, 65, passed away unexpectedly on June 18, 1997 in Michigan while on vacation. Husband of 43 years to Dorothy; father and father-in-law of Jamy and Gregg Peevy and Bill Jr. and Dee Whaley, all of Albuquerque; son of Alice (Pat) Scales of Albuquerque. Mr. Whaley retired from Us Alamos National Ubs in 1993 after 17 years. A memorial service will be held Wednesday, 3:00 p.m. at French Mortuary, Umas Blvd. Chapel, 10500 Umas NE. Cremation has taken place. In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to Noonday Ministry, P.O. Box 8769, Albuquerque, NM 87198 or New Mexico Boys and Girls Ranch, 6209 Hendrix NE, Albuquerque, NM 87110.

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/157414971/
Tuesday, October 30, 1984   Albuquerque Journal
..............
SEALES Mr. Alvin S. Seales, age 73 and a resident here 21 years, died Monday in a local hospital following an illness. He is survived by his wife, Alice; a son William W. Whaley and wife Dorothy; granddaughter Jamy Whaley; grandson, William W. Whaley Jr. and wife Nancy, all of Albuquerque; a brother Clarence L Seales and wife Ramona; sister Denme Mae Morris; sister-in-law Katie Seales; four nephews and five nieces. Mr. Seales retired from Federal A via Don Administration and was a member of the Methodist Church, Air Traffic Control Association, a veteran of WWII, and member of D.A.V. Borderland Post 10 in El Paso, TX. Services will be held Wednesday at 11.00 a.m. in the Chapel of Fitzgerald and Son Funeral Directors, 3113 Carlisle NE, with Rev. Henry Weston, officiating. Inter ment will follow in the Santa Fe National Cemetery at 1:00 p.m.

http://obits.abqjournal.com/obits/show/124388
Published on: Fri January 29, 1999
..............
Seales -- Alice (Pat) Seales, passed away Wednesday morning, January 27, 1999, at Sunrise Mission Manor Care and Rehabilitation. She was 91 years old. She was preceded in death by her husband, Alvin S. Seales; and her son, William Whaley. She is survived by her daughter-in-law, Dorothy Whaley; and grandchildren, Jamy Peevy and her husband, Gregg, Bill Whaley and his wife, Dee. Memorial services will take place at a later date. Cremation has taken place. In lieu of flowers, memorial contributions may be made to Sandia Hospice, 4775 Indian School Rd. NE, Suite 310, Albuquerque, NM 87110.

[Martin Weidmann]

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).

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.

So, you agree there is no real direct evidence that places Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired? That's progress.

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 how exactly do you know that it was Oswald who left those things behind? You talk about "his rifle" but even if he did purchase it and even if he was photographed with it, in late March 1963, how do you know that particular rifle was still in his possession on 11/22/63 for him to leave behind? As far as "his prints at the exact spot..." goes, the evidentiary value of prints found of an employee who's job it was to open and move boxes on that particular floor is pretty low. The "empty 38-inch paper  bag" is IMO a somewhat mysterious and contentious item. That bag would have had to be made at the TSBD, yet nobody saw Oswald ever near or operating the wrapping machine. Frazier did not see Oswald carry a paper bag to Irving on Thursday and he denies to this day that the bag found at the TSBD was not the bag he had seen Oswald carry on Friday morning. I can't explain how Oswald's print got on that bag, but I do have several theories about it. Theories, however, are not evidence.

To conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired based on these three points is like building a house on quicksand. I won't go into the issue of the rifle purchase at this point, but that's another pandora's box.

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.)

As we don't have a verbatim record of what Oswald actually said to his interrogators we will never know for sure if Oswald had a provable alibi or not. The summary reports by the interrogators, written days later, simply do not provide sufficient information to make any kind of sound determination (IMO). Besides, not having an alibi doesn't automatically make somebody guilty!

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?

I do agree that what scant physical evidence there is can indeed be linked to Oswald, however, we don't know if there was other evidence pointing in another direction as well or not. We have to rely totally on what the WC provided and they, in turn, for a large part had to rely on what Hoover's FBI provided to them. Over the years it has become very clear that there are all sorts of evidentiary problems with the physical evidence that we, most likely, will never be able to resolve.

A few examples;

There is no chain of custody for C399 before it reached the FBI lab in Washington. O.V. Wright denies the bullet now in evidence is the bullet he handled. In his deposition, Tomlinson was never shown C399 and asked to identify it. And then there is FBI agent Odum who denies having ever shown C399 to Tomlinson and Wright in April 1964, despite what Shanklin wrote in his airtel.

Then there are the bullet fragments that were allegedly found in the limo. We will never know for certain if those fragments did in fact come from the limo. Frazier and his team were supposed to examine the limo as a crime scene, but before he could get to the Secret Service garage two men (I'm writing this from memory and can't instantly recall their names) went through the limo, not only contaminating the crime scene but also allegedly removing evidence without first photographing it in situ. When Frazier finally arrived at the garage he was just given the fragments and told they had come from the limo. In any other murder case, this kind of "evidence" would be instantly declared inadmissible.

And then we have the three shells found at the sniper's nest. It is a matter of record that Fritz, when he entered the nest, picked up the shells and later threw them back on the floor again. The evidentiary problem is of course that we don't and can't know for sure if the shells he threw on the floor were the same ones that he picked up. Now, before you get all worked up about this, you do know, don't you, that the purpose of the chain of custody rules is to preserve the evidence and project it, as much as possible, against any kind of manipulation?

And the paper bag wasn't seen by the first six officers in the nest and then was seen by several others. Studebaker failed to photograph it in situ and although it was allegedly folded up when it was found, it was carried out of the TSBD unfolded and upside down, allowing items that were perhaps in the bag to fall out. Later that same bag was photographed at the FBI lab in Washington lying next to the blanket taken from Ruth Paine's garage which was, to say the least, a violation of the way evidence is supposed to be protected against cross contamination.

Obviously I am playing Devil's advocate here and I could go on and on, but you get the picture. So, on a superficial level the physical evidence may point to Oswald but upon closer inspection things get IMO very blurred and convoluted.

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).

Nobody is asking you to ignore any of the evidence and you don't have to pretend that all of it has been planted, because that's certainly not the case IMO. What you perhaps should do is deal with the evidence honestly with an open mind and in a less superficial manner and consider the possibility that some of the evidence could have been manipulated after the fact to wrap the case around a man who was already deemed to be guilty before the first pieces of evidence were collected and examined.

[Martin Weidmann]

What a ludicrously naïve 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

Sorry, John, but I can't deal with this much stupidity. There are so many assumptions in your list that I would have to write a book to explain them all to you. But I won't do that because you will never ever understand it.

If you want to be this superficial, go right ahead, but don't ask me to come down to your level.

[Martin Weidmann]

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

Not everybody who does not agree with your biased, narrow-minded view of the evidence is automatically a conspiracy theorist. To be one, one needs to actually have a conspiracy theory! Or is that already way over your head?
It is true that when you scrutinize the evidence in a way you clearly have never done, you also have to consider the possibility of evidence being manipulated, which in turn would suggest a conspiracy as that is the only alternative for Oswald being the lone gunman. But accepting that there is a possibility that there could have been been a conspiracy is something completely different than claiming there was an actual conspiracy. (Still with me, or is this too complicated for you?).

Your "if you are not with me, you are against me" attitude is childish and without reason. Five year olds argue that way! I fully understand why you would want to color all skeptics as conspiracy theorists, because that makes them easier for you to ridicule, which is of course the true reason why you are here. If you have to deal with a skeptic you actually need to argue the case and we both know that beyond one liners and ridicule you haven't got much.

You'd think that after the most investigated murder of all time with millions of hours spent researching, interviewing and speculating, LNs like you would have come up with a plausible and conclusive scenario that is persuasive enough to win over the skeptics, but instead all you seem to be able to do is regurgitate the same superficial arguments that the spindoctors at the WC and your High Priest Bugliosi have given you to swallow without questioning any of it.

[Jack Nessan]

Not everybody who does not agree with your biased, narrow-minded view of the evidence is automatically a conspiracy theorist. To be one, one needs to actually have a conspiracy theory! Or is that already way over your head?
It is true that when you scrutinize the evidence in a way you clearly have never done, you also have to consider the possibility of evidence being manipulated, which in turn would suggest a conspiracy as that is the only alternative for Oswald being the lone gunman. But accepting that there is a possibility that there could have been been a conspiracy is something completely different than claiming there was an actual conspiracy. (Still with me, or is this too complicated for you?).

Your "if you are not with me, you are against me" attitude is childish and without reason. Five year olds argue that way! I fully understand why you would want to color all skeptics as conspiracy theorists, because that makes them easier for you to ridicule, which is of course the true reason why you are here. If you have to deal with a skeptic you actually need to argue the case and we both know that beyond one liners and ridicule you haven't got much.

You'd think that after the most investigated murder of all time with millions of hours spent researching, interviewing and speculating, LNs like you would have come up with a plausible and conclusive scenario that is persuasive enough to win over the skeptics, but instead all you seem to be able to do is regurgitate the same superficial arguments that the spindoctors at the WC and your High Priest Bugliosi have given you to swallow without questioning any of it.

MW--“LNs like you would have come up with a plausible and conclusive scenario that is persuasive enough to win over the skeptics, but instead all you seem to be able to do is regurgitate the same superficial arguments that the spindoctors at the WC and your High Priest Bugliosi have given you to swallow without questioning any of it”

How could anyone mistake you for a Conspiracy Theorist. It could not be more obvious how neutral you are. Nothing but a fantasy storyline is an acceptable understanding.

 A lone person firing two shots with two hits is a completely implausible scenario. LHO owns the rifle found on the 6th floor with his fingerprints all over the SN, palmprint on the rifle, prints on the bag used to bring the rifle, no alibi at time of shooting, states he was coming down to see what the commotion was about after the shooting, and then trying to disappear afterwards. Who would suspect that guy?

[Martin Weidmann]

MW--“LNs like you would have come up with a plausible and conclusive scenario that is persuasive enough to win over the skeptics, but instead all you seem to be able to do is regurgitate the same superficial arguments that the spindoctors at the WC and your High Priest Bugliosi have given you to swallow without questioning any of it”

How could anyone mistake you for a Conspiracy Theorist. It could not be more obvious how neutral you are. Nothing but a fantasy storyline is an acceptable understanding.

 A lone person firing two shots with two hits is a completely implausible scenario. LHO owns the rifle found on the 6th floor with his fingerprints all over the SN, palmprint on the rifle, prints on the bag used to bring the rifle, no alibi at time of shooting, states he was coming down to see what the commotion was about after the shooting, and then trying to disappear afterwards. Who would suspect that guy?

You really have nothing new to offer.

The only thing you have is the same old official story which IMO has too many holes in it to be conclusive and a true representation of what actually happened. It didn't convince most people 60 years ago and it still doesn't convince them today.

Who would suspect that guy?

Suspecting somebody is a completely different thing than proving his actual guilt. Of course Oswald would be a suspect and he actual may even be guilty, but you need conclusive authentic evidence to prove it. And the simple fact of the matter is that you haven't got that. All you've got is a bunch of assumptions and speculation.

How could anyone mistake you for a Conspiracy Theorist. It could not be more obvious how neutral you are.

I am neutral enough to accept the possibility that Oswald was the lone gunman, despite the fact that I do not believe the official narrative for one second. I am also neutral enough to accept most of the evidence as not falsified, despite the fact that some of it could very well have been manipulated or taken out of context.

Now, how about your own neutrality? Do you accept there is a possibility that there could have been a conspiracy before the fact and a cover up after the fact?

[Jack Nessan]

You really have nothing new to offer.

The only thing you have is the same old official story which IMO has too many holes in it to be conclusive and a true representation of what actually happened. It didn't convince most people 60 years ago and it still doesn't convince them today.

Who would suspect that guy?

Suspecting somebody is a completely different thing than proving his actual guilt. Of course Oswald would be a suspect and he actual may even be guilty, but you need conclusive authentic evidence to prove it. And the simple fact of the matter is that you haven't got that. All you've got is a bunch of assumptions and speculation.

That would be enough to hang him. What speculation? His are the only fingerprints found. He owned the rifle. Good bye Lee Harvey.