Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview

[John Mytton]

And here he goes again.... more superficial assumptions presented as "evidence", but in fact are not supported by the actual facts.

You just can't help yourself, can't you?

OMG FK'N WOW, All the facts in this case are supported by Evidence, whereas each of your endless list of baseless refutations is based on your paranoid fantasies.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

OMG FK'N WOW, All the facts in this case are supported by Evidence, whereas each of your endless list of baseless refutations is based on your paranoid fantasies.

JohnM

Change the record, John. This oldie is too worn out to play. It's kinda funny, but you always do this whenever your arguments have failed.

It is superficial for you all the way and, of course, it proves the point I previously made.

...... 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.

 

[Martin Weidmann]

OMG FK'N WOW, All the facts in this case are supported by Evidence, whereas each of your endless list of baseless refutations is based on your paranoid fantasies.

JohnM

All the facts in this case are supported by Evidence

Ok, let's put this to the test;

He just happened to own the prints found on the rifle

What exactly is the evidence for prints being found on the rifle? Be precise....

He just happened to match the close description given over the Police radio at 12:45.

What is the evidence for this, or is it just an opinion?

He just happened to own the rifle which exclusively matched the shells found in the Limo.

What is the evidence that Oswald owned, or even had in his possesion, the rifle found at the TSBD on 11/22/63?
And what evidence is there that the shells (actually fragments of shells) were indeed found in the limo?

He just happened to flee the crime scene immediately

What is the evidence that Oswald fled the crime scene instead of just leaving the building?

He just happened to own the jacket found in the car park which he was seen entering.

What is the evidence that the gray jacket, now in evidence and confirmed to belong to Oswald, was the white jacket found in the car park?

If what you claim is true, it should be easy for you to provide the evidence for all these so-called "facts". Go on then... have at it.

[John Mytton]

All the facts in this case are supported by Evidence

Ok, let's put this to the test;

He just happened to own the prints found on the rifle

What exactly is the evidence for prints being found on the rifle? Be precise....

He just happened to match the close description given over the Police radio at 12:45.

What is the evidence for this, or is it just an opinion?

He just happened to own the rifle which exclusively matched the shells found in the Limo.

What is the evidence that Oswald owned, or even had in his possesion, the rifle found at the TSBD on 11/22/63?
And what evidence is there that the shells (actually fragments of shells) were indeed found in the limo?

He just happened to flee the crime scene immediately

What is the evidence that Oswald fled the crime scene instead of just leaving the building?

He just happened to own the jacket found in the car park which he was seen entering.

What is the evidence that the gray jacket, now in evidence and confirmed to belong to Oswald, was the white jacket found in the car park?

If what you claim is true, it should be easy for you to provide the evidence for all these so-called "facts". Go on then... have at it.

He just happened to own the prints found on the rifle

What exactly is the evidence for prints being found on the rifle? Be precise....

Besides the Palmprint taken from the actual rifle as confirmed by the FBI, we have Day's testimony;



Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.

He just happened to match the close description given over the Police radio at 12:45.

What is the evidence for this, or is it just an opinion?

   Attention Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting at approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, weight one hundred sixty-five pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a 30 caliber rifle. Attention all squads. The suspect from Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male about thirty, slender build, five feet ten inches tall, one hundred sixty-five pounds, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle. No further description at this time, or information. 12:45.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/dpdtapes/index.htm

He just happened to own the rifle which exclusively matched the shells found in the Limo.

What is the evidence that Oswald owned....

And what evidence is there that the shells (actually fragments of shells) were indeed found in the limo?

Actually fragments of bullet's.

He just happened to own the jacket found in the car park which he was seen entering.

What is the evidence that the gray jacket, now in evidence and confirmed to belong to Oswald, was the white jacket found in the car park?

Btw, this is the evidence and I'm not going down any more paranoid rabbit holes!

JohnM

[Jack Nessan]

Fingerprints are indeed evidence but they are not automatically proof.

Prints found on boxes that Oswald had to handle as part of his job are of very limited evidentiary value. And that's not only my opinion. Wesley Liebeler made exactly that point when discussing the weakness of some of the evidence. The evidentiary value is even further reduced because there were also other prints on the boxes that could not be identified. They could just as easily have been from somebody else.

There was no palm print found on the rifle. The FBI examined the rifle in the night after the shooting and found no prints or even residue of a print that had been lifted. That Day, several days later, produced an evidence card with a palmprint on it and claimed that he had lifted from the rifle is not particularly convincing. The chief forensic officer of the DPD finds a palmprint on the presumed murder rifle (which would be crucial evidence) and then just puts it in his desk. Really?

As far as the bag goes, the preponderance of evidence is against Oswald carrying the bag found at the TSBD on Friday morning. The TSBD bag was made out of materials found and used at the TSBD, but nobody saw Oswald make such a bag. Even worse, the last opportunity Oswald would have had to make the bag was Thursday afternoon. On Friday afternoon the DPD took samples of the TSBD materials and found a perfect match of the cut of the wrapping paper on the machine with that of the bag. This would mean that since Thursday afternoon no wrapping paper was used. Not a single piece during the entire Friday morning. Hardly a likely tale! I don't know how Oswald's prints got on that bag, or if they really did, but I can think of several scenarios. Frazier did not see Oswald having a folded bag with him during the trip to Irving on Thursday and there actually was no reason for Oswald to make that bag. Seven months earlier Oswald is supposed to have carried the rifle on public transport to New Orleans. Whatever container he used at that time, would have sufficed.

This is the problem with the LN "logic"; it never goes beyond superficial and it never looks at the entirety of the available information. As long as it points to Oswald it's so-called "evidence" with no need to dig deeper any maybe find something you don't like.

You are the only one talking about how innocent he is and is beyond doubt.

There you go again. Another assumption that simply isn't true. Ever since I joined this forum I have never stated that Oswald was innocent or that there had been a conspiracy. I challenge you to find one post in which I did!

In the meantime you still haven't explained where Adams and Styles were during 4 minutes after the shots, if they did not go down the stairs immediately. Remember this;

Do you really think that people just believe you when you make baseless claims without providing any evidence for it?

MW--“In the meantime you still haven't explained where Adams and Styles were during 4 minutes after the shots, if they did not go down the stairs immediately.”

MW--“Do you really think that people just believe you when you make baseless claims without providing any evidence for it?” 

Unbelievable, do you really not understand? Where were they for four minutes? They were on the fourth floor. Your timeline is totally based on Adams and Styles leaving the fourth floor without a shred of proof, “immediately” so they thought. They did not. You went as far as to create a cop and place him into your timeline a cop who does not even exist except in your imagination. And somehow in this delusion you think the rest of us are fabricating evidence? You fabricate a cop into a story and the rest of us do not know what proof is? In constantly contradicting yourself in your own posts you do not even realize how ridiculous it is to even place the cop there at that time. 

You have Adams and Styles emerging from the back of the TSBD before Truly and Baker have reached the 6th floor. Then to really stagger the imagination you place a cop there who would have absolutely no way of knowing about a shot from the TSBD because that has yet to be determined. Let alone stopping secretaries running to where they think the action is. What is his reason? The whole of your timeline does not even begin to explain the statements and movements of the people actively locking down the TSBD.

Besides your delusionary timeline, now you are presenting yourself as the leading expert on what constitutes evidence? The guy who creates an imaginary cop for a fantasy timeline is telling everyone else what is important? What is apparent is you have no idea other than your opinion and a keyboard to pass it on with, of what would constitute proof. You haven’t even figured out you are just a conspiracist, not some pretend unbiased observer. That is just laughable. There is no need trying to deceive us, maybe stop deceiving yourself. Nothing about your posts would ever be misconstrued as unbiased.

[Martin Weidmann]

Besides the Palmprint taken from the actual rifle as confirmed by the FBI, we have Day's testimony;



Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.

   Attention Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting at approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, weight one hundred sixty-five pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a 30 caliber rifle. Attention all squads. The suspect from Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male about thirty, slender build, five feet ten inches tall, one hundred sixty-five pounds, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle. No further description at this time, or information. 12:45.
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/dpdtapes/index.htm



Actually fragments of bullet's.





Btw, this is the evidence and I'm not going down any more paranoid rabbit holes!

JohnM

Btw, this is the evidence and I'm not going down any more paranoid rabbit holes!

Translation, beyond a couple of meaningless gifs, I really haven't got anything to share, so I don't want to talk about it anymore.

What a total admission of complete incompetence!

But I'll deal with the few questions you did try to answer.

Besides the Palmprint taken from the actual rifle as confirmed by the FBI, we have Day's testimony;



Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.

So it's "cop said so" after the FBI initially found no prints on the rifle. Wow....

   Attention Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male, all squads. Attention all squads. The suspect in the shooting at approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, weight one hundred sixty-five pounds, reported to be armed with what is thought to be a 30 caliber rifle. Attention all squads. The suspect from Elm and Houston is reported to be an unknown white male about thirty, slender build, five feet ten inches tall, one hundred sixty-five pounds, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle. No further description at this time, or information. 12:45.

That's in no way a discription of Oswald in any shape or form.

All sorts of problems with these "documents" but even if it is evidence that Oswald ordered a rifle, it's in no way evidence that he had the rifle found at the TSBD in his possession on 11/22/63

Actually fragments of bullet's.

Photographs of bullet fragments do not provide evidence that those fragments were actually found in the limo. The actual facts are that Frazier and his team were given those fragments when they arrived at the Secret Service garage to examine the limo, as a crime scene. The fragments were never photographed in situ and Frazier just had to accept the word of two men who had earlier contaminated a crime scene.

Hilarious. A photograph of CE162, which is Oswald's gray jacket, with initials of officers who were not involved in the chain of custody isn't proof that Oswald's jacket was really found at the car park.

The chain of custody for the "white jacket" found under a car is that some unidentified officer pointed out the jacket to Personnel officer Captain Westbrook, who wasn't really interested in it and gave it to yet another unidentified officer.
On DPD radio the jacket was described as being white. Then, some two hours later, that same Captain Westbrook turns up at the evidence room of the DPD to deliver the gray jacket, with initials of officer that were written in the jacket in the personnel room, just moments earlier. There is no explanation for how Westbrook got the jacket again.

And you call this evidence?

[John Mytton]

MW--“In the meantime you still haven't explained where Adams and Styles were during 4 minutes after the shots, if they did not go down the stairs immediately.”

MW--“Do you really think that people just believe you when you make baseless claims without providing any evidence for it?” 

Unbelievable, do you really not understand? Where were they for four minutes? They were on the fourth floor. Your timeline is totally based on Adams and Styles leaving the fourth floor without a shred of proof, “immediately” so they thought. They did not. You went as far as to create a cop and place him into your timeline a cop who does not even exist except in your imagination. And somehow in this delusion you think the rest of us are fabricating evidence? You fabricate a cop into a story and the rest of us do not know what proof is? In constantly contradicting yourself in your own posts you do not even realize how ridiculous it is to even place the cop there at that time. 

You have Adams and Styles emerging from the back of the TSBD before Truly and Baker have reached the 6th floor. Then to really stagger the imagination you place a cop there who would have absolutely no way of knowing about a shot from the TSBD because that has yet to be determined. Let alone stopping secretaries running to where they think the action is. What is his reason? The whole of your timeline does not even begin to explain the statements and movements of the people actively locking down the TSBD.

Besides your delusionary timeline, now you are presenting yourself as the leading expert on what constitutes evidence? The guy who creates an imaginary cop for a fantasy timeline is telling everyone else what is important? What is apparent is you have no idea other than your opinion and a keyboard to pass it on with, of what would constitute proof. You haven’t even figured out you are just a conspiracist, not some pretend unbiased observer. That is just laughable. There is no need trying to deceive us, maybe stop deceiving yourself. Nothing about your posts would ever be misconstrued as unbiased.

Spot on Jack, the amount of evidence that Oswald was in the Sniper's Nest and snuck down the stairs completely overwhelms the hole ridden recollection of Adams, yet keen CT's in their nonsensical defense of Oswald will stoop to the very depths of absurdity in their support of Adams. Go figure?

JohnM