Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview

[Dan O'meara]

A follow up to the last post.
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that Oswald and Shelley were 'shooting the breeze' after the assassination about the work situation for the rest of the day.
In my opinion Oswald fled the scene, which is indicative of guilt. Once he was outside the TSBD building he was a man on the run and was in the process of heading for the border when he ran into J D Tippit.
I have no reason to doubt Marina's testimony that Oswald confessed to the attempted murder of Walker and that he left behind his wedding band and all the money he had in case of his arrest (something he also did on the day of the assassination).

Oswald was not some 'ordinary Joe' unknowingly caught up in the events of the day. He was up to his eyeballs in what was going on.
His mention of Shelley as an alibi smacks of someone who expects to be backed up by an accomplice.
I don't believe Oswald took the shots that day and any available credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald.
A good example is that three of the five eye-witnesses who saw a man on the 6th floor around the time of the shooting (Fischer, Roberts and Rowland) describe a man wearing clothes Oswald did not wear to work that day and did not possess.
Once it's not Oswald who took the shots then it's Conspiracy Time.
That is why I find the lies of Shelley and Lovelady so fascinating - anyone lying about their movements after the assassination needs closer scrutiny.
And now we have Shelley throwing Oswald under the bus regarding his alibi.

Why would Oswald mention Shelley as part of his alibi if it was so easily refuted?

[Paul Davies]

Was everyone given the rest of the day off ? Seems weird to me.
Possible killer in that building!

[Dan O'meara]

Was everyone given the rest of the day off ? Seems weird to me.
Possible killer in that building!

What do you think should have happened?

[Richard Smith]

Was everyone given the rest of the day off ? Seems weird to me.
Possible killer in that building!

And the play should have gone on after Lincoln was assassinated.  Imagine if the world were deprived of this kind of commentary?  I can't wait until we get 50 pages of analysis of the movements of "Johnny Peanut" Spangler which proves Booth could not be the assassin. 

[Dan O'meara]

And the play should have gone on after Lincoln was assassinated.  Imagine if the world were deprived of this kind of commentary?  I can't wait until we get 50 pages of analysis of the movements of "Johnny Peanut" Spangler which proves Booth could not be the assassin.

Rather than marvel at the relentless nothingness of your posts, let's see if you can actually take part in a debate without simply parroting your spoon-fed beliefs.

Why do you think Oswald included Shelley as part of his alibi?

Why do you think Lovelady and Shelley lied about their movements after the assassination?

[Martin Weidmann]

Rather than marvel at the relentless nothingness of your posts, let's see if you can actually take part in a debate without simply parroting your spoon-fed beliefs.

Why do you think Oswald included Shelley as part of his alibi?

Why do you think Lovelady and Shelley lied about their movements after the assassination?

As completely expected "Richard Smith" is unable and unwilling to answer. In fact, it's a mystery to me why he is even a member of this forum, as all he does is post his superficial opinions as if they are conclusive and then completely fails to provide any kind of evidence to back them up. Instead of having a reasonable discussion, all he does to cover up his own incompetence to provide proof for his idiotic claims is ridicule those who debunk his BS time after time.

[Dan O'meara]

As completely expected "Richard Smith" is unable and unwilling to answer. In fact, it's a mystery to me why he is even a member of this forum, as all he does is post his superficial opinions as if they are conclusive and then completely fails to provide any kind of evidence to back them up. Instead of having a reasonable discussion, all he does to cover up his own incompetence to provide proof for his idiotic claims is ridicule those who debunk his BS time after time.

I watched a documentary recently about the West Memphis 3, about three teenagers accused of the truly shocking murders of three little kids. As I understood it, during the trial a bunch of people came forward for one of the accused saying that he was at a wrestling meet, many miles away from the murder location, at the time of the murders. About six or seven people gave him a cast iron alibi - but the jury just ignored this evidence!!
I found this totally mind-blowing. My only understanding of it was that the members of the jury 'wanted' him to be guilty and no amount of evidence was strong enough to change this desire for his guilt. And that really reminds me of Nutters like Tricky Dicky.
To be honest though, it reminds me of most of the members of this forum regardless of their outlook on the case. They've got their theory and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to change that.
At least most members will debate what they believe, providing evidence and arguments to support their views. Tricky just parrots his spoon-fed beliefs and I'm not surprised he's avoiding any kind of debate because I show him up for what he really is every time he tries.