Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview

[Jack Nessan]

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.

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.

You do or do not see yourself in that statement?

[Richard Smith]

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?

Imagine a double murderer who had just assassinated the president making up an alibi.  We don't need to put that one to Sherlock Holmes.  Your second question contains a false premise since no one lied but if you think individuals were intentionally lying then perhaps you should explain what you are suggesting.  That they were "in" on the plot?  LOL.  Human beings do not have scientific level of recall of events.  That does not mean they are "lying."  Again, though, if you think you have proven that Oswald could not have made his way from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed, and that casts doubt on his guilt, why not provide that information to the DPD instead of wasting time on the Internet?  What are you hoping happens here?  It's 55 pages and counting with no end in sight.

[Jack Nessan]

Imagine a double murderer who had just assassinated the president making up an alibi.  We don't need to put that one to Sherlock Holmes.  Your second question contains a false premise since no one lied but if you think individuals were intentionally lying then perhaps you should explain what you are suggesting.  That they were "in" on the plot?  LOL.  Human beings do not have scientific level of recall of events.  That does not mean they are "lying."  Again, though, if you think you have proven that Oswald could not have made his way from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed, and that casts doubt on his guilt, why not provide that information to the DPD instead of wasting time on the Internet?  What are you hoping happens here?  It's 55 pages and counting with no end in sight.

Exactly, three policemen and Shelley and Lovelady all relate a different story but only Adams and Styles are to be believed. The depth of the conspiracy is incredible. It even encompasses issues that really don't matter. If A and S had never left the 4th floor at all, what difference would it make. Oswald was coming down the stairs, not up them. Dan has them leaving so early that they do not encounter anyone doing anything. What is the point of this whole exercise? Proving Shelley and Lovelady lied about what?

[Richard Smith]

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.

Innocent people sometimes confess.  Almost every guilty person claims innocence.  On occasion the criminal justice system does get it wrong.  Mostly it gets it right.  All this deflection, however, has no relevance on Oswald's situation.  The evidence that places him on the 6th floor as the assassin is lightyears more persuasive than any alibi.   His gun, his prints, his bullet casings, witness ID, no credible alibi, his nutty political background, flight from the scene, involvement in the murder of a police officer less than an hour later, resisting arrest, his rifle is missing etc.  It is a drumbeat of guilt for any objective person.  Oswald provides no explanation for this evidence and his actions.  Instead he is caught in numerous lies. The fact that in the history of criminal justice, some innocent people have been convicted does not create a scintilla of doubt as to Oswald's guilt (and you picked a particularly dubious case as an example since the Memphis 3 were never cleared of the crime.  To the contrary, many people still believe the opposite since they were convicted twice.  Rather the justice system was coerced by Hollywood pressure to release them after an Alford plea which means they plead guilty to be released.).  It's the evidence that convinces me of Oswald's guilt.  I see no reasonable or credible explanation much less actual supporting evidence that lends itself to explaining this evidence in any other way except that Oswald was the assassin.  Not because I'm closed minded.  Why would I or anyone else have a bias against Oswald or a conspiracy?  For example, I accept that there was a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln and that John Wilkes Booth was the assassin because (AGAIN) that is what the evidence demonstrates.  That conclusion has nothing to do with bias or being closed minded.  Suggesting that others don't accept your theories because they are closed minded or just accept what they are told is an immature way to dismiss dissenting views.

[Martin Weidmann]

Innocent people sometimes confess.  Almost every guilty person claims innocence.  On occasion the criminal justice system does get it wrong.  Mostly it gets it right.  All this deflection, however, has no relevance on Oswald's situation.  The evidence that places him on the 6th floor as the assassin is lightyears more persuasive than any alibi.   His gun, his prints, his bullet casings, witness ID, no credible alibi, his nutty political background, flight from the scene, involvement in the murder of a police officer less than an hour later, resisting arrest, his rifle is missing etc.  It is a drumbeat of guilt for any objective person.  Oswald provides no explanation for this evidence and his actions.  Instead he is caught in numerous lies. The fact that in the history of criminal justice, some innocent people have been convicted does not create a scintilla of doubt as to Oswald's guilt (and you picked a particularly dubious case as an example since the Memphis 3 were never cleared of the crime.  To the contrary, many people still believe the opposite since they were convicted twice.  Rather the justice system was coerced by Hollywood pressure to release them after an Alford plea which means they plead guilty to be released.).  It's the evidence that convinces me of Oswald's guilt.  I see no reasonable or credible explanation much less actual supporting evidence that lends itself to explaining this evidence in any other way except that Oswald was the assassin.  Not because I'm closed minded.  Why would I or anyone else have a bias against Oswald or a conspiracy?  For example, I accept that there was a conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln and that John Wilkes Booth was the assassin because (AGAIN) that is what the evidence demonstrates.  That conclusion has nothing to do with bias or being closed minded.  Suggesting that others don't accept your theories because they are closed minded or just accept what they are told is an immature way to dismiss dissenting views.

Suggesting that others don't accept your theories because they are closed minded or just accept what they are told is an immature way to dismiss dissenting views.

Says the guy who will never discuss, accept or question anything that does not agree with his theory. Immature indeed     

The evidence that places him on the 6th floor as the assassin is lightyears more persuasive than any alibi.   His gun, his prints, his bullet casings, witness ID, no credible alibi, his nutty political background, flight from the scene, involvement in the murder of a police officer less than an hour later, resisting arrest, his rifle is missing etc.  It is a drumbeat of guilt for any objective person.

Says the least objective guy who will never understand or accept that none of this so-called "evidence" is even remotely conclusive and none of it places Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired.

If any reader wants confirmation of this basic fact, just ask "Richard Smith" how any of the "evidence" actually proves that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Go ahead, just ask him..... but don't be surprised (if you get an answer at all) that all you get is a lot of rhetorical BS that's not supported by any evidence.

[Martin Weidmann]

Imagine a double murderer who had just assassinated the president making up an alibi.  We don't need to put that one to Sherlock Holmes.  Your second question contains a false premise since no one lied but if you think individuals were intentionally lying then perhaps you should explain what you are suggesting.  That they were "in" on the plot?  LOL.  Human beings do not have scientific level of recall of events.  That does not mean they are "lying."  Again, though, if you think you have proven that Oswald could not have made his way from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed, and that casts doubt on his guilt, why not provide that information to the DPD instead of wasting time on the Internet?  What are you hoping happens here?  It's 55 pages and counting with no end in sight.

Again, though, if you think you have proven that Oswald could not have made his way from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed

Classic LN reversal of the burden of proof.

The LN "logic" being that if Oswald could have made his way down the stairs unnoticed, then that's what he did! Never mind that the LNs or the WC could actually even prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired to begin with.

Pathetic!

[Dan O'meara]

Imagine a double murderer who had just assassinated the president making up an alibi.  We don't need to put that one to Sherlock Holmes.  Your second question contains a false premise since no one lied but if you think individuals were intentionally lying then perhaps you should explain what you are suggesting.  That they were "in" on the plot?  LOL.  Human beings do not have scientific level of recall of events.  That does not mean they are "lying."  Again, though, if you think you have proven that Oswald could not have made his way from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed, and that casts doubt on his guilt, why not provide that information to the DPD instead of wasting time on the Internet?  What are you hoping happens here?  It's 55 pages and counting with no end in sight.

Imagine a double murderer who had just assassinated the president making up an alibi.  We don't need to put that one to Sherlock Holmes.

Yet again with the child-like attempt to be devious. Are you not embarrassed by this strategy?
Everyone can see that I didn't ask - why would Oswald make up an alibi?
I asked this question:

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

It's a very simple question but you have to pretend you don't understand it.
In Reply#426 I examine Oswald's alibi in detail and it is from this analysis that the question about Shelley arises.
In your fantasy, Oswald has shot and killed JFK. The most incriminating action Oswald takes after the assassination is to leave the TSBD building and he must come up with an excuse as to why he did this.
So he says that he had a chat with Bill Shelley who advised him there wouldn't be any more work that day and this is why he left.
Oswald has introduced Bill Shelley into his alibi and I am asking you a very simple question - why would he do this?

Obviously, because you're a Nutter, you won't be able to come up with any reason that doesn't sound ridiculous so you have to pretend, like a little child, that you don't understand the question.
Surely it's the case that Shelley only knows Oswald as a quiet loner who works at the TSBD building. They are not friends, they do not socialise, they barely know each other. Yet Oswald believes that Shelley will back him up. He believes that Shelley will confirm that he gave Oswald permission to leave that day, otherwise why would he mention Shelley at all?
Oswald knows that all the authorities have to do is ask Shelley and this alibi will be blown so why does he do it?
The only rational reason is that Oswald fully expected Shelley to back him up.
The only rational reason why Oswald would expect Shelley to back him up is that Oswald really did have a conversation with Shelley just before he left the TSBD building.
Fritz makes the point that Oswald is very cool and controlled during interrogation, so this isn't a question of someone panicking under pressure and saying the wrong thing. Oswald knows exactly what he's doing when he brings Shelley into his alibi. He clearly views Shelley as an accomplice.
But in you're fantasy you have no way of answering the very simple question I've asked, so you have to pretend your way out of it.

Your second question contains a false premise since no one lied but if you think individuals were intentionally lying then perhaps you should explain what you are suggesting.

It has been established beyond doubt that Shelley and Oswald lied about their movements after the assassination. Many of my posts focus on this aspect and I cover it in detail. Rather than deal with a single argument I've presented you simply call it a "false premise" but don't give a single reason why it's a false premise. It's your usual lazy approach. You refuse to engage in any meaningful debate because you know you will be crushed once again in front of the forum. So you pretend you don't understand questions, throw out unfounded accusations and lie. You forget, the forum is a record of your constant use of underhand tactics. It is also a record of the detailed arguments I have put forward and the copious amount of evidence I've used to support these arguments.
So the question remains - "Why do you think Lovelady and Shelley lied about their movements after the assassination?"

Human beings do not have scientific level of recall of events.  That does not mean they are "lying."

You are living proof that humans do not have a scientific recall of events.
"Lying", as I am using the word against Shelley, Lovelady or anyone else, is the deliberate fabrication of events.
It is not misremembering or misunderstanding. It is not forgetting details or even putting things in the wrong order. It is making up things that didn't happen.
It's the "official" story of Shelley and Lovelady that after three minutes had passed, Gloria Calvery came running up to them and told them the President was shot, after which they made their way out to the "little, old island" at which point they saw Baker and Truly about to enter the building.
This is a made up series of events, a deliberate fabrication.
This is proved to be the case because of the Darnell footage. There is film footage of Baker reaching the area at the bottom of the front steps within seconds of the assassination. This is a fact. Lovelady and Shelley are still at the steps when this happens. The story about them waiting for 3 minutes before Gloria runs up to the steps, moving over to the concrete 'spur' then seeing Baker and Truly at the front steps is a lie - do you dispute this?
It would be one thing if only one of them told this lie, even though it would still be inexplicable. But that both men are telling exactly the same lie is damning.
So it isn't a misremembering or a misunderstanding. This is proven to be the case because Shelley goes on to repeat this lie to George and Patricia Nash.
When Lovelady says both men ran down to where the limo slowed and stayed there for 5 minutes - Lie.
When Shelley says both men accompanied police officers down to the railroad yard and stayed there for ten minutes - Lie.
When Lovelady says he didn't re-enter the TSBD for 15 to 20 minutes - Lie.

Above all, there is credible eye-witness testimony that Shelley and Lovelady are lying - Vicki Adams sees them on the first floor 30 - 60 seconds after the shooting.

if you think you have proven that Oswald could not have made his way from the 6th to 2nd floor unnoticed, and that casts doubt on his guilt, why not provide that information to the DPD instead of wasting time on the Internet?

You keep making this point and it's kind of creepy.
For the third or fourth time now - what I'm posting has absolutely nothing to do with the movements of Oswald.
What is it you're not understanding about that?
In your fantasy Oswald has somehow teleported down to the second floor. Jarman, Williams and Norman don't hear him moving on the wooden floor just above their heads. Jack Dougherty, who is literally stood by the stairs on the fifth floor, doesn't see or hear him descending. Garner (and other woman looking out of the west windows) don't see him walking by - remember, it's not just a question of him walking down the stairs, at each floor he has to walk about 15 feet across the floor itself to get to the top of the next flight of stairs.
But none of this proves that he wasn't on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination. It just makes it very unlikely.
What proves it wasn't Oswald on the 6th floor is the 3 eye-witnesses (Rowland, Fischer and Roberts) who describe the man on the 6th floor wearing clothes Oswald didn't wear to work that day and didn't even own. Fischer and Roberts got a good look at the man and refused to identify him as Oswald (so did Brennan for that matter).
Detective F M Turner had this to say about Fischer and Roberts:

Mr. Turner: I got a Ronald Fischer and Bob Edwards.
Mr. Belin: What do you have about them?
Mr. Turner: They said they saw a white man in his twenties standing on the fifth floor of the Book Building in the east window. Had on an open-necked sports shirt and had sandy-colored hair. And said the hair was longer than a crewcut.

In their various testimonies both men state that the open-necked sports shirt was white. Oswald didn't own such a garment at the time of the assassination.
If the shooter was wearing clothes Oswald didn't own, then common sense dictates it wasn't Oswald.
Which is why Roberts, Fischer and Brennan refused to identify the man as Oswald.
Which is why Fischer thought the man on the 6th floor had a much lighter complexion than Oswald.
Which is why Brennan thought the man on the 6th floor was much older than Oswald.
Which is why Oswald was discovered on the second floor seconds after the assassination.
Which is why Oswald could see Jarman and Norman on the first floor of the TSBD building less than 5 minutes before the assassination.
Which is why Garner didn't see Oswald walking across the fourth floor.
Which is why Brennan saw the gunman still stood at the window at least 8 seconds after the shooting.
Which is why Oswald was already sipping a Coke when Baker burst in the second floor lunchroom.

But let's not stray from the topic at hand - the Lost Interview with Vicki Adams.
Her eye-witness testimony has Shelley and Lovelady towards the back of the first floor seconds after the shooting.
What were they doing there?
Why did they lie about their movements?
Other than the lies of Lovelady and Shelley, what evidence do you have that they weren't at the back of the first floor seconds after the assassination?