This is just an attempt at clarification. I realize that Tom’s (and the late Sandy Larsen’s) identification of Tartan Skirted Woman as Gloria Calvery is extremely important to him for some reason. What I don’t quite understand is why. (Assuming we can trust Gloria’s grave marker, her name was Calvery and not Calvary as it is often misspelled.)
To be clear, I’m not insisting Tartan Skirted Woman isn’t Calvery. I’m just puzzled.
Back in the day, a well-respected researcher named Linda Giovanna Zambanini debated the identification of Calvery with Tom and Sandy, and serious researchers such as Robin Unger, Bart Kamp and others were aligned with Linda in believing that Chubby Crying Woman in the image below was in fact Calvery. It seemed to me that Linda and her supporters made a good case, using old photos, that Chubby Crying Woman looks a lot more like Calvery than Holt (as Tom claims). There was certainly some facial similarity between Calvery and Holt.
Now, however, I see that Linda has “tentatively” joined the Tartan Skirted Woman brigade at the Calvery memorial site. She has an arrow pointing to Tartan Skirted Woman but with a question mark: “Gloria Calvery?”
We will concede that it is Tartan Skirted Woman going up the steps with All White Woman, but my question is, “Why must this be Calvery? What’s the great significance?”
For Tartan Skirted Woman to be Calvery, the following would have to be true:
1. Westbrook’s recollection in 2016 as to where she was standing would have to be dead wrong.
2. Westbrook’s identification of Calvery in the photos would have to be dead wrong, even though “her” Calvery is dressed completely differently from Tartan Skirted Woman.
3. Westbrook’s identification of herself would have to be dead wrong. According to Tom, the woman Westbrook thinks is herself, from both the front and back in photos, is actually Simmons-Nelson. One of the women standing with Tartan Skirted Woman is presumably Tom’s Westbrook, but she didn’t recognize herself in 2016?
Westbrook’s recollection was so strong that she confidently disagreed with the supposed identification of Calvery by the latter’s own son.
Shelley’s statement the day of the JFKA has him encountering Calvery across the street; at the WC, he has her “running back up there,” apparently meaning the steps. Lovelady told the WC that Calvery came “running up to us.” Molina told the WC he was on the steps and saw Truly go in but did not encounter Calvery until he was inside the lobby and she came in. Frazier didn’t identify Calvery by name at the WC but said the “somebody” who was crying that JFK had been shot was “right before I went back in” the building. These statements scarcely mesh. They would mesh a lot better - wouldn't they? - if Shelley and Lovelady encountered Calvery at some point before she reached the steps.
Shouldn’t Shelley’s recollection the day of the JFKA carry considerable weight? He gratuitously inserted this in a very short affidavit within a very short time after the event.
What would be the big deal if Shelley and Lovelady actually encountered Calvery in the vicinity but not on the steps as depicted in the frames with Tartan Skirted Woman and All White Woman? What’s the big deal?
Back in the day, at least two people (including Robert Prudhomme) questioned what on earth the significance of all this is supposed to be. Tom answered something about the FBI fabricating multiple statements in an effort to alter when Shelley and Lovelady left the steps and the identification of Calvery being the key to it all. Robert pointed out that this seemed to be an awfully “elaborate” scheme just for that purpose. Later, Sandy responded to Bart Kamp, “Gloria Calvery is an integral part of the Shelley, Lovelady, Adams, Baker 2nd-floor-fabrication nexus that was used to cover up Oswald's alibi.”
Is that the big deal with Tartan Skirted Woman being Calvery – she’s the key to a massive FBI/WC hoax? If that’s it, I don’t say she isn’t Calvery but am certainly much less inclined to think she is.
