Oswald: No power lunch

[Jack Nessan]

Given the WC established the fact Adams and Styles left the fourth floor considerably later than they suggested. The Stroud document looses all credibility. The Stroud document contained two pieces of info. Garner said she saw Truly and Baker ascend the stairs, and Adams and Styles leave the fourth floor. She probably saw both events but places them in the wrong order. It is understandable that the WC would place no importance in the document given they established approximate times to Styles and Adams movements by establishing known times and locations to their encounters with officers and radio transmissions, and testimonies of the movements of fellow employees.

[Martin Weidmann]

Given the WC established the fact Adams and Styles left the fourth floor considerably later than they suggested. The Stroud document looses all credibility. The Stroud document contained two pieces of info. Garner said she saw Truly and Baker ascend the stairs, and Adams and Styles leave the fourth floor. She probably saw both events but places them in the wrong order. It is understandable that the WC would place no importance in the document given they established approximate times to Styles and Adams movements by establishing known times and locations to their encounters with officers and radio transmissions, and testimonies of the movements of fellow employees.

Given the WC established the fact Adams and Styles left the fourth floor considerably later than they suggested.

So, what you are really saying here is that independently thinking and drawing logical conclusions is not for you and you just accept blindly whatever the WC said.

The WC "established" a hell of a lot, but mainly only what the predetermined narrative required and more than often without any supporting evidence. Where Adams is concerned they just made a claim for which there is no supporting evidence and used a minor part of Adams' testimony to discredit her. They failed to call her to the reconstruction and buried the Stroud letter without ever looking into it. That should tell you enough about the quality and depth of their "investigation".

They basically said something like; ignore all the other evidence. Adams said she saw Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor. We know both men were not there until around 12:35, so Adams (and Styles) were not on the stairs when Oswald came down and btw never mind that we can't prove at all that Oswald, or indeed anybody else, came down the stairs, but that's just a minor detail, right?

The Stroud document looses all credibility

The Stroud letter was an official communication from the office of a United States Attorney to the General Counsel of a Presidential Commission. To just dismiss it and say it has no credibility is just silly.

Garner said she saw Truly and Baker ascend the stairs, and Adams and Styles leave the fourth floor. She probably saw both events but places them in the wrong order.

Pure selfserving speculation and nothing more than wishful thinking. Dorothy Garner's comments to Martha Stroud are just as inconvenient for you as they were for the Warren Commission. Rather than dealing with it honestly, you simply dismiss it.

It is understandable that the WC would place no importance in the document given they established approximate times to Styles and Adams movements by establishing known times and locations to their encounters with officers and radio transmissions, and testimonies of the movements of fellow employees.

Complete nonsense. The WC established nothing of the kind. Nowhere in the report do they give approximate times for the movements of Styles and Adams. They did not even include Adams in the reconstruction and ignored Styles completely.

The bottom line is that everything Adams said in her testimony can be corroborated, except for - go figure - the location where she allegedly saw Shelley and Lovelady. My timeline shows that the only location where she could have seen, and probably did see, Shelley and Lovelady was at the railway yard, where she passed both men as she was walking to the front of the building. It is a physical impossibility for her to have seen Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor of the TSBD (at 12:35, when the men returned to the building) and still be at the front entrance at 12:36 or 12:37. And for what it's worth, when Victoria Adams was asked by Barry Ernest about the alleged encounter with Shelley and Lovelady on the first she instantly denied having said that in her testimony.

The obvious fact is staring you in the face. It can only be missed by somebody who doesn't want to see!

Earlier I asked you a simple question, to which you never replied, so here it is again;

After Adams and Styles came down the stairs, they left the building at the loading dock at the back, by using the only stairs available there. They then ran towards the railway yard (which mean running along just about the whole north side of the building. When they got to the railway yard, a police man stopped them and told them to go back. They then ran along the entire side of the building to the dead end street in front of the TSBD. There they turned left and ran all the way to the other side of the building where the main entrance is. They arrived there at no later than 12:36 or 12:37, because when Styles entered the building it was not yet sealed off.

If Adams and Styles arrived at the front entrance at 12:36 or 12:37 at the latest, do you agree they must have exited the building at the back at least three minutes earlier (given the fact that they walked three sides of the building), which means at around 12:33?

Why don't you try to answer it this time?

[Alan Ford]

Shelley and Lovelady, for their part, recalled a their circuitous path to the rear of the TSBD as follows:

1.) At the last shot sounded, they were standing in the TSBD entryway. They remained there until Gloria Calvery ran up and announced that JFK had been shot.

This, of course, is directly contradicted by Mr Shelley's same-day affidavit account:

“I ran across the street to a corner of the park and ran into a girl crying and she said the president had been shot. This girl's name is Gloria Calvery, who is an employee of this same building. I went back to the building and went inside and called my wife and told her what happened.”

Mr Shelley had been best man at Ms Calvery's wedding just a few short months before!

So--------------the question is: Why did Mr Shelley change his story?

 

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

That's a lot of "If"s! I didn't ask you what your theory requires. I asked you to show us (i.e. provide some proof) that Truly and Baker did not enter the first floor storeroom any sooner than between 75 and 85 seconds.

Btw, you develop a theory based on known facts. You don't concoct a theory and then start looking for what it requires to make it work.

In this instance, the Malcom Couch film, taken just 15 to 20 seconds after the last shot, shows Officer Baker parking his motorbike and running toward the entrance of the TSBD.

Do you really believe, once inside, it took him and Truly between 48 and 63 seconds to run to the back of the building?

My theory works ok if T/B took at least 88 sec to meet Oswald on the 2nd floor.
I havent studied the footages of Baker. But if Baker parks his bike at 20 sec. Then gets to the front door at 30 sec. Then T/B go throo 2 doorways & a counter & enter the stockroom at 35 sec. Then go north then west to get to the elevators at 55 sec (the diagonal shortcut was probly full of stacked books & tables etc). Then leave the elevators at 65 sec. Then get to the stairs at 70 sec. Then get to the 2nd floor at 85 sec. And Baker was 3 sec behind Truly, which makes it 88 sec.

Anyhow, the 88 sec is not critical. The time is not critical. The timings are critical, ie the relative times.
If T/B took an extra 10 sec then thats perfectly ok if we add 10 sec all round, ie if we add 10 sec to Oswald's journey & if we add 10 sec to A/S's  journey.
If T/B took 10 sec less then thats perfectly ok if we deduct 10 sec all round, ie if we deduct 10 sec from Oswald's journey & if we deduct 10 sec from A/S's journey.

[Martin Weidmann]

This, of course, is directly contradicted by Mr Shelley's same-day affidavit account:

“I ran across the street to a corner of the park. I ran into a girl crying and she said the president had been shot. This girl's name is Gloria Calvery, who is an employee of this same building. I went back to the building and went inside and called my wife and told her what happened.”

Mr Shelley had been best man at Ms Calvery's wedding just a few short months before!

So--------------the question is: Why did Mr Shelley change his story?

 

I don't think Shelley changed his story. Instead he simply never told the complete story 100% in one interview. It's human nature to be selective in their memory. What a witness states is also influenced by the circumstances he is in when he makes the statement. The quality of the answer is always determined by the quality of the question. When a witness signs an affidavit, he/she is actually signing a synopsis of all the statements/answers he has provided to the person taking the affidavit. The witness does not write the text and although he/she is always asked to agree with the content of the affidavit before signing it, most people simply sign the damned thing to get it over with. That's why lawyers always tell clients to never make any statements to the police.

As for testimony, the witness' answers are predominantly guided by the the questions that are asked. Those questions are most often than not agenda driven prepared to obtain a certain desired result. A witness very seldom will get an opportunity to provide information not asked for.

And then there is the human factor, which clearly shows that witness statements, under oath or not, are frequently (if not usually) not consistent.

The hypocritial LNs always say that you can only believe those parts of witness statements that are corroborated by other evidence. However, when it comes to Victoria Adams' testimony they suddenly rely on it as if it was written in stone, despite the fact that it doesn't match other evidence, when the location of the sighting of Shelley and Lovelady is concerned.

[Alan Ford]

I don't think Shelley changed his story. Instead he simply never told the complete story 100% in one interview. It's human nature to be selective in their memory. What a witness states is also influenced by the circumstances he is in when he makes the statement. The quality of the answer is always determined by the quality of the question. When a witness signs an affidavit, he/she is actually signing a synopsis of all the statements/answers he has provided to the person taking the affidavit. The witness does not write the text and although he/she is always asked to agree with the content of the affidavit before signing it, most people simply sign the damned thing to get it over with. That's why lawyers always tell clients to never make any statements to the police.

As for testimony, the witness' answers are predominantly guided by the the questions that are asked. Those questions are most often than not agenda driven prepared to obtain a certain desired result. A witness very seldom will get an opportunity to provide information not asked for.

And then there is the human factor, which clearly shows that witness statements, under oath or not, are frequently (if not usually) not consistent.

The hypocritial LNs always say that you can only believe those parts of witness statements that are corroborated by other evidence. However, when it comes to Victoria Adams' testimony they suddenly rely on it as if it was written in stone, despite the fact that it doesn't match other evidence, when the location of the sighting of Shelley and Lovelady is concerned.

Mr Shelley, within a couple of hours of the shooting, specifically remembered running into Ms Calvery out at the corner of the park. This is not an incomplete version of the story he would later tell, it is a different story.

[Martin Weidmann]

Mr Shelley, within a couple of hours of the shooting, specifically remembered running into Ms Calvery out at the corner of the park. This is not an incomplete version of the story he would later tell, it is a different story.

Mr. BALL - Then what happened?
Mr. SHELLEY - Gloria Calvary from South-Western Publishing Co. ran back up there crying and said "The President has been shot" and Billy Lovelady and myself took off across the street to that little, old island and we stopped there for a minute.

So all he left out in his testimony was calling his wife. You could say it's a different story, but to me it's just a witness leaving out a minor detail he actually simply might not have remembered on the stand several months later.

I'm not sure where you want to go with this, but I don't see it going anywhere fast.

[Alan Ford]

My theory works ok if T/B took at least 88 sec to meet Oswald on the 2nd floor.

Your theory works if Officer Baker doesn't describe a different encounter in his same-day affidavit. Another way of putting this is that your theory doesn't work.