Vicki Adams: The Lost Interview

[Martin Weidmann]

JohnM

Thanks for posting this, John. It clearly shows that it isn't easy to walk in high heels shoes. Too bad the gif doesn't show Adams or Styles, because then you could have made an actual point.   

And yet, some juvenile miscreant claims that Adams and Styles could have walked three sides of the TSBD (including it's annex), and partially over railway tracks in less than a minute. Can you imagine? 

[Jack Nessan]

Thanks for posting this, John. It clearly shows that it isn't easy to walk in high heels shoes. To bad the gif doesn't show Adams or Styles, because then you could have made an actual point.   

And yet, some juvenile miscreant claims that Adams and Styles could have walked three sides of the TSBD (including it's annex), and partially over railway tracks in less than a minute. Can you imagine? 

Just curious, did you fall from the top landing to the middle landing as well? Navigating something as complicated as a set of stairs is a problem?

Is there a condition which appears to make you unable to understand people who walk at a normal gait?

--------------------------

The Martin Weidmann opinion of the moment, or Martin’s which way is the wind blowing opinion. Depending on the circumstances, which Martin finds himself, the opinions of the witnesses are or are not deemed to be accurate estimations of time.

Now:

MW--” walked three sides of the TSBD (including it's annex), and partially over railway tracks in less than a minute”

Before:

MW--“when in fact he (Harkness) could easily be mistaken by a minute or so either way,” 

MW-” The times are approximations, but the timeline works perfectly and includes all the known information without any witness having to lie.”

This interesting, a timeline not based on times. Who would have thought that was even possible.

So, you decided to lie for them. Good thinking.

[Fergus O'Brien]

Hello again Martin,

As you no doubt already know, it's my opinion that absolutely none of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases has been faked or manufactured or planted, and as such it is fairly obvious that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of the two murders he was charged with committing on 11/22/63.

I also fully realize, of course, that most (if not all) people who lean toward believing in a conspiracy in the Kennedy and Tippit cases think that it is highly likely that at least some (and probably most) of the physical evidence that points toward Oswald was in some way tainted by the police and/or FBI following the two murders. So that's a disagreement that is always going to exist and will likely never be reconciled to please both sides of the debate.

But in addition to the physical evidence itself, a good deal of attention also needs to be focused on Oswald's own actions and movements on both November 21st and 22nd---which are things that I don't think even the most imaginative conspiracy theorist on the planet could possibly believe were "manufactured" by the authorities).

And when those actions and movements are examined, it becomes quite clear that Mr. Oswald did several unusual things on each of those days, such as:

.... Going out to Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Texas, with Buell Frazier on a Thursday (instead of his normal Friday).

.... Telling a lie about why he wanted a ride to Irving on Thursday, Nov. 21st. (And it's fairly clear that Oswald's "curtain rods" story was, indeed, nothing but a lie.)

.... Bringing a large-ish paper package with him to work on 11/22 (and telling a lie to Frazier about the contents of that package).

.... Walking ahead of Frazier into the TSBD Building on the morning of 11/22.

.... Asking for an elevator to be sent back up to him on an upper floor of the TSBD at about 11:45 AM on 11/22. (Now, why do you suppose Oswald wanted that to be done?)

.... Leaving the TSBD Building within about three minutes of the Presidential shooting and then proceeding to walk several blocks east on Elm Street in order to get on a bus that he only stayed on for a matter of a few minutes before getting off and catching a cab at the Greyhound bus terminal (which was likely the only time in his life that Lee Oswald paid for a taxicab ride while in the United States of America).

.... And after getting into William Whaley's cab on 11/22, where does Oswald tell the driver to drop him off? Not at the front doorstep of 1026 N. Beckley (which Whaley could have easily done), but instead Oswald tells Whaley to drop him off three whole blocks beyond his Beckley roominghouse.

.... Oswald then backtracks to his rented room, grabs his revolver and a jacket, and quickly leaves the roominghouse.

... Oswald then shoots and kills police officer J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street.
(Continual reminder for conspiracy theorists ----> Click Here.)

.... Oswald is next seen acting "funny" and "scared" while he has his back turned to the wailing police cars on Jefferson Boulevard in front of Johnny Brewer's shoe store.

.... Then it's on to the Texas Theater for LHO, as he sneaks in without bothering to pay for the cheap ticket.

.... Oswald then pulls his gun on police officer McDonald inside the theater.

.... And the comments made by Oswald at the time of his arrest in the theater certainly don't conjure up visions of an "innocent patsy" either.

So, as we can see, Oswald's movements certainly can't be ignored or swept under the rug---because, in my opinion, Lee Oswald's own movements and actions on Nov. 21 and Nov. 22 add up to the actions of a guilty person.

And when we add the physical evidence (plus the Tippit eyewitnesses) to Oswald's own guilty-like actions, then the only conceivable way to exonerate Mr. Oswald for the murders of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit would be to do what most conspiracy theorists do, and that is to make the following bold claim (sans any proof at all):

All of that evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald was fake!

Also....

The chain of possession/custody for Bullet CE399 is, in my opinion, a lot stronger than most conspiracists believe it is. And it got even stronger in June 2022 when researcher Steve Roe discovered Elmer Todd's initials on the bullet:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-initials-of-elmer-todd-are-on-ce399.html

More discussion on CE399's chain of custody HERE and HERE.

Lots more proof of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt at the link below:

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

evidence and proof are not quite the same thing are they David ? . is circumstantial evidence proof ? if it is why call it circumstantial ? why not call it proof ? .

for example you will say that Oswalds prints on boxes are proof he was on the 6th floor at 12.30pm that tragic day . and a prosecution attorney would ask a jury to infer from the prints that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12.30 .and that is not unreasonable .but then a defense attorney would argue the facts that Oswald worked in that building and indeed on that floor that very morning and was there certainly around 11.40am filling order from boxes of books , hence his prints would be on boxes on that floor . indeed the FBI print expert (i am going from memory now ) if memory serves said along the lines that the prints found on the boxes could have been there just a few hours or indeed days .

my point is not that evidence presented does not appear to point at Oswald , i am not saying that at all . i am saying that if we talk and use the word proof or PROVEN that we need to ensure what is being claimed is indeed irrefutable proof and proven .too often ive seen LN say this is proof , that is proven when it is often not at all the case .

just to prove the point i am making above you said and i quote

"And when those actions and movements are examined, it becomes quite clear that Mr. Oswald did several unusual things on each of those days, such as:"

you follow the above with

"Leaving the TSBD Building within about three minutes of the Presidential shooting "

so you very evidently make several claims stating them as proven fact "Mr. Oswald did several unusual things on each of those days " . so now i must assume (correct me if you feel i am wrong )  as you are a devoted LN and Bugliosi follower that your stance is the official stance , which is that Oswald left the building withing 3 minutes of the shooting via the front door . if that be the case please tell me what PROOF you have of this ? . i am aware of not one witness who stated categorically that they saw Oswald leave via the front door 3 minutes after the shooter , not one photo , still or film that captured Oswald leaving via the front door 3 minutes after the shooting . let us be crystal clear here some person being told that they may have encountered oswald leaving the front door is in no way proof . so i would like to ask you for proof that Oswald did leave the depository via the FRONT door 3 minutes after the shooting .

[David Von Pein]

your stance is the official stance, which is that Oswald left the building within 3 minutes of the shooting via the front door. .... I would like to ask you for proof that Oswald did leave the depository via the FRONT door 3 minutes after the shooting.

But what difference does it really make which door Oswald utilized to leave the building? Whether it be the back door or the front door, there is no doubt whatsoever that Lee Oswald WAS inside the building at circa 12:32 PM and he then got onto a bus (and then a cab) a few minutes later. You surely don't deny the fact that Oswald made it to his roominghouse by about 1:00 PM, do you? Therefore, Oswald definitely DID leave the TSBD building within a very few minutes of the shooting. That fact is beyond all doubt (even amongst CTers).

Also....

When I discussed Oswald's "unusual" actions on 11/21 and 11/22, you need to ADD UP ALL of those actions and movements, instead of isolating just one of them (which is what you did above).

And when ALL of those actions/movements are added together, the result is, IMO, a person named Oswald who certainly was NOT an innocent "patsy" on 11/22/63.

[Jack Nessan]

evidence and proof are not quite the same thing are they David ? . is circumstantial evidence proof ? if it is why call it circumstantial ? why not call it proof ? .

for example you will say that Oswalds prints on boxes are proof he was on the 6th floor at 12.30pm that tragic day . and a prosecution attorney would ask a jury to infer from the prints that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12.30 .and that is not unreasonable .but then a defense attorney would argue the facts that Oswald worked in that building and indeed on that floor that very morning and was there certainly around 11.40am filling order from boxes of books , hence his prints would be on boxes on that floor . indeed the FBI print expert (i am going from memory now ) if memory serves said along the lines that the prints found on the boxes could have been there just a few hours or indeed days .

my point is not that evidence presented does not appear to point at Oswald , i am not saying that at all . i am saying that if we talk and use the word proof or PROVEN that we need to ensure what is being claimed is indeed irrefutable proof and proven .too often ive seen LN say this is proof , that is proven when it is often not at all the case .

just to prove the point i am making above you said and i quote

"And when those actions and movements are examined, it becomes quite clear that Mr. Oswald did several unusual things on each of those days, such as:"

you follow the above with

"Leaving the TSBD Building within about three minutes of the Presidential shooting "

so you very evidently make several claims stating them as proven fact "Mr. Oswald did several unusual things on each of those days " . so now i must assume (correct me if you feel i am wrong )  as you are a devoted LN and Bugliosi follower that your stance is the official stance , which is that Oswald left the building withing 3 minutes of the shooting via the front door . if that be the case please tell me what PROOF you have of this ? . i am aware of not one witness who stated categorically that they saw Oswald leave via the front door 3 minutes after the shooter , not one photo , still or film that captured Oswald leaving via the front door 3 minutes after the shooting . let us be crystal clear here some person being told that they may have encountered oswald leaving the front door is in no way proof . so i would like to ask you for proof that Oswald did leave the depository via the FRONT door 3 minutes after the shooting .

Evidence is part of proof.

Evidence vs circumstantial evidence can also be compared to alibi vs airtight alibi. There is actual circumstantial evidence but not only does LHO not have an airtight alibi he does not even have an alibi at all at the time of the assassination. 

In the absence of an alibi, when does LHO actions indicate fleeing the scene of the crime. When he attempts to shoot a cop in a movie theater? When he was caught sneaking into a dark movie theater? Ditching his jacket? Leaving the scene of a shooting of an officer? Arriving at his rental to stay long enough to get a jacket and a pistol? Having the cab drop him not at his rental but several blocks away? Get on a bus to just get off of it within a few blocks? Leave his place of employment unnoticed within minutes of the crime and not be noticed by anyone? No alibi at the time of the shooting or in his own words came down the stairs to see what the “commotion” was about? Finally, a Marine who does not know what gunfire sounds like? Instead confused by the shots or “commotion” as he states.

[Martin Weidmann]

But what difference does it really make which door Oswald utilized to leave the building? Whether it be the back door or the front door, there is no doubt whatsoever that Lee Oswald WAS inside the building at circa 12:32 PM and he then got onto a bus (and then a cab) a few minutes later. You surely don't deny the fact that Oswald made it to his roominghouse by about 1:00 PM, do you? Therefore, Oswald definitely DID leave the TSBD building within a very few minutes of the shooting. That fact is beyond all doubt (even amongst CTers).

Also....

When I discussed Oswald's "unusual" actions on 11/21 and 11/22, you need to ADD UP ALL of those actions and movements, instead of isolating just one of them (which is what you did above).

And when ALL of those actions/movements are added together, the result is, IMO, a person named Oswald who certainly was NOT an innocent "patsy" on 11/22/63.

David,

When I discussed Oswald's "unusual" actions on 11/21 and 11/22, you need to ADD UP ALL of those actions and movements,

When I discussed them all together, in an earlier post, you seem to have ignored it. Why is that?

Could it be it's because there is an enormous lack of actual evidence and way too much speculation and assumptions and you know it?

And when ALL of those actions/movements are added together, the result is, IMO, a person named Oswald who certainly was NOT an innocent "patsy" on 11/22/63.

For the reason already explained in my previous post, I don't think there can be something like "innocent patsy". What there can be is somebody who was involved in some sort of scheme at a lower level that was actually set up to be a patsy in the real scheme.

Having said that, when you put all the actions and movements together, you first need to be sure you do so in the right context. As also discussed in my previous reply to you, there are simply too many items in the list you provided that can be explained in more than one way. So, when you start adding it all together with the wrong context you most likely will get the conclusion you want but that may not be the correct one.

[Martin Weidmann]

I see John has just posted in another thread, so his usual "excuse" that he has a life doesn't apply.

A couple of days ago I asked him why I should take a 45 year old memory by Styles more seriously than a contradictory statement she made years earlier and a statement Adams made to the FBI two days after the event?

So predictable and completely boring.

You are confusing having an open mind with being utterly gullible.

But ok, let's be open minded; tell me why I should take a 45 year old memory by Styles more seriously than a contradictory statement she made years earlier and a statement Adams made to the FBI two days after the event?

Go on than, John... tell me

John's reply (so far);

Go figure!

[Steve M. Galbraith]

But what difference does it really make which door Oswald utilized to leave the building? Whether it be the back door or the front door, there is no doubt whatsoever that Lee Oswald WAS inside the building at circa 12:32 PM and he then got onto a bus (and then a cab) a few minutes later. You surely don't deny the fact that Oswald made it to his roominghouse by about 1:00 PM, do you? Therefore, Oswald definitely DID leave the TSBD building within a very few minutes of the shooting. That fact is beyond all doubt (even amongst CTers).

Also....

When I discussed Oswald's "unusual" actions on 11/21 and 11/22, you need to ADD UP ALL of those actions and movements, instead of isolating just one of them (which is what you did above).

And when ALL of those actions/movements are added together, the result is, IMO, a person named Oswald who certainly was NOT an innocent "patsy" on 11/22/63.

Dave, as you well know they think, insist really, that Oswald was framed for the assassination of JFK. And then further framed for the murder of Tippit. And then sort of post-framed for the attempt on Walker (Oswald is dead; why would they need to frame him again? and risk revealing the conspiracy? for what purpose?). And along the way all of these separate lines of evidence in each case, in the assassination, in the shooting of Tippit, in the attempt on Walker, was faked, manufactured, falsified. All of it. Every single piece. The physical, the eyewitness and the circumstantial. Meanwhile, all of Oswald's behavior is innocently explained away and all of the behavior of others implicating him is considered corrupt, e.g., they lied or were ordered to lie or were coached.

Then the multiple investigations into this, by several generations of Americans of various backgrounds over decades both in the government and in the media, covered up what happened. So it was done, then covered up at that time, and then the cover up has itself been covered up over the following decades. By a different group of Americans - Democrats and Republicans can't agree on a single thing; but they agreed on this? Really?. And why? The media, the same one that exposed the crimes of the government have also covered this up. Because Operation Mockingbird or something (so the same media that exposed these other abuses were ordered by the CIA to coverup for the assassination and they did so?).

This is, frankly, a psychosis, a detachment from reality. It is not possible to do this. The government is a bureaucracy; it's not a monolithic "thing." We know it cannot be done; they think it not only is possible but was done. There is no way to persuade a person with this view that they are wrong. Whatever evidence you present will simply be added to their mountain of conspiracy. It's why when a new "discovery" from the files are found it's simply added to their conspiracy view. If we found 10 more witnesses that he shot Tippit or was seen fleeing then would simply add that 10 to their conspiracy. Another 10 were coached or ordered to identify him.

We can try but, again, as you know it's not going to work. The only way they can get out of this view, this detachment from reality, is by themselves, their own re-discovery, their own realization. Otherwise they simply consider what we say as more lies by fools or by disinformation agents.