New book on Victoria Adams by author Barry Ernest

[William Kelly]

Ernest and Adams demonstrate quite clearly that neither Oswald, nor the Sixth Floor Phantom Sniper, whoever he was, were on the back stairs in the minutes after the assassination, and that the official story of Oswald descending those stairs in order to meet Baker and Truly in the Second Floor Lunchroom at 12:32 is not the way it happened.

Nonsense, Bill.

Hello David,

I am always willing to have some sense knocked into me, but I don't think you are quite capable of doing it.

With respect to Vickie Adams, the ONLY thing a person needs to accept in order to have Oswald on the back stairs within one to two minutes after the President's assassination is to accept the almost certain fact that Victoria Adams was simply inaccurate in her time estimate about when she and Sandra Styles were on the back staircase.

Now Vickie Adams was raised by nuns and was once studying to be one herself, so we can't exactly call her a xxxx, but mistaken, possibly. But I would tend to lean her way and if her boss' (Garner) is correct, you are wrong on this point.

And if she's off by a mere ONE MINUTE, or even less, then her whole story unravels and it then becomes quite easy to accept the fact that Oswald used the back stairs just after shooting President Kennedy from the sixth floor.

Yes, off by ONE MINUTE, but it MUST BE THE FIRST MINUTE AFTER THE LAST SHOT, and not any other minute. So we are talking about sixty seconds here, not any sixty seconds, but THE first sixty seconds after the assassination.

The key to pretty much knowing without a doubt that Adams and Styles were on the stairs only AFTER Lee Oswald used the same stairs is not really Oswald himself--but Roy Truly and Marrion Baker.

Ah, yes, Roy Truly, who DIDN'T SEE Oswald go through the west door of the vestibule to the Second Floor lunchroom, as he should have, being a few steps ahead of Baker, who DID see Oswald in the window of the west door, that Oswald didn't go through because if he did, Truly would have seen him, and Baker wouldn't have because the door would have still be open a bit and slightly ajar, so Baker couldn't have seen him through the window in the door, as he did. That means, to me at least, that Oswald entered the vestibule of the Second Floor Lunchroom through the south door, the same door he left by.

Because if Adams was really on the stairs as early as she said she was, she would have had virtually no choice but to have seen (or heard) the two men who we know for a fact WERE on those stairs within about 60 to 75 seconds of the assassination -- Truly and Baker.

I thought Truly and Baker were timed to arrive at one and a half minutes after the last shot - 12:31:30 - which would have given the girls, even in their high heels, time to get down and out the back door, without hearing anyone.

Since Adams saw nobody and heard nobody, the very likely solution is that she was mistaken about her timing (which couldn't be a more common error with human beings), and she was on the stairs AFTER all three men (Oswald, Baker, and Truly) had already utilized the same stairs.

http://JFK-Archives....io-part-14.html

http://mcadams.posc....ony/adams_v.htm

Dave, you can convince me you are right if you can get Oswald past Dougherty on the fifth floor landing, past Adams and Styles on the steps, and Truly on the second floor landing, all of whom should have seen or heard him, but didn't.

Then you have two other key witnesses, Brennan, who was standing outside the front door by the police car and motorcycle, watching the front door, who swore he could have recognized the Sixth Floor Sniper if he saw him again, and didn't, yet he did recognize the three black guys from the fifth floor and pointed them out to the cops as they came out the front door, but didn't recognize Oswald, who also waltzed out that same door within minutes, and wasn't recognized by Brennan because he wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, the one with the white shirt and bald spot on top of his head.

And finally, you have to ignore Ms. Mooneyham, the court clerk from across the street who witnessed the motorcade and assassination from a window of the courts building on the corner, and then, four to five minutes after the last shot, looked out a window again and saw a man in the Sixth Floor Sniper's window, apparently moving boxes around. If this guy wasn't the Sixth Floor Phantom Sniper, then who was he? Gary Mack says Mooneyham must have mistaken the floor, but the black guys on the fifth floor had also moved to the other side of the building, saw Baker (but Baker didn't see them) and then went down and out the front door where they were seen by Brennan. So she didn't mistake the floor, and did see someone there - who was probably the assassin.

And if Baker and Truly stopped to search the Sixth Floor, instead of just scanning it from the steps and then run up to the Seventh Floor and roof, they would have most certainly encountered the Phantom, but as with Oswald on the second floor, he probably would have been given a bye.

Whoever he was, he was quite calm and slow moving, and certain that whatever happened, he was going to walk away from there and not be suspected of being the assassin. How was that? Did he also work in the building? Was he a cop? Did he know Oswald was going to be framed for the crime? Did he help frame him?

Who was the Sixth Floor Phantom Sniper? And why did he hang around for so long?

Bill Kelly

JFKcountercoup: 112 MI Fort Sam Houston

Edited February 15, 2011 by William Kelly

[Greg Parker]

Greg Parker, as per all hard-boiled conspiracy theorists who enjoy their fantasies much more than reality,

Yes, and you know this as precisely as you know Oswald was the 6th floor sniper, Dave.

is more than willing (and even eager) to throw away all of the "Oswald Was Here" evidence found on Floor #6 on 11/22. Right, Gregory?

Oswald was there - every working day.

Just chuck all of the evidence straight into the trash, including the rifle and the three shells

Tainted evidence of unproven provenance.

and Brennan's testimony

Is accurate, apart from his belated ID of Oswald whose alibi checks out when all the evidence is considered.

and LHO's prints which littered the Sniper's Nest.

As were others. And he worked there.

I expect most online conspiracists to pretend that every piece of evidence damning to Oswald was faked.

Nope. The evidence against him falls into a number categories.

Why should you be different?

To annoy you, of course!

Adams and Styles, in case you forgot in the last nano-second, missed him because they had gone down BEFORE Baker and Truly had gone up (according to Garner).

Couldn't have happened. Not in the real world. Not unless Miss Adams and Miss Styles were world-class sprinters. And we know they stayed at the south-side windows for a certain period of time, too. And yet they still supposedly managed to beat Truly and Baker to the stairs?? Hogwash.

Well, unlike others, I haven't spent very much time at all studying this pair. But I did just check Adams' testimony and she says that she left 15 to 30 seconds after the last shot and took approximately one minute after that to get to the first floor. Maybe it was a bit quicker and Baker and/or Truly were a bit slower. It certainly could not have happened at the time you claim for the simple reason that they only encountered a single cop on the front stairs and he let them back in. Any later, and there was a cop stationed at the door enforcing the "no entry" order.

Edit: have just re-read Sean Murphy's description of his interview with Styles. Granted, her words seem to be paraphased to some extent, but Sean is not someone who would intellionally mislead - the point being that she comes across as very credible. Her version does explain not seeing anyone on the way down in a manner that does away with any argument over a few seconds here or there. And it is possible they got back in just prior to the full lockdown.

In short -- It's a thousand times easier to explain away Garner's 6/2/64 statement provided by Barry Ernest than it is for conspiracists to explain away all of that incredibly incriminating evidence against Lee H. Oswald that was discovered on the sixth floor.

There is no incredibly incriminating evidence against Oswald. It is a case entirely built on circumstantial evidence - the type of evidence favoured by crooked cops and DAs who manufacture cases for a variety of reasons.

"It was a time when the pendulum had swung far to the right. If the police decided you were guilty of something, they made a case and you were found guilty. It was just that simple. Candy's real crime was she wouldn't cooperate with the vice squad."

Lester May - defence lawyer for Candy Barr in her drug trial. The case included illegal bugs and planted evidence.

"We are making every effort to engage other attorney's to correct the many mistakes that have been made thus far and to properly handle this matter on appeal. This change of counsel may expose us to further embarrassment before the public but it cannot be avoided... Our difficulty is in finding a lawyer in Dallas completely free of the influence of the D.A.'s office."

Sol Dan - appeals lawyer for Jack Ruby

Edited February 15, 2011 by Greg Parker

[Michael Hogan]

Barry Ernest has a blog and a facebook page: http://mysite.verizon.net/restu5kb/

He is also a member of this Forum:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17329

Hi Barry, welcome and thanks for joining the EF. I thought you made some very good points in your blog.

Doing research for Harold Weisberg, Penn Jones Jr and David Lifton constitutes a pretty good pedigree.

Are you planning to release a print version of The Girl On The Stairs? Kindle frightens me.

[John Simkin]

Are you planning to release a print version of The Girl On The Stairs? Kindle frightens me.

Michael, it is very easy to download from Amazon books for the Kindle. It is also as good, or even better, than reading from a book.

[Barry Ernest]

"Hi Barry, welcome and thanks for joining the EF. I thought you made some very good points in your blog.

Doing research for Harold Weisberg, Penn Jones Jr and David Lifton constitutes a pretty good pedigree.

Are you planning to release a print version of The Girl On The Stairs? Kindle frightens me."

Hi Michael, and thanks for your interest. The book is easy to download and can be done so even without a Kindle. There are several apps available for free, including one that will put it directly onto your PC. I have been trying to get it commercially published for years through a few literary agents. Several publishers expressed interest, but wanted me to come up with a final chapter that theorized a "solution" to the murder, regardless of its speculative qualities. I would not do that.

[Duke Lane]

... With respect to Vickie Adams, the ONLY thing a person needs to accept in order to have Oswald on the back stairs within one to two minutes after the President's assassination is to accept the almost certain fact that Victoria Adams was simply inaccurate in her time estimate about when she and Sandra Styles were on the back staircase.

And if she's off by a mere ONE MINUTE, or even less, then her whole story unravels and it then becomes quite easy to accept the fact that Oswald used the back stairs just after shooting President Kennedy from the sixth floor.

The key to pretty much knowing without a doubt that Adams and Styles were on the stairs only AFTER Lee Oswald used the same stairs is not really Oswald himself--but Roy Truly and Marrion Baker.

Because if Adams was really on the stairs as early as she said she was, she would have had virtually no choice but to have seen (or heard) the two men who we know for a fact WERE on those stairs within about 60 to 75 seconds of the assassination -- Truly and Baker.

Since Adams saw nobody and heard nobody, the very likely solution is that she was mistaken about her timing (which couldn't be a more common error with human beings), and she was on the stairs AFTER all three men (Oswald, Baker, and Truly) had already utilized the same stairs. ...

... remember to keep asking yourself one important question --

If Lee Oswald wasn't the sixth-floor assassin, then how did the "real killer(s)" manage to remain completely out of the sight of Vickie Adams and Sandra Styles and Dorothy Garner and Roy Truly and Marrion Baker following the assassination of the President?

Since you made a link to the thread, I refer you back to the posts made by Sean Murphy in that thread: the real killer did not escape the notice of Baker and truly. Adams and Styles, in case you forgot in the last nano-second, missed him because they had gone down BEFORE Baker and Truly had gone up (according to Garner). As for Garner herself... who knows? Was she ever asked who else she may have seen?

Did the "real killer" somehow manage to make himself invisible to all of those witnesses right after the shooting? Or did the real killer (if it wasn't Oswald) decide to remain on the sixth floor for many minutes after he shot at JFK, running the fearful risk of being captured on the TSBD floor where Oswald's rifle and the three spent shells were found?

I think even most hardened conspiracy theorists would find that latter option a little hard to swallow.

I think even the most credulous of LNs can see right through your posts.

Adams and Styles, in case you forgot in the last nano-second, missed him because they had gone down BEFORE Baker and Truly had gone up (according to Garner).

Couldn't have happened. Not in the real world. Not unless Miss Adams and Miss Styles were world-class sprinters. And we know they stayed at the south-side windows for a certain period of time, too. And yet they still supposedly managed to beat Truly and Baker to the stairs?? Hogwash.

In short -- It's a thousand times easier to explain away Garner's 6/2/64 statement provided by Barry Ernest than it is for conspiracists to explain away all of that incredibly incriminating evidence against Lee H. Oswald that was discovered on the sixth floor.

David,

The key concept throughout your discourse is "acceptance." Once one "accepts" something, all the rest is QED. Moreover, it's as if the only "acceptance" that's acceptable is that which you've accepted as true. When one "accepts" - i.e., "regards as true or sound;" regard: "to conceive, look at, or conceive of in a particular way" - that there was a conspiracy or another shooter or shooters, then why should a conclusion other than your own be not as "acceptable?"

You note what you perceive to be "problems" with Adams' story, particularly the "inherent inaccuracy" of her time estimate, and are quick to dismiss data that supports what she had to say, but you act as if the things that "couldn't be a more common error with human beings" do not apply to the timings of the Baker-Truly re-enactment. Do you know something that we don't - Baker and Truly weren't human beings? - or do you have insights that demonstrate otherwise why those timings are not subject to the same potential error as Adams'?

You are very nearly correct in noting that "if Adams was really on the stairs as early as she said she was, she would have had virtually no choice but to have seen (or heard) the two men who we know for a fact WERE on those stairs within about 60 to 75 seconds of the assassination -- Truly and Baker," but only if you can establish their being where you say when you say as the "absolute fact" that you claim it to be. What we do know for an actual fact is the time for Baker to make a direct, running course from his motor at the curb to front door of the TSBD. After that, we really don't know anything that happened inside those doors as an "absolute fact."

To paraphrase your own disclaimer, if Baker & Truly's actions took even ONE MINUTE longer, then all but the "acceptance" goes straight to hell.

I may be overstating it - I've never had an aptitude of cataloging films and such in my head, so someone else can fill in the missing details for me - because I do know that there's a film that shows Baker running toward the TSBD from his motor, but I don't know whether it shows him getting all the way to the door, or if the film stops, or if he runs past the edge of it; nevertheless, his arrival at the door can at least be approximated from that. Then there's Truly. He's in photos, might be in films; do any of them show him following Baker into the building? Did he rush in, or did he stare at the door for a second or two before reacting, and then how long did it take him to get into the door?

Once he hit the door, all bets are off because there's no footage of anything that occurred on the other side of it. We know from Baker's testimony that he looked around; was it for two seconds, or five, or for fifteen or more? Did anyone inside the door offer their immediate assistance, or did they wonder what the hell he might've wanted, just gawking at him and not offering any help, or not responding immediately (some of the guys had a "history" and may not have been overly cooperative; others were black, and might not have trusted a white motor cop, who knows? Nobody, actually).

We know that Truly offered his identity and assistance, but we don't know how long it took him to getting around to doing it. Immediately? Five seconds? Ten? Twenty? Longer? We "don't have any reason to believe" that it was anything other than immediately, but we don't know whether it was or not. And then again about any hesitancy in getting to the building: we might presume that he got inside directly on Baker's heels, but unless it's recorded somewhere, there's no certainty, no "absolute fact" in either of these.

We also don't know how long, exactly, they conversed before setting off toward the stairs. Maybe Baker had to repeat himself so Truly would "get" what he wanted; maybe Truly put up an argument about no shots coming from "his" building that Baker had to forestall. It might've been only seconds, or it might not have happened; but the mere fact that nobody said anything about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

As listeners, we think of it as one thing happening immediately upon the next, when in truth, some time must elapse between each event they relate. When people recollect their actions, they usually say "I did this, then I did that, and then I did this when I got there," but they don't say "I wondered for 25 seconds what had happened, then thought for 10 seconds about my options of what to do. It took me three seconds to get here, and another six to get through the gate after spending 22 seconds trying to figure out what the cop actually wanted. And then, 11 seconds later ...."

We don't know how long the two of them took looking up the elevator shaft, or waiting for a reaction from the one elevator they tried to get to respond. We don't know how long they - or Truly in particular - waited before looking up to figure out where the elevators were. We don't know how good his vision was or if he had to squint before deciding they were both "dead" upstairs. Then telling Baker they were "stuck," going to the bell button, waiting, yelling up to "let loose that elevator" when nothing seemed to happen, or when Baker finally got impatient enough to finally say "let's take the stairs" and Truly to agree and come around to lead.

Do you really believe that Truly's actions and observations were done in one flowing movement: "The elevator's over there, press the button, it's not moving, they're both in the fifth floor, let me ring the bell, nobody answered, let me yell, ok I did, nobody answered, let's take the stairs," all in three seconds flat (or however long it took you to read that sentence)?

We know all of that did happen; what we don't know is how long any of it took. Even THIRTY SECONDS puts a monkey wrench in the works. There is no "absolute fact" about exactly what occurred inside the TSBD, only that IF the two men did exactly - and only - what they said, one immediately upon the other.

And along comes a letter that puts Baker & Truly going upstairs after Vicky Adams went down, and the "only conclusion" we can reach, based on all this scientific "acceptance," is that maybe Martha Joe Stroud related what Miss Garner said incorrectly, or Miss Garner's recollection wasn't entirely accurate or just "mistaken." It certainly leaves open the possibility if not the probability that things between Baker and Truly didn't happen lickety-split-no-time-to-waste-let's-go.

Do you think it's possible that - quote - "the very likely solution is that they were mistaken about their timing," and that, despite our "acceptance" of the proposition, it is not an "absolute fact" that Truly and Baker "WERE on those stairs within about 60 to 75 seconds of the assassination?"

Because, you know, just like Vicky Adams, if Baker and Truly (and by extension, the WC re-enactments) are "off by a mere ONE MINUTE, or even less, then the whole story unravels and it then becomes quite easy to accept the fact that" Adams used the back stairs just after the shooting and before B&T ascended and while Oswald was supposedly running down the stairs.

She didn't have to be a "world class sprinter" if any of what I'd described above took place half as fast as it could've. That's the real "real world."

If you can find the "extra time" for Oswald to have done so before Adams descended, it'll be interesting. If you can't, and if this information is true - and you have only as much or as little reason to believe that it is true as you do anything else said in testimony - then you've got an Oswald who wasn't a shooter on your hands.

That is, if you can "accept" that humans don't always get things right and WC counsel was sometimes wrong.

If you can't, you have the added burden of slipping Oswald past Jack Dougherty unseen and unheard, but that's a discussion for another time.

Did the "real killer" somehow manage to make himself invisible to all of those witnesses right after the shooting? Or did the real killer (if it wasn't Oswald) decide to remain on the sixth floor for many minutes after he shot at JFK, running the fearful risk of being captured on the TSBD floor where Oswald's rifle and the three spent shells were found?

I think even most hardened conspiracy theorists would find that latter option a little hard to swallow.

It's not, and can be demonstrated fairly easily.

But you won't be able to accept it.

I understand that few Buddhists - or scientists - accept the virgin birth as "absolute fact" either, so you'll at least be in good company with a fairly substantial portion of the world's population when relying on such faith to define your world.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Duke Lane

[David Von Pein]

Hi Duke,

Thanks for your last detailed post.

I'll say this regarding Vickie Adams' timeline.....

The more I think about this subject, the more I realize that even if Adams DID descend those stairs as quickly as she said she did, that particular scenario really does no harm whatsoever to the "Oswald Did It" conclusion.

Why?

Because if Adams and Styles really did this....

Mr. BELIN -- "How long do you think it took you to get from the window to the bottom of the stairs on the first floor?"

Miss ADAMS -- "I would say no longer than a minute at the most." [After remaining at the 4th-floor windows for "between 15 and 30 seconds" (via Adams' WC testimony).]

....then Adams and Styles very likely BEAT Lee Harvey Oswald to the stairs. Hence, it's likely that Adams & Styles were always AHEAD of Oswald on their descent down the stairs.

And if Adams & Styles were really THAT fast at getting to the first floor, then they could have possibly beaten Baker & Truly too, with B&T only getting on the stairs after A&S had vacated the stairwell.*

* = I only offer up the above scenario as an alternate possibility. But I still believe that my earlier comment about this matter is the best explanation (repeated below), because human beings just are not very good at estimating elapsed times.

And a big difference between Vickie Adams and Marrion Baker is that with Baker we have a TIMED RECONSTRUCTION of the movements he made on 11/22/63. So we can use that re-creation to form a pretty good estimate for the amount of time it took him to do the things he knows he did on November 22nd:

"If Adams was really on the stairs as early as she said she was, she would have had virtually no choice but to have seen (or heard) the two men who we know for a fact WERE on those stairs within about 60 to 75 seconds of the assassination -- Truly and Baker." -- DVP

Another key point regarding Baker's reconstruction times is this -- Marrion Baker made it clear via his Warren Commission testimony that his March 1964 re-creations would be the MINIMUM amount of time for performing his actions (75 seconds and 90 seconds on his two run-throughs).

Baker said that it very likely took him LONGER to do the things he did on November 22 than it did when he reconstructed his movements the following March. Which would give Lee Oswald more time to get from the sixth floor to the second floor in time to encounter Baker & Truly. And, hence, it would also make it a bit more possible and feasible for Vickie Adams' WC version of her very quick trip down to the first floor to be accurate.

So, really, any way you slice it, Oswald's innocence is certainly far from proven regardless of the precise time when Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles were on those stairs.

And, as mentioned previously, the amount of physical evidence that Oswald left behind of his dirty deed on the sixth floor is certainly enough for any reasonable person to conclude that Mr. Oswald was not merely an innocent bystander (or "patsy") in the murder of John F. Kennedy.

And in my previous post, I didn't even mention the 38-inch brown paper bag that had two of Oswald's own prints on it. But, of course, most conspiracists enjoy dismissing that bag as being "fake" and "planted" evidence too. (I wonder how they planted those prints of Oswald's on that paper bag, though? Just another one of J. Edgar's and Will Fritz' many talents when it comes to framing innocent patsies, I guess, huh?)

Related articles and videos:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-his-rifle-and-his-paper-bag.html

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/marrion-baker.html

Edited January 6, 2017 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

...

So, really, any way you slice it, Oswald's innocence is certainly far from proven regardless of the precise time when Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles were on those stairs.

...

I believe its Oswald's GUILT you need to prove there sonny-boy. We've seen at least 5 billion words from you (all over the internet including AMAZON book reviews) suggesting LHO is guilty, when will you PROVE same? Hang in there, ya got 2.5 years to go till HBO-daBug-Hanks puff parade!

Edited February 17, 2011 by David G. Healy

[David Von Pein]

@Healy:

Oswald's guilt has been proven a thousand times over since 1963. It's not my fault you have decided to ignore or dismiss all of the evidence. The evidence speaks for itself. And--just as importantly--Oswald's own actions and provable lies (which reek of guilt) are proving him to be a double-killer as well.

And I'm still waiting for conspiracists to answer an important question regarding Lee Oswald and the subject of Mexico City:

If LHO was not really in Mexico in Sept./Oct. 1963, then WHERE WAS HE LOCATED during those eight days in question?

There isn't a witness in the world (that I'm aware of) who places Lee Oswald anywhere BUT in Mexico during those eight days in Sep/Oct '63.

Did Lee vanish into a black hole for more than a week in order to help out his patsy-framers?

Edited February 17, 2011 by David Von Pein

[William Kelly]

UPDATED: JFK historian studies "missing witness" who should have seen Oswald | www.pegasusnews.com | Dallas/Fort Worth

UPDATED: JFK historian studies missing witness who should have seen Oswald

by Christopher Means of The Assignment Desk, DFW

The author says the story of Victoria Adams has been ignored. He tells her story.

Theories about the assassination of President Kennedy have lingered in the Dallas area since the event occurred in 1963. The landmark

Dealey Plaza is one of the most scrutinized sites in the United States, and details of the assassination have been turned and twisted by researchers desperate to find clues about exactly how a president of the United States was shot and killed in full view of the public.

Barry Ernest, author of The Girl On The Stairs

The assassination occurred quickly, but the investigation was large and cumbersome. It was a tapestry woven in haste and with questionable agenda; there have been enough loose ends to encourage lifetimes of examination. The thread that new author Barry Ernest has been pulling at is Victoria Adams.

Since his college days in 1967, Ernest has been studying and examining the assassination of JFK -- and specifically, the Warren Report that concluded its official investigations. He was fascinated by the story of Adams. A lonely woman in the city, an orphan, she happened to be looking out the fourth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository and saw the president murdered. She was standing in the same stairwell that Oswald himself was concluded to have hurriedly scaled down to make his escape. From the sixth floor, Oswald would have passed right by Adams, who swore she saw no such man.

After 35 years of searching for Adams, Ernest compiled his research in The Girl On The Stairs, a book that looks into the investigation and eventual discrediting of a valuable witness to the assassination of JFK by the Warren Commission.

A witness to a national tragedy, Adams was immediately the attention of authorities who hounded her about when and where she was at that moment. How quickly had she descended the stairs when the shots rang out? Exactly when did she leave the office building? She gave her answers but was quickly moved aside. There were no time tests of her actions, tests that had been done routinely on every other related aspect of Oswald's escape. Ignored by the Warren Commission, she would eventually go into relative hiding to avoid the suspicious pressures of investigators and police.

The Warren Report would say that if Adams was correct, then she should have seen or heard the fleeing assassin. Because she had not, the report concluded she was wrong and therefore came down the staircase much later than she thought. Her testimony would throw doubt on a theory accepted by the Warren Commission. A national tragedy had to be put to rest and a grieving nation would know someone had paid for treason.

Ernest's research in The Girl On The Stairs is not a smoking-gun theory of the assassination, but a look into contradictory statements, mishandling of investigations, and the marginalization of a key witness to one of the greatest national tragedies in our nations history. Many have gone looking for her, but only one found her. Now her truth can be heard.

The book was

released on Amazon in December.

UPDATE: The book is not available in paperback or hardback; it's available as a "Kindle edition" -- though it is also accessible from an iPad or a PC. (Long story short: You don't have to have a Kindle to use the Kindle edition.) Ernest says he went the Kindle route because it was a good way to get the book published. "Unlike most authors who have their book published as hardback and then put it up as an e-book for further distribution, I have been forced to go the opposite route. ... All I want is the story to get out, so I actually suggested simply giving the story to a publisher -- no up-front payment, no book-sale profits, nothing. My literary agent thought I was crazy!" he said via email. "Several publishers were actually interested in the book, but they wanted me to write a final chapter that theorized a 'solution' to the assassination, no matter how speculative that would have been. I would not do that, but that is another story!"

Edited February 18, 2011 by William Kelly

[William Kelly]

@Healy:

Dave,

You can't, as Chief Curry says, put Oswald in the window with a rifle in his hand, and since he's never been to court or convicted, how can you say his guilt has been proven even once.

You really should refer to him as the accused assassin or the man suspected of being the Sixth Floor Sniper.

Oswald's guilt has been proven a thousand times over since 1963. It's not my fault you have decided to ignore or dismiss all of the evidence. The evidence speaks for itself.

The evidence doesn't speak for itself and it hasn't been ignored or dismissed. It's just not proof of Oswald's guilt. It is YOU and the Warren Commission who decided to ignore Truly's statement that he didn't see Oswald enter the Second Floor Lunchroom door, it's YOU who ignores Dougherty's presence on the fifth floor landing when Oswald should have passed him descending the steps, and its YOU who ignores the two secretaries on the steps going down from the fourth floor to the first, who should have seen or heard him. It's YOU who ignores Brennan at the front door, who swore he saw the assassin the window with the white shirt and would immediately recognize him again, but didn't when he waltzed right out the door where Brennan had seen and recognized the black guys from the fifth floor, even though he says all black guys look alike to him. He recognized them, but not Oswald, and that's because Oswald wasn't the Sixth Floor Sniper, who stayed around the Sniper's lair long enough for Ms. Mooneyham to see him at 12:34, after Oswald had left the building. But YOU ignore all of these important witnesses, exculpatory witnesses who absolve Oswald of guilt.

And--just as importantly--Oswald's own actions and provable lies (which reek of guilt)

What actions are you talking about? His denials that he owned the rifle? His denials that he killed anybody? The fact that he liked JFK? His actions appear to me to be that of a man who was framed for crimes he didn't commit.

are proving him to be a double-killer as well.

Proving him to be a "double-killer" as well? By double-killer I guess you are implying that he also killed a cop? The correct legal term is spree-killer, or one who has committed murder in more than one crime scene within a short span of time. Please show me one example in all of history of another such spree-killing assassin?

And I'm still waiting for conspiracists to answer an important question regarding Lee Oswald and the subject of Mexico City:

Yes, yes, I am waiting for the answers to all the questions regarding Lee Oswald and the subject of Mexico City.

If LHO was not really in Mexico in Sept./Oct. 1963, then WHERE WAS HE LOCATED during those eight days in question?

Well, for one, the case for conspiracy doesn't rest on whether or not The Designated Patsy was in Mexico City or not. If he was, then what was he doing there?

There isn't a witness in the world (that I'm aware of) who places Lee Oswald anywhere BUT in Mexico during those eight days in Sep/Oct '63.

Well, there are the sightings of Oswald in Florida, at the front door of the Willard Hotel in Washington DC and at a Selective Service office in Austin, so he couldn't be in those places and Mexico at the same time. You can place him in Mexico City, and explain what he was doing there, or you can explain the other incidents, but you can't have it four ways.

Did Lee vanish into a black hole for more than a week in order to help out his patsy-framers?

Yea, good question, did Oswald unintentionally assist his Patsy-Framers by doing what he did, and if so, why did he do it?

And who were those Patsy-Framers anyway?

Edited February 18, 2011 by William Kelly

[David Von Pein]

What actions [of Oswald's] are you talking about? His denials that he owned the rifle? His denials that he killed anybody? The fact that he liked JFK? His actions appear to me to be that of a man who was framed for crimes he didn't commit.

Or they are the actions and words of a man who was lying his ass off after being arrested for two murders he committed with his own guns.

Come now, Bill, you actually ACCEPT Oswald's blatant lies? Such as the ridiculous fairy tale he told the police about having never owned a rifle? Or the one about having purchased his revolver in Ft. Worth? Or the howler about having carried only his lunch into the TSBD on 11/22? Or the one about how he never even mentioned the words "curtain rods" to Buell Frazier?

Are you truly THAT much in denial about Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt, Bill?

[Michael Hogan]

Are you planning to release a print version of The Girl On The Stairs? Kindle frightens me.

Michael, it is very easy to download from Amazon books for the Kindle. It is also as good, or even better, than reading from a book.

My fear is probably more philosophical than technological.

The thing about Amazon is that they are using e-books to destroy conventional publishers. They provide the technology and people can upload their books free of charge. As long as you charge less that $10 you get 70% and Amazon takes 30%.

[Michael Hogan]

"Hi Barry, welcome and thanks for joining the EF. I thought you made some very good points in your blog.

Doing research for Harold Weisberg, Penn Jones Jr and David Lifton constitutes a pretty good pedigree.

Are you planning to release a print version of The Girl On The Stairs? Kindle frightens me."

Hi Michael, and thanks for your interest. The book is easy to download and can be done so even without a Kindle. There are several apps available for free, including one that will put it directly onto your PC. I have been trying to get it commercially published for years through a few literary agents. Several publishers expressed interest, but wanted me to come up with a final chapter that theorized a "solution" to the murder, regardless of its speculative qualities. I would not do that.

Barry's book is now available in hard copy: https://www.createspace.com/3575964

Len Osanic recently interviewed Barry on BlackOp Radio: http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2011.html

The interview is very interesting.

Barry, if you read this I have a question. In your book you wrote about your interview with Sam Holland.

One of the things he told you: "Then I wasn’t too pleased with the way Mark Lane handled my interview."

Can you elaborate on this?

[Barry Ernest]

"Hi Barry, welcome and thanks for joining the EF. I thought you made some very good points in your blog.

Doing research for Harold Weisberg, Penn Jones Jr and David Lifton constitutes a pretty good pedigree.

Are you planning to release a print version of The Girl On The Stairs? Kindle frightens me."

Hi Michael, and thanks for your interest. The book is easy to download and can be done so even without a Kindle. There are several apps available for free, including one that will put it directly onto your PC. I have been trying to get it commercially published for years through a few literary agents. Several publishers expressed interest, but wanted me to come up with a final chapter that theorized a "solution" to the murder, regardless of its speculative qualities. I would not do that.

Barry's book is now available in hard copy: https://www.createspace.com/3575964

Len Osanic recently interviewed Barry on BlackOp Radio: http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2011.html

The interview is very interesting.

Barry, if you read this I have a question. In your book you wrote about your interview with Sam Holland.

One of the things he told you: "Then I wasn’t too pleased with the way Mark Lane handled my interview."

Can you elaborate on this?

Thanks for the promo, Mike! I went back and reviewed my notes of the interview with Holland. He was not specific on this point, other than to say in general that he had been misquoted over the years and the misquoting began with the Warren Report. Then he said he was not pleased with both Mark Lane and CBS News (re: CBS Reports Inquiry in 1967) either, saying each had used only portions of what he had said and "not the whole story." I pressed him a bit on this, asking for specifics, but he refused. And remember, his "hawks" were hovering over me at the time! In hindsight, perhaps I should have been more aggressive. But in checking "Rush to Judgment" a moment ago, it appears what Mark Lane quoted Holland as saying coincides with what the witness told me in the hotel lobby that day, unless Holland elaborated on certain things with Lane that Lane failed to include. Charles Brehm also told me Lane misquoted him but as you'll recall from my book, I considered Brehm (and even his children at that time) to be somewhat of a "hostile" witness!