Did Gloria Calvery almost catch up to Marion Baker?

[Bill Miller]

Correct, Sandy!  You just pointed out what Graves had to of seen, but didn't want to say it. Here is what I was sitting on ... There is no way on earth that I can see someone confusing the two woman as the same person if given a serious examination for differences. Compound this with the DCW remaining near the street at a time Patrolman Baker was racing to the stairs of the TSBD - that Lovelady and Shelley both said they were approached by Calvery as she was returning to the TSBD - and that Molina had Calvery come up to him inside the entrance to the TSBD just after Officer Baker had entered the lobby (and at a time the DCW is still found near the street where the President was shot). I am confident that the two women are not one in the same person and I won't need to bother conducting a poll in hopes of getting some validation.  

 

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Bill Miller

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Although it is true that alleged-Calvary's face in this photo is being shaded, the same is true of Hicks's face. Clearly alleged-Calvary has a dark complexion.

Yet in every photo that is known to be of Calvary she appears to be light complected.

Another difference is that alleged-Calvary in the photo above isn't wearing glasses. Yet in every photo that is known to be of Calvary she is wearing glasses.

 

Now, look at the size of Calvary's features in this photo. She has smallish eyes, nose, and especially lips. All are smaller than those of the woman she is standing with. (You may need to zoom in to see her eyes.)

Yet if you look at alleged-Calvary in the photo at the top of this post, you will see that her features are on the large side. Compare her eyes, nose, and lips with Hicks's and Reed's to get an idea.

I don't have all the photos of Calvary in front of me, but it seems that she is wearing a smallish hair style in all of them. Unlike the large hairstyle alleged-Calvary is wearing in the above photo.

All in all I see very little reason to believe the DCW and Calvary are the same woman.
 

 

 

Sandy (and other members),

(Sorry for this, but I'm still trying to figure out how to use the "quote" function in this new EF format.)  

In response to your reply, Bill Miller wrote:

"Correct, Sandy!  You just pointed out what Graves had to of seen, but didn't want to say it. Here is what I was sitting on ... There is no way on earth that I can see someone confusing the two woman as the same person if given a serious examination for differences."

So now Bill Miller is accusing me of intellectual dishonesty in his oh-so-subtle way.

I thought that was against Forum rules, no matter how "diplomatically" phrased.

--  Tommy

[Bill Miller]

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Sandy (and other members),

(Sorry for this, but I'm still trying to figure out how to use the "quote" function in this new EF format.)  

In response to your reply, Bill Miller wrote:

"Correct, Sandy!  You just pointed out what Graves had to of seen, but didn't want to say it. Here is what I was sitting on ... There is no way on earth that I can see someone confusing the two woman as the same person if given a serious examination for differences."

So now Bill Miller is accusing me of intellectual dishonesty in his oh-so-subtle way.

I thought that was against Forum rules, no matter how "diplomatically" phrased.

--  Tommy

 

What I clearly was saying is that you cannot bring yourself to admitting that you were wrong. I will quote for you what I said to Sandy  " You just pointed out what Graves had to of seen, but didn't want to say it ".  Your reasons for dancing around the specific is not really my problem. The fact is that you still can't address my observations and will choose to try and deflect attention away from it when possible. I saw the 'poll' thread you started in much the same way. Polls are often times created to try to see if there is support for one position over another as if the majority must be the ones who are right. They really have no definitive value. Taking the two women's image and breaking it done for specific differences is the only way to properly investigate this issue in my view.

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

 

 

 

[Clive Largey]

On 12/26/2016 at 2:25 AM, Bill Miller said:

The recollections of witnesses have no influence on my personal assessment of the visual evidence and I think I am better off for it. I assume they are inaccurate from the get go and pay them little mind, or at least not as much as is traditional.  thus your conundrum does not effect me and it's this improved version of the Darnell film has helped me in that regard.

It doesn't appear that cumulative independent evidence has no influence on you either. As an investigator first and foremost ... I cannot agree that one should assume that witnesses "are inaccurate from the get go". In fact, if someone starts with such a failed approach, then one must ask why bother reading the witnesses statements in the first place if he or she truly believes that the witnesses are inaccurate from the get go. In other words - your actions then contradict your position concerning witnesses. It simply comes across as a witnesses memory cannot be considered accurate unless it supports a preconceived position that you hold. 

We're all investigators in this case but how often have you compared visual evidence to witness testimony and found that they matched? Care to give some examples, just roughly, not where people said they stood but how they claimed they reacted to an event? Have you consulted fellow investigators about their experiences with the same question? Can you show me one peer reviewed examination of the above where it proved that eyewitness testimony is indeed reliable in cases like this one? It seems to me you are stuck in the past, testimony just doesn't have the weight it did before and some courts are now instructed to remind the jury of this. You do want to move forward don't you? I mean you're not constrained with just the one way of looking at things, no I don't believe you are, so why not look into it, or if you already have done so then please provide me links to the literature that would suggest I best go and put eyewitness back on a pedestal. Google the "value of eyewitness testimony" and all you see supports my stance.

I have no preconceptions and I haven't the foggiest idea what gave you that impression, I said I value the visual record and trust it and I try not to twist the testimonies to match it, if the filmed reactions contained in Couch and Darnell especially matched the written reports in any way I would not have said what I did because it is the clearer versions of these two films especially that have opened my eyes. 

Darnell shows Smith being followed by Lovelady and Shelley directly towards where these woman were standing. That's where I believe all three of these men where informed on what had happened and not when they were near the TSBD.

Lovelady and Shelley followed Smith directly to where these women were standing - who is Smith? In fact - your observations are so wrong that I think I will just show you how much you are wrong rather than to drag this nonsense out any further. To start with - the woman "C" you refer to has dark hair - Calvery did not have dark hair. Second of all, The woman you refer to as "C" remained at the street along side of Millican after the shots, thus it is virtually impossible for her to be in two places at the same time. See inserts below .....

Officer Joe Smith was standing at the intersection that's undisputed  and most agree that it's he who is first seen in the Couch film heading toward the general area where these groups of women were, twenty seconds after the shooting, That is, and this is not a view shared by many yet, he didn't head straight to the knoll via the extension but cut across that access road and came towards the street where the motorcade was. Shelley and Lovelady appear to be following him whilst keeping a discreet distance, seen both in Couch and the last frames of Darnell's TSBD segment. No one has had time to reach Smith and tell him to go look in the bushes, he has left his post on his own intuition and he's not even heading toward the railroad yards yet you see.

BTW it was you and only you who pointed to Miss C as an early candidate for Running Woman, I myself did no such thing how dare you. I was the one who pointed you to to Miss C still in position in Couch and now your pointing to her in Martin, so you agree, that's fantastic.

 

So as its been demonstrated here - one should not assume that witnesses observations are inaccurate from the get go.

You used your own early candidate here Miss C, not mine, I told you it's not the running woman but just by mentioning her I am now somehow "wrong" in your mind when the only thing you've  proven to me is that you can't remember what you yourself said before, that Miss C  is dressed similar to RW. It's all rather odd, a few of us ruled her out as a good candidate months ago already.

Running woman is not Calvery, looks nothing like the stocky woman in the wedding photo or images taken previous(that was one observation of Linda's, one doubt) and Miss "C" was actually wearing a red skirt and a full white blouse, running woman has something over her shoulders that is light colored but the rest of her outfit is dark top to bottom.

.Calvery had high curvy hips - just like the woman in the wedding photo and in this photo ---->

and here ....

 

It's all in the hips babe but that's not her hips in Darnell, that's her backside. Most woman have both of these things so you're not really narrowing the field yet. She's now holding her headscarf is she, not her handbag or keeping her cardigan or whatever it is on her back? Okay thanks for that. keep 'em coming. I said my woman may have had a hair tragedy, so I'm not ruling it out that RW has lost something in her shock 

When all the Jibber-Jabber is said and done - there were only two women remotely dressed like running woman and the one you chose remained at the street with Millican when Baker was doing his run. I do not care to carry this discussion on any further as it has  been resolved in my view.

I didn't choose Miss C, you did and your comment was the only reason I even mentioned her to begin with. to help you.  I chose the woman in Altgens who turned out to be Miss F, "Donaldson", you've now focused on the woman with the red babushka because you cannot imagine Calvery being anywhere else but among these three groups of women. You have her in the wrong group according to most but that itself appears to be okay, as long as she's no further afield, despite the fact that we just don't have enough visual evidence available to rule out Calvery standing much further east up the street from her friends. According to your "find", either the women standing next to lil' red are Hicks, Westbrook and Reed or when they told the FBI they were standing with Calvery at the time they were all clearly mistaken.

Once more, the Find a Grave description doesn't come from Calvery, she herself never mentioned following a cop, that came from a researcher after seeing the Darnell footage and reading other testimonies, an amalgamation of sources. some of which are clearly inaccurate, unless of course you don't yet believe that Lovelady and Shelley had already left the steps but take your time, that might come to you yet.

[Clive Largey]

On 12/24/2016 at 7:02 PM, Bill Miller said:

Linda who?  I only see one lady in the line of women who wore a dark skirt and white top that could possibly fit the running woman seen in Robin's clip. This woman ran from her position along Elm and followed Patrolman Baker up the steps. Only one woman wearing a white top and a black form fitting skirt is seen running towards Officer Baker. So please find the running woman in Darnell in that line of ladies as maybe I am missing something even though I do not believe that I am.

 

Do you remember pointing to Miss C now Bill?

In the post after my reply to the above where I pointed her out in Couch, you continued to fancy her only because of what Linda described in the written obituary and that's exactly what Bob and I were afraid of, we recognized it as a summation and not first hand from Gloria Calvery.  Linda Zambinini has done some nice work especially in the recognition of females in the evidence and continues to do so, you can probably find her on Facebook, google her or send her a message here, she posted on page 8.

You asked if the story about running behind the cop came from Calvery herself, it didn't, not directly, it comes from Lovelady and Joe Molina and of course what we see in Darnell. Linda put all these together as fact because at that time no one was really questioning it, I guess the wrongly named Calvery in the Elm St images started that ball rolling. Of course she still may yet turn out to be correct, I said "RW is not Calvery" but I can't prove it, it just doesn't have to be her in my world.

Funnily enough Linda liked Miss C for Calvery too at one point.

[Bill Miller]

2 hours ago, Clive Largey said:

Do you remember pointing to Miss C now Bill?

No I don't ever remember saying that Miss "C" was running woman. Someone else suggested that because of her white top and dark skirt. I said that the skirt on the woman next to Millican was pleated and not form fitting like that of the other woman "L". Our conversation started on page 13 ... please read it carefully.

 

 I said "RW is not Calvery" but I can't prove it, it just doesn't have to be her in my world.

I believe you when you say it doesn't have to be Calvery in your world.

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Bill Miller

[Robin Unger]

Date December 7, 1963

MARY ELIZABETH WOODWARD, 4812 Alcott, employee, Woman's News, "Dallas Morning News," Dallas, Texas, advised that she, AURELIA ALONZO, MARGARET BROWN and ANNE DONALDSON, on November 22, 1963 left the office of the "Dallas Morning NEWS" just about 12:00 noon to observe the Presidential Motorcade.

 

These 4-women can be discounted as they all worked for Woman's News, " Dallas Morning News " NOT the TSBD

[Robin Unger]

Edited December 28, 2016 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

On Dons plat woman (2)

woman (c) also remains unidentified

 

[Bill Miller]

15 hours ago, Robin Unger said:

On Dons plat woman (2)

woman (c) also remains unidentified

I have to wonder if the unidentified woman marked "C" was Peggy Burney because she said the car had passed her location by 15 feet when the first shot had occurred.

Peggy Burney:  " The car had passed about 15 feet beyond me when I heard the first shot. I did not realize it was a shot; I thought it was a backfire. "

Gloria Calvery said the President was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first shot.

Hugh Betzner took his photo just before the first shot. His photo equates to Z186, thus the first shot sounded post the Betzner photo. At the time of the first shot between Z186 and Z202 - the President is about 15 feet past woman "C" - and is directly in front of where woman "K" is standing.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Bill Miller

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hi Bill

Let me begin by saying I agree with you 100%; the Hispanic/black looking woman popularly identified as Gloria Calvery does not look one BIT like the high school and wedding photos of Gloria Calvery.

Before you returned to this forum, we spent a great deal of effort trying to establish just where Calvery was at the time of the assassination, if that was not her standing with Dishong, Hicks, Westbrook and Reed. We also tried to determine if that long legged lady in the black skirt seen booking it for the TSBD at high speed in Darnell could be the short and slightly dumpy looking Gloria Calvery seen on her wedding day. We had about as much luck as they have had debating the PM/Oswald issue, and only ended up annoying each other.

It finally dawned on me that it was not really that important to find Calvery. What became more important was examining how hard someone (or a group of someones) worked at establishing that the Hispanic/black woman, seen in Zapruder and other films, was the oh-so-white Gloria Calvery.

I cannot seem to find a statement taken from June Dishong. However, Gloria Calvery, Carol Reed, Karan Hicks and Karen Westbrook all gave statements to the FBI dated 19-20 March, 1964. Each statement is practically a carbon copy of the other three (and I mean IDENTICAL, literally almost word for word), and each woman vouches for the presence of the other three at their position just east of the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Their statements to the FBI can be found at this site: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0355a.htm

Use the following numbers to locate their statements (last three digits)

Westbrook - 22H679

Hicks - 22H650

Reed - 22H668

Calvery - 22H638

As each of these four ladies vouches for the other three in her statement, it now becomes much more difficult to dismiss the statement of Gloria Calvery, and go looking for her elsewhere on Elm St. Now, I have never investigated Westbrook, Dishong, Reed and Hicks to see if they actually resemble the ladies identified as being them in the stills but, it would seem to me that the more people you involve in a fraud, the more difficult it becomes to maintain. OTOH, it would be great if one of the resident bloodhounds (hey Thomas!) would get on the trail of the other four ladies and see what turns up.

The woman ID'ed as Gloria Calvery seen standing below the "T" in "RIGHT". This photo clearly shows her group to be the only group of five ladies to the immediate east of the Stemmons Freeway sign.

Edited December 31, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robin Unger]

The LOS perspective seen in Betzner3 and Zapruder can be deceptive.

in actual fact the 5-woman were not really standing anywhere near the Stemmons sign

 

Bronson

[Robert Prudhomme]

I know, Robin but, the point I was trying to make is that there is not another group of five ladies between Calvery's group and the Stemmons sign. Correct?

[Bill Miller]

16 hours ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

I know, Robin but, the point I was trying to make is that there is not another group of five ladies between Calvery's group and the Stemmons sign. Correct?

Who said the ladies all stood shoulder to shoulder in their respective group?

Better yet, which lady of the possible ladies along the street is wearing a form fitting black shirt and light top besides woman "K"?

The woman seen in the newspaper with second lady has high setting wide hips as does woman "K". I have seen lots of ladies who were thin from back to front while having the type of somewhat broad hips as seen on Calvery.  And about that wedding photo of Gloria ... the type of outfit she has on has a lot to do with how she looks. Its often referred to as a dress suit. If you compare her size to that of her thin looking husband - she looks to have less girth than he.

The running woman is only seen in profile and with a partial view from behind in Zapruder's film. Thin from the side view - high curvy hips from the front and rear.