Did Gloria Calvery almost catch up to Marion Baker?

[Clive Largey]

It does look quite a bit like Lovelady but I'm not completely sold yet. Wouldn't you say it also looks like both men are following officer Smith to see what he's up to? They take the exact same route as him all the while keeping a discreet distance.

If what Smith said is correct, that a screaming woman told him to go check the bushes and he was outside the TSBD at the time, surely someone on the steps must have noticed?

Of course, stalking a cop who's been told to check the knoll out isn't important, all we need to know is did you see the one head into the building? Oh yes sir, sure did sir.

Walking or stalking but no longer running.

[Clive Largey]

Good find, Thomas! That woman looks more like Gloria Calvery than any of the candidates so far. Too bad all of the other photos aren't in colour; that red plaid skirt would be easy to spot.

When I look at this photo and the Altgens photo, I'm reminded of just how small a place Dealey Plaza is, and how quickly a running person could have made it from the lamp post up to the TSBD steps.

Agreed, nice cross-referencing there Thomas.

I too get the feeling the running girl came from close to here but I feel she ran from Wiegman and Atkins and the reaction those newsmen caused running into the crowd like that. Some of the girls here can be made out in Couch standing by that small bush behind them in Willis, Hicks seems to be one of them.

If you compare the better Wiegman frames with Couch you will see two gaps have opened up that were not there as Wiegman approached this group.

Wiegman scared the hell out of quite a few people.

[Clive Largey]

"Like Linda said elsewhere if it's Calvery she would have to have lost quite a bit of weight(a few months after getting hitched).

No impossible but pretty unlikely."

Look closely at Marrion Baker, in the same film, and then look at Baker in other photos and films. Baker was a pretty chunky guy, bordering on obese, yet, in the film, he looks quite thin as well, unless, of course, that is not Baker in the film. I believe we are seeing a trick of the camera lens here that made both of them appear to be thinner.

Have you got a specific film in mind where see Baker as "bordering on obese" Robert?

I see an interview of him less than a year later where he has a double chin, is that what you are referring to?

Seems a bit harsh.

If you had to do what they asked of him instead of simply letting him tell the truth, I'm sure you might find a few more doughnuts than usual helps ease the pain.

The cop running doesn't look thin like the girl does. His lower legs do at one point in those boots but the rear end appears big enough and the upper body has plenty of weight. That's my take anyway I don't really see anything unusual.

Again, if he's not gunning for the entrance how does he come anywhere near Truly?

[Thomas Graves]

It does look quite a bit like Lovelady but I'm not completely sold yet. Wouldn't you say it also looks like both men are following officer Smith to see what he's up to? They take the exact same route as him all the while keeping a discreet distance.

If what Smith said is correct, that a screaming woman told him to go check the bushes and he was outside the TSBD at the time, surely someone on the steps must have noticed?

Of course, stalking a cop who's been told to check the knoll out isn't important, all we need to know is did you see the one head into the building? Oh yes sir, sure did sir.

Walking or stalking but no longer running.

Great clip, Clive. "Running Woman" is barely visible, running "off stage, right" in the upper right hand corner.

Is this clip a continuation of Couch or Darnell, or both?

Is Gloria Calvery on the "corner of the park," ready to tell these two guys (IMHO Shelley and Lovelady) what she saw, or is Running Woman Gloria Calvery?

--Tommy

PS These two guys are walking in the same direction, and are doing so in such a "synchronized" manner and in such close proximity to each other, IMHO, that we can say that they are very likely walking "together." It's just that one of them (probably Supervisor of the Miscellaneous Department -- William H. Shelley) has "taken charge," so to speak, and is "leading the way." Edit: I now believe that "Shelley" has started crossing over toward the "island," and that "Lovelady" is continuing on towards the Railway Yard and that he has just started running in that direction.

If any two guys were walking to any "same place" together from the steps of the TSBD, would anyone expect them to be walking side-by-side at this point?

Edit: Holding hands? Still a valid question. LOL

Just kidding.

That sure looks like "Shelley" and "Lovelady" to me, especially thin, suit-wearing "Shelley." The only problem I have here is "Lovelady's" (apparently) light-colored shirt.

Edit: That "problem" immediately "evaporated away" when Bart Kamp, recently and on another thread, posted enlarged and contrast-adjusted frames from Couch which show "Lovelady" with a bald spot on the top-rear of his head and wearing a distinctive, long-sleeved, PLAID SHIRT as he walks down Elm Street Extension about 20 seconds after the assassination.

Notice "Lovelady's" bounding, rising head in his very first first step. Compare the motion of his head to the heads of people around him. Their heads don't jump or rise like that, indicating that his head really did rise because he's starting to run in order to catch up with "Shelley." get to the Railway Yard (or the side / rear entrance to the TSBD?) as quickly as possible.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Here's an interesting Jack Martin frame showing the traditional "Gloria Calvary" [sic] standing on the grass, and the recently discovered, red-skirted "Gloria Calvery" standing in the street. Obviously, neither of them are "Running Woman," because Mal Couch (in car) has already filmed her running down (or across) Elm Street Extension. Bummer.

Credit: In stole this image from Duncan MacRae's evil evil "disinfo" website, jfkassassinationforum.com

--Tommy

Edited September 3, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Prudhomme]

Thomas, do you believe first day statements are more accurate than accounts given months later? In this case especially, do you believe statements given on the day of the assassination might be completely accurate, given that the cover up did not take complete shape until a day or two, or possibly months, after the assassination?

P.S.

You have not addressed post # 60 yet.

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas, do you believe first day statements are more accurate than accounts given months later? In this case especially, do you believe statements given on the day of the assassination might be completely accurate, given that the cover up did not take complete shape until a day or two, or possibly months, after the assassination?

P.S.

You have not addressed post # 60 yet.

Dear Robert,

I would agree that first day statements are generally more accurate (from a memory point of view) than later ones, but I would argue that they are not necessarily more truthful.

In the case at hand I would argue that none of Shelley's and Lovelady' statements and testimonies were particularly truthful. They seem to be full of intentional mistakes, half truths, and "limited hangouts." All of them. Affidavits as well as WC testimonies.

Do I think that Marion Baker and Roy Truly prevaricated, too? Yes!

See my recent post in another thread in which I agree with Robert Mady that S & L were caught in Couch / Darnell walking towards the parking lot a few seconds after the assassination, but they didn't actually get there because they cut their journey short and entered the TSBD via a rear or side door.

--Tommy

Edited September 6, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Ian Lloyd]

I think that other factors may have been in play for affidavits, statements and/or testimony...

• They may have recounted only the information that they thought to be important;
• They may have been asked specific questions to which they gave specific answers;
• If, for instance, the affidavits were being written by a 3rd person as they recounted, there may also have been an element of "oh, you don't need to include that, we just need to know where you were and what you saw when the shots rang out, don't worry about the details of what you did after unless you think it's important or you saw something/someone you think we need to know about." or something similar...

??

[Thomas Graves]

I think that other factors may have been in play for affidavits, statements and/or testimony...

• They may have recounted only the information that they thought to be important;
• They may have been asked specific questions to which they gave specific answers;
• If, for instance, the affidavits were being written by a 3rd person as they recounted, there may also have been an element of "oh, you don't need to include that, we just need to know where you were and what you saw when the shots rang out, don't worry about the details of what you did after unless you think it's important or you saw something/someone you think we need to know about." or something similar...

??

Yes, Ian.

Good points, all.

--Tommy

[Ian Lloyd]

And, as a further thought, I suppose we mustn't forget that the DPD was a pretty hectic place immediately following the assassination, so I'm guessing that, with the amount of people they were trying to process and take affidavits/statements from, they didn't want to spend too much time recording what, at the time, was thought to be unnecessary detail...of course, what, at that time, appeared to be unnecessary detail has since become very important detail to many people: This is also a field in which people looking back now suspect some of the witnesses of lying/prevarication/avoidance etc., etc. due to differences between affidavits/statements and later testimony etc., whereas, the reality may well be that, later on, when time permitted, they recounted the detail that they originally omitted?

[Thomas Graves]

And, as a further thought, I suppose we mustn't forget that the DPD was a pretty hectic place immediately following the assassination, so I'm guessing that, with the amount of people they were trying to process and take affidavits/statements from, they didn't want to spend too much time recording what, at the time, was thought to be unnecessary detail...of course, what, at that time, appeared to be unnecessary detail has since become very important detail to many people: This is also a field in which people looking back now suspect some of the witnesses of lying/prevarication/avoidance etc., etc. due to differences between affidavits/statements and later testimony etc., whereas, the reality may well be that, later on, when time permitted, they recounted the detail that they originally omitted?

Yes, Ian.

But we must recall that Shelley's and Lovelady's affidavits varied from each other's quite a bit, and both of their affidavits, in turn, were radically different in essense from their respective WC testimonies.

--Tommy

[Ian Lloyd]

Tommy,

Reading both affidavits, I don't really see the variations between their affidavits as anything more than what one thought was more important to mention than the other. Now, the difference between the affidavits and WC testimony is a different matter but could be as I explained above - due to the passage of time and being given more time to recount the events.

I suppose it would come down to being able to identify them properly in the footage and see their actions and then comparing to what they said they did...though, again, memories are notoriously unreliable, particularly when excitement, duress or stress is involved...

I'm not looking to argue the point here, just making some observations, maybe they were generalised a bit...

[Robert Prudhomme]

"Yes, Ian.

But we must recall that Shelley's and Lovelady's affidavits varied from each other's quite a bit, and both of their affidavits, in turn, were radically differentin essense from their respective WC testimonies.

--Tommy :sun"

Outside of one believing he knew where the shots came from, and the other didn't, the only real difference in their affidavits is that Shelley went across to the little island, where he met Gloria Calvery, and Lovelady mentioned nothing in his affidavit about even leaving the steps.

Now, does this make one of them a teller of untruths, or is it just remotely possible they were not physically joined at the hip, and one could briefly cross the street while the other remained on the steps?

Edited September 3, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Thomas Graves]

"Yes, Ian.

But we must recall that Shelley's and Lovelady's affidavits varied from each other's quite a bit, and both of their affidavits, in turn, were radically different in essense from their respective WC testimonies.

--Tommy

Outside of one believing he knew where the shots came from, and the other didn't, the only real difference in their affidavits is that Shelley went across to the little island, where he met Gloria Calvery, and Lovelady mentioned nothing in his affidavit about even leaving the steps.

Now, does this make one of them a teller of untruths, or is it just remotely possible they were not physically joined at the hip, and one could briefly cross the street while the other remained on the steps?

Robert,

Point taken.

Edit: But I seriously doubt it. See the clip from Couch (or Darnell) Clive posted.

--Tommy

Edited September 6, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Prudhomme]

Even a short trip by Shelley and Lovelady to the parking lot, and a return through a side or back door, would be enough to throw off Victoria Adams' timing of coming down the stairs at the same time as Oswald supposedly descended, and Baker and Truly ascended. It is not just a matter of them leaving the front stairs, immediately after the last shot, and heading for the parking lot.

Their trip to the parking lot is dependent on speaking to Gloria Calvery. I strongly maintain Shelley's affidavit of 22/11/63 is accurate for the simple fact that, even if someone wanted him to lie about events, none of the conspirators could possibly tell, this early, just what exact lie was actually needed. Therefore, not only do I strongly feel the trip around the TSBD did not occur, I also strongly feel it would have taken much longer than you think it did. Gloria Calvery had to return from down below on Elm St. to the concrete island and Bill Shelley had to cross the Elm St. extension to the concrete island. He then had to engage in a conversation with her about the assassination, however brief it was.

The timing simply does not work for the two men seen in Darnell/Couch to be Shelley and Lovelady, as they are obviously a ways down the Elm St. extension before Baker arrives at the steps.