Lovelady Wore A Very Similar, But Different, Shirt For Groden

[Thomas Graves]

Post #142 by David Lifton on a now "locked" thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18697?&page=10

" I want to share with those on this forum a new development re my own analysis regarding Billy Lovelady –specifically, this post concerns the plaid shirt Lovelady was wearing when (in 1976) he posed for Robert Groden, who then published that picture in his book. Groden captioned the picture: “I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.”

I no longer believe that Lovelady, in posing for Groden, wore the same plaid shirt he wore on the day of JFK’s assassination.

Let’s back up a moment:

At issue (for me, anyway) was whether the shirt Lovelady wore (on 11/22/63) was a proper criterion for establishing whether he (Lovelady) was the man in the TSBD doorway.

I believe it is, and believe that to this day. Nonetheless, I now believe that, in 1976, Lovelady was deceptive with Groden, and that the plaid shirt he wore for Groden, was not the same plaid shirt he was wearing on November 22, 1963, when he stood in the TSBD doorway; and that’s what this post is all about.

Before proceeding further, I should note that Lovelady, while deceptive some of the time, was not deceptive all of the time. Specifically: when Lovelady testified in his Warren Commission deposition, he told the truth. He said he was standing on the top step of the TSBD entrance, and identified himself in the Altgens photograph, drawing in an arrow, pointing to the image. This exhibit—of the Altgens photograph, with the arrow pointing to Lovelady—became Warren Commission Exhibit 369 (and is published in Volume 16, of the 26 Volumes).

So: I believe that, when under oath, he told the truth.

But Billy Lovelady did not always tell the truth, and that is the problem.

So let me recap, and focus on the issue at hand: whether Lovelady was honest when he was interviewed by Groden in 1976, or –for whatever reason—was deceptive. And just how far back this pattern of deception goes.

In short, the issue at hand is whether Lovelady was “playing with a full deck” (as the saying goes), and if not, why not.


THE LOVELADY ISSUE—A BRIEF RECAP

For years, I have believed Lovelady was the man in the dooway—ever since (back around 1972/73, when I was working as the researcher on the film Executive Action)—I came across newsreel footage showing Oswald being marched into the DPD at 2:02ish, and there was Lovelady, seated right there. I made 35mm slides of that footage, showed it to Groden, brought it to the attention of the HSCA (in 1976) , etc. Duncan posted a frame from that (or similar) footage, and (as far as I was concerned) that always resolved the matter.

The HSCA did further studies of this, and that study appears in Vol 6 of the HSCA’s appendix volumes.

A side story of this whole affair has been the shirt Lovelady was wearing, and just why it was, when the matter was first investigated by the FBI, back in December, 1963, Lovelady appeared in an entirely different shirt, one with vertical red and white stripes.

Just how did that happen? After all, didn’t the FBI know the shirt was an issue? (Or, for some reason, was Lovelady attempting to call attention away from himself, by leading people to believe he was not standing in the doorway?)

When Robert Groden published his first book, he interviewed Lovelady, and implored him to wear the shirt he had worn back in 1963. Lovelady then retrieved that shirt, and posed for Groden, wearing it. Groden captioned the picture: “I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.”

At first glance, the shirts do look identical.

But they are not.

Lovelady, to put it mildly, was not being straight with Groden.

What I am about to write does not affect my own conclusion about who was in the doorway, but it does shed light on the psychology and integrity of the late Billy Lovelady (and just why there is such a confusing record on this issue of just what shirt he was wearing).

LOVELADY (and his shirt) - - The 1976 Groden photo versus the (11/22/63) Martin Film

Putting the two pictures side by side—a frame from the Martin film, showing Lovelady, in front of the TSBD, just seconds (or minutes) after the shooting of JFK, and Lovelady posing for Groden, in 1976—its obvious that the two shirts are different.

The shirt Lovelady was wearing in the Martin film has a large pocket, over the left breast area. (In the frames from the film footage taken at the TSBD, it would appear that Lovelady had a pack of cigarettes in that pocket). But. .. : the plaid shirt that Lovelady supposed “packed . . away for safekeeping” and wore for Groden (in 1976) has no pocket. (See attached graphic. Make sure to click on it, to see the enlarged version.)

Furthermore, if you compare the striped pattern, they are obviously different. Yes, both are plaid shirts, so they are certainly similar. But the vertical stripes in the shirt worn in the Martin film are distinctly different from the vertical stripes in the 1976 photo. Also, the shirt Lovelady was wearing has a distinctly visible pocket in the left breast area—whereas the shirt Lovelady was wearing when he posed for Groden in 1976 has no such pocket. (See attached graphic. Make sure to click on it, to see it when enlarged. The differences are obvious.).

Well then, what does this all mean?

WHAT IT ALL MEANS

Here are my own observations and beliefs, and I’m sure others will have theirs:

(1) Billy Lovelady was deceptive when he was interviewed by Groden, in 1976. He produced a shirt which, while similar, was not the same shirt as he was wearing on November 22, 1963.

(2) If you go back to some of the other posts on this thread, you will find the following information:

(a) The issue goes back to December, 1963, when someone (in the FBI) noticed the similarity of Lovelady to Oswald

(b ) At that time, New York resident (and one of the earliest JFK researchers, Jones Harris) also noticed it. Harris had the time and the money to make flights to Dallas, and met with Lovelady.

( c) What did Lovelady do? He misled Jones Harris—telling Harris he was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes. (In effect: No, the man in the doorway was not me.)

(d) Then, Lovelady, when asked to pose for the FBI (with whom Jones Harris was in touch), posed in the wrong shirt—i.e., a shirt with vertical stripes.

(e) –footnoe to “d” above: Gary Mack informs me that, when he –Gary—interviewed Lovelady many years ago, Lovelady said that the reason he wore that shirt was that the FBI told him it didn’t matter. They just wanted to photograph him, as a person.) Needless to say, in view of what Lovelady told Jones Harris, and the manner in which he behaved with Groden (in 1976) I don’t believe Lovelady—who I now realize was, from the outset, being deceptive. And the reason for all the deception now has become obvious: Lovelady wanted to distance himself from the image of the man in the doorway.

(f ) A small insight to the psychology of Lovelady (and his wife): Lovelady’s wife, interviewed by the media, claimed that their house was broken into on any number of occasions, no matter where they moved, by people looking for the shirt. For what its worth (“FWIW”, in internet lingo), I don’t believe her. That’s just an absurd story—and, as far as I know, there are no police reports of any break-ins of the Lovelady home, because of unknown robbers seeking the shirt. But what I do believe this shows is that the Loveladys—as a couple—were spooked by the attention Billy Lovelady was getting, and apparently tried to escape from it, by either getting rid of the shirt, and/or misleading Jones Harris, and/or not posing in the proper shirt for the FBI, back in 1963/64.

(g) So. . what happened next? Well, back to the saying: “Oh what a web we weave. . when we set out to deceive.” What has happened, as a consequence of all this foolishness, probably the result of needless paranoia and deception, is that the record has been needlessly distorted and complicated.

First of all, there are today numerous folks who, today, honestly believe (because of the initial false reports) that there is truth to what they believe is Lovelady’s “original” story—i.e., that, when he was standing in the TSBD doorway on 11/22, he was wearing a shirt with red and white vertical stripes. That’s just rubbish. But I can assure you that I am probably not the only one who (decades ago) spent good money chasing this piece of wild goose, ordering high quality prints of the Altgeos photo from the AP, peering at it under a magnifying glass, etc etc. –and why? All because Lovelady initially said he was wearing a red and white striped shirt, and then posed for the FBI in just such garb.

Second: there are numerous folks who, analyzing the picture of Lovelady’s shirt as shown in the newsreel frames taken on 11/22/63) when Oswald was marched into the DPD, at 2:02ish PM) now notice discrepancies between that shirt, and the shirt he was wearing in the Martin film, and posit theories of alteration, all of which are (imho) totally irrelevant.

Anyway, here are my own tentative conclusions:

(a) From early December, 1963, at the very least, Billy Lovelady was spooked by the resemblance between himself and Oswald, and the attention it brought.

(b ) Lovelady lied to Jones Harris about the shirt he was wearing—saying it had vertical stripes. It did not.

(c ) Lovelady then wore the same shirt, with the vertical stripes, when he was interviewed by the FBI –thus leading a generation of JFK researchers on a wild goose chase.

(d ) When (in 1972/73) I found the newsreel footage showing Lovelady in the plaid shirt, and showed slides of it to Groden, he then pursued the matter.

(e) When the HSCA was created in 1976, and Groden contacted Lovelady, who now had to come up with a plaid shirt to wear, even though (a) he had probably gotten rid of that original plaid shirt years before and (b ) even though he had—some 12-13 years earlier—posed for the FBI in a striped shirt. Probably he (and/or his wife, the one who talked of their home constantly being broken into by people looking for “the shirt”, and who said the shirt he was wearing that day had been purchased at a flea market) found a similar plaid shirt.

(f) Lovelady—who probably dearly wanted nothing more but for the issue to “go away”—then posed for Groden in his “replacement” plaid shirt. Indeed, he not only posed for Groden in the shirt, he told him—and Groden believed him—that, with regard to the shirt, “he had packed it away from safekeeping. . . and put it on (for me) for the first time in years.” Yeah, sure.

(I have to wonder whether or not Groden paid money to Lovelady, for the favor of him posing, or whether Lovelady did it for free, hoping that Groden publishing such a photograph would increase the value of the “replacement” shirt, which he thought he might pawn off on some soul as “the original.” Who knows.)

Grand Conclusion: Billy Lovelady repeatedly (but not always) lied about the shirt he wore that day. Let’s recap:

First, back in 1963, he lied to Jones Harris, one of history’s “first responders” to this critical issue. He lied to Harris, telling him he was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes. This encouraged Harris to believe that Lovelady was not in the doorway; ergo, it had to be Oswald. Harris was in touch with the FBI, and with reporter Dom Bonaede of the New York Herald Tribune. I have no doubt that Lovelady’s evasions and falsehoods clouded the record.

Second: back in 1963/64, when interviewed by the FBI, he posed in the “wrong shirt”, but one which matched the lie he told to Jones Harris. If memory serves, he also lied to the FBI about the shirt he wore. (And who knows if, at higher levels of the FBI, this led to confusion as to just who was standing in the doorway. After all [so the reasoning would be] if Lovelady was wearing a shirt with vertical stripes, then who else could the man in the doorway be, other than Oswald?)

Third: in his Warren Commission deposition, Lovelady told the truth. He stopped playing games, and identified himself as the person in the doorway (circling himself as the man in the doorway, in cropped enlargement of the Altgens photo—Commission Exhibit 369).

Fourth: Now returning to the game playing mode. . . :Lovelady, in 1976, lied to Robert Groden, retrieving a shirt similar to—but not identical with – the shirt he had worn on 11/22/63. He then posed wearing that shirt (with the plaid pattern, but no pocket) for Groden, who then published the picture in his book, apparently not noting that the shirt Lovelady was wearing in the Martin film had a large pocket, whereas the shirt Lovelady was wearing when he posed for Groden did not. Groden—and everyone else, including me—failed to notice that the plaid pattern of the two shirts, while similar, were clearly not the same. What I shall call here the “Groden shirt” and the “Martin film shirt” are clearly different.

As noted above, Groden –believing he had a reportorial “first,” captioned the picture: ““I interviewed Billy Lovelady in 1976. Lovelady took out the shirt he had worn in Dealey Plaza (he had packed it away for safekeeping) and put it on for the first time in years.”

WHERE WE STAND NOW:

Billy Lovelady died years ago, and I don’t wish to demean the dead—but he the fact is that he has left behind a trail of deceptive behavior which has confused the record as to the identity of the man in the doorway.

Because obviously, once you start entertaining the notion that Lovelady was telling the truth (when he told his “striped shirt” story) the odds go way up that the man in the doorway was Oswald. But Lovelady only complicated matters by attempting to distance himself from the issue by lying about the shirt he was wearing; and then by posing for Groden in a plaid shirt that was similar to (but certainly not identical with) the one he was wearing on November 22, 1963.

I go back to my original position: both the Martin film (of Lovelady standing outside the TSBD, minutes later) and the newsreel footage taken on 11/22/63 (showing Oswald being marched into the DPD a few minutes after 2 p.m., and which also shows Lovelady) makes one thing very clear: Lovelady, wearing the plaid shirt shown in the Martin film, was the man in the doorway. All JFK researchers would be advised to toss aside the picture published in Groden’s book, showing Lovelady in a plaid shirt. That picture, and the way he behaved with Groden, says a lot about Lovelady’s psychology. But it only confuses the record and tells us little about the identity of the man in the doorway.

The man in the doorway [in Altgens 6] was Billy Lovelady.

The Martin film and the DPD newsreel footage, showing him that same shirt, is the best evidence for that.

DSL
1/31/12; 9:30 PM PST
Los Angeles, CA

P.S.: In viewing the photo exhibit below, make sure to click on the image, so you can see the enlarged version (and read the caption that I wrote). That is important to see how clear it is that these are two entirely different (albeit similar) shirts. The vertical stripes in the Martin photo are black; in the 1976 "Groden photo," they are white. Furthermore, the "similarity" cannot be accidental. Clearly, Lovelady was trying to "put one over" on Groden--and (unfortunately) he succeeded. DSL "

[Note: the photos he refers to are no longer visible on the original thread]

-- Tommy

Edited October 26, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Ray Mitcham]

Lifton. " In viewing the photo exhibit below, make sure to click on the image, so you can see the enlarged version (and read the caption that I wrote). That is important to see how clear it is that these are two entirely different (albeit similar) shirts. The vertical stripes in the Martin photo are black"

Lifton is talking rubbish. The black stripes on the body of the shirt are horizontal, on both shirts. and the black stripes on the shirt sleeves are vertical on both. There are no vertical black stripes on either shirt body.

He was also wrong about there being no pocket on the Groden shirt. You can see the outline of it in the Groden photo..

Edited October 26, 2016 by Ray Mitcham

[Sandy Larsen]

Ray,

Earlier today I looked at the Groden photo of Lovelady wearing the plaid shirt. I could see the stitching for the pocket, which confirmed what you'd said in the other thread.

Now, because of this new topic created by Tommy, I again found that photo. Because I wanted to confirm what you said about the black stripes, which contradicts what Lifton said. I found what you said to be correct.

Now, here's the interesting thing... in that same photo I looked again for the pocket stitching and..... wait for it..... they are not there!

Can you see the stitching? (BTW, the Groden photo is on the right.)

(Click the photo to enlarge, then hold Ctrl down and push + several times to enlarge.)

The top of the pocket is supposed to be right above the white line that is just above the button.

I distinctly remember that the top of the pocket was about 1/4" above the white line.

I don't know what to make of this, other than I looked at two different copies of the photo. It's like somebody did a little altering to make a (factually incorrect) point.

[Paul Brancato]

I'm not sure of the folloiwing is a diversion from the subject of the Lovelady shirt. I've always enjoyed reading Lifton, articles, posts, books. But from the beginning his excellent and organized writing style never quite convinced me that he was trustworthy. This bs about the shirt doesn't surprise me.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Beside losing the pocket, the shirt looks like it shrunk in storage.

[Ray Mitcham]

Ray,

Earlier today I looked at the Groden photo of Lovelady wearing the plaid shirt. I could see the stitching for the pocket, which confirmed what you'd said in the other thread.

Now, because of this new topic created by Tommy, I again found that photo. Because I wanted to confirm what you said about the black stripes, which contradicts what Lifton said. I found what you said to be correct.

Now, here's the interesting thing... in that same photo I looked again for the pocket stitching and..... wait for it..... they are not there!

Can you see the stitching? (BTW, the Groden photo is on the right.)

(Click the photo to enlarge, then hold Ctrl down and push + several times to enlarge.)

The top of the pocket is supposed to be right above the white line that is just above the button.

I distinctly remember that the top of the pocket was about 1/4" above the white line.

I don't know what to make of this, other than I looked at two different copies of the photo. It's like somebody did a little altering to make a (factually incorrect) point.

Ray,

Earlier today I looked at the Groden photo of Lovelady wearing the plaid shirt. I could see the stitching for the pocket, which confirmed what you'd said in the other thread.

Now, because of this new topic created by Tommy, I again found that photo. Because I wanted to confirm what you said about the black stripes, which contradicts what Lifton said. I found what you said to be correct.

Now, here's the interesting thing... in that same photo I looked again for the pocket stitching and..... wait for it..... they are not there!

Can you see the stitching? (BTW, the Groden photo is on the right.)

(Click the photo to enlarge, then hold Ctrl down and push + several times to enlarge.)

The top of the pocket is supposed to be right above the white line that is just above the button.

I distinctly remember that the top of the pocket was about 1/4" above the white line.

I don't know what to make of this, other than I looked at two different copies of the photo. It's like somebody did a little altering to make a (factually incorrect) point.

Thank you for agreeing with my comments.

Re the pocket line - by changing the photo to B&W, you may be able better to see the side seam of the pocket(arrowed). If you zoom in on the photo you will see what seems to be the top of the pocket, just below the dots I have drawn, which is above the white stripes as you say. (note the slight break in the vertical line where the top of the pocket crosses the shirt front)

Edited October 27, 2016 by Ray Mitcham

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm not sure of the folloiwing is a diversion from the subject of the Lovelady shirt. I've always enjoyed reading Lifton, articles, posts, books. But from the beginning his excellent and organized writing style never quite convinced me that he was trustworthy. This bs about the shirt doesn't surprise me.

The really odd thing is that Lifton posted the photos for everybody to see and made his case, and yet nobody disagreed with him! Tink Thompson gave him Kudos!

Unfortunately the photos are now gone.

[Ray Mitcham]

I'm not sure of the folloiwing is a diversion from the subject of the Lovelady shirt. I've always enjoyed reading Lifton, articles, posts, books. But from the beginning his excellent and organized writing style never quite convinced me that he was trustworthy. This bs about the shirt doesn't surprise me.

The really odd thing is that Lifton posted the photos for everybody to see and made his case, and yet nobody disagreed with him! Tink Thompson gave him Kudos!

Unfortunately the photos are now gone.

Sorry, Sandy but in post 157 in the same topic, Lamson disagreed with him..

[Sandy Larsen]

Ray,

Earlier today I looked at the Groden photo of Lovelady wearing the plaid shirt. I could see the stitching for the pocket, which confirmed what you'd said in the other thread.

Now, because of this new topic created by Tommy, I again found that photo. Because I wanted to confirm what you said about the black stripes, which contradicts what Lifton said. I found what you said to be correct.

Now, here's the interesting thing... in that same photo I looked again for the pocket stitching and..... wait for it..... they are not there!

Can you see the stitching? (BTW, the Groden photo is on the right.)

(Click the photo to enlarge, then hold Ctrl down and push + several times to enlarge.)

The top of the pocket is supposed to be right above the white line that is just above the button.

I distinctly remember that the top of the pocket was about 1/4" above the white line.

I don't know what to make of this, other than I looked at two different copies of the photo. It's like somebody did a little altering to make a (factually incorrect) point.

Thank you for agreeing with my comments.

Re the pocket line - by changing the photo to B&W, you may be able better to see the side seam of the pocket(arrowed). If you zoom in on the photo you will see what seems to be the top of the pocket, just below the dots I have drawn, which is above the white stripes as you say. (note the slight break in the vertical line where the top of the pocket crosses the shirt front)

Sorry Ray, I don't see it. I just see your arrow, the plus signs, and gray translucent squares behind the plus signs.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Ray Mitcham]

Sandy, can you see the vertical seam directly below the arrow?

ps.the slight break in the line of the top pocket can also be seen in the colour photo.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Ray Mitcham

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm not sure of the folloiwing is a diversion from the subject of the Lovelady shirt. I've always enjoyed reading Lifton, articles, posts, books. But from the beginning his excellent and organized writing style never quite convinced me that he was trustworthy. This bs about the shirt doesn't surprise me.

The really odd thing is that Lifton posted the photos for everybody to see and made his case, and yet nobody disagreed with him! Tink Thompson gave him Kudos!

Unfortunately the photos are now gone.

Sorry, Sandy but in post 157 in the same topic, Lamson disagreed with him..

I don't count Lamson... he's an LNer who disagrees with every CTer.

Find a CTer in the thread who disagrees with what Lifton said. You won't be able to. (Unless it's waaaayyyy later in the thread. I didn't go through the whole thing.)

[Ray Mitcham]

I'm not sure of the folloiwing is a diversion from the subject of the Lovelady shirt. I've always enjoyed reading Lifton, articles, posts, books. But from the beginning his excellent and organized writing style never quite convinced me that he was trustworthy. This bs about the shirt doesn't surprise me.

The really odd thing is that Lifton posted the photos for everybody to see and made his case, and yet nobody disagreed with him! Tink Thompson gave him Kudos!

Unfortunately the photos are now gone.

Sorry, Sandy but in post 157 in the same topic, Lamson disagreed with him..

I don't count Lamson... he's an LNer who disagrees with every CTer.

Find a CTer in the thread who disagrees with what Lifton said. You won't be able to. (Unless it's waaaayyyy later in the thread. I didn't go through the whole thing.)

Lamson normally knows what he is talking about with photography. Even a broken clock is right twice a day

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy, can you see the vertical seam directly below the arrow?

ps.the slight break in the line of the top pocket can also be seen in the colour photo.

Are you talking about the vertical, 1/4 inch wide darker area that can be seen below both the white and black lines?

If so, that is part of the plaid design. It is a subtle color change that can be seen in a number of places. Even in the middle of the so-call pocket, where there should be no seam.

[Ray Mitcham]

You can see the "break" in the line of the pocket in this photo.

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm not sure of the folloiwing is a diversion from the subject of the Lovelady shirt. I've always enjoyed reading Lifton, articles, posts, books. But from the beginning his excellent and organized writing style never quite convinced me that he was trustworthy. This bs about the shirt doesn't surprise me.

The really odd thing is that Lifton posted the photos for everybody to see and made his case, and yet nobody disagreed with him! Tink Thompson gave him Kudos!

Unfortunately the photos are now gone.

Sorry, Sandy but in post 157 in the same topic, Lamson disagreed with him..

I don't count Lamson... he's an LNer who disagrees with every CTer.

Find a CTer in the thread who disagrees with what Lifton said. You won't be able to. (Unless it's waaaayyyy later in the thread. I didn't go through the whole thing.)

Lamson normally knows what he is talking about with photography. Even a broken clock is right twice a day

Well, if your goal was to prove me wrong about something of little significance, regardless of the number of CTer posts you had to ignore in order to do so.... then congratulations.