The Killing Floor

[Paul Jolliffe]

8 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

We know S+L were not back on the first floor until roughly 5 minutes after the shooting.  Adams was always consistent about her leaving the 4th floor quickly after the shooting and running down the stairs which would have gotten her on the first floor and out the back much before that.  In fact, the afternoon of the shooting she wrote out 6 pages of detail about what happened that day and mailed it to the editor of a Catholic newspaper she trusted in San Francisco.  That would have helped clear this up.  Surprise! it never reached him.  Surveillance of her was tight.  They knew how important to the survival of their fabrication she was.

Jim Leavelle showed up in Feb '64 at an apartment Adams had just moved to using a roommate's name  (surveillance again) to try to intimidate her, claiming all records had been burned and she needed to be reinterviewed  (a laughable claim).  He wrote in his report that she said she saw S&L upon reaching the first floor.  I believe that was the first time that lie appeared, probably a dry run for its inclusion in the WR or to set it up for later attribution.

When Ernest talked to Styles, he told her Adams' testimony said S+L were on the first floor when she and Adams arrived.  "I can't imagine why Vicki would say that, if she did" Styles said. S+L "definitely weren't there".

Claiming Adams said she and Styles saw S+L on the first floor was the only "evidence" the WR used to discredit Adams' story.  It was one of many lies the criminals running the "investigation" told.

Bottom line:  It's not possible to believe Adams account and also believe the WR claim she said she saw S+L when she got to the first floor.

 

Roger,

You and I and almost everyone else here all agree that Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles came down the stairs very soon (within a matter of 30 seconds or so) after the shots were fired, and that this presented a major (if not completely insurmountable) timing problem for the Warren Commission.

Their only real chance of keeping their false "solution" alive was to discredit Adams (and ignore Styles and Garner.) 

But Roger, she really did testify in 1964 that she saw Shelley and Lovelady. If this is not so, then she said nothing for four decades about what the Warren Commission printed in Volume 6, page 389 and 390 of her testimony in 1964:

John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage :: Warren Commission :: Hearings :: Volume VI :: Page 389 (jfk-assassination.eu)

Roger, we all know the Warren Commission destroyed the original steno tape. But so what? They published this version of her testimony in 1964!

And Victoria Adams had no problem with it - she even hand-corrected and initialed the original stenographic typewritten transcript of her own testimony in 1964. In short, she acknowledged in 1964 that she really had seen Shelley and Lovelady at the foot of the stairs as soon as she came down. 

If this was all a big lie by the Warren Commission, then it was incumbent on Barry Ernest forty years later to confront her with her with that copy of her own testimony with her own handwriting on it.

But he did not do so. He let her off the hook.

I like Barry Ernest and I admire the hard work he did. But he did not force her to deny her own handwritten corrections on her own testimony - probably because he was just too nice a guy.

So you and I will have to disagree on your last point - it certainly is possible to believe that Victoria Adams both destroyed the WC's "solution" and that she really did see Shelley and Lovelady when she came down, just as the WC quoted her in sworn testimony first published in 1964. 

 

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Roger,

You and I and almost everyone else here all agree that Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles came down the stairs very soon (within a matter of 30 seconds or so) after the shots were fired, and that this presented a major (if not completely insurmountable) timing problem for the Warren Commission.

Their only real chance of keeping their false "solution" alive was to discredit Adams (and ignore Styles and Garner.) 

But Roger, she really did testify in 1964 that she saw Shelley and Lovelady. If this is not so, then she said nothing for four decades about what the Warren Commission printed in Volume 6, page 389 and 390 of her testimony in 1964:

John F. Kennedy Assassination Homepage :: Warren Commission :: Hearings :: Volume VI :: Page 389 (jfk-assassination.eu)

Roger, we all know the Warren Commission destroyed the original steno tape. But so what? They published this version of her testimony in 1964!

And Victoria Adams had no problem with it - she even hand-corrected and initialed the original stenographic typewritten transcript of her own testimony in 1964. In short, she acknowledged in 1964 that she really had seen Shelley and Lovelady at the foot of the stairs as soon as she came down. 

If this was all a big lie by the Warren Commission, then it was incumbent on Barry Ernest forty years later to confront her with her with that copy of her own testimony with her own handwriting on it.

But he did not do so. He let her off the hook.

I like Barry Ernest and I admire the hard work he did. But he did not force her to deny her own handwritten corrections on her own testimony - probably because he was just too nice a guy.

So you and I will have to disagree on your last point - it certainly is possible to believe that Victoria Adams both destroyed the WC's "solution" and that she really did see Shelley and Lovelady when she came down, just as the WC quoted her in sworn testimony first published in 1964. 

 

 

 

But Paul.  You believe Adams when she said she left the 4th floor immediately after the shots.  You estimate that means 15-30 seconds.  We *know* S+L stayed outside after the shots and did not return inside the building for about 5 minutes.  Adams and Styles had passed thru the first floor on the way out the back door several minutes before that.  Therefore we know, and you must believe, Adams did not see S+L on the first floor at that time.  According to Ernest, Styles vehemently verified that they didn't see S+L when he asked her about it.

That Adams and Styles did not see S+L when they reached the first floor is a fact if you believe Adam's sense of timing as you say you do (and as I do).  About as clear of a fact as there is in this whole case.

When confronted with Adams testimony, the WC was desperate to discredit her.  Claiming that Adams said she saw S+L when she reached the first floor, and thus was mistaken about her timing estimate, giving Oswald time to slip by the 4th floor unnoticed,  was the *only* thing they cited to do that.  Another fact.  

So, no, it is *not* possible to believe "that Victoria Adams both destroyed the WC's 'solution' and that she really did see Shelley and Lovelady when she came down" the steps.  If she did see S+L and said so, she buttressed the WCs case; she did not destroy it.  Which is why staff inserted that lie in her testimony in the first place.

You're worried about why Adams didn't try to correct that part of her published testimony.  I urge you to read, if you haven't already, a piece by Flip De Mey, published on Apr24, 2017, entitled "Was a Dorothy Garner deposition destroyed?" (It's on his website, flipdemeycom under "news" with the title Oswald's Alibi). It details what the 4th floor women went thru, and in particular the sleazy method the WC used to gather information to frame Oswald by collecting what would help their fabrication while changing, destroying or lying about exculpatory information.  

Adams was questioned repeatedly after her first deposition and always about the trip down the steps.  They were obviously trying to intimidate her to get her to change her story.  The most blatant was the visit to her apartment in Feb. '64 by Leavelle.  It was in his report, not included in Warren volumes, that the lie she said she saw S+L first appeared. 

It's pretty amazing what Adams as a young women went thru to stick to her story thru the threats and intimidation she got.  She tried to get away from it all and we never would have known many of the details had Ernest not tracked her down.  You must consider the atmosphere of intimidation and repression created at the time when questioning why Adams did or didn't do something.

Or consider what she told Ernest when they talked about her testimony.  "It really didn't dawn on me that my actions were pertinent to anything until  much later".

[Guest]

On 10/20/2022 at 7:06 PM, Roger Odisio said:

I urge you to read, if you haven't already, a piece by Flip De Mey, published on Apr24, 2017, entitled "Was a Dorothy Garner deposition destroyed?" (It's on his website, flipdemeycom under "news" with the title Oswald's Alibi).

https://www.flipdemey.com/news

 

 

Edited October 22, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Greg Doudna]

Comment on the second-floor lunchroom encounter

I just worked through Bart Kamp's exhaustive study of the second-story lunchroom encounter. The primary research material is all there and it represents a ton of time and research and analysis on the part of Kamp to which I can only stand in awe (http://www.prayer-man.com/the-second-floor-lunch-room-encounter-in-a-nutshell/). But after working through it it seems to me a modified interpretation of a second-story lunchroom encounter is a better explanation of the evidence than a disappearance of it. The modifications would be that Oswald went up before the shots to get a coke to have with his lunch, then after the assassination went up to the second floor a second time for the purpose of leaving the building by the rear stairwell and out the back. But as he was about to exit he saw Baker through the door window and Baker saw him turn back and away, prompting Baker's reaction. 

The main problem with rejecting the existence of the second-floor lunchroom encounter is it requires assumption of wilful coordinated lying, wilful telling of fabrication, on the part of four persons: Truly, Baker, Marvin Johnson, and Mrs. Reid. That is a bridge too far. Better to find other explanations for the anomalies than to go that bridge too far.

Oswald never was on those rear stairs so all of the discussion and debates over who was and when, while interesting if that can be worked out, is in the end irrelevant to Oswald's actual movements. There is a separate case that Oswald was framed not in the sense of advance making him out to be the shooter but in advance acquisition of and then planting and using his rifle on the sixth floor, a rifle Oswald acquired as part of an ATF/Dodd committee related firearms investigation. I have come to realize that Oswald as patsy does not require Oswald to be employed in the TSBD or other inside persons inside the TSBD, rather all it takes is for Oswald to be employed almost anywhere downtown within the vicinity of the parade route and the actual assassination then undertaken around that location logistically, not necessitating Oswald's advance knowledge. As for how the assassin(s) exited the TSBD if not Oswald, the simplest mechanism would be via having gained access to be inside the building the afternoon before, remaining inside overnight, then after the assassination leaving the building normally along with other law enforcement, plain-clothed and with credentials to show if needed, or some sort of other credible alibi for being in the building. TSBD employees should have been asked whether anyone saw anyone unusual enter or in the building the previous day. Notions of a hurried flight down the stairs or surreptitious elevator escape can be dismissed as unnecessary.  

On Baker running past the front steps in the Darnell film, that can be interpreted as he runs past the left side because blocked with people but then cut in on the right side of the steps as the fastest way to cut through the people. Going up the right side of the steps among the people could explain why Frazier did not notice him, if he wasn't looking that way or noticed (in the Darnell film Frazier is looking in the opposite direction perhaps at where the presidential limousine was last visible, after the shots). Similarly with Lewis and Molina, their lack of noticing best understood as missing it in the confusion of the moment rather than that Baker and Truly did not go inside as other testimony and evidence says they did. That the man Baker saw on the "fourth floor" was Oswald is confirmed by Truly (who knew Oswald and could not be mistaken) and by Baker who identified the arrested Oswald later that afternoon as the same man he encountered on the "fourth floor" according to Baker in his Warren Commission testimony. On the claimed anomaly that Baker's written statement does not have his sighting of the arrested Oswald even though another officer's, Marvin Johnson's, first-day report told of Baker making that identification and Baker in his WC testimony saying he made that identification at that time, I see an explanation for that in Baker having written his statement before he saw Oswald brought in, but while he was still there. That is, that Baker's written statement lacks that does not mean Marvin Johnson's and Baker's testimony that Baker saw Oswald after his arrest is not true; their testimony prima facie argues it is true. On Baker's physical description, the weight is certainly off but the "light brown" jacket could be interpreted as Oswald's gray jacket, which is what Oswald certainly did wear that day to work and it was not C162, compare to the C162 Tippit killer's jacket described by Tippit crime scene witnesses, and which can visibly be seen today, as near-white or light tan in color, even though C162 is commonly described in the Warren Report as "gray".

Mrs. Reid was telling her coworkers on the second floor within an hour, of Oswald in the lunchroom meeting the police officer, and I consider it again a non-starter that she was suborned to lie by invisible handlers. That Geneva Hines did not see Oswald after the assassination even though she was on the second floor throughout is explicable in terms of she had left her working area to look for windows in offices along the south wall, or was in the bathroom, and missed Oswald in transit on that floor one of those ways. The 11/23/63 FBI interview report of Martha Reed may support Mrs. Reid having returned to the second floor earlier than her other coworkers which in any case Geneva Hines said was ambiguous in her memory. 

Both Baker and Truly at various times said Oswald had nothing in his hands when Baker confronted him, which is in agreement with the reconstruction that Oswald had been stopped in the process of an attempt to exit, not there to get a coke on this second time he was there during his lunchtime that day. If Oswald did then buy another coke after Baker and Truly left, it would only be to make it appear that was why he had gone there. Returning by retracing his steps back to the southeast second-to-first story stairwell, if Oswald was seen or stopped by another officer or whatever on the first floor that would be in addition to and not replace the Baker second-story encounter.

I just cannot bring myself to even consider that two civilians and two patrol officers doing their job, combined, would be suborned by always-invisible handlers to fabricate an entire untrue story in concert, subjecting themselves individually to serious penalties for perjury, and happily stick to telling that coordinated wholly fabricated story for life. I mean, maybe it is remotely, theoretically possible, but how realistic. In terms of witnesses better to go for explanations involving wide latitude for witness errors and failings and only suppose uncommon, sparing wilful lying and then for their own personally motivated reasons rarely involving subornation of perjury. That's my take on that. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Paul Jolliffe]

10 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

But Paul.  You believe Adams when she said she left the 4th floor immediately after the shots.  You estimate that means 15-30 seconds.  We *know* S+L stayed outside after the shots and did not return inside the building for about 5 minutes.  Adams and Styles had passed thru the first floor on the way out the back door several minutes before that.  Therefore we know, and you must believe, Adams did not see S+L on the first floor at that time.  According to Ernest, Styles vehemently verified that they didn't see S+L when he asked her about it.

That Adams and Styles did not see S+L when they reached the first floor is a fact if you believe Adam's sense of timing as you say you do (and as I do).  About as clear of a fact as there is in this whole case.

When confronted with Adams testimony, the WC was desperate to discredit her.  Claiming that Adams said she saw S+L when she reached the first floor, and thus was mistaken about her timing estimate, giving Oswald time to slip by the 4th floor unnoticed,  was the *only* thing they cited to do that.  Another fact.  

So, no, it is *not* possible to believe "that Victoria Adams both destroyed the WC's 'solution' and that she really did see Shelley and Lovelady when she came down" the steps.  If she did see S+L and said so, she buttressed the WCs case; she did not destroy it.  Which is why staff inserted that lie in her testimony in the first place.

You're worried about why Adams didn't try to correct that part of her published testimony.  I urge you to read, if you haven't already, a piece by Flip De Mey, published on Apr24, 2017, entitled "Was a Dorothy Garner deposition destroyed?" (It's on his website, flipdemeycom under "news" with the title Oswald's Alibi). It details what the 4th floor women went thru, and in particular the sleazy method the WC used to gather information to frame Oswald by collecting what would help their fabrication while changing, destroying or lying about exculpatory information.  

Adams was questioned repeatedly after her first deposition and always about the trip down the steps.  They were obviously trying to intimidate her to get her to change her story.  The most blatant was the visit to her apartment in Feb. '64 by Leavelle.  It was in his report, not included in Warren volumes, that the lie she said she saw S+L first appeared. 

It's pretty amazing what Adams as a young women went thru to stick to her story thru the threats and intimidation she got.  She tried to get away from it all and we never would have known many of the details had Ernest not tracked her down.  You must consider the atmosphere of intimidation and repression created at the time when questioning why Adams did or didn't do something.

Or consider what she told Ernest when they talked about her testimony.  "It really didn't dawn on me that my actions were pertinent to anything until  much later".

Well, we will have to disagree on this minor point.

The evidence shows that Victoria Adams did claim to have seen Shelley and Lovelady - she marked up and corrected her own transcript in which she said exactly that in 1964. She made no corrections nor objections to her transcript in which she said that!

Anyway, I do NOT accept as "fact" that Shelley and Lovelady took 5 - 10 minutes to return to the back of the TSBD.

You do. OK, that's your prerogative. 

But I see no reason to believe that - their first day statements belie that timeline, they changed stories repeatedly in 1964 and Lovelady's garbled admission to the HSCA in 1978 about seeing Truly and Baker seems to undermine that, too.

I think they got to the back of the TSBD within about a minute or so. 

I am convinced that Shelley and Lovelady were pressured to change (lengthen) their estimates so as to damage Victoria Adams' credibility. That is exactly what the gradual change in their own stories would indicate. 

Anyway, as Pat Speer already pointed out in this very thread, Shelley and Lovelady could well have walked at a fast pace around the south side of the TSBD and up to the west side entrance in time to be adjacent to freight elevators before Baker and Truly arrived. Such a walk could have been done in less than a minute.

If that is correct, and I believe it is, then the timing is perfect - Adams and Styles arrive on the first floor the stairs just seconds after Shelley and Lovelady. Adams and Styles then leave just moments before Truly and Baker arrive.

Truly notices "two white men", but the Warren Commission doesn't dare follow up,

Why not?

Because further investigation would have (almost certainly) revealed that the two men were indeed Shelley and Lovelady, just as Victoria Adams claimed. Their immediate presence would have buttressed her credibility, not undermined it.

And supporting Victoria Adams and her timeline would have destroyed the Warren Commission's false "solution".

 

 

[Mark Knight]

On 10/18/2022 at 7:10 PM, David Von Pein said:

Except for the fact that sausage and bacon don't have any bones in them. So your examples are not really fair comparisons to a bone-in chicken "sandwich".

Putting a piece of bone-in chicken between two pieces of bread is ludicrous (in the south or anywhere else). What's the point of even doing that when nobody who isn't insane is going to pick it up and eat it as a "sandwich" anyway? It's just silly.

But, as they say, variety is the spice of life (and sandwiches).

I worked in a chemical plant with a man who often brought for lunch both bone-in chicken sandwiches and bone-in pork chop sandwiches. he would place his foil-wrapped sandwiches on or near the boiler in the maintenance shack about mid-morning, and then retrieve them at lunch and take them to the lunchroom...whereupon he would REMOVE THE MEAT FROM THE BONE and proceed to eat the NOW-BONELESS sandwiches.

This occurred just outside of Louisville, KY, and I simply assumed it was either a southern or ethnic culture "thing."

But NOBODY eats the meat between the bread STILL ON THE BONE. The meat is simply TRANSPORTED to the lunch site on the bone. It's really a simple concept.

[Paul Jolliffe]

4 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Well, we will have to disagree on this minor point.

The evidence shows that Victoria Adams did claim to have seen Shelley and Lovelady - she marked up and corrected her own transcript in which she said exactly that in 1964. She made no corrections nor objections to her transcript in which she said that!

Anyway, I do NOT accept as "fact" that Shelley and Lovelady took 5 - 10 minutes to return to the back of the TSBD.

You do. OK, that's your prerogative. 

But I see no reason to believe that - their first day statements belie that timeline, they changed stories repeatedly in 1964 and Lovelady's garbled admission to the HSCA in 1978 about seeing Truly and Baker seems to undermine that, too.

I think they got to the back of the TSBD within about a minute or so. 

I am convinced that Shelley and Lovelady were pressured to change (lengthen) their estimates so as to damage Victoria Adams' credibility. That is exactly what the gradual change in their own stories would indicate. 

Anyway, as Pat Speer already pointed out in this very thread, Shelley and Lovelady could well have walked at a fast pace around the south side of the TSBD and up to the west side entrance in time to be adjacent to freight elevators before Baker and Truly arrived. Such a walk could have been done in less than a minute.

If that is correct, and I believe it is, then the timing is perfect - Adams and Styles arrive on the first floor the stairs just seconds after Shelley and Lovelady. Adams and Styles then leave just moments before Truly and Baker arrive.

Truly notices "two white men", but the Warren Commission doesn't dare follow up,

Why not?

Because further investigation would have (almost certainly) revealed that the two men were indeed Shelley and Lovelady, just as Victoria Adams claimed. Their immediate presence would have buttressed her credibility, not undermined it.

And supporting Victoria Adams and her timeline would have destroyed the Warren Commission's false "solution".

 

 

"Baker" not "Truly" noticed the two white men by the elevator. Typo. 

[James DiEugenio]

Roger:

 

Thanks for that link to DeMey.  DId not even know it existed.

Interesting piece.  I never thought of that alternative about Stroud.

[Roger Odisio]

32 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Well, we will have to disagree on this minor point.

The evidence shows that Victoria Adams did claim to have seen Shelley and Lovelady - she marked up and corrected her own transcript in which she said exactly that in 1964. She made no corrections nor objections to her transcript in which she said that!

Anyway, I do NOT accept as "fact" that Shelley and Lovelady took 5 - 10 minutes to return to the back of the TSBD.

You do. OK, that's your prerogative. 

But I see no reason to believe that - their first day statements belie that timeline, they changed stories repeatedly in 1964 and Lovelady's garbled admission to the HSCA in 1978 about seeing Truly and Baker seems to undermine that, too.

I think they got to the back of the TSBD within about a minute or so. 

I am convinced that Shelley and Lovelady were pressured to change (lengthen) their estimates so as to damage Victoria Adams' credibility. That is exactly what the gradual change in their own stories would indicate. 

Anyway, as Pat Speer already pointed out in this very thread, Shelley and Lovelady could well have walked at a fast pace around the south side of the TSBD and up to the west side entrance in time to be adjacent to freight elevators before Baker and Truly arrived. Such a walk could have been done in less than a minute.

If that is correct, and I believe it is, then the timing is perfect - Adams and Styles arrive on the first floor the stairs just seconds after Shelley and Lovelady. Adams and Styles then leave just moments before Truly and Baker arrive.

Truly notices "two white men", but the Warren Commission doesn't dare follow up,

Why not?

Because further investigation would have (almost certainly) revealed that the two men were indeed Shelley and Lovelady, just as Victoria Adams claimed. Their immediate presence would have buttressed her credibility, not undermined it.

And supporting Victoria Adams and her timeline would have destroyed the Warren Commission's false "solution".

 

 

So you think that to discredit Adams the WC lied about S+L's timing rather than simply changing Adam's statement.  If they had what they wanted from Adams right away, why did they return to her repeatedly?  Why did they send big Jim Leavelle to harass her the same day she had moved into a new apartment using her roommate's name (indicating clearly to her they were following her)?  Why did the 6 page letter Adams wrote in the afternoon of the murder detailing everything that happened, never reach it's destination (indicating the extent of the surveillance of her)?   Why, if she mentioned seeing S&L in the letter, which she probably would have done given the level of detail in it? 

What do you make of Styles vehement corroboration of Adams to Ernest, saying that S+L were definitely *not*  on the first floor when they arrived?  Which you have left out of your scenario. Why would she say that if it wasn't true?   

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

https://www.flipdemey.com/news

And for a limited period of time I can add it as an attachement right here

What did the Warren Commission Destroy (9).pdf 3.35 MB · 2 downloads

Thanks Jean Paul.  It was your first mention of the De Mey piece that sent me looking for it.  It is a gold mine of perspective into what the criminals running the JFK "investigation" did.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

But NOBODY eats the meat between the bread STILL ON THE BONE. The meat is simply TRANSPORTED to the lunch site on the bone. It's really a simple concept.

Of course it's simple. But the silly part is why anyone wants to get their bread all greasy and disgusting before ever making their edible chicken sandwich. That's really stupid. Keeping the bread separate from the greasy chicken until you're ready to debone the bird and put it in the sammich would be mandatory for any kind of decent lunch.

[David Von Pein]

The key to knowing with 100% certainty  that the Baker/Oswald encounter occurred on the second floor in the lunchroom is this affidavit filled out on 11/23/63 by Roy S. Truly. Truly, of course, knew Oswald on sight and Truly also knew the layout of the TSBD building by heart.

Truly affidavit excerpt (emphasis added by DVP):

"The officer and I went through the shipping department to the freight elevator. We then started up the stairway. We hit the second floor landing, the officer stuck his head into the lunch room area where there are Coke and candy machines. Lee Oswald was in there. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee. I answered yes." -- Roy Truly; 11/23/63

So, in order to believe there was NO "lunchroom encounter" at all (which is the ridiculous theory being proposed by many Internet CTers nowadays), we'd have to believe that Roy Truly just flat-out lied about multiple things relating to that 2nd-floor encounter in his 11/23 statement.

Plus, Marrion Baker would have to be a li@r as well....because in later interviews and TV appearances, he also confirmed that the encounter took place on the second floor and in the lunchroom.

Why are so many conspiracists so willing and eager to call both of those men rotten li@rs?

~shrug~

 

Edited October 20, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Paul Jolliffe]

16 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

So you think that to discredit Adams the WC lied about S+L's timing rather than simply changing Adam's statement.  If they had what they wanted from Adams right away, why did they return to her repeatedly?  Why did they send big Jim Leavelle to harass her the same day she had moved into a new apartment using her roommate's name (indicating clearly to her they were following her)?  Why did the 6 page letter Adams wrote in the afternoon of the murder detailing everything that happened, never reach it's destination (indicating the extent of the surveillance of her)?   Why, if she mentioned seeing S&L in the letter, which she probably would have done given the level of detail in it? 

What do you make of Styles vehement corroboration of Adams to Ernest, saying that S+L were definitely *not*  on the first floor when they arrived?  Which you have left out of your scenario. Why would she say that if it wasn't true?   

Yes, absolutely I think the WC lengthened the time in which Shelley and Lovelady arrived at the back of the TSBD. Why? Because no one could get Victoria Adams to back down in her (true!) assertion that she and Sandra Styles started down the stairs very soon after the shots. 

Was Jim Leavelle sent to try to intimidate her into changing her timeline?

Absolutely. But it didn't work. She was adamant that she and Styles descended the stairs immediately after the shots. 

As far as Sandra Styles declaration to Barry Ernest forty years later, she may well be telling the truth: she did not see Shelley or Lovelady. But that does not necessarily mean they were not nearby. Neither does it mean that Adams could not have noticed them. It just means Styles did not see them.

As to Adams' missing 1963 letter detailing her movements that day, well, it could have been swiped by the FBI, but I doubt it. It is very hard to steal an outgoing letter - the surveillance required to intercept incoming mail is easy, but almost impossible on an outgoing letter. How could the FBI have known in advance what she was going to put on paper, let alone when and where she might post it, if at all?

Did it get lost in the mail? 

I don't know, but since we don't have it, it doesn't matter - we don't know what she wrote. 

This really isn't that hard, Roger: the WC had to crack Adams one way or another and getting Shelley and Lovelady to stretch their timelines was it. 

Therefore, because Adams was brave and truthful (and stubborn), the WC had no choice but to find other, more malleable witnesses. Ergo the changing timeframes of Shelley and Lovelady.

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

46 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Roger:

 

Thanks for that link to DeMey.  DId not even know it existed.

Interesting piece.  I never thought of that alternative about Stroud.

The fact that Stroud included what Garner had told her about activity on the steps, and sent it to WC by registered letter is a fascinating question.  She probably knew what she was doing.

WC staff had talked to Garner, tho of course no formal interview survives, and was probably never held (so De Mey thinks).  I think they knew what she had to say.  Possibly Stroud, working with them, knew that they knew.

If so, sending that info to the WC by registered letter appears to be Stroud's attempt to make it part of the public record.  She looks like an unsung hero to me.

[Pat Speer]

19 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Of course it's simple. But the silly part is why anyone wants to get their bread all greasy and disgusting before ever making their edible chicken sandwich. That's really stupid. Keeping the bread separate from the greasy chicken until you're ready to debone the bird and put it in the sammich would be mandatory for any kind of decent lunch.

I think you've told us something about yourself. Could  your obsession with the LN position reflect not so much an ideological bias, as an emotional one...as an effort to keep the bread from getting greasy?