Vickie Adams Interview

[Gerry Down]

10 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Geez, I get into this on my website. And the record is very clear. From studying Howard Willens' diary, and the related documents, it's clear some lawyers wanted to interview the witnesses cold, and let the chips fall where they may, and that some insisted they needed to pre-interview them off the record, so they could avoid problematic answers, After Specter began interviewing witnesses in Washington, and Warren saw how many witnesses were claiming they heard more than three shots, or that the shots came in in a flurry, etc, Warren called a meeting, and told the lawyers they needed to pre-interview their witnesses, and keep the record clean. And that's what they did from then on. Ball and Belin, in particular, pre-interviewed problematic witnesses, and screened God knows what from the record. Adams was not the only one to be abused in this manner, nor were the tapes to her deposition the only ones to disappear. It is my understanding they all were destroyed. And I'm not even sure this was unusual. The FBI destroys their notes as soon as a report is written, so it wouldn't be surprising if the tapes used to create a transcript were destroyed once the transcript was created. As it is, we have Adams' transcript, with her handwritten notes, which match up to what was stated in the Stroud letter. And we now have her statement on the Sahl show stating she did in fact see Lovelady and Shelley. So there's no reason to suspect anything was changed in the transcript itself.

But, of course, Belin's screening of the questions asked Adams remains a problem. On my website, I list dozens of questions that should have been asked of the Commission's witnesses, and some that were listed in memos as going to be asked, that were never asked. We can only assume then that many of these were asked these questions off the record, but that Ball/Belin/Specter/whomever didn't like the answer and failed to re-ask the question once on the record. Beyond Adams, we can feel certain this happened with Eddie Piper, and perhaps even Lt. Day, who made reference to a previous deposition in Dallas in his deposition in Washington...that was never published. 

Do you have the link handy where you go through on your website how the WC screened witnesses like this?

When you refer to Howard Willens diary, i presume you are referring to his book "History Will Prove Us Right" or must I actually read the diary itself to find the above info?

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Do you have the link handy where you go through on your website how the WC screened witnesses like this?

When you refer to Howard Willens diary, i presume you are referring to his book "History Will Prove Us Right" or must I actually read the diary itself to find the above info?

I think he made reference to the diary entry in the book, but tried to spin it so it wouldn't sound so bad. He had the diary, along with maybe 200 internal WC documents, up on a website to help promote the book, but I ruined it for everyone by catching on to some of what was in there, and he got mad and took it all down. He was particularly upset that I seized upon an entry in which he discussed Warren's requesting the archives to slow roll the release of unpublished documents to the critics, in order to give the Commission time to sell that it was Oswald..

From Chapter 3:

Behind the Scenes with Howard Willens

Commission counsel Howard Willens kept a contemporaneous journal on the commission's investigation. In early 2014, he put his journal online. Let's pretend then that, in our imaginary investigation in 1964, we've befriended Willens and that he is showing us his journal.

Howard Willens shows us his journal entry for 3-9-64/3-10-64. (I have added some comments to put the events in context. But, of course.) His journal entry reads, in part:

2. On Tuesday, four eyewitnesses appeared before the Commission and completed their testimony at approximately 3 p.m. I had obtained a copy of the prior day’s testimony early in the morning and had planned to read it but was unable to begin this job until late in the evening.

6. After lunch and a brief discussion with Jack Miller I visited with the Deputy Attorney General for a while regarding the work of the Commission. I briefed him on the report of the Nosenko interview and the schedule of witnesses set forth in the memorandum of March 6. I discussed with him briefly the stalemate between the Treasury Department and the Commission regarding the area of security precautions. Mr. Katzenbach agreed that this was a needless problem which should be resolved without too great difficulty. He suggested that I might wish to discuss it sooner or later with Mr. McCloy.

7. Shortly after I returned to the Commission offices on Tuesday, Mr. Redlich came into my office in quite a hurry and asked me to join them in the Conference Room. Apparently the testimony for the day had been completed (eyewitnesses Rowland, Euins, Jackson and Worrell) and the Chief Justice was engaging Messrs. Redlich, Ball, Belin and Specter in conversation regarding the proposed schedule of testimony and several other matters. When I entered the room the Chief Justice was expressing his opinion that more witnesses with significant testimony should be called before the Commission as quickly as possible. This was partly because the court was currently in recess and he wanted to complete as much of the Commission’s business as possible during the next week and a half. He expressed his view that the medical witnesses were among the more important witnesses to be heard. He indicated that as a corollary to this that many of the witnesses that had already been called before the Commission did not have much testimony of substance.

Hmmm... Even beyond that newspaper accounts suggest Warren was only present for one hour of the March 9 testimony of the Secret Service agents, Warren's complaint that the witnesses recently called before the commission lacked substance doesn't pass the simplest of smell tests. The four Secret Service agents interviewed the day before indicated the last two shots were bang-bang, one behind the other. Kellerman said the last two came in in a "flurry...it was like a double bang--bang, bang." Greer said they came in "just simultaneously, one behind the other." Hill said he recalled hearing but two shots, but that the last one had "some type of an echo...almost a double sound." And Youngblood pretty much concurred: "There seemed to be a longer span of time between the first and the second shot than there was between the second and third shot." And these four problematic witnesses have now been followed up by a second four, ALL of whom add to the likelihood there was more than one shooter. Arnold Rowland, to begin with, surprised the heck out of the commission and said he saw two different men on the sixth floor before the shooting, and that the last shot was fired but two seconds after the second. Amos Euins said he'd heard four shots. Robert Jackson said "the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot." And James Worrell said he'd heard four shots. It seems obvious, then, that Warren views witnesses who can help him sell the single-assassin conclusion as substantive and those harmful to this cause as lacking substance. If so, this makes his request the medical witnesses be brought forward as soon as possible a bit suspicious. It seems possible he is afraid the investigation is about to spin out of control, and hopes to bring the investigation--and the Washington media reporting on the investigation--back in line via the gory details of the President's death.

7. cont'd) He indicated that he wanted to get our lawyers on the road as quickly as possible to interview witnesses. In the course of stating his views on this, the Chief Justice stated that he had complete faith in all of the members of the staff and wanted them to be free to have unrecorded interviews with the witnesses. Although he did not elaborate on his views in this matter, the Chief Justice apparently had been briefed on the staff discussions on this subject by someone, possibly Mr. Rankin or Mr. Ball.

Hmmm... Willens has told us of these discussions, and that several of the commission's staff think it improper to prep the witnesses via unrecorded interviews. He shows us a 3-2-64 entry in his journal which reveals:

"Most of today was consumed by two staff meetings regarding the proposed schedule of testimony before the Commission and by depositions taken by the staff. The draft memorandum for the members of the Commission which I prepared was distributed to members of the staff and was discussed at the initial meeting beginning at 11:30 a.m. The discussion quickly centered on the problem whether staff members should be permitted to interview witnesses in advance of the witness giving a deposition or testifying before the Commission. This argument went on for two hours or so and for an additional two hours or so at a continuation of the meeting beginning at 4 o’clock. Mr. Shaffer was not there and therefore his eloquence could not be brought to bear on this topic. As a result of the meetings, a set of procedures is to be made up by a committee including Messrs. Liebeler, Belin and Redlich. Mr. Redlich and Mr. Eisenberg were the most forceful proponents of the proposition that staff members should not be permitted to interview witnesses without a court reporter present. Mr. Belin was strongly opposed and Mr. Liebeler urged a somewhat intermediate position."

Willens then shows us a 3-4-64 memo from Redlich to Rankin in which Redlich reveals "I feel that an unrecorded interview with a witness creates the inevitable danger that the witness will be conditioned to give certain testimony" and that, furthermore, "If we compound the lack of cross examination with the pre-conditioning of a witness, we will be presenting a record which, in my view, will be deceptively clean..."

Well, here, on 3-10, Warren has weighed in on the matter, and has told the staff, in so many words, to go ahead and prep some witnesses and get something on the record...pronto!

We can only presume then that he wants to put some miles between the commission and its latest round of witnesses.

Willens then shows us the rest of his entry for 3-10.

7. cont'd) In response to the Chief Justice’s views I indicated to him that we would make every effort to secure witnesses for next Friday and to change the schedule for the week of March 16 so as to meet his wishes. The various members of the staff then discussed their views as to the difficulty of the medical testimony and the time necessary to prepare for it. The Chief Justice indicated that he was primarily interested in hearing the testimony of the doctors from the Bethesda Naval Hospital who conducted the autopsy.

Hmmm... It seems clear from this that Warren feels confident the testimony of these doctors will bolster the case for a single-assassin. We wonder why he feels this way.

7. cont'd) I indicated that, if possible, we would try to have these doctors appear before the Commission during the week of March 16.

...

8. After the above meeting various members of the staff gathered in my office to make their suggestions regarding alterations in the schedule. Present were Messrs. Redlich, Eisenberg, Ball, Belin, Stern, Liebeler and Ely. As usual there was considerable debate among the members of the staff regarding the function of the Commission and the definition of what constitutes a thorough job. Apparently during the day’s testimony the Chief Justice had indicated his readiness to receive a clean record and not pursue in very much detail the various inconsistencies. Mr. Ball agreed with the approach suggested by the Chief Justice completely and Mr. Specter thought that we would have to amend our approach to correspond with that of the Chief Justice. Mr. Redlich and Mr. Eisenberg took a strong and articulate contrary view. The long and short of the meeting was that we decided to bring up Mr. and Mrs. Declan Ford on Friday and to explore the possibility of having the medical testimony on Monday and Tuesday.

Well, this confirms our suspicions. Warren wants the staff to present him with a "clean" case against Oswald, one with as few inconsistencies as possible, and he is giving them the green light to prep witnesses in unrecorded interviews in order to meet this end.

 

 

 

[Karl Kinaski]

 

 Rich Negrete not only did a fantastic job by providing the research community with that interview, he made the video about Vicki Adams  case ...

This belongs here.

 

(There is a thread about it on this forum.)

[Gerry Down]

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I think he made reference to the diary entry in the book, but tried to spin it so it wouldn't sound so bad. He had the diary, along with maybe 200 internal WC documents, up on a website to help promote the book, but I ruined it for everyone by catching on to some of what was in there, and he got mad and took it all down. He was particularly upset that I seized upon an entry in which he discussed Warren's requesting the archives to slow roll the release of unpublished documents to the critics, in order to give the Commission time to sell that it was Oswald..

From Chapter 3:

Behind the Scenes with Howard Willens

Commission counsel Howard Willens kept a contemporaneous journal on the commission's investigation. In early 2014, he put his journal online. Let's pretend then that, in our imaginary investigation in 1964, we've befriended Willens and that he is showing us his journal.

Howard Willens shows us his journal entry for 3-9-64/3-10-64. (I have added some comments to put the events in context. But, of course.) His journal entry reads, in part:

2. On Tuesday, four eyewitnesses appeared before the Commission and completed their testimony at approximately 3 p.m. I had obtained a copy of the prior day’s testimony early in the morning and had planned to read it but was unable to begin this job until late in the evening.

6. After lunch and a brief discussion with Jack Miller I visited with the Deputy Attorney General for a while regarding the work of the Commission. I briefed him on the report of the Nosenko interview and the schedule of witnesses set forth in the memorandum of March 6. I discussed with him briefly the stalemate between the Treasury Department and the Commission regarding the area of security precautions. Mr. Katzenbach agreed that this was a needless problem which should be resolved without too great difficulty. He suggested that I might wish to discuss it sooner or later with Mr. McCloy.

7. Shortly after I returned to the Commission offices on Tuesday, Mr. Redlich came into my office in quite a hurry and asked me to join them in the Conference Room. Apparently the testimony for the day had been completed (eyewitnesses Rowland, Euins, Jackson and Worrell) and the Chief Justice was engaging Messrs. Redlich, Ball, Belin and Specter in conversation regarding the proposed schedule of testimony and several other matters. When I entered the room the Chief Justice was expressing his opinion that more witnesses with significant testimony should be called before the Commission as quickly as possible. This was partly because the court was currently in recess and he wanted to complete as much of the Commission’s business as possible during the next week and a half. He expressed his view that the medical witnesses were among the more important witnesses to be heard. He indicated that as a corollary to this that many of the witnesses that had already been called before the Commission did not have much testimony of substance.

Hmmm... Even beyond that newspaper accounts suggest Warren was only present for one hour of the March 9 testimony of the Secret Service agents, Warren's complaint that the witnesses recently called before the commission lacked substance doesn't pass the simplest of smell tests. The four Secret Service agents interviewed the day before indicated the last two shots were bang-bang, one behind the other. Kellerman said the last two came in in a "flurry...it was like a double bang--bang, bang." Greer said they came in "just simultaneously, one behind the other." Hill said he recalled hearing but two shots, but that the last one had "some type of an echo...almost a double sound." And Youngblood pretty much concurred: "There seemed to be a longer span of time between the first and the second shot than there was between the second and third shot." And these four problematic witnesses have now been followed up by a second four, ALL of whom add to the likelihood there was more than one shooter. Arnold Rowland, to begin with, surprised the heck out of the commission and said he saw two different men on the sixth floor before the shooting, and that the last shot was fired but two seconds after the second. Amos Euins said he'd heard four shots. Robert Jackson said "the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot." And James Worrell said he'd heard four shots. It seems obvious, then, that Warren views witnesses who can help him sell the single-assassin conclusion as substantive and those harmful to this cause as lacking substance. If so, this makes his request the medical witnesses be brought forward as soon as possible a bit suspicious. It seems possible he is afraid the investigation is about to spin out of control, and hopes to bring the investigation--and the Washington media reporting on the investigation--back in line via the gory details of the President's death.

7. cont'd) He indicated that he wanted to get our lawyers on the road as quickly as possible to interview witnesses. In the course of stating his views on this, the Chief Justice stated that he had complete faith in all of the members of the staff and wanted them to be free to have unrecorded interviews with the witnesses. Although he did not elaborate on his views in this matter, the Chief Justice apparently had been briefed on the staff discussions on this subject by someone, possibly Mr. Rankin or Mr. Ball.

Hmmm... Willens has told us of these discussions, and that several of the commission's staff think it improper to prep the witnesses via unrecorded interviews. He shows us a 3-2-64 entry in his journal which reveals:

"Most of today was consumed by two staff meetings regarding the proposed schedule of testimony before the Commission and by depositions taken by the staff. The draft memorandum for the members of the Commission which I prepared was distributed to members of the staff and was discussed at the initial meeting beginning at 11:30 a.m. The discussion quickly centered on the problem whether staff members should be permitted to interview witnesses in advance of the witness giving a deposition or testifying before the Commission. This argument went on for two hours or so and for an additional two hours or so at a continuation of the meeting beginning at 4 o’clock. Mr. Shaffer was not there and therefore his eloquence could not be brought to bear on this topic. As a result of the meetings, a set of procedures is to be made up by a committee including Messrs. Liebeler, Belin and Redlich. Mr. Redlich and Mr. Eisenberg were the most forceful proponents of the proposition that staff members should not be permitted to interview witnesses without a court reporter present. Mr. Belin was strongly opposed and Mr. Liebeler urged a somewhat intermediate position."

Willens then shows us a 3-4-64 memo from Redlich to Rankin in which Redlich reveals "I feel that an unrecorded interview with a witness creates the inevitable danger that the witness will be conditioned to give certain testimony" and that, furthermore, "If we compound the lack of cross examination with the pre-conditioning of a witness, we will be presenting a record which, in my view, will be deceptively clean..."

Well, here, on 3-10, Warren has weighed in on the matter, and has told the staff, in so many words, to go ahead and prep some witnesses and get something on the record...pronto!

We can only presume then that he wants to put some miles between the commission and its latest round of witnesses.

Willens then shows us the rest of his entry for 3-10.

7. cont'd) In response to the Chief Justice’s views I indicated to him that we would make every effort to secure witnesses for next Friday and to change the schedule for the week of March 16 so as to meet his wishes. The various members of the staff then discussed their views as to the difficulty of the medical testimony and the time necessary to prepare for it. The Chief Justice indicated that he was primarily interested in hearing the testimony of the doctors from the Bethesda Naval Hospital who conducted the autopsy.

Hmmm... It seems clear from this that Warren feels confident the testimony of these doctors will bolster the case for a single-assassin. We wonder why he feels this way.

7. cont'd) I indicated that, if possible, we would try to have these doctors appear before the Commission during the week of March 16.

...

8. After the above meeting various members of the staff gathered in my office to make their suggestions regarding alterations in the schedule. Present were Messrs. Redlich, Eisenberg, Ball, Belin, Stern, Liebeler and Ely. As usual there was considerable debate among the members of the staff regarding the function of the Commission and the definition of what constitutes a thorough job. Apparently during the day’s testimony the Chief Justice had indicated his readiness to receive a clean record and not pursue in very much detail the various inconsistencies. Mr. Ball agreed with the approach suggested by the Chief Justice completely and Mr. Specter thought that we would have to amend our approach to correspond with that of the Chief Justice. Mr. Redlich and Mr. Eisenberg took a strong and articulate contrary view. The long and short of the meeting was that we decided to bring up Mr. and Mrs. Declan Ford on Friday and to explore the possibility of having the medical testimony on Monday and Tuesday.

Well, this confirms our suspicions. Warren wants the staff to present him with a "clean" case against Oswald, one with as few inconsistencies as possible, and he is giving them the green light to prep witnesses in unrecorded interviews in order to meet this end.

 

 

 

Thanks. Must look into this. Earl Warren was doing alot of covering up.

[Roger Odisio]

22 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Roger:

I agree (about the retraction of Barry Ernest's account being "wrong") ... see the February 2021 article in Kennedy's and King entitled “Barry Ernest Replies to John Armstrong, RE: Victoria Adams” by Barry Ernest.  The documentary record of Adams’ DPD testimony differs from her previous testimony. The stenographer’s tape of Adams actual testimony (i.e., what she told Belin) was destroyed.  She never saw Shelley and Lovelady ... she felt those words had been inserted into the record to disprove her timing and credibility. The Martha Jo Stroud letter to Rankin (only declassified after ARRB and discovered in 1999) supports Adams’ actual account, and Dorothy Garner supported what Adams (and Styles) said about not seeing Lovelady and Shelley.   

Gene

There is no doubt about what Vicki Adams said on the Mort Sahl show with Mark Lane, less than 3 years after the murder. She referenced the WR statement that she was mistaken about seeing S&L when she reached the first floor because they had not returned there until several minutes after when she claimed.  Oswald could have descended the steps well before her and Styles.

 

She flatly disagreed with it.  "He [Lovelady] and Shelley.  I *did* see them by the elevator" and "he [Lovelady] had just seen me on the first floor *before I left the building* 

 

The use of the "did" refers back to the WR claim, as in despite what the WR said, I did see them.  Further, in his testimony Lovelady mentions he was going to check the time after he saw her, but the WC did not follow that up because they knew it would verify her story.

 

So why does a different story emerge in the Girl on the Stairs?  

 

I can speculate about how that might have happened, but I won't here.  The stenotapes would of course clear things up about whether Adams' statement included seeing S&L as she said in '66.  But the tapes are missing from NARA, despite having a specific box for them, indicating they were probably there at one time. It's empty now.   

 

In his reply to John Armstrong you cited, Ernest says a later document revealed Adams' tape had been destroyed by the Commission.  I wonder what the source is. Ernest hadn't known that when he wrote the book.

 

Keeping mind with all of this, that Ernest had not seen the recently revealed Adams appearance on Sahl's show, despite looking for it, before he wrote the book and the reply to Armstrong. 

 

About the Stroud letter.  It does not  support Adams story.  It merely suggests a few wording changes and states that Belin had been questioning her about whether she saw anyone else on the stairs.  The last sentence says that Garner told her (Stroud) the morning of the letter that after Adams went down the stairs she (Garner) saw Truly and a cop reach the 4th floor.  And never saw or heard Oswald, she told Ernest.  A true blockbuster, that.

 

Garner verified the timing of Adams' journey when Ernest talked to her, but the statement to Stroud is the crucial piece. It destroys the Oswald fabrication pretty much by itself.

 

It was Ernest who in 1999 found the Stroud letter buried at NARA, while he was trying to find Adams.  Stroud had sent the letter on June 1, 1964 to J Lee Rankin by registered mail.  Which means the person it is addressed to must sign a receipt verifying he received it.  Which of course didn't stop WC staff from trying to bury it.

 

It's important to keep a perspective. No matter which Adams story you believe, no matter which lie the WC used to discredit her while ignoring those who could corroborate her story, it seems clear Adams went down those steps relatively soon after seeing the murder, as corroborated by the person who should have known, her supervisor, Garner.  And neither Adams, Styles, or Garner ever saw or heard Oswald on those steps.  

[Gene Kelly]

Roger

I find Barry Ernest to be quite credible ... and his interviews with Vicki Adams compelling.  As Barry wrote in the 2021 K&K article, Vicki’s original testimony no longer exists, but there is corroboration from her co-worker, Sandra Styles, who accompanied Vicki to the first floor. Sandra verifies the timing, as well as who was there when the girls arrived on the 1st floor. Sandra Styles knew Shelley and Lovelady well; when Barry Ernest tracked her down in 2002, she told him that Shelley and Lovelady definitely were not on the first floor. She repeated that in subsequent interviews, emphatically. 

Bigger picture, its the timing of the descent on the stairs that is most important - demonstrating that Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor (and that the 2nd floor encounter is questionable) - and its clear Belin and others attempted to discredit Vicki Adams.  And I agree that the Stroud letter (thanks to the ARRB and Barry) is the evidence that destroys the Oswald fabrication.

Gene

[Ron Bulman]

Thank you Gene and Roger.  Well said.  I respect Earnst's work myself.

[Alan Ford]

On 1/13/2024 at 1:04 AM, Gene Kelly said:

I find Barry Ernest to be quite credible ... and his interviews with Vicki Adams compelling. 

[...]

Sandra Styles knew Shelley and Lovelady well; when Barry Ernest tracked her down in 2002, she told him that Shelley and Lovelady definitely were not on the first floor. She repeated that in subsequent interviews, emphatically. 

Like you, Mr. Kelly, I find Mr. Ernest credible. I don't believe for a moment he misrepresented what Ms. Adams told him regarding the encounter with Messrs. Lovelady & Shelley. However, like many researchers, I was pretty shocked recently to hear her say on that audio interview that she did see Messrs. Lovelady & Shelley on the first floor. It blows out of the water her claim that her WC testimony was altered in order to insert this fictional sighting.

Your second point above is worth twenty N.B.s! Ms. Styles has not supported what we now know for sure to be the claim of 1960s Ms. Adams re. Lovelady/Shelley. However, she has supported the later Ms. Adams who disavowed the Lovelady/Shelley sighting.

What on earth is going on here?

Let's start with a simple fact: we have two Ms. Adamses here (in the sense-------I hasten to add!-------of a single person making two contrary claims over time).

Ms. Adams A:----------The Ms. Adams who insists she saw Messrs. Lovelady and Shelley

+

Ms. Adams B:----------The (later) Ms. Adams who insists she didn't see them

Clearly, one of these Ms. Adamses is being untruthful.

But which one, and why?

Now! Were it not for Ms. Styles' own insistence that Messrs. Lovelady & Shelley were not on the first floor when the ladies arrived there, this would be a no-brainer: Ms. Adams B. is being untruthful, most likely because she now sees the Lovelady/Shelley sighting as a threat to her claim of a quick post-shooting descent from the fourth floor.

But! Ms. Styles' own support of No Lovelady/Shelley complicates matters in a most vexing way, rendering this conclusion unsafe.

Well! What if-----------and it's only a what if------------Ms. Adams A and Ms. Adams B are both being untruthful, only not quite in the same way?

What if they are both keeping something back, albeit with a different story? And what if Ms. Styles has seen fit to keep the same something back too?

But what could that awful something be?

There are only three mentions by name of Mr. Oswald across Ms. Adams' entire WC testimony, and only one explicit question about any possible sighting of him that day. Now look at how carefully Mr. Belin limits the scope of that particular question before dropping the LHO-specific line of questioning altogether:

Mr. BELIN - During the trip down the stairs on the way down did you ever encounter Lee Harvey Oswald?
Miss ADAMS - No, sir.

Edited January 26 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

Mr. Bill Shelley 11/22/63: After the shots he ran off the steps and ran into Ms. Gloria Calvery out by the "corner of the park"; she told him Pres. Kennedy had been shot; he then returned to the building.

Mr. Bill Shelley post-11/22/63: After the shots he stayed on the steps until Ms. Gloria Calvery came up and told those on the steps that Pres. Kennedy had been shot; then he and Mr. Billy Lovelady left the steps and headed west together towards the railroad yard; after which he and Mr. Lovelady re-entered the building together via the west door.

Question! What is the effect of this strange change in Mr. Shelley's story?

Answer! It fraudulently puts him in the company of Mr. Billy Lovelady.

Edited January 26 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

So!

We have two main questions so far:

1. Why, if the later Ms. Adams is being untruthful and the ladies really did see Messrs. Shelley & Lovelady, has Ms. Sandra Styles (Butler) insisted that they didn't?

2. Why did Mr. Shelley change his story about his immediate post-shooting movements, evidently in order to put himself in company with Mr. Lovelady?

Let's add a third:

3. Why does Mr. Lovelady, in his WC testimony, mention only one "girl" on the first floor, a woman he "couldn't swear to it it's Vicki"? Shouldn't he have seen Ms. Styles with her?

[Alan Ford]

Friends, let's feel our way into a possible scenario here...

Miss Adams & Miss Styles come down the stairs (exact timing unclear). They see and hear no one else on the stairs.

When they arrive down on the first floor, they see Mr. Shelley and Mr. Lee Oswald.

As will soon become clear to them, this is a dangerous thing to have seen.

They respond afterwards in different ways:

---------------Ms. Adams, by February '64 at the latest, has been persuaded to swap Mr. Oswald for Mr. Lovelady. Perhaps she has been informed that Mr. Lovelady himself has insisted to the authorities that it was he who was with Mr. Shelley at that time, and perhaps she has fallen for the gaslighting. Or perhaps she has just decided, out of fear, to play along with the suppression of a dangerous fact. And so she talks about having seen Mr. Shelley and Mr. Lovelady. In later years, she will regret having taken this line and will try to walk it back when talking to Mr. Barry Ernest------------but she does not feel comfortable even then with revealing what she really saw. She ties herself up in knots trying to reveal and conceal simultaneously, even resorting to an accusation that her WC mention of Messrs. Shelley & Lovelady was inserted into her testimony.

---------------Ms. Styles takes the simpler solution from start to finish: no Mr. Shelley, and no second white worker with him.

Only Ms. Adams will be called to testify before the WC.

**

Meanwhile, for the Oswald-Lovelady switch to come off, Mr. Shelley must change his story. He really did reenter the building immediately after his encounter with Ms. Gloria Calvery after the shooting. And he ended up on the first floor with Mr. Oswald. But now he is fictitiously teamed up with Mr. Lovelady, such that that pair can be said to have arrived at an opportune time (timing-wise) on the first floor.

But both men blow it in their WC testimony.

Mr. Lovelady, mindful no doubt that he may be contradicted by Ms. Adams, shrinks from swearing to it that Vicki was the woman he saw and with whom Mr. Shelley spoke. He also either forgets, or has not been told, that he is supposed to have seen two women there. And so, in his account of an event he himself wasn't actually present for,  he only mentions one "girl".

Mr. Shelley, mindful of the possibility of being contradicted by Ms. Adams and/or Ms. Styles, fudges the question by telling Mr. Ball he doesn't recall when or where he saw Ms. Adams that day. (Ms. Styles is, of course, not mentioned by Mr. Ball.)

Edited January 30 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

An alternative solution to that offered above-------------and one that likewise tries to take account of all the curious factors at play--------------might run like this:

1. Ms. Adams is tricked by the 'investigating' authorities. Det. Jim Leavelle tells her in February: "We've found support for your claim of coming down those back steps so quickly. Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady say they saw you two at the back of the first floor within a minute or so of the shooting". Hearing this, and anxious to protect her place at the heart of the drama, she suddenly 'remembers' having seen Bill & Billy, and even spoken with Bill. She will stick to this 'memory' in her WC testimony and on the Mort Sahl show, for the simple if ignoble reason that she thinks it helps her cause.

2. Years later, she bitterly regrets having done this. She realizes she was tricked, because the Shelley-Lovelady story puts her descent from four much later. And so, when contacted by Mr. Barry Ernest, she walks the 'memory' back, to the point of contriving a 'They altered my testimony' accusation.

One problem with this alternative solution, however, is that the alteration in Mr. Shelley's story-------------i.e. his being fraudulently teamed up with Mr. Lovelady--------------happens way before February.

Also! If the 'investigating' authorities needed to discredit Ms. Adams on her timeline, there would surely have been some more parsimonious way of doing so. Why enlist two men into a messy and inconsistent cock-and-bull story about teaming up and seeing her?

Still seems to me that Mr. Lovelady's resemblance to Mr. Oswald may well be the key that unlocks this whole conundrum:

-Mr. Shelley's presence at the back of the first floor at the time of the Adams-Styles descent = historical fact

-Mr. Lovelady's presence with him = historical fiction

-Ms. Adams & Ms. Styles' various pronouncements on the Shelley/Lovelady question = indicative of a second historically factual presence being erased

Edited January 30 by Alan Ford

[Alan Ford]

On 1/28/2024 at 1:07 AM, Alan Ford said:

-Ms. Adams & Ms. Styles' various pronouncements on the Shelley/Lovelady question = indicative of a second historically factual presence being erased

Rephrase!

-Ms. Adams & Ms. Styles' conflicting (and, in the case of Ms. Adams, self-conflicting) various pronouncements on the Shelley/Lovelady question = indicative of a second historically factual presence being erased