Sean Murphy's post "Girl on the Stairs" emails exchanges with Sandra Styles

My comments in blue. Highlighting is also mine

Background to exchanges
A couple of years back, I made contact with Sandra Styles. She told me that she felt Victoria Adams had significantly exaggerated the speed with which the pair descended from the fourth to the first floor after the shooting.

In the light of Barry Ernest's new book 'The Girl on the Stairs', I decided to contact Sandra once again to discuss this matter. She has some rather interesting things to say.

Rather than summarise them (and risk putting words in Sandra's mouth), I shall simply offer the relevant text from Sandra's own emails. In a number of places I've asterisked key details.

Before doing so, however, I would like to apologise to Barry Ernest for having on a previous occasion called his integrity as a researcher into question. The gap between what Sandra has told me and what Barry says she told him is not at all as large as I had alleged. My apologies, Barry.
Sean Murphy
***
First email from Sean
In my first email I asked Sandra to respond to the following words from Barry (as posted on a research forum), who was himself responding to what Sandra had told me a couple of years back:

'When I interviewed Sandra Styles in 2002, she said absolutely nothing of the kind to me. What she did say was, she couldn't be sure exactly how quickly she left the window and went down the stairs, but she recalled she did so "rather quickly," in her words, and "when Vicki did," again in her words. Why she would say otherwise now, especially when she said what she did then and added, "Vicki was the more observant one," is beyond me.'

Here was Sandra's response:
'First of all, I do not recall that Barry put much emphasis on the timing or that we spent time discussing that aspect. I stand by what I said to you. *At the time, I first thought we went downstairs quickly; but in thinking about it further, I came to the conclusion that it was not immediately. I told an interviewer (FBI? not sure) that when we got downstairs, the police were there so I assumed we went down quickly; however, the interviewer told me that it took the police 15-20 minutes to get to the Depository, so I accepted that we must have taken longer to get downstairs than I first thought.* I went
with what Victoria said because she spoke with such certainty; since I
couldn't say for sure, I didn't argue with her. *She also told office workers that on the way down, she noticed the freight elevator cables were moving.* I'm not sure what that would prove; but since I did not notice that, that is what I meant when I said she was more observant.

Barry was working closely with her, and I didn't want to get into it with her when I couldn't prove it either way.

Barry's main discussion with me concerned the outlay of the office:
the exact location of the back stairs in relation to the other elevator, which direction the building faced, etc. Since I didn't have scanning capabilities, I had to describe all that verbally in several emails. We were all interviewed several times by different entities over the next year. I always said the the same thing to each one: that I had nothing of importance to help their investigation. Their concern was whether I knew Oswald, had ever seen him, etc. As to the timing of the whole thing, I wasn't sure then and can't say for certain now. I only go by what seems reasonable. I can only report my personal recollections the best I can. I was easily led back then  ol. *If she said we went down immediately, I thought that must be true. If the interviewer said that was not possible due to the amount of time it took the police to get over there, I re-thought it and accepted HIS assessment.* The truth may lie somewhere in between.

What is logical is that, in all the pandemonium, it is unlikely that we would hear shots and head for the back stairs!'


What was most likely said to Sandra by the FBI was that it took 15 to 20 minutes for the police to seal off the building. She recalled it incorrectly as 15 to 20 minutes for them to enter it.

According to the testimony of Shelley and Lovelady, they re-entered the building after about 3 or 4 munites. Shelley also testified that the police were in there pretty quickly after thar. This is further corroborated by the testimonies of Piper and West.

So that gels with Sandras best guess about how quickly they came down, and about seeing police down there. 

In my reply, I put two points to Sandra:

1) The authorities' claim that it took 15-20 minutes for police to get to the Depository was way off.

2) Barry had come across the so-called Stroud document, in which Dorothy Ann Garner is reported to have told authorities she saw Baker and Truly come up onto the fourth floor AFTER Adams and Styles had left it.

Sandra's response:

'Hmmmmmmm, points to ponder. At this point, I'm wondering whether I was even there! hahaha
1. My initial sense was that we went down soon after, and the 15-20 minute delay given by the investigator DID seem a bit long, but I took his word for it. We did linger at the window a bit trying to sort it out, and I'm sure it was Vicki's idea to go find out what was going on; therefore we wouldn't have waited a long time to make the decision to go downstairs. I am certain that we went to the public elevator first, but may not have waited long there either. My hesitancy on the timing in all the interviews probably accounts for why they did not pursue further information from me. As I told everyone who ever
asked, I had no real sense of that aspect of the investigation.

Still, logic tells me it had to take a couple of minutes at least for things to sink in and to make the decision to go. Therefore, *I'll give up a few of those minutes but still don't remember it's being a
matter of a few seconds. However, I yield to wiser heads if the evidence is there.*

2. I know nothing of Dorothy Garner's part. I don't know where she was at the time. Her office was near the front elevator, but she could have been in the lunch area on the other side near the back stairs. It seems odd to me that if the two men ran up the back stairs a minute or so after the shooting, we did not encounter them on our way down even if we had left immediately and even more strange that
Mrs. Garner would have been in a position to see them coming up. It all goes back to the fact that I could be totally off on my calculations, and anything is possible. I cannot swear in any venue
that what I thought was actually true. I still see it all in my mind's eye and have not changed my opinion about what we did and when, but I could be mistaken about the number of minutes. I suppose I
could blame the fact that I am 71 and let it go at that!! No, that would be too easy.'

What we have is two totally different witnesses. The very self-assured Victoria Adams and the easily-led Sandra Styles. Sandra's lack of absolute certainty and confidence only makes her a strongerr witness, imo. And her comments about Garner cannot be ignored. 



The comments about how quickly the police came into the building were dealt with in the opening post.

In my reply, I asked Sandra a number of follow-up questions:

a) Could she recall what her initial time estimate for their going to the stairs was - i.e. before she was told that the police didn't get to the Depository for 15-20 minutes?

Her answer:

'Not less than a minute, I thought more like a couple. I do realize that time takes on feet of its own in a situation like a shooting or other catastrophe, and witnesses have different takes on it. I am glad to have the 15-minute thing put to rest; even then it didn't make sense that it would take the DPD that long to cross the
street.'


b) Could she describe the layout of the fourth floor?

Her answer: '


Here is the layout of the office: 

Mr. Bergen's office was in the SE corner and opened into the reception area, as did the publlic elevator and Dorothy's office.[color:2407=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588235294118)] Directly across from Dorothy's office was a small conference room. Behind the reception area were the desks of the Customer Service Reps (I was one of those) and Records (Elsie's job). Then there were the stacks where free teacher aids and supplies were kept. On the other side of the stacks was the break/lunch area (not a separate enclosed room), which had a table, coffeepot and a refrigerator (no drink machine). It was all open; the only doors were in the bosses' offices, the conference room, and the back. The elevator opened directly into the reception area. The door in the NW corner of the breakroom led to the stairs/freight elevator/storage area.'

No drink machine in the break room????  Can anyone shed light on that?

So just where was Garner that she could see the intrepid duo, but miss Oswald and for them to miss her, but on Oswald? Smells like bullshit to me. Was Garner volunteered to pass on her "sighting" to help give it credence after all the front steps and first floor witnesses demurred on seeing them together?  When considering this, recall that Lovelady only claimed to see them go in together once before the commission. 

c) Could she give any more detail on Victoria's observation about the elevator cables moving?

Her answer: 

'I don't remember any of that. She didn't mention it to me on the way down or up. As I recall, she only mentioned it later offhandedly, but I don't recall the circumstances as to how or exactly when it came up in conversation.'
[color:2407=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588235294118)]***

Bottom line: I find Styles overall more credible and I I accept it was a two to 4 minute gap between the shots and the two running down the stairs. It also appears to me there should be more scepticism about Garner's claim.

It's easy to see why Ernest ignored anything said by Styles about going down and had her agreeing with Adams. Styles was too problematic for his thesis, and she herself made ignoring and twisting of her words easy by being far less self-assured.

Looks like Ernest too only used the bits of evidence and claims that fit his theory and rejected the rest. Just like many others including the Harvey and Lee brigade.

Thanks Ed. Any thoughts on what she said about no drink machines? when I first read it, I thought she must be talking about a separate little eating area... but on closer reading, that is not the case. Unless of course, it is :-)

I have now discovered your Styles/Murphy post after posting in the Killing Floor thread.  Sorry for the confusion.

In judging Adams and Styles, the important question is not why Ernest went with Adams and largely ignored Styles.  That answer is obvious.

The real question is why the WC went with Adams and ignored Styles.  By doing that they had to lie about Lovelady and Shelly to discredit Adams.  And destroy all remnants of Styles' testimony.  They got rid of Garner's corroboration too.

Why would they do that instead of manipulating Styles to give them what they wanted--say, using the 4 minute estimate, since they claimed to show Oswald made it to the 2nd floor in a minute and a half?  And throw away Adams' testimony instead.  Styles uncertainty, if in fact she was uncertain back then when it happened, is something they could use

We don't know what Styles told them at the time--she said they were interviewed by several entities over the next year (a significant revelation--they lied to Adams about that when she asked them to talk to Styles for corroboration), all of which were destroyed.  We don't know how uncertain she was at the time.  From the more recent discussion uncertainty seems clear now 50+ years later.  And it seems to have grown over time as she rethought things. 

They obviously would have liked for Styles to provide some sort of backing to their Oswald fairy tale.  She probably sensed that and that may explain why Styles said she kept telling them each time she had nothing that could help them (frame Oswald).

So why did they go with Adams and create those extra problems for themselves?  Probably because Styles was basically backing Adams (I think she indicates as much at one point), no matter how much she fudges that now.  It seems pretty clear from several things Styles says that she was not about to contradict Adams during her interviews. 

It's also true that after getting home that day Adams wrote a 6 page letter detailing all that had happened to her and sent it the editor she knew of a Catholic newspaper.  It too has disappeared.  Further evidence of her clarity of memory.

Roger Odisio wrote:I have now discovered your Styles/Murphy post after posting in the Killing Floor thread.  Sorry for the confusion.

In judging Adams and Styles, the important question is not why Ernest went with Adams and largely ignored Styles.  That answer is obvious.

The real question is why the WC went with Adams and ignored Styles.  By doing that they had to lie about Lovelady and Shelly to discredit Adams.  And destroy all remnants of Styles' testimony.  They got rid of Garner's corroboration too.

Why would they do that instead of manipulating Styles to give them what they wanted--say, using the 4 minute estimate, since they claimed to show Oswald made it to the 2nd floor in a minute and a half?  And throw away Adams' testimony instead.  Styles uncertainty, if in fact she was uncertain back then when it happened, is something they could use

We don't know what Styles told them at the time--she said they were interviewed by several entities over the next year (a significant revelation--they lied to Adams about that when she asked them to talk to Styles for corroboration), all of which were destroyed.  We don't know how uncertain she was at the time.  From the more recent discussion uncertainty seems clear now 50+ years later.  And it seems to have grown over time as she rethought things. 

They obviously would have liked for Styles to provide some sort of backing to their Oswald fairy tale.  She probably sensed that and that may explain why Styles said she kept telling them each time she had nothing that could help them (frame Oswald).

So why did they go with Adams and create those extra problems for themselves?  Probably because Styles was basically backing Adams (I think she indicates as much at one point), no matter how much she fudges that now.  It seems pretty clear from several things Styles says that she was not about to contradict Adams during her interviews. 

It's also true that after getting home that day Adams wrote a 6 page letter detailing all that had happened to her and sent it the editor she knew of a Catholic newspaper.  It too has disappeared.  Further evidence of her clarity of memory.

Thanks Roger. Yes, I agree, Styles was more than happy to give all the limelight to Adams. Both with the WC and with Ernest. 

I am just struggling to get what the big deal is. I can see it may have raised an odd eyebrow or two once upon a time. But really, PM and Hosty's note supercedes all. And ultimately, and to repeat myself - this stuff is being pushed by those opposed to Oswald's real alibi and who continue to push the second floor false narrative. Giving it any oxygen imo, is counterproductive. Maybe if I saw something in it that constituted additional evidence for the real alibi, I could give it a pass.. But I don't see how it enhances or helps flesh out the real story. At all. 
Ultimately they were witnesses to nothing and the sole usefulness of that is that they allow the 2nd floor encounter to continue its mythological life.

greg_parker wrote:Thanks Ed. Any thoughts on what she said about no drink machines? when I first read it, I thought she must be talking about a separate little eating area... but on closer reading, that is not the case. Unless of course, it is :-)

I think in the picture of her, has her either at a work station in front of the stacks or at the break room table behind the stacks.
There is a window in the picture but not a door.
So I think its a Scott Foresman Break Area photo with chrismast gifts on break room table....then again she could be up front at reception.
The wall juting out could be part of Bergen's office, and window is an Elm street window.


Gary Murr's floor plan has the rear door so marked.



So basically Scott Foresman office!, back behind the shelves, had a break/lunch area but not a lunchroom per se.

First, I don't agree that Adams was a limelight seeker (mentioned in the other thread).  She disappeared, or tried to, soon after the murder only to be astonished when James Leavelle showed up at her door in February to ask more questions, claiming the original records were burned and everyone had to be interviewed again.  It was her  first day at a new place rented under her roommate's name.  They were following her.  They knew she was important.

It was only when Ernest tracked her down and showed her what the WC had done to her testimony did she get reinvolved some forty years later.  Considering how the WC lied that was understandable.

As to her and the other's importance.  Hosty's note is only Oswald's word.  Yes, a better pic of PM would supercede all and end the debate.  But while we're waiting for an enhancement (assuming the Darnell film still exists) the fourth floor women's testimony establishes the next best thing--where Oswald *wasn't* at the time of the shooting.  If he wasn't on those steps he didn't shoot JFK from the window. 

Establishing where Oswald wasn't is additional evidence that lends credence to his alibi of where he was.

If you believe them, Adams and Garner do not help the 2nd floor fabrication; they kill it. Neither saw or heard Oswald until Garner encountered Truly ascending the steps, who was supposed to have already confronted Oswald on the second floor.

In the other thread you said:  "I don't believe that Garner was  interviewed. If she was, there should be a separate document. I think Stroud is reporting an aside from Garner who may have been present when Adams was reviewing her testimony, or else Stroud is reporting hearsay."


Yes there should be, and probably was, a separate document of Garner's interview.  But it had no chance to survive once they realized what it did  to the stairway fabrication.  Same with Styles interviews, probably corroborating Adams, which Styles said occurred several times.  The cops were relentless in repeating questions hoping to wear down a witness.  


The WC gathered information both in formal interviews and thru conversations (including informal discussions when they would turn off the recorder).  It doesn't really matter how Stroud got the information about what Garner said as long as it was accurate.  Clearly she thought it important enough to include in her letter.  I don't know much about Stroud, but I'm betting she doesn't include it without hearing it herself as in an interview (apparently she did some interviews for The WC) or at least verifying its veracity.

"It was up to the WC to then decide if Garner should be formerly deposed, or at least interviewed formerly by the FBI specifically about the alleged sighting."


Their only decision was how to best dispose of what Garner said.


They were indeed witnesses to nothing.  Oswald never showed up. 

.

Only one view is correct.
The windows are on South side of bldg.




VS



In one view there would need to be a wall or room in the back corner.
The description though of the office lends itself to the other view where the wall is part of Bergens office.
Only other possible wall would be conference room or dorthys area/office but those do not match up to the picture.

First, I don't agree that Adams was a limelight seeker (mentioned in the other thread).

On reflection - yes, that was unfair. She did not chase the limelight. What I really meant to suggest was that she was no shrinking violet with the limelight was offered to her. Her relationship with Ernest looks no different to me than the relationship most of Armstrong's witnesses had with him. And Armstrong's quest to find them in order to validate his theory looks the same as Ernest's quest to find Victoria and get validation (and book sales). Who wouldn't want a pay off after 30 years? Imagine spending 30 years on this quest, and finding the pot only to see that it is empty?

She disappeared, or tried to, soon after the murder only to be astonished when James Leavelle showed up at her door in February to ask more questions, claiming the original records were burned and everyone had to be interviewed again.

And that was the first mention of seeing Shelley and Lovelady... a fact that is presented by the Ernest One as suspicious. Imagine searching for 30 years and having nothing to show for it if the witness failed to validate your theory?

But according to their original statements, they re-ented the building after only a few minutes - no more than 4, I believe? That fits with what Styles told Murphy about how long it took to get down - and with her claim of seeing police.  

As for it being the fiirst mention of it in the leavelle document... no doubt it was. Previous accounts stop at re-entering the TSBD, or focus on other issues such as seeing Oswald anywhere, or any known connectiions between Oswald and Ruby.

 It was only when Ernest tracked her down and showed her what the WC had done to her testimony did she get reinvolved some forty years later.  Considering how the WC lied that was understandable.

How did Ernest know they had done anything to her testimony except transcribe it and then make the chanhes Adamas herself had requested?  What did the EC lie about? They had the statement she gave Leavelle and they had her yestimony. 

The only evidence that they changed or added anything was her say-so.  How would they even know to add or change anything? To know that they had to do that, they would have to first know that she flat out denied seeing Shelley and Lovelady. So how did that come about? In what circumstance did they find out that she denied seeing them and therefore knew they would have to add that to her testimony - but only after she had seen the original transcript without it. And after all of that, they would have to hope that she would never see the altered transcript and nor would anyone ever read the altered transcript and ask her about seeing the two Bills. It is not as if the WC did not know lawyers, authors and investigative reporters were sniffing around... They must have been very confident risk-takers... or had the death squads waiting on standby to start offing people getting too inquisitive about this godalmighty important witness.

As to her and the other's importance.  Hosty's note is only Oswald's word.  Yes, a better pic of PM would supercede all and end the debate.  But while we're waiting for an enhancement (assuming the Darnell film still exists) the fourth floor women's testimony establishes the next best thing--where Oswald *wasn't* at the time of the shooting.  If he wasn't on those steps he didn't shoot JFK from the window. 

Oswald's word is support by various other evidence. For instance, we already know where he wasn't. And in fact, where he was at 12:25 at least. He was in the domino room just as he said. It was the one spot he could have seen Jarman and Norman re-enter.  Unlike with Oswald, I see no other evidence at all supporting Adams. The one person who could have verified the timing disagrees with Adams. 

And I totally disagree about Garner. Stroud was interviewing Adams for one reason and one reason only - Adams must have requested the opportunity to review her testimony in June, despite passing up that opportunity in April. 

Mr. BELIN - Miss ADAMS, you have the opportunity if you would like, to read this deposition and sign it before it goes to Washington, or you can waive the signing of it and just let the court reporter send it directly to us. Do you have any preference?
Miss ADAMS - I think I will let you use your own discretion.
Mr. BELIN - It doesn't make any difference to us. If it doesn't make any difference, we can waive it and you won't have to make another trip down here.
Miss ADAMS - That is all right.

Can't recall who (Ernest???) claimed that the offer to review it at the time was ridiculous because it hadn't been typed up or some such thing.  But the offer was to come back after it was ready for review and before it was sent off to Washington. Can anyone be that dumb to read the above exchange as asking if she wanted to review something befoere that was even possible?

In any event, there is zero evidence that I can find that Stroud was there to conduct interviews with any staff, so by default, it was by request of Adams for to read her deposition. The Garner comment comes across in the letter as merely a report of something said directly by Garner to Stroud as a kind of "by-the-way", or something Stroud was told that Garner had said. In either case, Stroud was simply passing it on for WC consideration.  THis is another thing I don't get, You claim they wanted to bury Garner. I say they should have wanted to embrace her as a sorely-needed witness to Truly and Baker going up.   

But on that issue, they either did not go up at all, or they did but it was later than claimed. There is evidence for both of those notions and a complete lack of witnesses (except for a belated statment by Lovelady) that they did go up - at least immediately as claimed. 

But I also go back to Styles who was a bit flummoxed by Garner being in a position to see anything. It is claimed these days that she folowed the two women and watched them go down. Why would she do that?  And then hung around watching the stairs some more? 

The whole thing reeks of Atrmstrong-style co-opting of witnesses and claiming strength in very weak or "missing" evidence.

This is nothing personal, Roger. I have been an avid reader and "fan" of your posts here and at the Ed Forum. But I do think in this case, you've been hornswaggled. Or alternatively, I am missing something that makes it all make better sense than I can make of it.

Speaking of Earnest he is a Prayer Man critic. Here is an article he wrote bashing Prayer Man.

https://thegirlonthestairs.wordpress.com/2016/02/06/the-loss-of-accountability/

I never thought your disagreement was personal.

Are you familiar with the work of Flip De Mey?  Wrote a couple books and most importantly published a piece on April 24, 2017 entitled "Was a Dorothy Garner Deposition Destroyed? The meaning of the Garner paragraph in the Stroud letter".  On point to our discussion.  Spoiler alert:  his answer is no.  There was no such deposition to begin with.  No Styles deposition either.

The De Mey piece helped me see more clearly the methods used by the criminals who ran the WC "investigation".  In constructing their frame of Oswald, the WC talked to just about everyone, often multiple times, looking only for corroboration of their fabrication. But in most cases they only recorded interviews with those who could advance their case  concoction.  This extended to only reporting *parts* of a person's statement and not others, if it advanced their case, excluding parts that did not.  And doing their best to convey to each person what they wanted to hear. They destroyed a lot of evidence, but this method--not recording or noticing contradiction--simplified their work.

The fourth floor women were an exception because they were obvious strategically placed witnesses to the murder, but also its aftermath, as the WR story had Oswald coming down on those steps near them.  Most importantly, because one of the women--Adams--told a clear story from which she never deviated (and in fact committed to paper the evening of the murder 6 pages of details, mailed them to someone she trusted, only to have it never reached its destination). 

Like the bullet fragment that struck a spectator near the underpass, Adams's story couldn't be ignored.  It must be contradicted and dismissed.

This is a key point.  The only "evidence" the WC used to discredit Adams' testimony was the claim that she said she saw Shelly and Lovelady on the first floor when Styles and she arrived there.  This was a lie. They inserted a made up a question and answer in her testimony:  Did you see anyone when you got to the first floor?  Adams answer: Shelly and Lovelady.

Referring to Adams' discussion with Leavelle in February when he tracked her down and tried to intimidate her, you said:  "And that was the first mention of seeing Shelley and Lovelady... a fact that is presented by the Ernest One as suspicious."  No, more than suspicious, that was the lie, apparently being planted or tried out by Leavelle in his report, that would become the sole basis used to discredit Adams.

Adams never wavered from her story about not seeing S&L.  And unless we want to simply dismiss Ernest, he said Styles corroborated it in no uncertain terms when he talked to her.  The key element--Shelly and Lovelady weren't there when they got to the first floor, she said.  

So even if you find a good reason to adopt Styles' timing rather than Adams' (I don't--50+ years later I see a lot of uncertainty in her, compared to Adams detailed recollection at the time), Styles still refutes the WR lie that they saw S&L when they got the the first floor.

Tho accepting Styles' alleged timing does open a small window for Oswald to escape detection and sneak down those steps.  That's where Garner comes in.

You're tough on Garner.  But lets stop and think for a minute.  

Stroud's role in the "investigation" is unclear to me except as an Asst DA she was helping out.  You were right:  Stroud went to the BD to see Adams, presumably at least partly to go over corrections to her testimony.  Garner, as Adams supervisor, was there.  There were no official interviews of either.  Stroud probably didn't do any of the official interviews.  

The three of them talked about the case.  It was then that Garner told Stroud about seeing Truly and a cop reaching the fourth floor after Adams and Styles went down the steps.

I don't know how plugged into the case Stroud was.  My guess is she must have known enough to understand what Garner's statement does to WC staff's case.  One clue: she saw enough of the atmosphere around the case so that she sent the letter to the WC by registered mail, ensuring it would get there. The WC had strong reasons to try to disappear the letter, which they did.  Also Adams' corrections outlined by Stroud never made it into the WR (a second reason to "misfile" the letter).  Creating a record of the letter by registering it makes it more difficult to simply destroy it.

As an aside, in her interview Adams never agreed to waive her right to review her testimony.  Just another David Bellin lie that was inserted.  Given her careful recounting and her staunch defense of what she said, why would she agree to waive her right to review what the WC produced as her testimony?

So why did Stroud include the second paragraph about Garner which had nothing to do with the apparent purpose of the meeting?  How much did she understand about what Garner's statement would do to the WC fairy tale?  What role did Stroud play in the "investigation" after she did that?

You said Styles was "flummoxed" about Garner's saying she was in position to see what happened on the steps after Adams and Styles went down them.  She had already left.  How did she know what Garner did?  Garner has offered an explanation of what she did after the women left.  It's in De Mey's piece.

You should read the De Mey piece if you haven't already.
I don't endorse everything he says but there is a lot of info there.  I'd be interested in any comments you have.  It's on De Mey's website, flipdemey.com, under "news"

I never thought your disagreement was personal.

Are you familiar with the work of Flip De Mey?  Wrote a couple books and most importantly published a piece on April 24, 2017 entitled "Was a Dorothy Garner Deposition Destroyed? The meaning of the Garner paragraph in the Stroud letter".  On point to our discussion.  Spoiler alert:  his answer is no.  There was no such deposition to begin with.  No Styles deposition either.

Familiar only with enough of his work to mark it as the usual pabulum and tropes. 

Flip states  "She worked with Barefoot Sanders in assisting the Warren Commission in the investigation of the JFK assassination and the murder of Oswald." which I assume is your source for making much the same claim? I get the impression though that Flip based that comment solely on the assistance rendered with taking and sending Adams' amendments to her testimony. 

The Texas AG announced he was going to conduct his own investigation prior to the formation of the WC. He was talked out of it, but still maintained a file on the case. It was this that she most likely worked on, with the Adams thing just a one-off. 

Nor would I read too much into the fact that the changes were sent back via registered mail. That would be standard in legal matters, at that level especially. 

The De Mey piece helped me see more clearly the methods used by the criminals who ran the WC "investigation".  In constructing their frame of Oswald, the WC talked to just about everyone, often multiple times, looking only for corroboration of their fabrication. But in most cases they only recorded interviews with those who could advance their case  concoction.  This extended to only reporting *parts* of a person's statement and not others, if it advanced their case, excluding parts that did not.  And doing their best to convey to each person what they wanted to hear. They destroyed a lot of evidence, but this method--not recording or noticing contradiction--simplified their work.

The MO is no revelation. President's Commissions are a political tool hidden by powdered wigs to project impartial "truth-seeking" and "fact-finding". 


The MO itself really is impartial in that it does not take into account if you are guilty or innocent. The real intent is always a predetermined outcome, and whatever it takes to arrive at that without being too obvious about it. To that extent, they applied the MO less than perfectly in some instances. But that should be expected in such a large and unweildy case. 

This was not a matter of covering up or comtinuing to frame Oswald for nefarious purposes. It was a matter of political survival and national healing being merged in the public subconscious as inseparable.  Shades of grey... although one could argue here, the shade was pretty dark.

The fourth floor women were an exception because they were obvious strategically placed witnesses to the murder, but also its aftermath, as the WR story had Oswald coming down on those steps near them.  Most importantly, because one of the women--Adams--told a clear story from which she never deviated (and in fact committed to paper the evening of the murder 6 pages of details, mailed them to someone she trusted, only to have it never reached its destination). 

Yeah, nah... not buying the 6 pages written on the evening of the assassination and sent interstate to a church figure who never received it. That's 6 pages on going downstairs and not seeing anyone. She must have written in letters usually only managed by 5 year olds.

Is it the claim of Adams and the Ernest One that she gave a statement to police earlier that day? If not, when do they claim she was first interviewed by police? 

So many issues with this... where to start?

If the claim is that she had already given a statement, why is  she making another one privately?

Why would she do ths anyway? The timeline was not yet worked out, there were no "mysterious" deaths as yet, the lone nut was under lock and key. In short, she was in no danger, yet is already acting in a paranoid manner, or in a manner that somehow forcasts her importance to a timeline not yet in existence. Or she just had a massive ego?

If someone is concerned enough to make this personal statement - in this case, despite lack of any threat or precipating event, not because of -  then the usual thing to do would be to go to a lawyer and make a statutory declaration to be produced when and if needed. 

Referring to Adams' discussion with Leavelle in February when he tracked her down and tried to intimidate her, you said:  "And that was the first mention of seeing Shelley and Lovelady... a fact that is presented by the Ernest One as suspicious."  No, more than suspicious, that was the lie, apparently being planted or tried out by Leavelle in his report, that would become the sole basis used to discredit Adams.

But the only evidence of it being a lie is Adams' say-so decades later to an author who spent 30 years looking for her and needed juicy stuff to fill his book. Thirty years is a long time without a pay-off at the end.

You are rightly suspicious about the WC, but we need to also be sceptical about some authors (and others).  I have had my motives for writing a book called into question. I understand the reason for it. 

But I would not stop at Ernest in my scepticism. Let's also throw in Stroud. She, like Ruth Paine's divorce lawyer, had been employed previously under Henry Wade. Wade and the DPD would have wanted to make sure that the second floor lunchroom scenario was accepted. What it lacked was any witnesses apart from the two allegedly involved. Enter Reid who perjured herself claiming Oswald was buying a coke after the assassination. Enter Shelley and Lovelady, one of whom at least gave belated statements about seeing the pair run in - and now let's also throw in Stroud seeing them come up the stairs. She was someone the WC should have embraced to bolster the 2nd floor fairy tale. Any timing issues could been worked around or ignored. I assume the WC knew or suspected the 2nd floor story was bullshit. 

But getting back to Adams - we are talking about a woman who, prior to any alleged harassment, wrote a six page memo which was allegedly lost/stolen, then claimed harassment, stalking etc etc. If she was so worried on the first day about her words being altered or misrepresented that she allegedly wrote the memo, then that level of paranoia/concern would lead most to access the public records and check. But she didn't do that. It took the Ernest One to trot up on his white spotted ass and fill her in. 

Or maybe she did check her deposition? Maybe it had nothing in it that she didn't say (except for those minor changes that she requested)? What are the alternatives? That the commission correctly second-guessed that she would check her deposition and so held off adding the stuff about Shelley and Lovelady until after that?

And on that deposition - she waived the right to check it prior to it being sent to Washington - she did not waive the right to check it at all.

Sorry, but to me, the whole story stinks as just another witness telling an author what he wants to hear (juicy stuff about stolen letters and police harassment and agreeing with WC chicanery), and being just plain wrong in her original timing assessment. The fact that she was self-confident and never wavered from that, is grounds for pause, not applause, given what he know about time perception in crisis situations. The fact that Styles was less self-assured, and couched her longer time estimate in suitable qualifications, should not be grounds to dismiss her, but grounds to look at her as an honest witness. 

And she is right. Logically, you would not charge straight down. You would talk it out a bit, try other windows for better views etc. first. 

The fact that she recalled police already in the building when they got down, does support her time estimate. 

I see Barry has the support of Brian Doyle, the El Duce of Domiciliary Care, the Idiot's Iconoclast, and the Present and Future Face of Farce. I think Barry could do worse than take Brian on as his intern. Brian could use a break.

Be a nice fellow, Barry, Give the boy a job. Maybe stable-hand for your for your white spotted ass? He has the only qualification necessary for that position: a pony-tail.

Peter Sanders or Barefoot Lorre?



Barefoot on the left, his twin Peter on the right.

It was LBJ counsel Sanders who overturned a promise by WC to provide AG staff with all transcripts of testimony, according to a story published by Penn Jones.

Jones also provides details about Nancy Powell's claims that her testimony was faked in regard to questions on Ruby. It further states that Stroud arranged for Powell to meet with a WC staffer to put her case. Up to that point, owell, like Adams before her, had only found minor errors.

Anyhow, had Adams been adamant that major changes were made to her testimony,it looks like Stroud would have helped her confront the WC about it.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/White%20Magazines%20And%20Articles/Midlothian%20Mirror/72-01-27.pdf

Did the event of Leavelle showing up at her new address really happen or was it an implanted memory sort of like Kudlatty suddenly remembering the FBI confiscating records after Jack White spoke to him?

Yep she made up the fire that destroyed her statement down at DPD.

More like Leavelle burnt it up in a trash can fire...
Who sent Jim to get a new one. Or did he decide it was necessary all own his own?

greg_parker wrote:Peter Sanders or Barefoot Lorre?



Barefoot on the left, his twin Peter on the right.

It was LBJ counsel Sanders who overturned a promise by WC to provide AG staff with all transcripts of testimony, according to a story published by Penn Jones.

Jones also provides details about Nancy Powell's claims that her testimony was faked in regard to questions on Ruby. It further states that Stroud arranged for Powell to meet with a WC staffer to put her case. Up to that point, owell, like Adams before her, had only found minor errors.

Anyhow, had Adams been adamant that major changes were made to her testimony,it looks like Stroud would have helped her confront the WC about it.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/White%20Materials/White%20Magazines%20And%20Articles/Midlothian%20Mirror/72-01-27.pdf

I should have known better than to trust anything from Penn Jones. He was talking through his arse yet again.

Mr. JENNER. Miss Oliver will write this up and if you wish to read it, you have that liberty and that right to do so, and if you would prefer to do that, we will make your transcript available to you to read.
Mrs. LESLIE. Yes; you will mail it to me?
Mr. JENNER. If you call in here to Mr. Barefoot Sanders, the U.S. attorney's office, he will have it.
Mrs. LESLIE. I have to write his name.
Mr. JENNER. And he will know when your transcript is ready.
Mrs. LESLIE. He will call me on the telephone?
Mr. JENNER. You had better call him because there are so many witnesses. Call him sometime next week and then you may come in and read it and sign it.
Mrs. LESLIE. Yes; I will be glad to because everything I told, I told it under oath and it is completely true and I didn't try to hide anything.
Mr. DAVIS. That's the name and the phone number.
Mr. DAVIS. That's the name and the phone number.
Mrs. LESLIE. Sir, I will call him and ask him--what I have to ask--is my deposition ready?
Mr. JENNER. If the write-up of your deposition is ready for you to read?
Mrs. LESLIE. To read--all right; thank you.
Mr. JENNER. You give him your name and he will tell you.
Mr. DAVIS. Let me give you another name to call since Mr. Sanders may be hard to get. You might call Martha Joe Stroud, who is an assistant attorney here and she is actually in charge of those, and she might be the one you could reach and she would be at this same number.
Mrs. LESLIE. All right; I will do it.

So despite the claim by Jones, Sanders was keeping his end of the bargain and put Stroud in charge of having witnesses review and sign off on testimony. 

And while it was not true that Stroud was helping with the investigation as claimed by Flip, she was helping in this simple but significant manner.

If anything was added, it was added AFTER this process between Stroud and Adams - and I just don't see that as likely. Put another way, the evidence suggests (to me at least) that she did indeed say she saw Shelley and Lovelady - and such a sighting fits with the pair of Bills original stories about going back in after 3 or 4 minutes - which in turn fits with Styles estimate.

Let me start at the heart of the matter.  The stories of Adams, Styles, and Garner are important because they lend credence to Oswald's alibi.  At one or two points you seem to question that.

The central question is, did Adams, in her official testimony, say she saw S+L upon reaching the first floor, as that testimony now reads, or was it a lie inserted by the WC to discredit her?  You say: "the only evidence of it being a lie is Adams' say-so decades later to an author who spent 30 years looking for her and needed juicy stuff to fill his book".   I think there is a compelling train of fact and logic that shows it was a lie the WC inserted.

When did Adams and Styles leave the 4th floor to go down the steps after the shots rang out?  Adams says quickly, maybe 15-30 seconds later.  Garner corroborates her. Styles isn't so sure.  She thinks it may have taken longer than that to get started.  You prefer Styles as a witness, and think 2-4 minutes is a better estimate, because her uncertainty translates into more honesty to you.  

I don't agree with that logic.  Perhaps Adams' deeper involvement in the case led her to be more careful in her guess than Styles, whom the WC avoided and did not do a recorded interview with.  If Styles had told them what you think she is saying now about the timing don't you think the WC would have used *that* to discredit Adams rather than claiming Adams saw S+L?  The fact that they didn't use Styles at all is pretty strong evidence that she didn't give them the estimate you now believe her to be saying.

And Garner's corroboration of Adams can't be ignored.   

You add a second argument in support of Styles' estimate:  "And she [Styles] is right. Logically, you would not charge straight down. You would talk it out a bit, try other windows for better views etc. first."


Whoa!.  We're talking about a 22 year old kid here.  Who at several times said she ran down the steps and outside.  De Mey believes he can prove she did not return to the building for about 8 minutes trying to understand what happened .  Having the president's brains blown out in front of her traumatized her for the rest of her life.  I don't know how much she saw at that moment, point is it was enough for her to want to find out more.  Styles said it was Adams who wanted to go see what happened and she followed.  Probably Garner, the 35 year old stayed behind rather than taking off quickly running with the other two.


So what do you imagine Adams and the women wanted to stay a while to talk about rather than go see what happened ?


The claim that she wrote a 6 page letter describing what had happened does not depend on her doing it in reaction to her contact already with the police, or any harassment or threats she had already received. I don't think anyone knows when they first started talking to her;  they didn't record these things.  No, it was simply an attempt to gather her thoughts and make sense out of what she had just seen.  Another reason to take her seriously as a witness. 


Who did Adams and Styles see when they reached the first floor in probably a minute or less (if you give any credence to Adams and Garner)?  Let's start with your favorite witness, Styles.  When asked by Ernest whether she saw S+L at that time, she didn't just say no, I didn't see them.  She was more emphatic (I hope that doesn't mean less honest).  She said they weren't there.  When told Adams' testimony said she saw them, Ernest quotes her as saying: "I can't imagine why she would say that, if she did.  They definitely weren't there".  


You can't prefer to believe Styles, not Adams and Garner, about the departure timing, then ignore her emphatic statement as to who was on the first floor when she and Adams arrived.  Unless you want to turn Ernest into a complete ogre who lied to sell books.


Moreover, even if you insist taking Styles estimate instead of Adams and Garner, you will have a hard time showing B+S were already back inside the building in time to be seen by them (e.g., see Bart's post yesterday about Lovelady).


One more fact.  It happens that claiming Adams and Styles saw S+L when they got to the first floor allowed the WC to discredit Adams and provide a window for Oswald to perform in their fabrication.  It was the *only* thing they used against Adams.  These were the same people who took Senate Majority Leader Richard Russell's dissent he wrote about the magic bullet and threw it away.  Not that anyone should need any convincing of the moral depravity of these criminals (least of all you).


I'm convinced Adams never said she saw S+L. Having her say she did stands out like a sore thumb in her published testimony. It's utterly at odds with everything else she said.  Without further delving I don't have an answer to your questions as to why Adams didn't see it and challenge before Ernest showed up.  But given all she went thru and her attempt to get away from it all, I'm neither surprised nor see it as some kind of proof that she in fact did say she saw S+L.  Btw, Adams also indicated she never agreed to waive her right review her testimony before they sent it to Washington.  That probably was just another lie.


As to Stroud, you minimize her role.  I don't know what it was.  But for me the intriguing question is what did she know when she added the paragraph about what Garner told her to the letter she sent to the Commission.  I'm guessing she had some sense of the consternation it would cause.  Clearly that was reason it was "misfiled".


Yes, maybe registering the letter was standard procedure at that time.  Point is, Stroud knew it increased its chances to become part of the record. 


"This was not a matter of covering up or continuing to frame Oswald for nefarious purposes. It was a matter of political survival and national healing being merged in the public subconscious as inseparable.  Shades of grey... although one could argue here, the shade was pretty dark."


Political survival, or rather, more than mere survival, the growth in power of the national security state that we see still today *was* the nefarious purpose of the murder and coverup.  National healing was the excuse they used to get the media to get on board.

Let me start at the heart of the matter.  The stories of Adams, Styles, and Garner are important because they lend credence to Oswald's alibi.  At one or two points you seem to question that.

The central question is, did Adams, in her official testimony, say she saw S+L upon reaching the first floor, as that testimony now reads, or was it a lie inserted by the WC to discredit her?  You say: "the only evidence of it being a lie is Adams' say-so decades later to an author who spent 30 years looking for her and needed juicy stuff to fill his book".   I think there is a compelling train of fact and logic that shows it was a lie the WC inserted.

Roger, the complelling train of fact is really a train wreck. You just haven't seen the carnage yet. 

When did Adams and Styles leave the 4th floor to go down the steps after the shots rang out?  Adams says quickly, maybe 15-30 seconds later.  Garner corroborates her. Styles isn't so sure.  She thinks it may have taken longer than that to get started.  You prefer Styles as a witness, and think 2-4 minutes is a better estimate, because her uncertainty translates into more honesty to you.  

What were the circumstances of Garner's confirmation? To the Ernest One? Armstrong did that, too. Had "confirming witnesses" for Stripling. 

But Oswald still never went there. Flim-flam is flim-flam.  

She certainly never confirmmed anything of the sort in official documentation. Closest she gets is saying after they went down, she saw Truly and an officer come up. That is not confirmation of timing, except to say that one thing followed the other.

Let's compare to another witness that day: Brennan. Do you believe his lack of ability to ID Oswald at the line-up, or his later absolute certainty that it was Oswald? Point being, "certainty" of witnesses is not a reliable guide to finding facts in and of itself. His original lack of certainty was far more credible.

When did Adams and Styles leave the 4th floor to go down the steps after the shots rang out?  Adams says quickly, maybe 15-30 seconds later.  Garner corroborates her. Styles isn't so sure.  She thinks it may have taken longer than that to get started.  You prefer Styles as a witness, and think 2-4 minutes is a better estimate, because her uncertainty translates into more honesty to you.  

Garner does not corroborate in any official document that I can find. Styles confimed only that she left with Styles. In the FBI report contained in CE 1381, she says they left after seeing the reaction to what they originally though was fire crackers. That reaction included people running and others lying down on the ground. Hpw long after the shots was it that people starting running and flinging themselves to the ground? I don't think it was an immediate reaction because initially, very few thougfht it was gunfire. Then you have to factor in at very least a brief discussion on what they just saw (because of the very fact that didn't see much because of a tree). Then the decision to go check it out. We have film of people on the ground, so it should be easy to timestamp when that was.  Ernest is dead set grasping at straws  by claiming that Styles telling the FBI that "Victoria Adams and I left the office at this times..." Somehow corroborates Adams timing. The at "this" time was a reference to seeing the aftermath of the shots. Even if the reaction was quicker than what I think it was, this is still a vague statement to pin down timing on. 

I don't agree with that logic.  Perhaps Adams' deeper involvement in the case led her to be more careful in her guess than Styles, whom the WC avoided and did not do a recorded interview with.  If Styles had told them what you think she is saying now about the timing don't you think the WC would have used *that* to discredit Adams rather than claiming Adams saw S+L?  The fact that they didn't use Styles at all is pretty strong evidence that she didn't give them the estimate you now believe her to be saying.

And Garner's corroboration of Adams can't be ignored.   

How did Adams have a deeper involement in the case???? They both witnessed the same things at the same time. 

Styles told Sean that she told FBI and whoever else at the time, that she agreed with Victoria and that she had nothing that would help them. She said she did that because of Adams' certainty and self-confidence and the fact that she herself was easily led. She just accepted Adams' word. In that event, there was no point in the WC deposing her. She was happy to stay out of the limelight and let Adams have it.

And again, I'm sincerely unsure about what you are calling "Garner's corroboration". If you have already explained it to me, I apologize. 

You add a second argument in support of Styles' estimate:  "And she [Styles] is right. Logically, you would not charge straight down. You would talk it out a bit, try other windows for better views etc. first."

Whoa!.  We're talking about a 22 year old kid here.  Who at several times said she ran down the steps and outside.  De Mey believes he can prove she did not return to the building for about 8 minutes trying to understand what happened .  Having the president's brains blown out in front of her traumatized her for the rest of her life.  I don't know how much she saw at that moment, point is it was enough for her to want to find out more.  Styles said it was Adams who wanted to go see what happened and she followed.  Probably Garner, the 35 year old stayed behind rather than taking off quickly running with the other two.

No trauma from personally seeing the president's brain blown out because she didn't see it. Styles says a tree was in the way. And if they did see it, there would have been no need to ponder what had happened, let alone go down to investigate.  In fact, if they had seen it, then the very responsible 35 year old Garner should have intervened and ordered the two not to go down because of the potential danger.

De Mey believes he can prove... has proved... will prove... ???? 

So what do you imagine Adams and the women wanted to stay a while to talk about rather than go see what happened ?

If they had been identical twins I could possibly buy that they communicated without words. You make it sound like they immediately knew something bad had happened without actually having seen it, and simultaeously sprinted for the stairs leaving the old 35 year old in their wake.  None of this namby-pamby questioning each other about what might have happened, or the wisdom of going down to check, or advising their boss that they were going to do it. Nope. They just shot each other a quick telling glance and sprinted. 

The claim that she wrote a 6 page letter describing what had happened does not depend on her doing it in reaction to her contact already with the police, or any harassment or threats she had already received. I don't think anyone knows when they first started talking to her;  they didn't record these things.  No, it was simply an attempt to gather her thoughts and make sense out of what she had just seen.  Another reason to take her seriously as a witness. 

But we do know. They talked to everyone as they cleared the building. The purpose was to identify the main witnesses in order to prioritize them for statements.  Both would have told them they watched from the 4th floor but could not see much because of a tree. Both probably also explained that they left to investigate, but had nothing of value to report from that either.  What they did or didn't see on the 1st floor was far from being of any importance at this early stage.

I don't believe they were contacted for a police statement after that, which was the same with most of the book company employees.  The Februrary talk with Leavelle would be the first. It is possible, but unknowable, if she had other contact with police between that initial one to clear her to leave work, but prior to the Feb 64 talk to Leavelle.

The 6 page statement makes no logical sense at any level (to me) for the reasons previously given. A simple attempt to gather her thoughts would be a simple diary entry... not a 6 page statement about the simple act of going down some stairs that she felt compelled to send to a trusted friend, That part sounds like she had a reason for it consistent with fear. It is bullshit Roger. It never happened. 

You can't prefer to believe Styles, not Adams and Garner, about the departure timing, then ignore her emphatic statement as to who was on the first floor when she and Adams arrived.  Unless you want to turn Ernest into a complete ogre who lied to sell books.

I don't want to turn him into anything. He achieved that all on his own.

The fact that he claims she was "emphatic" is evidence that he is a bushit artist. She was never emphatic about anything. Hell, she was not even emphatic about the time of the assassination, placing it to the FBI as sometime between 12:15 and 12:30.  She strikes me as person who always practiced an abundance of caution with any statement. 

She told Sean that she saw police down there. He never asked about Shelley or Lovelady - which is unfortunate because I would have believed it from him. He simply posted her replies, unaltered as he received them. In any case, seeing the police inside puts paid to any notion that the run down was "immediate".  I find their contact far more believable than that between Adams amd Ernest. Her stories of 6 page notes being stiolen in the mail and harassment and hiding yada yada yada is the stuff that appeals to those who buy conspiracy books.  The only one of those three that is credible based on what we know about the DPD is the harassment charge. The letter I am not buying. The hiding I am not buying because it was a terrible attempt if that's what it was. Without those in play, the harassment doesn't hold up either, though the DPD was certainly capable of it.  I just don't see cause in this case. 

Moreover, even if you insist taking Styles estimate instead of Adams and Garner, you will have a hard time showing B+S were already back inside the building in time to be seen by them (e.g., see Bart's post yesterday about Lovelady).

There own initial statements place them back in there in that time. I saw what Bart posted. It shows Lovelady having a cigarette outside. That is not proof he was not inside prior to that. 

One more fact.  It happens that claiming Adams and Styles saw S+L when they got to the first floor allowed the WC to discredit Adams and provide a window for Oswald to perform in their fabrication.  It was the *only* thing they used against Adams.  These were the same people who took Senate Majority Leader Richard Russell's dissent he wrote about the magic bullet and threw it away.  Not that anyone should need any convincing of the moral depravity of these criminals (least of all you).

It is what it is. Hanging onto  something for the wrong reasons is no better than what the WC did. 

But in any case, the pair are not needed to prove Oswald's alibi. 

I'm convinced Adams never said she saw S+L. Having her say she did stands out like a sore thumb in her published testimony. It's utterly at odds with everything else she said.  Without further delving I don't have an answer to your questions as to why Adams didn't see it and challenge before Ernest showed up.  But given all she went thru and her attempt to get away from it all, I'm neither surprised nor see it as some kind of proof that she in fact did say she saw S+L.  Btw, Adams also indicated she never agreed to waive her right review her testimony before they sent it to Washington.  That probably was just another lie.

Would this be your timeline...?

12: 30 11/22 Assassination happens. Adams and Styles immediate go downstairs

2:00 cleared to leave as a non-important witness.

11/222 evening. Writes a 6 page memo and sends it to a friend interstate. It is never received (indicating that even at this early stage PRIOR to any timeline being constructed, they somehow knew to intercept this letter. In fact, they seemed to know what was in it - thus targeting it knowing it was not just a "how's the wather letter" type letter)

11/23 to Feb '64: police harassment of Adams (but not of Styles who told authorites she agreed with whatever Adams said) causes Adams to try and hide. This attempt is simply moving in with a friend and having the lease in the friends name. Possibly the worst attempt at hiding from police in history)

Feb 64, Det Leavelle who must have been tracking her every move in order to find her clever hideout, interviews her in a threatening manner and inserts the lie that she saw Lovelady and Shelley on the first floor.

April 64: She appears before the WC and they also insert the lie about her seeing Shelley and Lovelady - and the following was also a lie they inserted

Mr. BELIN - Miss ADAMS, you have the opportunity if you would like, to read this deposition and sign it before it goes to Washington, or you can waive the signing of it and just let the court reporter send it directly to us. Do you have any preference?
Miss ADAMS - I think I will let you use your own discretion.
Mr. BELIN - It doesn't make any difference to us. If it doesn't make any difference, we can waive it and you won't have to make another trip down here.
Miss ADAMS - That is all right.

June 1964: Styles meets with Stroud to review her deposition. She either misses that they have inserted the sighting of Lovelady and Shelley or the WC have not yet inserted it. She also misses the above or they have not yet inserted it.

Three decades later: She is found by Barry Ernest, who can now write his book - contingent upon her having a bookworthy story to tell. Luckily she does and all of the lies and harassment can now be exposed.

As to Stroud, you minimize her role.  I don't know what it was.  But for me the intriguing question is what did she know when she added the paragraph about what Garner told her to the letter she sent to the Commission.  I'm guessing she had some sense of the consternation it would cause.  Clearly that was reason it was "misfiled".

I have not minimized her role. I quoted what was said about her role in the testimony of Ms Leslie. It was de Mey who exaggerated her role.

She was passing on anything that she thought was helpful in the course of helping witnesses review testimony. and locating and notifying witnesses that the WC wanted to talk to. She was also dealing with reporters snooping around for leads. But the terms of her work for the commission were strictly administrative functions, not investigatory functions.

Here she is, mentioned in testimony again:

Mr. LIEBELER. You say this morning Schmidt told you he had been over here last night and he had been questioned?
Mr. LEHRER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you the details of his experience last night?
Mr. LEHRER. A little bit.
Mr. LIEBELER. He told you that Mr. Ryder had been in here?
Mr. LEHRER. Yes; that Ryder was here.
Mr. LIEBELER. But in point of fact and indicating for the record, the way the information came most recently to my attention. that you had overheard this, because Mrs. Martha Jo Stroud, an assistant U.S. attorney in this office, told me that you had come over here after we had asked Schmidt to come over and testify.
Mr. LEHRER. Right.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you mentioned to her in passing that you thought probably we wanted Schmidt to come over so we could ask him about this newspaper story that was written in connection with the Irving Sports Shop; isn't that right?
Mr. LEHRER. Well, specifically, when Martha Jo called Hunter and told him that somebody from the Warren Commission wanted to talk to him on a certain day, Hunter came over to me and said, "Somebody from Washington is coming in," and you know, I didn't know that anybody was coming in. You know, you are unannounced on your trips here and this is part of my responsibility to cover Warren Commission people when they come and I try to do it, and I said--we discussed, "Maybe they want to talk to you about this deal, because the FBI had talked to you before," and so the next day when I was down talking to Martha Jo, we were talking about it and I indicated to her this was probably what it was. I told her what it was probably about and I said there was no problem--I was just sitting there and just sitting there very casually.

So again.. Stroud was passing on hearsay picked up in the course of her adninsitrative duties. This time to the effect that Lehrer thought Schmidt was being called in to testify regarding the (biullshit) Dial Ryder story.

She was not interviewing witnesses, or taking statements from them. The claim that she was, is Conspiricay pabulam from a craftsman of same.  

Yes, maybe registering the letter was standard procedure at that time.  Point is, Stroud knew it increased its chances to become part of the record. 

I'm sure she did, though that would hardly be the reason for following a standard process, that I think was probably handled at a much lower level than her, anyway. Having worked in the public service. people at Stroud's level don' t do their own mailing. It is looked after by bottom-feeders in the pecking order.

"This was not a matter of covering up or continuing to frame Oswald for nefarious purposes. It was a matter of political survival and national healing being merged in the public subconscious as inseparable.  Shades of grey... although one could argue here, the shade was pretty dark."

Political survival, or rather, more than mere survival, the growth in power of the national security state that we see still today *was* the nefarious purpose of the murder and coverup.  National healing was the excuse they used to get the media to get on board.

I should have been clearer. The WC operated on the beliefs I outlined above. I do not posit that they were involved in the murder or knew the real reason for covering up. 

What I have bolded, I more or less agree with. In fact, you said something fairly recently at the EF which expands upon that theme. I have in mind to go and find it to quote in my next volume (or in the update of the existing volumes). It really nailed it, imo.

But in building that case we do not need to go down the path of believing every story, every article, every book simply because it supports us. Bullshit is bullshit whether it comes from the government or private citizens. 

During the course of this, I have wavered a couple of times, only to realize the cause of my wavering were just more layers of bullshit.  That stuff from Penn Jones as one example.

The original exchange as posted in 2011.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/3Dsk9bpdySI

"Bullshit is bullshit whether it comes from the government or private citizens." - Greg R. Parker

StanDane wrote:"Bullshit is bullshit whether it comes from the government or private citizens." - Greg R. Parker

Ain't that the truth!