Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Hey bpete! You need to talk to Backes. He's been saying that the Warren Commission has Lovelady seeing Vicky Adams after they got back from the tracks, and that it was used to discredit her. And Barry Ernest- the curator of the Vicky Adams Memorial- also says that Shelley and Lovelady were used for that purpose, to delay Vicky's descent down the stairs until Oswald was long gone.  

I'm not going to review their testimony except to say that plenty of people, including Barry Ernest and Joseph Backes, take it as their claiming to see Vicky Adams after the assassination, when they returned from the tracks. 

But, if you're saying they didn't say it, that it's not what they meant, then it means that the Warren Commission did NOT use them to discredit Vicky, which means that they had no reason to make anything up. But just know that you are arguing with a lot of people, and I mean a whole heck of a lot of people because it is a very common perspective.

I saw and heard Barry Ernest talking about it at the 2013 Lancer Conference in Dallas, and he was very well received. Nobody in the audience disputed it, including Jim Eugenio who was there. So, as I say, you're arguing with a lot of people. 

Are you listening, Backes? bpete says that neither Shelley nor Lovelady claimed to see Vicky Adams. 

  
You see that, Backes? bpete says that their testimonies say the opposite, that they did NOT encounter Vicky Adams. Therefore, there is no way the Warren Commission used Shelley and Lovelady to discredit Vicky Adams, and therefore, there was no reason for them to invent their "trek to the tracks."

Hey, if bpete is right, it's no problem for me. I have no vested interest in them being used by the Warren Commission to discredit Vicky Adams. I've been saying all along that the WC never would have made up all that testimony. And now bpete is telling us that they had no reason to because S&L never said anything about seeing Vicky. 

Actually, I find it a little strange because I don't really read it quite like that. But, I admit that it's ambiguous; it's fuzzy. And if he wants to say that they never stated or intimated any such thing, it's fine by me. 

So bpete: you're telling the wrong person here. INFORM JOSEPH BACKES. Tell him that as you read it, S&L were not claiming that, and therefore, they were not used for that purpose. And therefore, it would have been insane for the WC to make up all that other stuff. Halleluyah!