Does Judyth have a talkative friend?
John McAdams
First, check out:
http://www.salonmag.com/people/col/reit/1999/05/05/jesse/
This is Amy Reiter's column at salon.com:
<Quote on>
Judyth, is that you?
No sooner had a I run my third installment in the continuing saga of
Judyth, the book-writing gal who claims to have been alleged JFK
assassin Lee Harvey Oswald's secret love-connection, than Salon People
received a missive in a similar breathless, addle-brained style to the
one I was first sent by Judyth.
The sender, however, asserts she is not Judyth, but rather a colleague
who is not allowed to talk to the press (coincidentally, Judyth's
agent, Peter Cox, has forbidden her to speak with me) and who is using
Judyth's e-mail rather than her own "so she can't know it was me ...
she would shoot me if she knew I was doing this" (watch those casual
remarks). According to the brave e-mailer, Judyth is "for real ... I
have seen her evidence. Even check stubs ... Must say I was
impressed." (By the way, the correspondent so intent on concealing
his/her identity that he/she hijacked Judyth's computer to send me an
e-mail, signed the message with an alleged first name.)
And I clearly touched a nerve with my casual dismissal of Oswald's
puny purported token of affection -- apparently one of Judyth's
central pieces of evidence. Writes the writer who is not Judyth, "I
saw the green glass (not that plain)."
If this correspondence keeps up, I may collect all these e-mails and
put together a book of my own. What do you think, Mr. Cox?
salon
<Quote off>
Then we have the following post to alt.conspiracy.jfk:
<Quote on>
Subject: Re: Why did it say "Catholic"?
Date: 07/01/1999
Author: electlady <elec...@my-Deja.com>
<< previous · next >>
--
On Wed, 12 May 1999 23:00:44 american wrote:
>In article <7hb4uk$cdh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, elec...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>> Note that on the request for VISA while in Mexico City, Oswald put
>> "Catholic" instead of "Lutheran" as his religion. Why do you think
>> he did this?
>>
>>
>> --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
>> ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
>
>Because he was raised Roman Catholic?
>===Sorry I'm so busy. No,Lee was raised Lutheran, and at this time in his
life, he didn;t believe in God, but on the application he put
"Catholic" because toput "atheist" would have looked
commie-suspicious. Because he knew both me and david ferrie, and
because his cousins were catholic, Lee began using "Catholic" rather
than "Lutheran" or "none." Simple as that. Thanks for your
response.Judyth
<Quote off>
OK, so we have a post from "electlady," who claims to be Judyth.
Notice that it claims that Oswald knew David Ferrie.
OK, then we have *another* post from "electlady" that's a bit
different:
<Quote on>
Subject: Re: Vogler caught in a fraud.
Date: 05/23/1999
Author: electlady <elec...@my-dejanews.com>
<< previous · next >>
--Greg, couldn't this possibly be a hole drilled to hold the sign
originally? I know that many siognposts were used for more than one
sign at some time period, having lived in Texas seventeen years. He
may very well believe it is a bullet hole, but how many metal posts
(is this metal?) will allow a bullet to sink into it rather than
deflect? They're steel. I don;t think it's possible to puncture them
like this. What do you think? Inmstead of calling each other ugly
names, why not see this from each other's viewpoint? The hole was
likely drilled for an earlier sign. That would mean Ken isn;t a fraud.
You folks scorn people too quickly., For example, I know the person
who claims she was Lee's girlfriend. That's why I decided to jojn this
group. Unbelievable that you can get so personal with
asomebody's--what seems to me--honest mistake. Unless there IS a
bullet that could have been fired that day that could do this to a
steel post. I never fired antyhing that could do that. Elect Lady
<Quote off>
So now "electlady" claims to "know" the person who claims to be Lee's
girlfriend.
And then another post in the same vein:
<Quote on>
Subject: Re: DD 1173... The Secret ID of Intelligence Agents
Date: 05/23/1999
Author: electlady <elec...@my-dejanews.com>
<< previous · next >>
--What if Hidell was a name that was used by several persons comunally
as a general ID in certain operations? I know somebody who said she
got this information from LHO. Elect Lady
<Quote off>
And yet another post:
<Quote on>
Subject: Re: New Articles
Date: 05/12/1999
Author: electlady <elec...@my-dejanews.com>
<< previous · next >>
In article <rick-24049...@dial85.aisl.bc.ca>,
ri...@aisl.bc.ca (Richard Vizzutti) wrote:
> In article <372144F4...@concentric.net>, Martin Shackelford
> <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >George Bush honored as CIA building is named after him:
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com:80/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-04/23/130l-042399-idx.html
> >
> >Woman claims she was Lee Oswald's New Orleans girlfriend:
>
>http://www.salonmagazine.com:80/people/col/reit/1999/04/22/oswald/index.html
> >
>
> Where's Elvis? -Rick-
>
> >===================================================
Just a word to "RICK": what an open mind you have! Just ripe and ready
to receive and apprehend new information, new leads, new clues! You're
the reason she stayed in hiding. I know the woman personally. You do
not. Didn't even bother to put a few bothersome facts together, such
as why Oswald and Marina were living apart in Dallas, or why Oswald
didn't want his wife to know where he was working (if it's true that
this woman worked at the same company he did, that makes sense. I met
the woman in Houston: we were friends for fifteen years. She left us
behind when she left the Mormon church. She wasn't a Mormon until the
1970's. I've seen her evidence. Even she couldn't keep this a total
secret so many years, but she sure tried.I haven't seen her,
personally, in twelve years. S.O.
====================================================================
<Quote off>
So what do you think, Martin? Does Judyth have a talkative friend who
somehow gained access to her computer?
Do has she been pretending to be "Judyth's friend" in newsgroup posts?
And if she will tell Amy Reiter a tall tale, why do you doubt that she
would tell a bunch of researchers tall tales?
.John
P.S. Thanks to an e-mail correspondent who pointed this stuff out to
me.
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>
> Martin, here is a question for you:
>
> First, check out:
>
> http://www.salonmag.com/people/col/reit/1999/05/05/jesse/
>
> This is Amy Reiter's column at salon.com:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Judyth, is that you?
>
> No sooner had a I run my third installment in the continuing saga of
> Judyth, the book-writing gal who claims to have been alleged JFK
> assassin Lee Harvey Oswald's secret love-connection, than Salon People
> received a missive in a similar breathless, addle-brained style to the
> one I was first sent by Judyth.
>
Yep, this is the witness we are supposed to believe.
.John
mshack
I've already told you the Salon columns were an unreliable source
of information.
Now you are headlining that someone is "addle-brained" whom you
haven't even met.
Way to go, slugger.
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those
who have not got it." ---George Bernard Shaw
John McAdams
>
> John,
>
> I've already told you the Salon columns were an unreliable source
> of information.
Yes, you have "told me" that.
And your apparent source of their being unreliable is Judyth.
Which is also your source of David Lifton misrepresenting what she told
him.
> Now you are headlining that someone is "addle-brained" whom you
> haven't even met.
> Way to go, slugger.
>
Martin, you're just not getting this. You seem to believe that we all
have to take your assertions about Judyth as true. We don't.
If you want to claim the salon.com columns of Amy Reiter are unreliable,
you're going to have to post some *evidence* that they are.
But you just flat refuse to post any evidence, claiming confidentiality.
I have no reason in the world to doubt Amy Reiter when she described
Judyth's e-mail as "addle-brained." Do you want to give me one by
posting some actual *facts* that would refute Reiter?
But you'll have to go further and show that Reiter mangled the story
somehow, instead of accurately reporting what was fed to her.
.John
--
mshack
Since you don't know much about this, you're very big on "apparent
source," "sounds to me," "might be" and other filler suppositions. Why
not just wait for the information, and then comment, instead of all this
idle, fruitless and pointless speculation.
As for Salon, recall they said Judyth was in Norway--she wasn't.
This is one of the many distortions in the columns--and I am not just
relying on Judyth for that. You assume many things that aren't the case
in this matter. and seem to assume you're entitled to pre-publication
information? There is no basis for that assumption, John.
I'm not expecting you to take any assertion as true. I'm
suggesting that, before taking Salon or David or myself seriously, you
wait and examine the evidence. You're the one acting like the kid who
just can't wait for Christmas morning.
Meanwhile, I'll keep my word, and you can wait until I can discuss
these things more freely. Taking advantage of the situation when I can't
hardly seems like fair play--but it's your newsgroup and your rules, so
maybe fairness isn't one of the requirements.
John McAdams
It certainly appears that Judyth was both e-mailing people (Amy Reiter,
for example) and posting messages on the newsgroups claiming to be a
"friend" of Judyth's who had somehow gained access to her computer.
If she'll "put people on" about something like this, doesn't that
suggest she will "put people on" about a lot else?
--
John McAdams
>
> John,
>
> Since you don't know much about this, you're very big on "apparent
> source," "sounds to me," "might be" and other filler suppositions. Why
> not just wait for the information, and then comment, instead of all this
> idle, fruitless and pointless speculation.
Martin, why didn't *you* wait to reveal the existence of your "mystery
witness" until her entire story could be revealed?
You were actually *citing* her assertions on the newsgroup!
> As for Salon, recall they said Judyth was in Norway--she wasn't.
Then who was putting out false information about her?
> This is one of the many distortions in the columns--and I am not just
> relying on Judyth for that.
Then who *told* Amy Reiter she was in Norway?
I know you don't like that question, because it implies that somebody
has been putting out misinformation on Judyth. Would that be Judyth
herself?
Would it be her publicist?
> You assume many things that aren't the case
> in this matter. and seem to assume you're entitled to pre-publication
> information? There is no basis for that assumption, John.
You assume you are entitled to conceal information. That looks *real*
bad, Martin.
You seem intent not only to conceal the details of her story, but also
the names of "investigators" who have seen her story, and even whether
she will be at Lancer!
> I'm not expecting you to take any assertion as true.
Yes you are!
I'm not going to accept that the salon.com columns were inaccurate
*until* you tell me why I should accept that. You expect me to dismiss
Amy Reiter's description of Judyth's e-mail as "addle-brained" but won't
cite any reason why I should do so.
> I'm
> suggesting that, before taking Salon or David or myself seriously, you
> wait and examine the evidence. You're the one acting like the kid who
> just can't wait for Christmas morning.
Martin, you are acting like a scared government agency concealing
evidence.
You are asking me to dismiss the assessments of people I know something
about, and trust to tell the truth. To dismiss Amy Reiter, David
Lifton, and Paul Hoch. And you expect me to do it on the basis of your
bland assurances that Judyth is reliable.
Martin, between people who are trying to get the facts out, and people
who are engaged in concealing facts, who do you think has more
credibility?
> Meanwhile, I'll keep my word, and you can wait until I can discuss
> these things more freely. Taking advantage of the situation when I can't
> hardly seems like fair play--but it's your newsgroup and your rules, so
> maybe fairness isn't one of the requirements.
>
Martin, fairness is to point out that information being concealed, and
to encourage skepticism about witnesses like Judyth.
.John
--