I took care of Judyth Vary Baker in the Netherlands
Jaap Holtzapffel
is not very good, sorry for that...
Judyth Vary Baker lived in the Netherlands between April 2003 and
October 2004. I helped her with some money to buy food for herself and
her lovely dog Susy.
Her apartment in Haarlem was awful (thank you, Mr. Wim Dankbaar, for
that!), so I found a better one for her. But Judyth Vary Baker left
the country without paying me back the money I borrowed her for that
better apartment.
Mr. Martin Shackelford says I'm greedy, but I'm not: the only thing I
want, is my money back.
Judyth Vary Baker was in love with me and wanted to marry me. Why? She
said I reminded her of Lee Harvey Oswald. Well, I'm glad I said to
Judyth: "No, I can't marry you, I'm sorry but you are a little too old
for me." Because in 2008 I know who she really is. She is a thief of
more than 14,000 dollars: MY MONEY.
Is Judyth Vary Baker the last lover of Lee Harvey Oswald? Yes, I
believe her. But I don't give a damn anymore. I am very disappointed
in her. So I will haunt her around this world till she will pay me
back.
Jaap Holtzapffel
Greg Jaynes
See..? This is why it's so hard to quit reading these groups.
Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes
cdddraftsman
$14,000 ? Hmmmm.......? Consider youself lucky . She's done millions in
damage to the love triangle rag magazine industry .
tl
curtjester1
Why don't you do what normal people do and file a lawsuit?
CJ
Barb Junkkarinen
Hey, you...nice to know you are out there, cookie!
Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
Dave Reitzes
I can hook you up with Jack Ruby's secret, illegitimate daughter, but
I'll need $14,000 up front.
U.S. dollars, please.
Dave
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Would a seventh illegitimate son of a seventh illegitimate son need to
do that?
CJ
Vincent
http://goudengids.nl/
"Jaap Holtzapffel" <j.holt...@hetnet.nl> a écrit dans le message de
news: 58928a37-6d8a-496f...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
gives us a framework from which to evaluate the rest of his nonsense. I was
in regular communication with Judyth throughout this time period, and there
was never a sign of affection toward Jaap, much less a desire to marry him.
Someone loaned Judyth some money for her living expenses, but made the
mistake of sending it via Jaap--instead of giving her the money, as he was
supposed to do, he proceeded to do her shopping (buying what he wanted,
not what she wanted), and charging her a fee every time he paid for
anything.
Since then, he's been adding "interest" to the original total.
The money he wants returned wasn't his money in the first place. It's not
just
his English that isn't good--it's his honesty. The plans he describes
constitute
stalking. Trafford evaluated his claims, and found them to be without merit.
Martin
"Jaap Holtzapffel" <j.holt...@hetnet.nl> wrote in message
news:58928a37-6d8a-496f...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:622bdda2-8532-44e3...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Michael O'Dell
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qzTXj.440$Q57...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
> The fantasy that Judyth was in love with this loony and wanted to marry
> him
> gives us a framework from which to evaluate the rest of his nonsense.
No dispute, but that kind of analysis should apply to Judyth too, right?
>I was
> in regular communication with Judyth throughout this time period, and
> there
> was never a sign of affection toward Jaap, much less a desire to marry
> him.
>
This where someone chimes in and says "Judyth says so" and you get pissed
off. But it is Judyth's say so. You weren't there. You know what Judyth
told you. It's ultimately a he said/she said story unless there is another
witness who was there.
paul seaton
"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qzTXj.440$Q57...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
> him
> gives us a framework from which to evaluate the rest of his nonsense. I
> was
> in regular communication with Judyth throughout this time period, and
> there
> was never a sign of affection toward Jaap, much less a desire to marry
> him.
>
> Someone loaned Judyth some money for her living expenses, but made the
> mistake of sending it via Jaap--instead of giving her the money, as he was
> supposed to do, he proceeded to do her shopping (buying what he wanted,
> not what she wanted), and charging her a fee every time he paid for
> anything.
> Since then, he's been adding "interest" to the original total.
>
> The money he wants returned wasn't his money in the first place. It's not
> just
> his English that isn't good--it's his honesty. The plans he describes
> constitute
> stalking. Trafford evaluated his claims, and found them to be without
> merit.
Once again, everything Judy touches turns to pure melodrama ! ( Great stuff,
wouldn't miss it for the world. )
Martin , did the 'someone' ( you lace your explanations with 'someones' )
who actually loaned the money ( through Jaap ) get THEIR money back ?
Or is that a different lawsuit ? ;-)
paul s
Jaap Holtzapffel
> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:qzTXj.440$Q57...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > The fantasy thatJudythwas in love with this loony and wanted to marry
> > him
> > gives us a framework from which to evaluate the rest of his nonsense.
>
>
> >I was
> > in regular communication withJudyththroughout this time period, and
> > there
> > was never a sign of affection toward Jaap, much less a desire to marry
> > him.
>
> off. But it isJudyth'ssay so. You weren't there. You know whatJudyth
> told you. It's ultimately a he said/she said story unless there is another
> witness who was there.
>
>
>
> > mistake of sending it via Jaap--instead of giving her the money, as he was
> > supposed to do, he proceeded to do her shopping (buying what he wanted,
> > not what she wanted), and charging her a fee every time he paid for
> > anything.
> > Since then, he's been adding "interest" to the original total.
>
> > The money he wants returned wasn't his money in the first place. It's not
> > just
> > his English that isn't good--it's his honesty. The plans he describes
> > constitute
> > stalking. Trafford evaluated his claims, and found them to be without
> > merit.
>
> > Martin
>
> >news:58928a37-6d8a-496f...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> My name is Jaap Holtzapffel, age 46, academic background. My English
> >> is not very good, sorry for that...
> >> October 2004. I helped her with some money to buy food for herself and
> >> her lovely dog Susy.
> >> Her apartment in Haarlem was awful (thank you, Mr. Wim Dankbaar, for
> >> that!), so I found a better one for her. ButJudythVaryBakerleft
> >> the country without paying me back the money I borrowed her for that
> >> better apartment.
> >> Mr. Martin Shackelford says I'm greedy, but I'm not: the only thing I
> >> want, is my money back.
> >> said I reminded her of Lee Harvey Oswald. Well, I'm glad I said to
> >>Judyth: "No, I can't marry you, I'm sorry but you are a little too old
> >> for me." Because in 2008 I know who she really is. She is a thief of
> >> more than 14,000 dollars: MY MONEY.
> >> believe her. But I don't give a damn anymore. I am very disappointed
> >> in her. So I will haunt her around this world till she will pay me
> >> back.
>
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
For years I only read the JFK-newsgroups, but from now on I will share
my knowledge of Judyth Vary Baker with all of you. And I know a lot...
I worked with Judyth Vary Baker for one and a half year when she
stayed in Haarlem: I helped her to finish her book on Lee Harvey
Oswald. Because I am a professional journalist, I interviewed her
countless times to find out if she was telling the truth. Well, I
agree with Mr. Wim Dankbaar, Mr. Howard Platzman, Mr. Martin
Shackelford and others: Judyth was indeed the last lover of Lee Harvey
Oswald, and yes, she is part of history. I admire her courage.
I visited Dallas in 2003, I stayed in Linda Bauer's house (= Judyth's
sister), I met her eldest son Josiah in Haarlem (nice guy!), I met Mr.
Nigel Turner in Haarlem when he came to show 'The Love Affair' before
it was on the History Channel, etcetera. I also received some emails
from Judyth's eldest daughter Susan Wooldridge. For example, on
February 6, 2005, Susan wrote: "I sincerely wish that my mother would
live up to her agreement with you. It is unethical to do anything
otherwise. My mother has her own way of thinking that is different
from mine, and she will not listen to me. Because she and I are so
different in these matters, I don't do business with her nor commit to
sharing any kind of financial commitment with her." I wish Susan, a
respected American business woman, had told me earlier...
Of course I have Dutch law on my side. Between October 2004 and May
2006 Judyth Vary Baker refused to pay me back the money I borrowed her
to move to a better Haarlem apartment. So on August 16, 2006 the court
of justice decided that Judyth has to pay back euro 8,647.63. If she
doesn't pay back before 2026, I estimate euro 8,647.63 will be euro
50,000.00 plus all kinds of extra costs. After 2026: she has won, the
sentence will no longer be valid. But with internet, I give my self a
good chance to find her within the 18 years to come. (I can wait,
because I run a successful publishing company of sponsored magazines
in the Netherlands.)
Next time, I will tell about the First Lee Harvey Oswald Memorial
Evening Judyth and I held in Rotterdam on November 24, 2003. And I
will tell about the email Judyth Vary Baker received from Rachel
Oswald, Lee's youngest daughter. It was very emotional...
Jaap Holtzapffel
Peter Fokes
<j.holt...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
There was a 1990 interview with Rachel Oswald on You Tube for awhile,
but I see it has been removed:
Here is the original url as posted on alt.conspiracy.jfk.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZbbuApMi4nY
PF
>
>Jaap Holtzapffel
>
curtjester1
> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> >news:58928a37-6d8a-496f...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> My name is Jaap Holtzapffel, age 46, academic background. My English
> >> is not very good, sorry for that...
> >> Judyth Vary Baker lived in the Netherlands between April 2003 and
> >> October 2004. I helped her with some money to buy food for herself and
> >> her lovely dog Susy.
> >> Her apartment in Haarlem was awful (thank you, Mr. Wim Dankbaar, for
> >> that!), so I found a better one for her. But Judyth Vary Baker left
> >> the country without paying me back the money I borrowed her for that
> >> better apartment.
> >> Mr. Martin Shackelford says I'm greedy, but I'm not: the only thing I
> >> want, is my money back.
> >> Judyth Vary Baker was in love with me and wanted to marry me. Why? She
> >> said I reminded her of Lee Harvey Oswald. Well, I'm glad I said to
> >> Judyth: "No, I can't marry you, I'm sorry but you are a little too old
> >> for me." Because in 2008 I know who she really is. She is a thief of
> >> more than 14,000 dollars: MY MONEY.
> >> Is Judyth Vary Baker the last lover of Lee Harvey Oswald? Yes, I
> >> believe her. But I don't give a damn anymore. I am very disappointed
> >> in her. So I will haunt her around this world till she will pay me
> >> back.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well love and money are two different issues. Jaap, your now on the
hot seat now.
CJ
paul seaton
"Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4830...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:qzTXj.440$Q57...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> The fantasy that Judyth was in love with this loony and wanted to marry
>> him
>> gives us a framework from which to evaluate the rest of his nonsense.
>
> No dispute, but that kind of analysis should apply to Judyth too, right?
>
>>I was
>> in regular communication with Judyth throughout this time period, and
>> there
>> was never a sign of affection toward Jaap, much less a desire to marry
>> him.
>>
>
> This where someone chimes in and says "Judyth says so" and you get pissed
> off. But it is Judyth's say so. You weren't there. You know what Judyth
> told you. It's ultimately a he said/she said story unless there is
> another witness who was there.
Michael : This looks like a good case to take to 'Judge Judy'. (Unfortunate
name, but ... ) It might make pretty good tv, imho. - well... better than
'Friends' anyway....
paul s
JLeyd...@aol.com
Sorry to hear that, Jaap. Oswald, by comparsion, got off easy. She
claims she only got $400 out of him. Still others took an even bigger
hit. Judyth robbed them of their reputations.
JGL
Martin Shackelford
has taken no legal action.
A revealing fact is that the amount Jaap wanted "repaid" to him INCLUDED
the amounts that HE KEPT AS FEES.
Martin
"paul seaton" <paulNOse...@paulseaton.com> wrote in message
news:4830...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
Martin Shackelford
thinking clearly here. I was receiving multiple daily e-mails from
Judyth during the period in question, and her attitudes toward Jaap
were quite clear. I didn't need to ask her about it later, as you imply.
Also, I was in e-mail contact with another Dutch friend of hers, Wim
Dankbaar, who later released a DVD of related interviews, and his
e-mails confirm many details relating to Jaap and to the criminals.
I have also seen Jaap's "documents," and am able to compare them to
what was actually happening at the time he says they were signed.
Finally, I was also in e-mail contact with JAAP during that period,
and he makes many claims now than were unvoiced then.
Martin
"Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4830...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
JLeyd...@aol.com
> On May 17, 1:51 pm, Jaap Holtzapffel <j.holtzapf...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
>
> Sorry to hear that, Jaap. Oswald, by comparsion, got off easy. She
> claims she only got $400 out of him. Still others took an even bigger
> hit. Judyth robbed them of their reputations.
>
> JGL
Oh, here's another one. She "borrowed" a couple of thousand from
Howard Platzman early on. Don't know if he ever got it back. Maybe
Howard will bring us up to date since he's posting here again.
JGL
>
>
>
> > My name is Jaap Holtzapffel, age 46, academic background. My English
> > is not very good, sorry for that...
> > Judyth Vary Baker lived in the Netherlands between April 2003 and
> > October 2004. I helped her with some money to buy food for herself and
> > her lovely dog Susy.
> > Her apartment in Haarlem was awful (thank you, Mr. Wim Dankbaar, for
> > that!), so I found a better one for her. But Judyth Vary Baker left
> > the country without paying me back the money I borrowed her for that
> > better apartment.
> > Mr. Martin Shackelford says I'm greedy, but I'm not: the only thing I
> > want, is my money back.
> > Judyth Vary Baker was in love with me and wanted to marry me. Why? She
> > said I reminded her of Lee Harvey Oswald. Well, I'm glad I said to
> > Judyth: "No, I can't marry you, I'm sorry but you are a little too old
> > for me." Because in 2008 I know who she really is. She is a thief of
> > more than 14,000 dollars: MY MONEY.
> > Is Judyth Vary Baker the last lover of Lee Harvey Oswald? Yes, I
> > believe her. But I don't give a damn anymore. I am very disappointed
> > in her. So I will haunt her around this world till she will pay me
> > back.
>
Martin Shackelford
after she left Holland. Jaap had nothing to do with helping to finish her
book. He wanted to write HIS OWN book about her and profit from it.
It is hilarious that her critics here would like to use Jaap as a credible
source, despite the fact he says he carefully investigated her account
and found it accurate. The old double standard continues full throttle.
Jaap fails to mention that Susan's comments on the agreement between
Jaap and Judyth are BASED ON WHAT JAAP TOLD HER ABOUT
THE AGREEMENT.
He told Trafford, too, that he "had Dutch law" on his side. They told
him to put up or shut up, and heard nothing more from him.
Martin
"Jaap Holtzapffel" <j.holt...@hetnet.nl> wrote in message
news:528c6935-1d9b-4ccb...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
You and McAdams and Reitzes have made quite an effort though.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:de341472-caa5-41c2...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>The fantasy that Judyth was in love with this loony and wanted to marry him
>gives us a framework from which to evaluate the rest of his nonsense.
Apply this new found standard of yours to Judyth.
>I was
>in regular communication with Judyth throughout this time period, and there
>was never a sign of affection toward Jaap, much less a desire to marry him.
>
>Someone loaned Judyth some money for her living expenses, but made the
>mistake of sending it via Jaap--instead of giving her the money, as he was
>supposed to do, he proceeded to do her shopping (buying what he wanted,
>not what she wanted), and charging her a fee every time he paid for
>anything.
>Since then, he's been adding "interest" to the original total.
>
>The money he wants returned wasn't his money in the first place. It's not
>just
>his English that isn't good--it's his honesty. The plans he describes
>constitute
>stalking. Trafford evaluated his claims, and found them to be without merit.
Oh..so Trafford contacted the Netherlands court and discovered the
documents are phony?
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>More garbage--she didn't finish her book until the summer of 2005, long
>after she left Holland. Jaap had nothing to do with helping to finish her
>book. He wanted to write HIS OWN book about her and profit from it.
>
>It is hilarious that her critics here would like to use Jaap as a credible
>source, despite the fact he says he carefully investigated her account
>and found it accurate. The old double standard continues full throttle.
>
>Jaap fails to mention that Susan's comments on the agreement between
>Jaap and Judyth are BASED ON WHAT JAAP TOLD HER ABOUT
>THE AGREEMENT.
>
>He told Trafford, too, that he "had Dutch law" on his side. They told
>him to put up or shut up, and heard nothing more from him.
Sooo...did they investigate his court judgment claim or not?
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I know you love your glib "Judyth says so" comments, but you aren't
>thinking clearly here. I was receiving multiple daily e-mails from
>Judyth during the period in question, and her attitudes toward Jaap
>were quite clear. I didn't need to ask her about it later, as you imply.
>Also, I was in e-mail contact with another Dutch friend of hers, Wim
>Dankbaar, who later released a DVD of related interviews, and his
>e-mails confirm many details relating to Jaap and to the criminals.
>I have also seen Jaap's "documents," and am able to compare them to
>what was actually happening at the time he says they were signed.
>Finally, I was also in e-mail contact with JAAP during that period,
>and he makes many claims now than were unvoiced then.
Does it go over your head that Judyth continues to voice new claims?
She made a new one in her latest statement that you posted just a few
days ago!
Steve Thomas
wrote:
> Judyth didn't rob anyone of their reputation, Leyden.
> You and McAdams and Reitzes have made quite an effort though.
>
> Martin
You just dont get it Shack and thats whats so tragic. The people
who's reputations she robbed dont even realize it.
>
> <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote in message
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>The person who actually provided the money (not even sure it was a loan)
>has taken no legal action.
That rather implies that the answer to the queston is .."no." You
were so in touch and informed all during this period according to a
post a little further up the chain ... how is it you don't know
whether or not it even was a loan?
>A revealing fact is that the amount Jaap wanted "repaid" to him INCLUDED
>the amounts that HE KEPT AS FEES.
How do you know he kept "fees"?? :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<j.holt...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
Hi Jaap,
These court documents you say you have ... can you scan them in and
mail them as a jpg or a pdf?
Barb :-)
bar...@comcast.net
>
Martin Shackelford
claim. Jaap mentioned an initial ruling, but not the final one.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tic434tqicqihsep5...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
and was ultimately unenforceable. Thus, Mr. Vissers, who loaned the
money, never went to court.
8000 euros were placed in Jaap's account. Only 5000 were used to pay
Judyth's expenses--Jaap retained the remaining 3000 as "fees," and used
them to pay his own attorney.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lpc434p841l7mi6ju...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
written by Jaap himself, and a bill IN DUTCH.
He sent those because his attorney was no longer willing to represent
him, and because he knew that providing a copy of the bill in English
wouldn't help him. Also, because the court's final ruling was AGAINST
him, so providing a copy of that would be no help.
He then sent English-language copies of the two Dutch contracts, with
copies of the signatures from the Dutch versions, concealing the fact
that the originals had been Dutch and their contents had been
misrepresented. I have copies of both.
The first contract indicates that Judyth had the right to cancel it by
giving notice. When she tried to do so, Jaap told her it was a violation
of Dutch law, which turned out to be untrue. In any case, she gave him
notice, and the contract was invalidated. It applied only to his Dutch
book (never published), and any book she published in the U.S.--her
book was published in Canada. It also only applied if Jaap served as
her agent in negotiations, which never happened. Jaap also tried to
claim substantial amounts of money from her life insurance policy in
the event of her death, including a provision which would have forced
her son to pay Jaap's transportation to her funeral, if she died in the U.S.
The contract was invalid on a number of grounds.
The second contract he tried to enforce specifically related to the Dutch
book he never finished, and which was canceled by the publisher. Several
provisions were never carried out, invalidating this contract as well, yet
Jaap tried to claim that it applied to the book published by Trafford.
There is no validity to any of Jaap's claims.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:70d434dt1f72v21ie...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Their lawyers found that the Dutch courts had already dismissed the
>claim. Jaap mentioned an initial ruling, but not the final one.
>
>Martin
Great. Is there correspondence from Trafford that says this?
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> Judyth didn't rob anyone of their reputation, Leyden.
> You and McAdams and Reitzes have made quite an effort though.
>
> Martin
Yes, and I think we've done a pretty good job of pointing out that anyone
who took Judyth Baker seriously really can't be taken seriously himself.
JGL
jfk...@gmail.com
Pounding repetitively is hardly 'pointing out'.
Jaap Holtzapffel
> On May 20, 7:28 pm, JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 3:26 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > You and McAdams and Reitzes have made quite an effort though.
>
> > > Martin
>
> > Yes, and I think we've done a pretty good job of pointing out that anyone
>
> > JGL
>
> Pounding repetitively is hardly 'pointing out'.
When you go to www.nnseek.com/e/alt.assassination.jfk you can read "My
first agreement with Judyth Vary Baker". (Date: May 20, 2008 11.54.)
Thursday I will write about "Judyth's Trafford-book and two email-
threats from Mr. Martin Shackelford".
Within a short period of time I will show everyone interested all my
relevant documents on my website "The Lee Harvey Oswald Foundation".
This website is under construction. Then everyone can see Judyth Vary
Baker's signatures, as to prove that our agreements are not phoney.
People who want to see the email threats Mr. Martin Shackelford (in
relation to the Trafford-case) sent me in 2006, you can write me on
j.holt...@hetnet.nl. If you leave your own email address, I'll
sent the Shackelford intimidating emails immediately.
Jaap Holtzapffel
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:51g6349027nes70v2...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
one.
On 22 May 2008 04:04:54 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Jaap Holtzapffel" <j.holt...@hetnet.nl> wrote in message
news:23b33638-6914-4e4f...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Michael O'Dell
>I know you love your glib "Judyth says so" comments, but you aren't
> thinking clearly here. I was receiving multiple daily e-mails from
> Judyth during the period in question, and her attitudes toward Jaap
> were quite clear. I didn't need to ask her about it later, as you imply.
Martin, you are confused. I haven't had the habit of making "Judyth says
so" comments. Plenty of other people have been willing to volunteer those
when they were called for.
And it's not me that's not thinking clearly. I didn't imply anything about
asking her later. You've made that up in your mind.
I said you only knew what Judyth told you, unless there was another witness.
> Also, I was in e-mail contact with another Dutch friend of hers, Wim
> Dankbaar, who later released a DVD of related interviews, and his
> e-mails confirm many details relating to Jaap and to the criminals.
> I have also seen Jaap's "documents," and am able to compare them to
> what was actually happening at the time he says they were signed.
> Finally, I was also in e-mail contact with JAAP during that period,
> and he makes many claims now than were unvoiced then.
>
Of course those are your judgements, and you may be right. But it is clear
that none of us can rely on your judgement about things as long as you
exclude entire possibilities that Judyth is wrong.
Probably the most intereting part of all this Dutch intrigue is that
regardless whether Jaap is correct, there seems to be a picture of Judyth
trying to collect money from various people. Why would she do that? Why
would she expect people to give her money?
Michael
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9e4b34p586382dh0d...@4ax.com...
Martin Shackelford
tells me, but that is hardly the case, and examples have been posted here on
a good number of occasions.
Jaap OFFERED to help her, then got the money from someone else, kept
some of it for himself, and worked a con to get her to repay it TWICE.
Martin
"Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:483572c2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Barb Junkkarinen
my business. Interesting approach, Martin ... it's not working for
you.
Ridiculous.
On 23 May 2008 14:28:47 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
Martin Shackelford
other business matters), Livingstone has no interest in handing over the
messages for the entertainment of this silly newsgroup.
I mentioned them because you asked what my source was.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jsve345nq9brjtpud...@4ax.com...
Michael O'Dell
>I know you would like to maintain the myth that I believe everything Judyth
> tells me,
No Martin, despite your desire to insult anyone that questions anything, the
only thing I would like to maintain is a respect for how we can know things.
I'm sorry if you find that threatening.
But your comment has nothing to do with what I said. What I made was a
factual statement. If you think it was wrong, then point out how it was
wrong. Drop all the snippy comments that substitute for actually saying
something.
Once again, what I said was, you only knew what Judyth told you, unless
jfk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Even if I thought it was appropriate, which I don't (the messages include
> other business matters), Livingstone has no interest in handing over the
> messages for the entertainment of this silly newsgroup.
> I mentioned them because you asked what my source was.
But Martin, doesn't Barb consider everything having any connection to
Judyth that might yield a tidbit of gossip her property?
>
> Martin
>
> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:jsve345nq9brjtpud...@4ax.com...
>
> > You make a claim...then say it was business correspondence and none of
> > my business. Interesting approach, Martin ... it's not working for
> > you.
>
> > Ridiculous.
>
> > On 23 May 2008 14:28:47 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> > <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>Included in business correspondence--again, none of your business.
>
> >>Martin
>
> >>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:9e4b34p586382dh0d...@4ax.com...
> >>> Great, get it from Harry and post it, and that can be the end of this
> >>> one.
>
> >>> On 22 May 2008 04:04:54 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> >>> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>Trafford corresponded with Livingstone on the subject, yes.
>
> >>>>Martin
>
> >>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>news:51g6349027nes70v2...@4ax.com...
> >>>>> On 20 May 2008 14:58:03 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> >>>>> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>Their lawyers found that the Dutch courts had already dismissed the
> >>>>>>claim. Jaap mentioned an initial ruling, but not the final one.
>
> >>>>>>Martin
>
> >>>>> Great. Is there correspondence from Trafford that says this?
>
> >>>>>>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:tic434tqicqihsep5...@4ax.com...
> >>>>>>> On 19 May 2008 15:17:44 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
> >>>>>>> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>More garbage--she didn't finish her book until the summer of 2005,
> >>>>>>>>long
> >>>>>>>>after she left Holland. Jaap had nothing to do with helping to
> >>>>>>>>finish
> >>>>>>>>her
> >>>>>>>>book. He wanted to write HIS OWN book about her and profit from it.
>
> >>>>>>>>It is hilarious that her critics here would like to use Jaap as a
> >>>>>>>>credible
> >>>>>>>>source, despite the fact he says he carefully investigated her
> >>>>>>>>account
> >>>>>>>>and found it accurate. The old double standard continues full
> >>>>>>>>throttle.
>
> >>>>>>>>Jaap fails to mention that Susan's comments on the agreement between
> >>>>>>>>Jaap and Judyth are BASED ON WHAT JAAP TOLD HER ABOUT
> >>>>>>>>THE AGREEMENT.
>
> >>>>>>>>He told Trafford, too, that he "had Dutch law" on his side. They
> >>>>>>>>told
> >>>>>>>>him to put up or shut up, and heard nothing more from him.
>
> >>>>>>> Sooo...did they investigate his court judgment claim or not?
>
> >>>>>>>>Martin
>
Anthony Marsh
> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:qzTXj.440$Q57...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> The fantasy that Judyth was in love with this loony and wanted to marry
>> gives us a framework from which to evaluate the rest of his nonsense.
>
>
>> I was
>> in regular communication with Judyth throughout this time period, and
>> was never a sign of affection toward Jaap, much less a desire to marry
>> him.
>>
>
> off. But it is Judyth's say so. You weren't there. You know what Judyth
And you guys have Barb says so instead of facts.
> told you. It's ultimately a he said/she said story unless there is another
> witness who was there.
>
>> Someone loaned Judyth some money for her living expenses, but made the
>> mistake of sending it via Jaap--instead of giving her the money, as he was
>> supposed to do, he proceeded to do her shopping (buying what he wanted,
>> not what she wanted), and charging her a fee every time he paid for
>> anything.
>> Since then, he's been adding "interest" to the original total.
>>
>> The money he wants returned wasn't his money in the first place. It's not
>> just
>> his English that isn't good--it's his honesty. The plans he describes
>> constitute
>> stalking. Trafford evaluated his claims, and found them to be without
>> merit.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> "Jaap Holtzapffel" <j.holt...@hetnet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:58928a37-6d8a-496f...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> My name is Jaap Holtzapffel, age 46, academic background. My English
>>> is not very good, sorry for that...
>>> Judyth Vary Baker lived in the Netherlands between April 2003 and
>>> October 2004. I helped her with some money to buy food for herself and
>>> her lovely dog Susy.
>>> Her apartment in Haarlem was awful (thank you, Mr. Wim Dankbaar, for
>>> that!), so I found a better one for her. But Judyth Vary Baker left
>>> the country without paying me back the money I borrowed her for that
>>> better apartment.
>>> Mr. Martin Shackelford says I'm greedy, but I'm not: the only thing I
>>> want, is my money back.
>>> Judyth Vary Baker was in love with me and wanted to marry me. Why? She
>>> said I reminded her of Lee Harvey Oswald. Well, I'm glad I said to
>>> Judyth: "No, I can't marry you, I'm sorry but you are a little too old
>>> for me." Because in 2008 I know who she really is. She is a thief of
>>> more than 14,000 dollars: MY MONEY.
>>> Is Judyth Vary Baker the last lover of Lee Harvey Oswald? Yes, I
Michael O'Dell
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:qJCdncxC-bNbjDjV...@comcast.com...
> Michael O'Dell wrote:
>> "Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:qzTXj.440$Q57...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> The fantasy that Judyth was in love with this loony and wanted to marry
>>> him
>>> gives us a framework from which to evaluate the rest of his nonsense.
>>
>> No dispute, but that kind of analysis should apply to Judyth too, right?
>>
>>> I was
>>> in regular communication with Judyth throughout this time period, and
>>> there
>>> was never a sign of affection toward Jaap, much less a desire to marry
>>> him.
>>>
>>
>> This where someone chimes in and says "Judyth says so" and you get pissed
>> off. But it is Judyth's say so. You weren't there. You know what
>> Judyth
>
> And you guys have Barb says so instead of facts.
>
About what? Be specific. I'm replying on a specific point here to
Martin. If you have a point to make about some issue, make it. Resist the
temptation to leave one of your vaccuous accusations.
Michael
Anthony Marsh
About everything.
American Cancer Society. Roswell Park.
> Michael
Michael O'Dell
That's what I thought. You are misrepresenting things again, as usual.
Barb has posted correspondence from both of those institutions, and
relayed what they had to say.
You just have automatic accusations to throw out, not bothering to
determine if they are really true. You can't see past your own
prejudices.