"Several researchers had read an initial draft" of her book? Name one,
Chad. I recall an uncorrected piece of a chapter being slipped to
McAdams, but that hardly fits your description. None of her attackers
ever read "an initial draft" of her book. Not one.
As for "several researchers" having read "many of her e-mails," a few of
her attackers selectively slipped a handful out-of-context e-mails to
McAdams--but even fewer than one would suppose, as many of the "Judyth
e-mails" turn out to be e-mails from OTHER people paraphrasing what they
claim to have heard from her--not even quotes. Perhaps this is what you
mean by "claims from various sources." To claim the paraphrases and
out-of-context material as using "Judyth's own words" isn't even
TECHNICALLY correct as to the paraphrases.
You want to know what some of the distortions are on Retizes' web page? OK:
1) The title is a distortion:"Judyth Vary Baker: The Story So Far
(According to Judyth Vary Baker, Martin Shackelford, and Howard
Platzman, Ph.D.)" The article doesn't represent an accurate picture of
what Judyth, Howard or I have said at all.
2) It refers to the outline which Howard worked on as an ongoing
project, and implies that it is the manuscript of her book--but Howard
did not co-author her book. They worked at one time on a draft together,
but no one here has ever quoted from it, so it's a good bet they've
never read it. Judyth made comments on each draft, but didn't
"co-author" any of them.
3) Reitzes cites Howard as describing me as Judyth's "lead researcher."
I attempted to looked up Howard's cited e-mail of September 22, 2002 in
the Google archive, but Google found NO postings by Howard for that
month to alt.assassination.jfk This may be an error, but it makes it
difficult to check the context--and Reitzes doesn't quote the e-mail,
but offers his own paraphrase of it. I have never been Judyth's "lead
researcher" in any sense connected with the writing of her book.
4) He cites as "one of her contradictions" that she said she worked on a
CIA anti-Castro project, and then said she wasn't a CIA employee.
Apparently people not CIA employees never work on CIA-related projects,
in Dave's mind.
5) He cites an another contradiction that she said she spoke some
Russian when she was "introduced" to Lee Harvey Oswald, and that she met
Oswald through a series of events connected with Dr. Sherman. Anyone who
has read the book knows there is no contradiction here. There is a long
string of false alleged "contradictions." He manages to find FOUR
"contradictory versions" on this subject, by taking things out of context.
6) Another "contradiction" is that Oswald worked by the CIA, but wasn't
a CIA employee--same problem as in number 4--he worked for another
agency and was used by the CIA.
7) Another "contradiction" is the statement that she and Oswald seem to
appear in the same film frame, and that she and Oswald "don't appear in
a photograph together.) No photograph of "Oswald and Judyth together"
exists, but a film frame does seem to show Judyth in the area when
Oswald did his second leafletting--no one has ever claimed that the
frame shows "Judyth standing next to Oswald," as Dave claims. If it
wasn't Judyth, it was someone of similar build and hair wearing a dress
in a pattern that Judyth owned. He adds, AS A CONTRADICTION, that there
was a photo of Judyth and Oswald together which no longer exists. There
is no contradiction there at all.
8) He includes a "contradiction" that her husband may have been given a
job that kept him away, and then that he SOUGHT the job. The problem
here is one of chronology--in the first instance, she was speculating,
and in the second, she LATER ran across a letter from Robert to the
company requesting the job, which changed her mind on the subject. He
tries to turn this one into FOUR contradictions.
9) Another "contradiction" is the statement that she met Jack Ruby once,
and that she also SAW him at the 500 Club. Reitzes pretends that SEEING
him at a club is the same as having a second "meeting" with him,
although they had no interaction at the Club, and there is no indication
that Ruby even saw HER on that occasion. He pulls a similar dodge in
connection with Guy Banister, and with Clay Shaw, and with Carlos Marcello.
10) Dave really outdoes himself on the subject of David Atlee
Phillips--he tries to turn the matter into TWENTY-FOUR separate
contradictions, which is an exercise in pure absurdity.
That covers 52 of his 114 "points," and is enough time wasted on this.
Much of this has been pointed out in the past, but it doesn't seem to
have made a dent in some of the harder heads here.