Me and Lee
JLeyd...@aol.com
Judyth's next book, "Me and Lee." For some reason, Martin
Shackelford, who was disowned by Judyth after she accused him of going
behind her back and sabotaging her previous book, disputes this. So
just go to Google and punch in "Official web site of Judyth Vary
Baker" and see for yourself. It says:
Where can I get Judyth's book?
Her 2006 book called LEE HARVEY OSWALD [masterminded by Shackelford]
is no longer available, either new or used.
Her 2009 book called ME & LEE [masterminded by Ed Haslam] will be
published by Trine Day in Nov. 2009.
Trine Day, incidentally, also published Haslam's book and Wim
Dankbaar's book among other literaryu atrocities.
BTW, Pam, get your order in now. Avoid the rush.
JGL
Martin Shackelford
I haven't disputed that there may be a book coming out--just wondered where
the cover image came from, as it isn't on Haslam or Judyth's websites.
I don't know where you're getting your information that the book was
"master-
minded by Ed Haslam," as nowhere is there any such suggestion.
Not sure what "masterminded by Shackelford" means, as a matter of fact. I
brought Judyth and Livingstone together, with her enthusiastic cooperation.
She
praised the result in August 2005, when the manuscript was finalized--only
later,
after her added demands weren't met, did she change her tune. There was no
"sabotaging" of her book--it was published as she had corrected it. As for
"going behind her back," the publishing process simply went ahead as
planned--
she made an erroneous assumption that it would halt because her additional
demands weren't met, but it was published according to the original
agreement,
which she had clearly authorized. You can't just try to rewrite the
agreement
after all of the work has been done. She didn't understand that.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7cabc052-5dba-4ceb...@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>In order to post this with any credibility, you had to omit my post.
>I haven't disputed that there may be a book coming out--just wondered where
>the cover image came from, as it isn't on Haslam or Judyth's websites.
Follow the trail of the site to the common denominator. William gave
you the path.
Is this next tome going to be a repeat of the first disaster ... or
has it been tidied up, which will put it in conflict with the first
disaster ... which will still make for a second disaster ...
am reminded of the old Kenny Rogers song: Know when to hold 'em, know
when to fold 'em.
JLeyd...@aol.com
Top Post (Shackelford style)
Just be thankful, Shackelford, that Judyth has kicked you to the curb,,
calling you a back stabber and all. But after more than eight years of
promoting her outlandish story -- newly married teen-age girl romances,
Oswald while working a summer job to kill Castro -- your names probably
will always be linked together in this venue. Best you find a new hobby
and start over. Good luck!
JGL
pjfk
As usual, you are right on top of things Judyth, Leyden. It must be tough
on a WC defender to see someone so determined to get their statements out
there.
Chuck Schuyler
Me and Lee?
Sounds like a Fall season replacement sitcom for NBC.
Me and Lee
2009 Fall season.
Tuesdays, EST 8:00pm/8:30pm. Local NBC affiliates.
Episode 1
Madcap misadventures ensue when a chance encounter at a post office
pairs schoolgirl science fair whiz Judyth Baker (actress Shelley
Winters Jr.) and dyslexic drifter Lee Oswald (actor Gary Oldman) as
love-struck undercover government operatives tasked with creating
cancer 'bombs' to murder Fidel Castro (played by newcomer Martin
Shackelford).
(Strong language, partial nudity.)
silk purse
>
> Me and Lee?
>
> Sounds like a Fall season replacement sitcom for NBC.
>
> Me and Lee
>
> 2009 Fall season.
>
> Tuesdays, EST 8:00pm/8:30pm. Local NBC affiliates.
>
> Episode 1
>
> Madcap misadventures ensue when a chance encounter at a post office
> pairs schoolgirl science fair whiz Judyth Baker (actress Shelley
> Winters Jr.) and dyslexic drifter Lee Oswald (actor Gary Oldman) as
> love-struck undercover government operatives tasked with creating
> cancer 'bombs' to murder Fidel Castro (played by newcomer Martin
> Shackelford).
>
> (Strong language, partial nudity.)
Hahaha. Brilliant! How about naming the series "Me and Lee and the
Monkey makes Three"? Off topic, I know, but playing with these ideas
is screamingly funny (IMHO) and for me, irresistable.
JLeyd...@aol.com
> Me and Lee?
>
> Sounds like a Fall season replacement sitcom for NBC.
>
> (Strong language, partial nudity.)
Hey, Chuck, that "partial nundity" thing is a real turn off.
JGL
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! Classic!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
It's really saying something when former Team Judyth "lead researcher"
Martin Shackelford has to learn about Judyth's latest project from you,
doesn't it, John?
Dave
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
> On Mar 11, 9:15�pm, JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 7:05 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > Top Post (Shackelford style)
>
> > Just be thankful, Shackelford, that Judyth has kicked you to the curb,,
> > calling you a back stabber and all. �But after more than eight years of
> > promoting her outlandish story -- newly married teen-age girl romances,
> > Oswald while working a summer job to kill Castro -- your names probably
> > will always be linked together in this venue. �Best you find a new hobby
> > and start over. �Good luck!
>
> > JGL
>
> Me and Lee?
>
> Sounds like a Fall season replacement sitcom for NBC.
>
> Me and Lee
>
> 2009 Fall season.
>
> Tuesdays, EST 8:00pm/8:30pm. Local NBC affiliates.
I think you mean the Lifetime network.
> Episode 1
>
> Madcap misadventures ensue when a chance encounter at a post office
> pairs schoolgirl science fair whiz Judyth Baker (actress Shelley
> Winters Jr.) and dyslexic drifter Lee Oswald (actor Gary Oldman) as
> love-struck undercover government operatives tasked with creating
> cancer 'bombs' to murder Fidel Castro (played by newcomer Martin
> Shackelford).
>
> (Strong language, partial nudity.)
Dave
JLeyd...@aol.com
<dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> TOP POST (Shackelford Style)
>
> It's really saying something when former Team Judyth "lead researcher"
> Martin Shackelford has to learn about Judyth's latest project from you,
> doesn't it, John?
>
> Dave
"Lead researcher" -- oh, that's a good one. We both know he never
contacted either Judyth's ex-husband or Marina Oswald. In fact, the
only person he ever interviewed about Judyth's wild claims was...
Judyth.
JGL
>
> On Mar 11, 10:15 pm, JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 7:05 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > Top Post (Shackelford style)
>
> > Just be thankful, Shackelford, that Judyth has kicked you to the curb,,
> > calling you a back stabber and all. But after more than eight years of
> > promoting her outlandish story -- newly married teen-age girl romances,
> > Oswald while working a summer job to kill Castro -- your names probably
> > will always be linked together in this venue. Best you find a new hobby
> > and start over. Good luck!
>
> > JGL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Martin Shackelford
Martin
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b1f5864-79c7-4368...@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
jbarge
<dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 11:08 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 9:15 pm, JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 11, 7:05 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > Top Post (Shackelford style)
>
> > > Just be thankful, Shackelford, that Judyth has kicked you to the curb,,
> > > calling you a back stabber and all. But after more than eight years of
> > > promoting her outlandish story -- newly married teen-age girl romances,
> > > Oswald while working a summer job to kill Castro -- your names probably
> > > will always be linked together in this venue. Best you find a new hobby
> > > and start over. Good luck!
>
> > > JGL
>
> > Me and Lee?
>
> > Sounds like a Fall season replacement sitcom for NBC.
>
> > Me and Lee
>
> > 2009 Fall season.
>
> > Tuesdays, EST 8:00pm/8:30pm. Local NBC affiliates.
>
> I think you mean the Lifetime network.
Let me know when you get some new information.
Best of luck to you.
> > Episode 1
>
> > Madcap misadventures ensue when a chance encounter at a post office
> > pairs schoolgirl science fair whiz Judyth Baker (actress Shelley
> > Winters Jr.) and dyslexic drifter Lee Oswald (actor Gary Oldman) as
> > love-struck undercover government operatives tasked with creating
> > cancer 'bombs' to murder Fidel Castro (played by newcomer Martin
> > Shackelford).
>
> > (Strong language, partial nudity.)
>
pjfk
> On Mar 12, 10:59 pm, "dreit...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)"
>
> <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> > TOP POST (Shackelford Style)
>
> > It's really saying something when former Team Judyth "lead researcher"
> > Martin Shackelford has to learn about Judyth's latest project from you,
> > doesn't it, John?
>
> > Dave
>
> "Lead researcher" -- oh, that's a good one. We both know he never
> contacted either Judyth's ex-husband or Marina Oswald. In fact, the
> only person he ever interviewed about Judyth's wild claims was...
> Judyth.
>
> JGL
Leyden overlooks the fact that there is an entire camp of CTs who only
look at a witness' statements. And then of course there is the WCR which
only looked at witness statements that tried to implicate LHO. Also,
Marina seems to have made herself unavailable. That makes it difficult to
talk with her.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
A little frivolity helps sometimes .... <g>
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Should be done ala the old Get Smart TV series ..... :-)
Martin Shackelford
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5c456d74-d782-4b0f...@h20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 12, 10:59?pm, "dreit...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)"
JLeyd...@aol.com
> And the broken record repeats again his half-truths.
>
> Martin
"Half truths?" Are you telling us you interviewed Marina but not
Robt. Baker or Robt. Baker and not Marina? Ah, I think we all know
the answer by now. You passed on both of them but still had no
compunction about touting Judyth's fairy tale for eight long years in
thousands and thousands of NG posts. And what was your reward?
Judyth dumped you after accusing you of sneaking around behind her
back.
JGL
>
> <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Steve Thomas
> On Mar 13, 10:37 am, JLeyden...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 10:59 pm, "dreit...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)"
>
> > <dreit...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > TOP POST (Shackelford Style)
>
> > > It's really saying something when former Team Judyth "lead researcher"
> > > Martin Shackelford has to learn about Judyth's latest project from you,
> > > doesn't it, John?
>
> > > Dave
>
> > "Lead researcher" -- oh, that's a good one. We both know he never
> > contacted either Judyth's ex-husband or Marina Oswald. In fact, the
> > only person he ever interviewed about Judyth's wild claims was...
> > Judyth.
>
> > JGL
>
> Leyden overlooks the fact that there is an entire camp of CTs who only
> look at a witness' statements. And then of course there is the WCR which
> only looked at witness statements that tried to implicate LHO. Also,
> Marina seems to have made herself unavailable. That makes it difficult to
> talk with her.
>
I'v already explained to you Pam, Marina does not want to talk to a
crackpot like Judyth, and she wont talk to her supporters either. Why
would she get involved with someone who repeatedly lied? Marina knows
Judyth is a liar because of the Thornley accusations. Cant you
understand that simple fact?
tims...@gmail.com
> And the flight from substance continues apace.
>
> Martin
>
Hi Martin,
The idea that Baker is ever going to provide anything of substance in
the matter of the Kennedy assassination is a forlorn one. The flight
from substance was begun a long time ago by Team Judyth when they
accepted her nonsense story as fact.
Martin Shackelford
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b78bb3a2-302a-40ed...@41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
pamela
Well then Steve, please explain that to Leyden, so he stops pushing his
strawman.
Marina is a complicated person in a difficult position. Both the WC and
Garrison believed she did a good bit of lying about things herself, so I
don't think that argument has any logic to it.
Barb Junkkarinen
Hi Tim!
The folly of it all is that they did accept it ... without doing even
some basic simple fact checking. We've seen what a different story
checking a few facts tells.
Barb :-)
Steve Thomas
There is no strawman Pamela, Shackelford NEVER BOTHERED TO INTERVIEW
MARINA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!! Or Robert Baker!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Marina is a complicated person in a difficult position.
What difficult position?
Both the WC and
> Garrison believed she did a good bit of lying about things herself, so I
> don't think that argument has any logic to it.
What argument? There was no argument. I just told you Marina knows
Judyth is a big fat liar because Judyth made up crap about people that
were still alive. Marina happens to be one of those people.
JLeyd...@aol.com
> You know exactly why they are half-truths, Leyden.
>
> Martin
Yeah, Shackelford, but the whole truth is you never should have inflicted
thie Judyth fraud on us without checking first with her ex- husband and
Marina Oswald. But you didn't. All you had to do was pick up the phone
and dial the ex-husband's number but, alas, it was too much like real
research. Ad I've said before, you need to find a new hobby.
JGL
Martin Shackelford
seeing
"The Love Affair" was "so, he had an affair." As for the non-issue of who
I interviewed, Leyden--and you--know very why the comment is a half-truth:
1) I made efforts to contact Marina with no results, and so obtained
information through a colleague who was on good terms with her.
2) Robert Baker has a notoriously poor memory, so I relied on his letters
from 1963.
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f36c8087-5df8-4c65...@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
MARINA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!=
William Yates
> Not what Marina told a friend and fellow researcher. Her only comment upon
> seeing
>
> "The Love Affair" was "so, he had an affair." As for the non-issue of who
> I interviewed, Leyden--and you--know very why the comment is a half-truth:
>
> 1) I made efforts to contact Marina with no results, and so obtained
> information through a colleague who was on good terms with her.
>
> 2) Robert Baker has a notoriously poor memory, so I relied on his letters
> from 1963.
>
> Martin
Judyth has a notoriously poor memory as well, yet you don't arbitrarily
reject what she says.
Steve Thomas
> Not what Marina told a friend and fellow researcher. Her only comment upon
> seeing
>
> "The Love Affair" was "so, he had an affair."
This was before her book filled with ridiculous lies was put out.
When Marina saw that Judyth had Thornley going to her house and having an
affair with her she knew Judyth was a crackpot and a liar.
As for the non-issue of who
> I interviewed, Leyden--and you--know very why the comment is a half-truth:
>
> 1) I made efforts to contact Marina with no results, and so obtained
> information through a colleague who was on good terms with her.
>
> 2) Robert Baker has a notoriously poor memory, so I relied on his letters
> from 1963.
>
> Martin
>
> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
pjfk
> On Mar 22, 1:46 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > Not what Marina told a friend and fellow researcher. Her only comment upon
> > seeing
>
> > "The Love Affair" was "so, he had an affair."
>
> This was before her book filled with ridiculous lies was put out.
> When Marina saw that Judyth had Thornley going to her house and having an
> affair with her she knew Judyth was a crackpot and a liar.
Do you have a quote from Marina or are you just making all of this up?
tims...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Barb,
Too true! Still, looks like Martin is gearing up for yet another
tilt...
My FAVOURITE Baker effort was when she was Googling up types of 1963
TV cameras in a futile attempt to prove that she WAS present at the
time that the 1963 WDSU TV film of Oswald's FPCC leafletting at New
Orleans International Trade Mart was made, as posited in her book.
Martin was dutifully passing on each harebrained communication from
Baker, each one making it more and more obvious that she simply wasn't
there that day, LOL!
Steve Thomas
> On Mar 22, 8:47 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 1:46 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > Not what Marina told a friend and fellow researcher. Her only comment upon
> > > seeing
>
> > > "The Love Affair" was "so, he had an affair."
>
> > This was before her book filled with ridiculous lies was put out.
> > When Marina saw that Judyth had Thornley going to her house and having an
> > affair with her she knew Judyth was a crackpot and a liar.
>
> Do you have a quote from Marina or are you just making all of this up?
I made nothing up Pam. Its a fact.
Dixie M Dea
Without my usual and obvious comments, check out this new link,
http://www.judythvarybaker.com/pages/Order.htm
_________
Dixie
pjfk
> On Mar 23, 12:11 am, pjfk <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 22, 8:47 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 22, 1:46 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Not what Marina told a friend and fellow researcher. Her only comment upon
> > > > seeing
>
> > > > "The Love Affair" was "so, he had an affair."
>
> > > This was before her book filled with ridiculous lies was put out.
> > > When Marina saw that Judyth had Thornley going to her house and having an
> > > affair with her she knew Judyth was a crackpot and a liar.
>
> > Do you have a quote from Marina or are you just making all of this up?
>
> I made nothing up Pam. Its a fact.
That's silly. It is your opinion.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Ohhhhh my ....
Seems to be more a plea for donations than about the book.
A personal thank you note, eh?<g>
Thanks for posting this, Dixie!
Barb :-)
>
Steve Thomas
> On Mar 23, 7:15 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 12:11 am, pjfk <pamelaj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 22, 8:47 pm, Steve Thomas <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 22, 1:46 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Not what Marina told a friend and fellow researcher. Her only comment upon
> > > > > seeing
>
> > > > > "The Love Affair" was "so, he had an affair."
>
> > > > This was before her book filled with ridiculous lies was put out.
> > > > When Marina saw that Judyth had Thornley going to her house and having an
> > > > affair with her she knew Judyth was a crackpot and a liar.
>
> > > Do you have a quote from Marina or are you just making all of this up?
>
> > I made nothing up Pam. Its a fact.
>
> That's silly. It is your opinion.
Its the facts Pam. Or have you not read Judyth's 700+ page sack o
crap book in which she lies about Marina?
Steve Thomas
Don't forget she said the guy helping Oswald was wearing slacks, and in
reality he was wearing shorts. Or that she tried to pass herself off as a
pregnant lady by saying she had PMS that week. This episode of Team Judyth
is chock full of hilarity. I remember when Rush demolished her on these
points a few years ago, i still laugh every time i think about it. It was
right around the time Judyth was claiming Alba picked her picture out of a
line up. Turned out that was a big lie too, just like pretty much
everything she says. I cant believe some saps still are listening to her.
Steve Thomas
Lets remember that she was doing all that Googling because she had
originally said the people shooting that FPCC leafleting were setting up
tripods for the cameras and how bulky it all was. When in reality the
actual guy who shot the footage came on here and said they used 2 small
hand held cameras.
Martin Shackelford
Canadian
researcher, who told us that an investigator he hired had relayed that
information.
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:93e0e154-c794-451c...@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
pjfk
Marina's statements have been in the public domain for some time. She
didn't know where LHO was much of the time they were in NOLA. He didn't
even tell her he had been fired from Reily Coffee for almost two weeks.
If Marina does not choose to fill in the gaps, that doesn't stop us from
doing so if we choose.
pjfk
Why not quit pushing this tired strawman, Leyden? You know perfectly well
Marina won't talk to anyone connected to Judyth, and Martin has done his
best to get information from Robert.
Steve Thomas
> The information about the photo lineup didn't come from Judyth, but from a
> Canadian
> researcher, who told us that an investigator he hired had relayed that
> information.
BS. We already know that is was some guy (probably Judyth or a Team
member) on the internet who was conversing with people in another forum.
No one was "hired." The guy showed up one day, said he was from NOLA, and
disappeared right after he unloaded his "investigative notes." The
circumstances were no different than any other anonymous person online.
When i called Alba he said it never happened. So who would make up such
crap to begin with except Judyth and her Team? Can you answer why a
stranger would make up something like a picture lineup to support Judyth?
This Alba nonsense all started when Team Judyth was getting hounded for
witnesses and documentation. Only then did this "investigator hired by a
Canadian Researcher" horse dung story escape from between Team Judyth's
cheeks! THE WHOLE CHARADE IS TRANSPARENT
MARTIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Martin
>
> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
Steve Thomas
> The information about the photo lineup didn't come from Judyth, but from a
> Canadian
> researcher, who told us that an investigator he hired had relayed that
> information.
But you agree with everything else?
>
> Martin
>
> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
> The information about the photo lineup didn't come from Judyth, but from a
> Canadian
> researcher, who told us that an investigator he hired had relayed that
> information.
>
> Martin
I don't recall ever seeing you disavow that information, Martin. Would
you like to take this opportunity to do so?
> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
Dave
William Yates
The gaps should be filled in with truth, and Judyth has yet to
demonstrate that she can provide that.
William Yates
Coming up with arbitrary reasons to ignore anything Robert has to say is
doing his "best"?
William Yates
> On Apr 1, 11:15�am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>> The information about the photo lineup didn't come from Judyth, but from a
>> Canadian
>> researcher, who told us that an investigator he hired had relayed that
>> information.
>>
>> Martin
>
>
> I don't recall ever seeing you disavow that information, Martin. Would
> you like to take this opportunity to do so?
Well, there is this:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/31a93cd91f23906e?hl=en
QUOTE
I have said that a Canadian researcher supplied us with information provided
to him by a New Orleans private detective. The detective was indeed the same
person who provided information posted on the British newsgroup of John
Simkin. When he provided information supportive to Judyth on the Rich Della
Rosa newsgroup, the information was deleted from the archive, as Jack White
had declared that Judyth
was "not credible."
This is the original e-mail we received from the Canadian, an M. Bishop. I
see that the witness who identified Oswald as having been seen with Judyth
was a man at the garage--I assumed this was Adrian Alba, but I may have been
mistaken about that.
Martin
To: ppr...@execulink.com (M. Bishop)
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Reily Coffee Co.
"Sorry to be so late with this. I asked around. All I could find out
was
there was a woman by that name at Reily Coffee at the time."
In a subsequent communique in response to a series of direct
questions
from me, he added:
"2) Yes, the people from Reily knew her but not Oswald. The guy
at the
garage worked there and was not a family member that I know of."
"The guy at the garage" was a man who remembered seeing Oswald with a
woman. *He* would be the one you really want to find, I imagine.
<snip>
More soon. I promise.
Kindest regards
M. Bishop
END QUOTE
pjfk
The fact is, Judyth is documented to have been in NOLA the summer of
1963. There is no reason to dispute the fact that she could have been
present during the leafletting. So claiming Judyth was googling
anything in an attempt to 'prove' she was somewhere in NOLA is not
helpful, isn't it? You just don't like what she has to say.
Steve Thomas
The only documented thing she has. The rest is crapola.
There is no reason to dispute the fact that she could have been
> present during the leafletting.
Yes there is reason to dispute it, the guy who is documented to
have been present says Judyth was wrong on all counts.
So claiming Judyth was googling
> anything in an attempt to 'prove' she was somewhere in NOLA is not
> helpful, isn't it?
It is when the guy who was holding the camera Judyth was
attempting to google says she doesnt know what she is talking about. A
guy "DOCUMENTED" to have been present and who shot the film.
You just don't like what she has to say.
We dont like it because she is a big fat liar.
pjfk
Well, she was in NOLA at the time of the leafletting. Duh.
>
> There is no reason to dispute the fact that she could have been
>
> > present during the leafletting.
>
> Yes there is reason to dispute it, the guy who is documented to
> have been present says Judyth was wrong on all counts.
Not exactly. Rush, who hates Judyth, has provided his own statements
which do not coincide with Judyth's in some respects. This could be
because of Rush's bias.
>
> So claiming Judyth was googling
>
> > anything in an attempt to 'prove' she was somewhere in NOLA is not
> > helpful, isn't it?
>
> It is when the guy who was holding the camera Judyth was
> attempting to google says she doesnt know what she is talking about. A
> guy "DOCUMENTED" to have been present and who shot the film.
A person. He is entitled to his statements. Judyth is entitled to
hers.
>
> You just don't like what she has to say.
>
> We dont like it because she is a big fat liar.
You don't like what she has to say, therefore you call her a liar.
Steve Thomas
So she is still on the same level as anyone else who happened to
have been in the city of New Orleans. Duh!
>
>
>
> > There is no reason to dispute the fact that she could have been
>
> > > present during the leafletting.
>
> > Yes there is reason to dispute it, the guy who is documented to
> > have been present says Judyth was wrong on all counts.
>
> Not exactly.
YES EXACTLY! What part did i get wrong Pam? give me the quote?
Rush, who hates Judyth, has provided his own statements
> which do not coincide with Judyth's in some respects.
Wrong Pam. "Some respects?" Which statements of Judyth DO
coincide with Rush? The problem Rush has with Judyth are specifically
because she made up a bunch of crap. He is documented to have been a
witness to LHO while in NOLA, Pam. Which is more than Judyth can say
at this point. Rush knows she lied about being in a picture, what
people were wearing, what kind of cameras were used, and how big or
small the crowd was. If i was a real witness i would hate Judyth too
for mucking up history is such a cheap way.
This could be
> because of Rush's bias.
His bias is because he was there and Judyth didn't know WTF she was
talking about.
>
>
>
> > So claiming Judyth was googling
>
> > > anything in an attempt to 'prove' she was somewhere in NOLA is not
> > > helpful, isn't it?
>
> > It is when the guy who was holding the camera Judyth was
> > attempting to google says she doesnt know what she is talking about. A
> > guy "DOCUMENTED" to have been present and who shot the film.
>
> A person. He is entitled to his statements. Judyth is entitled to
> hers.
Sure, she can lie all she wants.
>
>
>
> > You just don't like what she has to say.
>
> > We dont like it because she is a big fat liar.
>
> You don't like what she has to say, therefore you call her a liar.
She is a liar, and that's why i don't like what she says.
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
wrote:
> dreit...@aol.com (Dave Reitzes) wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 11:15 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> The information about the photo lineup didn't come from Judyth, but from a
> >> Canadian
> >> researcher, who told us that an investigator he hired had relayed that
> >> information.
>
> >> Martin
>
> > I don't recall ever seeing you disavow that information, Martin. Would
> > you like to take this opportunity to do so?
>
> Well, there is this:
>
>
> QUOTE
>
> I have said that a Canadian researcher supplied us with information provided
> to him by a New Orleans private detective. The detective was indeed the same
> person who provided information posted on the British newsgroup of John
> Simkin. When he provided information supportive to Judyth on the Rich Della
> Rosa newsgroup, the information was deleted from the archive, as Jack White
> had declared that Judyth
> was "not credible."
>
> This is the original e-mail we received from the Canadian, an M. Bishop. I
> see that the witness who identified Oswald as having been seen with Judyth
> was a man at the garage--I assumed this was Adrian Alba, but I may have been
> mistaken about that.
>
> Martin
I think my question remains open, don't you?
And if Martin surprises me with a straight answer, he's surely smart
enough to know what the follow-up question will be.
Dave
> � To: ppr...@execulink.com (M. Bishop)
William Yates
Which doesn't, in and of itself, make her a documented witness to LHO or
any of the others.
> There is no reason to dispute the fact that she could have been
> present during the leafletting.
She could have been present. However, her account turned to be
inaccurate enough that there is no reason to dispute the fact that she
wasn't there.
> So claiming Judyth was googling
> anything in an attempt to 'prove' she was somewhere in NOLA is not
> helpful, isn't it?
She wasn't trying to prove she was somewhere. She was trying, and
failing, to prove she was in a very specific spot.
Martin Shackelford
Make all the nonsense diversionary claims you want to--it doesn't change
that.
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c7f9d3a8-7ed6-4d3c...@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 1, 10:15 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net> wrote:
> The information about the photo lineup didn't come from Judyth, but from a
> Canadian
> researcher, who told us that an investigator he hired had relayed that
> information.
BS. We already know that is was some guy (probably Judyth or a Team
member) on the internet who was conversing with people in another forum.
No one was "hired." The guy showed up one day, said he was from NOLA, and
disappeared right after he unloaded his "investigative notes." The
circumstances were no different than any other anonymous person online.
When i called Alba he said it never happened. So who would make up such
crap to begin with except Judyth and her Team? Can you answer why a
stranger would make up something like a picture lineup to support Judyth?
This Alba nonsense all started when Team Judyth was getting hounded for
witnesses and documentation. Only then did this "investigator hired by a
Canadian Researcher" horse dung story escape from between Team Judyth's
cheeks! THE WHOLE CHARADE IS TRANSPARENT
MARTIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!=
Martin Shackelford
Martin
<drei...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2c408e4f-9e4f-4f0a...@z1g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> ? ?Don't forget she said the guy helping Oswald was wearing slacks, and in
Martin Shackelford
I relied on Robert's CONTEMPORARY writings from 1963. When his wife
repeated things based on his more recent recollections, Robert had to beat a
hasty retreat when confronted by contradictory evidence, and told his wife
to
stop posting. He then wrote to say that he knew of nothing which would
contradict what Judyth was saying. His children report that his memory is
far
from reliable, and that he can often be oblivious to what is going on in his
family.
Martin
"William Yates" <william_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tMGdnQrSWbnO6UnU...@earthlink.com...
pjfk
> My source was the Canadian researcher, Steve.
> Make all the nonsense diversionary claims you want to--it doesn't change
> that.
>
> Martin
>
The Judyth bashers seem intent on dismissing everything of value
surrounding her statements. Then they just irresponsibly make things
up to suit their whims. Telling.
Steve Thomas
> Based on someone's newsgroup claim, Dave? I think not.
>
Well what did Alba say when you talked to him Martin?
> Martin
>
> <dreit...@aol.com> wrote in message
Steve Thomas
> My source was the Canadian researcher, Steve.
> Make all the nonsense diversionary claims you want to--it doesn't change
> that.
>
The only diversionary claim is "my source was the Canadian
researcher."
dreitzes@aol.com (Dave Reitzes)
> Based on someone's newsgroup claim, Dave? I think not.
>
> Martin
Ah, yes, hearsay from a pseudonymous Internet source is infinitely better!
Who could possibly blame you for reporting it as fact?
And, whatever you do, don't pick up a phone and verify the information for
yourself, you brilliant seeker of truth, you.
Dave
William Yates
I think you're confused. It's Judyth's supporters who make up things
like "provisional asylum."
William Yates
> This is a total misrepresentation, William.
> I relied on Robert's CONTEMPORARY writings from 1963.
And where did you get that correspondence?
Steve Thomas
The Judyth supporters seem intent on dismissing every lie
surrounding her statements.
Then they just irresponsibly make things
> up to suit their whims. Telling.
Name some thing that were "made up," and not by Judyth.
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> Martin Shackelford wrote:
> > This is a total misrepresentation, William.
> > I relied on Robert's CONTEMPORARY writings from 1963.
>
> And where did you get that correspondence?
The long and short of it is that Shackelford relied on Judyth for
everything. I still find it unbelievable that he wouldn't simply pick up
the phone and talk to her ex-husband. (Too much like real research, I
guess.) He says he sent Marina a letter but has refused to post it, so we
have only his word for that. Yet he had no qualms about coming on here
and trumpeting her unchecked story in thousands and thousands or NG posts.
Check the Google archives. His reward for this such slavish loyalty was
that Judyth dumped him. He didn't even know that she was planning to
reprise her story in a new book, "Me and Lee."
JGL
pjfk
wrote:
Too bad for you, the documentation is already at McAdams site showing that
Judyth was provided with provisional asylum for nearly a year in Sweden.
You can make things up, but you can't change the documentation, can you?
Martin Shackelford
I didn't "rely on Judyth for everything." I interviewed Anna Lewis myself,
did
research in New Orleans and Dallas, examined documents, did Internet
searches,
used the printed literature, etc.
He pretends that a phone conversation is better documentation than an
e-mail,
which provides the information in writing--and that a recent phone chat
would
trump 1963 writings by her ex-husband.
His continuing demand that I post a private letter I wrote to Marina is
absurd.
His claim that "Judyth dumped him" is obsolete, as I regularly hear from
her.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:72016fa6-1ff2-4dcd...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 5, 5:00?pm, William Yates <william_yates...@earthlink.net>
JLeyd...@aol.com
(Top posty, Shackelford style)
Why do we keep going around like this, Shackelford? You admit that you
failed to interview either Judyth's ex-husband or Marina Oswald -- as I've
said time and time again -- and yet you felt free to trumpet her unchecked
story all over the NG (thousands and thousands of posts). You claim that
you interviewed Anna Lewis but that was long after Judyth dug her up,
primed her and promised her who knows what. If you were in my Research 101
class, I'm afraid I'd have to give you an "F.". And no make--up test
either.
JGL
> Once again, Leyden has no problem making things up.
> I didn't "rely on Judyth for everything." I interviewed Anna Lewis myself,
> did
> research in New Orleans and Dallas, examined documents, did Internet
> searches,
> used the printed literature, etc.
> He pretends that a phone conversation is better documentation than an
> e-mail,
> which provides the information in writing--and that a recent phone chat
> would
> trump 1963 writings by her ex-husband.
> His continuing demand that I post a private letter I wrote to Marina is
> absurd.
> His claim that "Judyth dumped him" is obsolete, as I regularly hear from
> her.
>
> Martin
>
> <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote in message
pjfk
Are you going to next attempt to excoriate the WC for believing everything
Marina said after she was sequestered by the SS and threatened with
deportation if she did not make statements pointing to LHO's guilt? Or is
your attitude selective?
Steve Thomas
Even if the SS did do that, how would the WC know? Were the members of
the WC supposed to automatically assume the SS threatened witnesses? Or
that the FBI and CIA wouldn't provide everything they could have? I don't
know why you people go after the WC for things that other agencies may or
may not have done.
pjfk
Actually, that is a reasonable question. That the WC preferred to keep
its blinders firmly in place to the shenanigans by both the SS and the FBI
is an acknowledged fact. Had they had a modicum of courage, they might
have begun to question the validity of the information that was coming to
them.
In the case of Marina, the WC quickly came to the belief that she was not
completely truthful. Had they chosen to question her as a hostile
witness, for example, they might have uncovered some of the strategies
that had been used on her. They might also have uncovered the fact that
she knew more than she was letting on about some things and less about
others, such as where LHO was much of the time he was in NOLA. But instead
the WC preferred to tiptoe around the issues with Marina. That's why they
were called "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves."
tomnln
ANSWER;
The WC heard Testimony of those Crimes.
Are you "Impeaching" your own evidence/testimony???
Martin Shackelford
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4f1c40a5-a3d0-4456...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
(Top posty, Shackelford style)
JGL
> everything. ?I still find it unbelievable that he wouldn't simply pick up
> the phone and talk to her ex-husband. (Too much like real research, I
> guess.) ?He says he sent Marina a letter but has refused to post it, so we
> have only his word for that. ?Yet he had no qualms about coming on here
> and trumpeting her unchecked story in thousands and thousands or NG posts.
> Check the Google archives. ?His reward for this such slavish loyalty was
> that Judyth dumped him. ?He didn't even know that she was planning to
Martin Shackelford
their
stories just after being interviewed by the Secret Service.
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e45b76cd-9b03-41a2...@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
William Yates
> We go round and round because you always leave out the full story.
>
> Martin
So, where did you get your copies of Robert's correspondence?
Steve Thomas
> The WC might have paid attention to the number of witnesses who changed
> their
> stories just after being interviewed by the Secret Service.
Or they may have had the opinion that the freshest memory was the one
they wanted to use. I would take a persons first statement over their
second. The first statement has not had a chance to have been influenced
by anything.
>
> Martin
>
> "Steve Thomas" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
Martin Shackelford
acknowledgement of the
authenticity of the correspondence.
Martin
"William Yates" <william_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:IrOdnXz_g-K3_H_U...@earthlink.com...
Martin Shackelford
Unfortunately, the Commission relied on the later, changed statements, which
followed
the December 5 interviews.
Martin
"Steve Thomas" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2c315c7d-6713-426d...@z19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
William Yates
> This question has nothing to do with the content, and Robert's
> acknowledgement of the
> authenticity of the correspondence.
>
> Martin
In other words, you got them from Judyth. Now, how do you know she gave
you everything?
Martin Shackelford
of his
correspondence from the summer of 1963.
Martin
"William Yates" <william_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WNWdnY5ygNc3DHrU...@earthlink.com...
JLeyd...@aol.com
> Robert didn't indicate at any point that she misrepresented the general flow
> of his
> correspondence from the summer of 1963.
>
> Martin
Stop it, Shackelford. You never talked to Robt. Baker when all you had to
do was pick up the phone and dial his number. I could think of a hundred
questions to ask him but, apparently, you couldn't come up with even one.
You violated the first rule of research. You ignored two key sources --
Baker and Marina Oswald. No wonder her pay-to-print book was a flop and
she's now soliciting Donations to try again... without your dubious help..
JGL
William Yates
> Robert didn't indicate at any point that she misrepresented the general flow
> of his
> correspondence from the summer of 1963.
>
> Martin
1. According to you, Robert has a poor memory, so how would he know?
2. Did you read the actual correspondence or rely on Judyth's
"representation" of it?
3. Judyth claims in her book that one of the letters she received from
Robert so angered her that she destroyed the second page. How do you know
nothing else is missing?
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"William Yates" <william_...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:l8qdneeG1vcF5HfU...@earthlink.com...
William Yates
> I have copies of the correspondence.
>
> Martin
That covers question two. What about one and three?
John McAdams
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>I have copies of the correspondence.
Do you have any copies of the supposed letters to Lee?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:n1lnu41skl55iapvk...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>Yes--they are on Tony's website, and were included on the list I posted.
>
>Martin
They? I recall one letter ... first page only, saluataion and date
torn off. Are there more? Any whole ones?
Why would she have copies of letters SHE wrote?
Please post the links that go to what comprises this "they" of her
correspondence with Oswald.
Thanks,
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 12, 3:58 pm, "Martin Shackelford"<msha...@charter.net> wrote:
>> The WC might have paid attention to the number of witnesses who changed
>> their
>> stories just after being interviewed by the Secret Service.
>
>
>
> Or they may have had the opinion that the freshest memory was the one
> they wanted to use. I would take a persons first statement over their
> second. The first statement has not had a chance to have been influenced
> by anything.
>
No, you wouldn't. The first statement was that the shots came from the
grassy knoll so you dismiss the witness as a kook.
Steve Thomas
> On 4/12/2009 9:07 PM, Steve Thomas wrote:
>
> > On Apr 12, 3:58 pm, "Martin Shackelford"<msha...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> The WC might have paid attention to the number of witnesses who changed
> >> their
> >> stories just after being interviewed by the Secret Service.
>
> > Or they may have had the opinion that the freshest memory was the one
> > they wanted to use. I would take a persons first statement over their
> > second. The first statement has not had a chance to have been influenced
> > by anything.
>
> No, you wouldn't. The first statement was that the shots came from the
> grassy knoll so you dismiss the witness as a kook.
Why would you do that?
Barb Junkkarinen
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 24 Apr 2009 08:52:23 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
><msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>Yes--they are on Tony's website, and were included on the list I posted.
>>
>>Martin
>
>They? I recall one letter ... first page only, saluataion and date
>torn off. Are there more? Any whole ones?
>
>Why would she have copies of letters SHE wrote?
>
>Please post the links that go to what comprises this "they" of her
>correspondence with Oswald.
It doesn't seem you ever addressed these questions. How about it?
John McAdams
<barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 18:59:09 -0700, Barb Junkkarinen
><barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On 24 Apr 2009 08:52:23 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
>><msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Yes--they are on Tony's website, and were included on the list I posted.
>>>
>>>Martin
>>
>>They? I recall one letter ... first page only, saluataion and date
>>torn off. Are there more? Any whole ones?
>>
>>Why would she have copies of letters SHE wrote?
>>
>>Please post the links that go to what comprises this "they" of her
>>correspondence with Oswald.
>
>It doesn't seem you ever addressed these questions. How about it?
>
If memory serves, her former husband's current wife explained how she
could have them. She wrote them to her (then) husband, and they were
returned to her.
But of course . . . that's not the explanation Martin wants to hear.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:iej7359n0ujjui7r8...@4ax.com...
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>Why wouldn't I want to hear it--it's the truth, John.
>
>Martin
Sooo... you agree the correspondence in question was written to her
own husband (Robert) and later returned to her .... not written to
Oswald.
Martin Shackelford
There are two that were written to Oswald, and another batch written to
Robert.
Stop trying to play "clever" games.
Martin
"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbRE...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8k2b35phgei121thd...@4ax.com...
John McAdams
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>There are two different sets of correspondence here, Barb.
>There are two that were written to Oswald, and another batch written to
>Robert.
Wait a minute!
Her story *has* been that she has a bunch of letters written to
Oswald.
But conveniently, the addressee is torn off of all of them.
Now there are only two written to Oswald.
OK, where are the letters?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>There are two different sets of correspondence here, Barb.
>There are two that were written to Oswald, and another batch written to
>Robert.
>Stop trying to play "clever" games.
>
>Martin
I'm not playing any game. One allegedly written to Oswald I am
familiar with ..... date missing, salutation also torn off, only front
page.
What other one is there and where can we see it?
Martin Shackelford
I have copies of two letters to Oswald. That doesn't mean there aren't
more of them. Your desperate ploys are so obvious, John.
Martin
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:abmg359koe79hg8ns...@4ax.com...
John McAdams
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>Another lame McAdams attempt to create a false contradiction.
>
>I have copies of two letters to Oswald. That doesn't mean there aren't
>more of them. Your desperate ploys are so obvious, John.
>
How do you know they were written *to* Oswald?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Barb Junkkarinen
<msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>Another lame McAdams attempt to create a false contradiction.
>
>I have copies of two letters to Oswald. That doesn't mean there aren't
>more of them. Your desperate ploys are so obvious, John.
How do you know, for a fact, the letters were written to Oswald?
Thanks.
Barb Junkkarinen
<john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>On 18 Jun 2009 20:17:07 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"
><msh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>Another lame McAdams attempt to create a false contradiction.
>>
>>I have copies of two letters to Oswald. That doesn't mean there aren't
>>more of them. Your desperate ploys are so obvious, John.
>>
>
>How do you know they were written *to* Oswald?
That's funny, I just asked the same question.<g>
Barb :-)
William Yates
> Another lame McAdams attempt to create a false contradiction.
>
> I have copies of two letters to Oswald. That doesn't mean there aren't
> more of them. Your desperate ploys are so obvious, John.
>
> Martin
This is the only letter allegedly written to Oswald that I'm aware of:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth/letter.JPG
There's nothing in that letter that specifically identifies it's
recipient as either LHO or Robert Baker, but their are a couple of
things that suggest, to me anyway, that it was written to her husband.
Where's the second letter, and what, other than Judyth's claim, is your
basis for stating that this letter was written to Oswald?
And what happened to Tony's online Judyth shrine? I get a 404 error if I
go here: