Judyth: From the Beginning, Part 8
Dave Reitzes
<QUOTE ON>----------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: How goes it?
Date: 5/1/00 11:52:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Howpl
To: Dreitzes
Dave -
Nice to hear from you. I've been out of the newsgroup for a long time,
except for a bit of lurking, and it would appear you are, too.
[...]
Ah, and now to zuh research: I hate to play games, but very few people
know about this, and I know that the others, including "the new witness,"
would kill me if I gave you -- of all people!! -- a heads up.
Unsatisfactory as they may be, I'Il give you a few hints and ask that you
keep your thoughts to yourself, or e-mails to me, for a little while
longer at least.
If it helps any, I've been working on this project for the past eight
months with Martin Shackleford. Martin and I haven't the slightest doubt
as to the truth of this witness's story. And you are REALLY going to think
I'm nuts, but it IS about New Orleans. You and me and everyone on both
sides of the fence have been making the same mistake for the longest time.
We have been trying to fit square pegs into round holes. New Orleans was
not about planning to kill Kennedy. Ferrie never masterminded a crossfire
in his New Orleans apartment. My witness doesn't believe he wanted Kennedy
killed. Once you understand what was really going on his lab, the
mysteries of Clinton and Mexico City melt away.
Dave - Garrison had the right people; he just had the wrong plot. Now
even Martin agrees: when Garrison couldn't get the pieces to fit, he cut
corners.
This is a witness who was in the middle of it. I can't supply a smoking
gun, but, I would not lie to you, we came within 5 days of a taped
interview with Mike Wallace when 60 Minutes pulled an Insider for the
third time in 6 months. We sat thru long sessions with Wallace, Hewitt and
Scheffler. They couldn't let this go, yet they couldn't run with it.
They were and are scared shit of being wrong -- or right. They grilled
this witness for five hours. They saw our manuscript. The last time,
Wallace practically dragged himself from a hospital room to question this
witness for three solid hours in a hotel room in NYC. No, they don't have
your command of the evidence. But they can smell truthfulness, and they
couldn't make the odor go away, though they tried mightily. The last
words Wallace ever said to us were "see you in New Orleans." Then, as is
their habit, they choked.
We're ready to go, but not in the newsgroups or the conference circuit.
And very likely, not "up-market," because they're all too up- tight
(Selwyn Raab is trying to find a way out, like the 60M guys: why go into
waters so far over your head when you've already made your reputation?).
There is so much more I could tell you about the past several months.
But I think I should stop here for now.
You know I think you're worth the time -- if only to torture (joke). Stay
in touch.
Howard
<QUOTE OFF>---------------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>----------------------------------------------
Subj: Re: [ ]
Date: 6/19/00 9:16:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Howpl
To: Dreitzes
Dave -
The fun of this correspondence is undeniable, but it is surely unfair to
you. I asked my prime witness and the few others in our group for
permission to reveal more to you and they said NO WAY, not to you or
McAdams. You know I respect your intelligence, though I feel you
sometimes go too far: when skewering others, there is a line one
shouldn't cross. I've always found McAdams to be polite, though others
have had sourer experiences. One way or another, this will all become
public, possibly within a month. We now have at least two large media
platforms seriously interested, and soon enough you will get a chance to
take your shots. The question I have for you is, do you think you can be
open-minded enough to hear the whole story? Are you, honestly and truly,
persuadable? I don't want this to sound like I'm questioning your
integrity. But the newsgroup experience amplifies biases. Dave, if ever
there was a conspiracist bone in your body, this individual will tell a
story that you have -- guaranteed -- never heard before. Let it breathe
before trying to kill it. Because there will such a torrent of detail to
this story -- more than could appear in an article -- that it would be
intellectually dishonest not to hear it all the way thru. Here is an
explanation of why Garrison might have manufactured evidence to fill gaps
the evidence left open. Sandra Sexton is the reason he couldn't touch
Marcello (or so it is said, we can't prove this) . Garrison really never
understood what he had on his hands. None of us have. I have had to
learn a new way of looking at everything. I had Oswald a Communist and
was headed into Gus Russo territory. I had to be shown this was the wrong
explanation.
Howard
<QUOTE OFF>---------------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/35b69cddbdbf1b35?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: David Lifton <DLif...@compuserve.com>
Subject: Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
Date: 2000/09/28
Message-ID: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 675335563
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
Content-Type: text/plain;
X-Complaints-To: ne...@news.bcs.moore.com
X-Trace: ns2.bcs.moore.com 970187155 4174 206.165.6.207 (29 Sep 2000
00:25:55 GMT)
Organization: Moore Business Communication Services
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 Sep 2000 00:25:55 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Content-Disposition: inline
Judyth Baker & The Ex-Lax Plot
(OR: Lee Harvey Oswald - - Reluctant Assassin)
by David S. Lifton, 9/28/00
I spoke with Judyth Baker last March (2000) and found her to be completely
non-credible. There was no coercion. She talked freely. I just listened.
Here and there I questioned. But in order to get the full sweep of what
she was contending, I largely remained silent, to "give her the floor" and
just listen to what she had to say which was more or less a monologue. So
not only was I listening to WHAT she had to say, but the tone in which she
said it, because I was trying to understand her context, psychologically.
At some point, I would like to post a more comprehensive summary of what
she told me, drawing in part on some emails I sent at the time to friends,
detailing what what this lady said. But since its now being rumored that
she is being taken seriously by a national television show, I thought it
wise to post my own impressions based on what she told me.
A more complete listing will follow later, but one whopper I will always
remember is this:
According to Baker--this is what she told me in March, 2000--Oswald
explained his predicament (whatever it was) to her, and, in one of their
last phone calls, she opined: "Honey, why don't you just call in sick, and
take some ex-lax?" (or take some ex-lax and call in sick).
And he said: "I can't do that. I have to be there, because it will mean
that one less shot will be fired."
Baker related this story to me in a very emotive posture, her voice
cracking as if she was about to cry; as if to lend authenticity to what
she is saying. That even after all these years, she's still so emotional
about it; and so concerned about the injustice done to poor Oswald.
But take another look at this supposed dialogue. It sounds like something
out of a badly written play, or a grade D movie. Can anyone imagine this
kind of dialogue as actually having occurred in the real world? It is
patently absurd. Not to mention another matter raised by this absurd
exchange if it were in fact to be taken seriously: that Judyth Baker had
foreknowledge of the JFK assassination.
Aside: All this, of course, is predicated on Judyth's having had this
steamy affair with Oswald, (while he, supposedly, was working for the
CIA). In other words, Oswald---famous for being tightlipped and
laconic---is supposedly having a casual affair with this lady, and is
telling her about all these serious matters. He also tells her that he is
working for David Atlee Phillips (i.e., he supposedly knows the head of
the CIA's Western Hemisphere Division, by name. Consider the
implications: we're supposed to believe that Phillips, involved in a
nefarious plot to kill President Kennedy, was using his real name with
Oswald!
And oh yes, btw (and consistent with the Ex-lax dialogue related above)
Judyth said that she (and her co-workers in Florida) knew the
assassination was going to happen and set up chairs in front of a TV "to
watch." (Apparently, it never occurred to her to notify the authorities.
Like Peter Sellers in BEING THERE, she apparently just wanted "to watch.")
It apparently never crossed her brilliant mind to take her information to
the authorities.
Another point: She was in love with Oswald and allegedly having this
affair with Oswald, who was married, at the same time that she was engaged
to somebody else (which has to do with her being in Florida) and then, her
love for Oswald notwithstanding, went ahead and married the other fellow
anyway. (And then, for more than 35 years, remained silent about this
special relationship she had with the man accused of killing JFK; the man
she knew was innocent.)
Personally, I think it would have made a good news story. Returning to
that final snippet of dialogue, can't you see the headline?. . . "Assassin
Advised to Take Ex-Lax Prior to Dallas--Girlfriend Recalls Advice Just
Prior to JFK Murder"
This is the sort of thing that ought to be auctioned on ebay in "Have I
Got A Deal For You!" category.
SOON TO COME: A more comprehensive summary, and in particular, Judyth
Baker's special scheme for communicating with Oswald, since he had no
phone, and she couldn't talk to him from where she lived (because she was
engaged or married or something). And so we have two people--neither of
whom had a phone--who were supposedly communicating back and forth. How
did they accomplish that? Judyth, pressed on this point, came up with a
somewhat convoluted explanation--one which demonstrates that she's at
least smart enough to understand the limits that reality imposes on this
situation, i.e., that cell phones weren't then in vogue-and mental
telepathy had to be ruled out. Also to come: my own personal beliefs, from
my conversation with her and other information about her claims, about how
Judyth goes about "injecting herself" into the existing historical record.
DSL
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/f3e36a9f208c26ba?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu>
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
Date: 2000/09/28
Message-ID: <39D3F5...@marquette.edu>
X-Deja-AN: 675367463
Sender: jmcad...@clark.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
References: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com>
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 161.58.1.88
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: 28 Sep 2000 21:31:18 -0500, 161.58.1.88
Organization: Marquette University
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
[...]
Excellent post!
Her testimony -- especially the David Atlee Phillips part -- bears all the
marks of the phony "witnesses" who have come forward to tell tales that
seem to have come from JFK assassination conspiracy books.
One point that has tripped up three "witnesses" (Jean Hill, James Files,
and Madeline Brown) is the "changed parade route." See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm
I'll look forward to seeing what similar sorts of conspiracy factoids are
incorporated into Judyth's tale.
This raises interesting questions about the roles of Martin and Howard.
I'm convinced that both are honest. I'm wondering whether they were
brought in fairly late after the "don't compute" elements were ironed out
of her story.
Or whether they just flat think the "don't compute" elements in fact
compute!
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/97175e9e37666755?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: Joe Riehl <r...@ull.edu>
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
Date: 2000/09/28
Message-ID: <MPG.143db8d32...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 675373193
Sender: jmcad...@clark.net
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
References: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com>
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 970195618 161.58.1.88 (Fri, 29 Sep
2000 02:46:58 GMT)
Organization: Louisiana Megalith
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 02:46:58 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
In article <200009281657_MC2-B50C-2...@compuserve.com>,
DLif...@compuserve.com says...
>
> Judyth Baker & The Ex-Lax Plot
> (OR: Lee Harvey Oswald - - Reluctant Assassin)
>
> by David S. Lifton, 9/28/00
[...]
Hmm. Interesting. I wonder why she didn't ask you to keep what she said
confidential. Or did she?
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/a86bb8bccfd36d94?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu>
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
Date: 2000/09/28
Message-ID: <39D407...@marquette.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 675395380
Sender: jmcad...@clark.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
References: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com> <MPG.
143db8d325c...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.165.55.205
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 970201710 161.58.1.85 (Fri, 29 Sep
2000 04:28:30 GMT)
Organization: Marquette University
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:28:30 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
[...]
Why should she have asked him to keep it confidential? It sounds like she
is willing to talk, and her handlers are having to keep her sequestered
and quiet.
.John
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/68d193103a18aa15?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!cyclone-
sf.pbi.net!209.81.14.120!feeder.via.net!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!sjc-
peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!
jmcadams
From: mshack <msh...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
Return-Path: <n...@concentric.net>
Errors-To: <n...@concentric.net>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <39D410...@concentric.net>
References: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com>
Reply-To: msh...@concentric.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-GZone (Win95; I)
Sender: jmcad...@clark.net
Date: 29 Sep 2000 03:46:15 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 161.58.1.85
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 970202610 161.58.1.85 (Fri, 29 Sep
2000 04:43:30 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:43:30 GMT
What an ego, David!
"The Ex-Lax Plot"--not much imagination there, just a humorless attempt at
ridicule. Time to develop a sense of humor, my lad. You "found her to be
completely non-credible." Not impressed, given what little you covered in
the call. As for your amateur attempts at psychoanalysis, I have far more
material on which to base an analysis of you than you have of Judyth, and
I would hesitate to approach the kind of labeling you do here--however
tempting it might be. Of course, I deal with psychological evaluations all
the time, and the sham may be less obvious to others. As for your pitiful
references to her story, they are a mixture of inaccuracies and details
misleadingly taken out of context--of course, it is even more likely that
you didn't bother to explore the context. The Phillips reference is
particularly misrepresented, but you probably don't even know enough to
realize that, so perhaps you should be excused. That's what happens when
you are in too much of a hurry. Her co-workers in Florida "knew the
assassination was going to happen?" Not true, David. They gathered to
watch the coverage--AFTERWARDS. Once again, you got it totally wrong. But
perhaps you're just not a good listener, David. The paragraph beginning
"Another point" has almost nothing accurate. "SOON TO COME"? Go right
ahead, David. You have no idea the quicksand you're about to step
into--feel free.
Another view of the conversation:
Lifton was clearly disbelieving early in the conversation. He doubted
several things that are, in fact, very well documented, and adopted a
condescending tone from that point on, asking few questions, and showing
little interest. He said it was unlikely he would have time to listen to
much in the way of detail, so the content remained relatively superficial.
He asked about Lee in Dallas, but she wasn't in Dallas, and wasn't a
direct witness there. He expressed open doubt about a couple more things
that are very well documented (but, of course, as he "didn't have time for
details," he never discovered that). After about forty-five minutes, he
said he would put her in a footnote, and changed the subject. The
remaining 30-40 minutes, he talked about his book (in general, of
course--he is notorious for not sharing information pre-publication;
perhaps he was suspicious of someone who would, not suspecting she didn't
have motives similar to his own, but might be an open, generous person),
asked about her book, asked how she was treated by media people with whom
she had talked (this was discussed because he had agreed to
confidentiality--a pledge he has violated this week, as he and McAdams
would like me to violate mine--apparently we approach a promise
differently; of all those who have given a pledge of confidentiality to
her, only Lifton has violated it, and only Lifton hasn't bothered to
examine the documentation--and only Lifton has found her
"non-credible"--hardly a coincidence), what hotel she had stayed in,
whether she was flown in first class, and similar questions. Then he was
done. Of course, there was more, but I think I'll save it pending the next
exciting episode of "Malice in Wonderland."
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those
who have not got it." ---George Bernard Shaw
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c0cd9abf8b17d097?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!
logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!
news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!jmcadams
From: mshack <msh...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
Return-Path: <n...@concentric.net>
Errors-To: <n...@concentric.net>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <39D412...@concentric.net>
References: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com>
<39D3F5...@marquette.edu>
Reply-To: msh...@concentric.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-GZone (Win95; I)
Sender: jmcad...@clark.net
Date: 29 Sep 2000 03:55:41 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 161.58.1.85
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 970202660 161.58.1.85 (Fri, 29 Sep
2000 04:44:20 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:44:20 GMT
Yep, John, the less you know, the more "excellent" it looks. The more you
know, the sillier and more fraudulent. See my reply to this nonsense.
With your academic training, John, I would have thought you wouldn't be so
quick to jump to conclusions based on the sham claims of an "interested
party" (writing a "competing" book on Oswald). I did a LOT more looking
before I leapt, John.
Martin
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/443a8af3d62e2736?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!cyclone-
sf.pbi.net!209.10.34.151!newsfeed.sjc.globix.net!HSNX.atgi.net!sjc-
peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!
jmcadams
From: mshack <msh...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
Return-Path: <n...@concentric.net>
Errors-To: <n...@concentric.net>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <39D412...@concentric.net>
References: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com> <MPG.
143db8d325c...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>
Reply-To: msh...@concentric.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-GZone (Win95; I)
Sender: jmcad...@clark.net
Date: 29 Sep 2000 03:56:46 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 161.58.1.85
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 970202679 161.58.1.85 (Fri, 29 Sep
2000 04:44:39 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 04:44:39 GMT
She did, Joe.
And David agreed to do so.
Tells you a lot, doesn't it?
Martin
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/163c78e983b0622b?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!cyclone-
sf.pbi.net!209.81.14.120!feeder.via.net!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!sjc-
peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!
jmcadams
From: mshack <msh...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
Return-Path: <n...@concentric.net>
Errors-To: <n...@concentric.net>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <39D420...@concentric.net>
References: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com> <MPG.
143db8d325c...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net>
<39D407...@marquette.edu>
Reply-To: msh...@concentric.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-GZone (Win95; I)
Sender: jmcad...@clark.net
Date: 29 Sep 2000 04:55:20 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 161.58.1.85
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 970204732 161.58.1.85 (Fri, 29 Sep
2000 05:18:52 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 05:18:52 GMT
John:
Has it not yet gotten through to you that when people are working on
a project, they sometimes agree to confidentiality until they go public
with it? Is that so hard to understand? I would think it would be easy,
since you're so cozy with the "master of confidentiality" (as long as it's
HIS OWN pre-publication material--and it's often like pulling teeth to get
access to any of his documentation AFTER publication). This reeks of
hypocrisy, John.
Her "handlers," as you ignorantly or deceptively term us, have had
nothing to do with keeping her "sequestered and quiet." She has talked to
quite a few people, under condition of confidentiality.
The hilarious thing is that Lifton didn't approach her, she
approached him. When she heard he was writing an Oswald book, she didn't
think it was fair to keep her account from him, in all fairness. We
cautioned that she couldn't expect him to play by normal rules, but she
went ahead--the decision was up to her--no "handlers" to interfere. He
pledged confidentiality, she talked openly with him. He is the ONLY
person, in a year and a half, whose word has proven totally worthless. He
is also the only one who hasn't bothered to look at the evidence, yet he
acts as though he is in a position to evaluate her. That is VERY far from
the truth. She did the decent thing, he wouldn't know how.
Positioning yourself as his partisan, John, is much more foolish than
you can imagine. But's it's a free country. Go for it.
Martin
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/83c0449734ce0351?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!
logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!
news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!jmcadams
From: John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
Return-Path: <john.mcad...@marquette.edu>
Message-ID: <39D425...@marquette.edu>
Organization: Marquette University
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com>
<39D3F5...@marquette.edu> <39D412...@concentric.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.165.55.206
Lines: 27
Sender: jmcad...@clark.net
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:14:40 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 161.58.1.85
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 970207339 161.58.1.85 (Fri, 29 Sep
2000 06:02:19 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 06:02:19 GMT
mshack wrote:
>
> Yep, John, the less you know, the more "excellent" it looks. The more you
> know, the sillier and more fraudulent. See my reply to this nonsense.
>
I've looked at that. You keep saying David is wrong, but you have
nothing solid to back it up with -- except assurances that eventually
you'll be vindicated.
> With your academic training, John, I would have thought you wouldn't be so
> quick to jump to conclusions based on the sham claims of an "interested
> party" (writing a "competing" book on Oswald). I did a LOT more looking
> before I leapt, John.
>
I don't see how David is really an "interested party," since he could have
eventually included her story in *his* book. Further, her kind of "I was
there" account doesn't really compete against a major secondary work on
Oswald. They are just different kinds of books.
.John
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/8b90c8d5df3213d9?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!cyclone-
sf.pbi.net!216.65.16.3!news-in.nibble.net!HSNX.atgi.net!sjc-
peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!
jmcadams
From: John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
Return-Path: <john.mcad...@marquette.edu>
Message-ID: <39D42B...@marquette.edu>
Organization: Marquette University
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com>
<39D410...@concentric.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.165.55.206
Lines: 30
Sender: jmcad...@clark.net
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:41:21 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 161.58.1.85
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 970207359 161.58.1.85 (Fri, 29 Sep
2000 06:02:39 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 06:02:39 GMT
mshack wrote:
>
> What an ego, David!
> "The Ex-Lax Plot"--not much imagination there, just a humorless attempt
> at ridicule. Time to develop a sense of humor, my lad.
> You "found her to be completely non-credible." Not impressed, given what
> little you covered in the call.
[snipping]
> As for your pitiful references to her story, they are a mixture of
> inaccuracies and details misleadingly taken out of context--of course,
> it is even more likely that you didn't bother to explore the context.
> The Phillips reference is particularly misrepresented, but you probably
> don't even know enough to realize that, so perhaps you should be
> excused. That's what happens when you are in too much of a hurry.
> Her co-workers in Florida "knew the assassination was going to happen?"
> Not true, David. They gathered to watch the coverage--AFTERWARDS. Once
> again, you got it totally wrong. But perhaps you're just not a good
> listener, David.
When did you first talk to her, Martin?
I'm wondering whether he story wasn't already "cleaned up" a bit by the
time you got access to her.
.John
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/75f81b430571b151?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/75f81b430571b151?dmode=source
Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!cyclone-
sf.pbi.net!216.65.16.3!news-in.nibble.net!HSNX.atgi.net!sjc-
peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!
jmcadams
From: John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
Return-Path: <john.mcad...@marquette.edu>
Message-ID: <39D428...@marquette.edu>
Organization: Marquette University
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com>
<39D410...@concentric.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.165.55.206
Lines: 32
Sender: jmcad...@clark.net
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:28:13 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 161.58.1.85
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 970207390 161.58.1.85 (Fri, 29 Sep
2000 06:03:10 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 06:03:10 GMT
mshack wrote:
>
>
> Another view of the conversation:
> Lifton was clearly disbelieving early in the conversation. He doubted
> several things that are, in fact, very well documented,
The problem here, Martin, is that things you think are "well documented"
sometimes aren't well documented at all. Like a "link" between Banister
and Oswald. Or Clay Shaw working for the CIA *after* his contacts with
the DCS had ended. See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/fairplay.htm
> and adopted a
> condescending tone from that point on, asking few questions, and showing
> little interest. He said it was unlikely he would have time to listen to
> much in the way of detail, so the content remained relatively
> superficial. He asked about Lee in Dallas, but she wasn't in Dallas, and
> wasn't a direct witness there. He expressed open doubt about a couple
> more things that are very well documented
I'm sure you wouldn't share with us the things that are "well documented"
that Lifton doubts, would you? Your argument is only as good as the
"documentation."
.John
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/3692a198f83883b3?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: mshack <msh...@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
Date: 2000/09/29
Message-ID: <39D50...@concentric.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 675713929
Sender: jmcad...@clark.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
References: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com>
<39D3F5...@marquette.edu> <39D412...@concentric.net>
<39D425...@marquette.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 970270563 161.58.1.88 (Fri, 29 Sep
2000 23:36:03 GMT)
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 23:36:03 GMT
Reply-To: msh...@concentric.net
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
John:
I don't really care if you're convinced at this point in time.
I'm not going to violate a promise of confidentiality to satisfy your
curiosity, no matter how many ways you phrase the effort.
As for well-documented, there is absolutely no doubt that she worked
for the Reily Co. at exactly the same time as Oswald. The documentation
for that would more than satisfy you (and I'm sure you can guess what sort
of documentation we have for that), but Lifton never asked to see it. If I
were writing a book on Oswald, I would at least want to check such a story
out--why didn't he? Makes you wonder.
My own first contact was in May 1999. At that time, her account had
been written out, and the original was available for examination. It has
not changed in any significant element since that time. The Salon columns
were very misleading, and nothing in them should be taken very seriously.
Martin
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/05865f222db4306d?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu>
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
Date: 2000/09/29
Message-ID: <39D56C...@marquette.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 675776425
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
Sender: jmcad...@able.comm.net
References: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com>
<39D3F5...@marquette.edu> <39D412...@concentric.net>
<39D425...@marquette.edu> <39D50...@concentric.net>
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.254.157.40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: 29 Sep 2000 23:46:25 -0500, 199.254.157.40
Organization: Marquette University
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
mshack wrote:
>
> John:
>
> I don't really care if you're convinced at this point in time.
> I'm not going to violate a promise of confidentiality to satisfy
> your curiosity, no matter how many ways you phrase the effort.
Then why have you been discussing her testimony on the newsgroups for
months?
It really isn't kosher to quote a witness as though she is credible, and
then withhold the information that would allow people to judge her
credibility.
> As for well-documented, there is absolutely no doubt that she worked
> for the Reily Co. at exactly the same time as Oswald. The documentation
> for that would more than satisfy you (and I'm sure you can guess what
> sort of documentation we have for that), but Lifton never asked to see
> it. If I were writing a book on Oswald, I would at least want to check
> such a story out--why didn't he? Makes you wonder.
I'm perfectly prepared to believe that she worked at Reily. Just how does
that validate the *rest* of her story? Especially the wacky "CIA" stuff,
and the David Atlee Phillips stuff?
A lot of people who were really part of history do embellish their
stories. Sort of like Al Gore and the Internet :-).
Jean Hill really was in Dealey Plaza. That fact doesn't validate the many
wild things she has said.
> My own first contact was in May 1999. At that time, her account had
> been written out, and the original was available for examination. It has
> not changed in any significant element since that time. The Salon
> columns were very misleading, and nothing in them should be taken very
> seriously.
>
When the book, or whatever, comes out, will her earliest written-out
account be made available to any researcher who wants to see it?
.John
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/35b9fd1e4b4fb3e1?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: mshack <msh...@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
Date: 2000/09/30
Message-ID: <39D571...@concentric.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 675969802
Sender: jmcad...@clark.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
References: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com>
<39D3F5...@marquette.edu> <39D412...@concentric.net>
<39D425...@marquette.edu> <39D50...@concentric.net> <39D56C2C.
5E...@marquette.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 970344867 161.58.1.85 (Sat, 30 Sep
2000 20:14:27 GMT)
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 20:14:27 GMT
Reply-To: msh...@concentric.net
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
John,
If you'll go back and read the posts, you'll find that I haven't been
discussing her "testimony"(wrong term, John) for months. I've said very
little about it--and you've been frustrated about that. To claim now that
I've been broadcasting it is absurd.
As for your analogy, John, bad choice. "Al Gore claimed that he
invented the Internet" is Republican propaganda, a comment taken out of
context. Rather like Lifton's version of Judyth.
You know how familiar I am, and how critical I've been of Jean Hill's
elaborations. I'm surprised that you think I would have anything to do
with something similar.
I'm sure that the earliest written account will eventually be
available in some form, as several people have copies of it. As to the
specifics, I've never been much of a prognosticator. I suspect you'll see
it long before I see Posner's research materials, or all of Lifton's.
Martin
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/61966ab67f886c58?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu>
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
Date: 2000/09/30
Message-ID: <39D695...@marquette.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 676199808
Sender: jmcad...@clark.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
References: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com>
<39D3F5...@marquette.edu> <39D412...@concentric.net>
<39D425...@marquette.edu> <39D50...@concentric.net> <39D56C2C.
5E...@marquette.edu> <39D571...@concentric.net>
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.165.55.191
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 970411486 161.58.1.85 (Sun, 01 Oct
2000 14:44:46 GMT)
Organization: Marquette University
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 14:44:46 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
mshack wrote:
>
> John,
>
> If you'll go back and read the posts, you'll find that I haven't
> been discussing her "testimony"(wrong term, John) for months. I've said
> very little about it--and you've been frustrated about that. To claim
> now that I've been broadcasting it is absurd.
Did you or did you not say she claimed that a "drop down staircase"
connected Banister's office to the second floor of the Newman building?
Did you or did you not mention something about her putting Oswald and
Ferrie together?
Maybe somebody who has been following your "mystery witness" posts more
closely than I can mention additional details that you've aired on the
newsgroup.
> As for your analogy, John, bad choice. "Al Gore claimed that he
> invented the Internet" is Republican propaganda, a comment taken out of
> context. Rather like Lifton's version of Judyth.
Gore said the "took the initiative" in creating the Internet. That's not
true. Scientists in DARPA did. He supported the Internet in Congress.
That's different. That's embellishing. But not as much as Judyth.
> You know how familiar I am, and how critical I've been of Jean
> Hill's elaborations. I'm surprised that you think I would have anything
> to do with something similar.
I frankly find you very sensible on a lot of issues, and way to willing to
accept unreliable stuff on others. In the latter category, the "Al Navis
phantom Lee Bowers letter" and the "crank phone call claiming to be Karen
Carlin" come to mind.
So I'm quite sure you would have nothing to do with something you
*realized* was like Jean Hill.
> I'm sure that the earliest written account will eventually be
> available in some form, as several people have copies of it. As to the
> specifics, I've never been much of a prognosticator. I suspect you'll
> see it long before I see Posner's research materials, or all of
> Lifton's.
>
I'm glad to hear that. Because there is gonna be a huge stink if it isn't
made available. People are going to think something is being concealed
that would impeach her credibility.
It's not just the government that gets bashed for concealing things,
Martin :-).
.John
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/82fbf81f513fd836?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: John.McAd...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
Subject: Judyth Baker and the Paul Hoch Ratio test
Followup-To: alt.assassination.jfk
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 01:27:18 GMT
Message-ID: <39d691f3...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.165.55.191
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.165.55.191
X-Trace: 30 Sep 2000 20:22:46 -0500, 206.165.55.191
Lines: 27
Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!
newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!netnews.com!news-xfer.newsread.com!
bad-news.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!mcadams.posc.mu.edu!
206.165.55.191
At the 1993 Midwest Conference Paul Hoch presented a very interesting
talk. I saw it, and Marquette's library has the tapes. I think Dave
Starks would *still* sell the tapes to anyone who wants them.
One of his observations was:
<quote on>
"Anyone who spends time in the FBI files develops his own filters for
detecting probable junk.... I suspect that a useful measure of the
plausibility of an allegation could be derived from the percentage of
well-known names. If a source claims to have met with David Ferrie, Allen
Dulles, and Fidel Castro in Jack Ruby's nightclub, I'll go on to the next
document. Any post-Garrison story with Clay Shaw in it starts with a
heavy burden of skepticism to overcome. I now put Roscoe White in the
same category."
<quote off>
It seems that Judyth fails this test.
.John
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c5e2af72a6fa39d5?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
From: John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu>
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker
Date: 2000/10/02
Message-ID: <39D931...@marquette.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 676865000
Sender: jmcad...@clark.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
References: <4a06a0...@bphil.org>
<20001001133032...@ng-ce1.aol.com>
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.165.55.217
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 970536831 161.58.1.85 (Tue, 03 Oct
2000 01:33:51 GMT)
Organization: Marquette University
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 01:33:51 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Karl Vissers wrote:
>
> >From: HvK E...@bphil.org
>
> >All this preemptive stuff doesn't reflect too well on the LN brigade : why
> >not just wait, rather than giving the distinct impression of running
> >scared?
> >
>
> Hi HvK
>
> I totally agree with you. As far as I know Lifton is the only one that has
> talked to Judyth and he has never looked at the evidence that she has to back
> up her claim.
How could he??!!
Judyth's handlers are keeping it secret!
> I have also be told that Mr Lifton didn't really giver Judyth a
> very good interview.
OIC. You've been *told* that, have you?
And you believed it? But you were probably "told" by supporters of the
"Judyth" story, right?
And they were probably "told" by Judyth herself, right?
It sounds to me like she told Lifton some wacky things, and then when she
got wind of the fact that Lifton was saying her story is bunk she starts
explaining how he conducted such a terrible interview.
> All he was interested in was her opinion of his book. If
> people will wait just a little longer they will see the assassination in a
> different light. The truth has long be suspected but now all the real players
> will be brought out. I know that most of the people on this NG will give what I
> have to say much respect but I will still ask in Judyth's behalf that she be
> given the benefit of the doubt.
>
Why? She waits 37 years and then comes out with a wild story about being
Lee Oswald's girlfriend and knowing all these very sinister people -- the
usual cast of characters in conspiracy books -- in New Orleans. Did you
believe the Roscoe White business? Chancey Holt? Beverly Oliver?
There is a history here, you know. The burden is on Judyth's supporters
to produce some hard evidence. And just showing that she worked at Reily
Coffee Company doesn't prove much.
.John
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/af2a309f3cd85569?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!
logbridge.uoregon.edu!HSNX.atgi.net!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!
news.verio.net!iad-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!jmcadams
From: mshack <msh...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: Judyth Baker
Approved: jmcad...@execpc.com
Return-Path: <n...@concentric.net>
Errors-To: <n...@concentric.net>
Organization: Concentric Internet Services
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <39D949...@concentric.net>
References: <4a06a0...@bphil.org>
<20001001133032...@ng-ce1.aol.com>
<39D931...@marquette.edu>
Reply-To: msh...@concentric.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-GZone (Win95; I)
Sender: jmcad...@clark.net
Date: 03 Oct 2000 02:49:16 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 161.58.1.76
X-Complaints-To: ab...@verio.net
X-Trace: iad-read.news.verio.net 970545218 161.58.1.76 (Tue, 03 Oct
2000 03:53:38 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 03:53:38 GMT
This is a complete lie, John.
Judyth offered Lifton details, and he said he had no time for them. She
offered to show him the evidence, and he declined. The demand that we
start handing out chunks of documentation at your behest is just more
bullshit, John. You can wait for publication like everyone else. The claim
that we've been leaking "all sorts of stuff" is also a lie. Very little
has been discussed--one reason you've been frustrated. It is sheer
hypocrisy, after complaining we weren't offering enough to now say we've
been revealing "all sorts of stuff." Why bother? You'll get the
information when everyone else does, and no sooner. If you don't have the
patience for that, it's not my problem, nor anyone else's but your own. We
talked with Judyth about the Lifton call right away, so there was no
"later version" resulting from feedback we didn't get until some time
later. It "sounds to me" like you're grasping at straws and assuming the
worst--with no evidence whatsoever to support it. You're blowing smoke,
John--and ugly smoke at that. You're implying things you can't prove,
making accusations without any evidence for them, and relying on the word
of someone you normally wouldn't give an ounce of credit to. The hypocrisy
is rank, John. Nothing is being "kept secret." It just hasn't been
published yet. I'm sure you know a lot of colleagues who hand over their
manuscripts before publication, don't you? And I'll bet they hand them
over to those they believe will be most critical of them, too, don't they.
And you can't see the stink of your own hypocrisy? You post repeated and
even repetitive demands for evidence--and yet you have no problem lightly
impugning the integrity of a witness and several researchers without a
scrap of it!! Must be coaching the witness; must be a fraud; must be
"concealing evidence." Based on WHAT, John? Based on NOTHING. The evidence
is there, John. When it lands on you, it will land hard. You are setting
yourself up, and the results will be no one's fault but your own. Then,
you can tell us how glad you are to have it all out there.
Martin
--
Martin Shackelford
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by
those
who have not got it." ---George Bernard Shaw
John McAdams wrote:
>
> Karl Vissers wrote:
>
> >
> > >From: HvK E...@bphil.org
> >
> > >All this preemptive stuff doesn't reflect too well on the LN brigade : why
> > >not just wait, rather than giving the distinct impression of running
> > >scared?
> > >
> >
> > Hi HvK
> >
> > I totally agree with you. As far as I know Lifton is the only one that has
> > talked to Judyth and he has never looked at the evidence that she has to back
> > up her claim.
>
> How could he??!!
>
> Judyth's handlers are keeping it secret!
>
> > I have also be told that Mr Lifton didn't really giver Judyth a
> > very good interview.
>
> OIC. You've been *told* that, have you?
>
> And you believed it? But you were probably "told" by supporters of the
> "Judyth" story, right?
>
> And they were probably "told" by Judyth herself, right?
>
> It sounds to me like she told Lifton some wacky things, and then when
> she got wind of the fact that Lifton was saying her story is bunk she
> starts explaining how he conducted such a terrible interview.
>
> > All he was interested in was her opinion of his book. If
> > people will wait just a little longer they will see the assassination in a
> > different light. The truth has long be suspected but now all the real players
> > will be brought out. I know that most of the people on this NG will give what I
> > have to say much respect but I will still ask in Judyth's behalf that she be
> > given the benefit of the doubt.
> >
>
> Why? She waits 37 years and then comes out with a wild story about
> being Lee Oswald's girlfriend and knowing all these very sinister people
> -- the usual cast of characters in conspiracy books -- in New Orleans.
> Did you believe the Roscoe White business? Chancey Holt? Beverly
> Oliver?
>
> There is a history here, you know. The burden is on Judyth's supporters
> to produce some hard evidence. And just showing that she worked at
> Reily Coffee Company doesn't prove much.
>
> .John
> -
> Kennedy Assassination Home Page
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
Dave