Judyth Baker a fraud

[Jack Anderson]

I have read through the Judyth Baker confession and found it to be full of
mishaps.
1. With all of the sophistocated poisons out, I doubt they would try to give
Castro cancer.
2. No evidence to prove what she says is true.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm

[Canuck]

Again, do a search under her name and you will find that the Baker's
allegations have been dealt with extensively at this site. Btw, it is
spelled "sophisticated".
- Peter R. Whitmey

[rob.s...@gmail.com]

Now there is a new flash for you!

[Anthony Marsh]

I agree with most of what you say, but don't put it past the CIA to try
the nuttiest ideas. Remember their psychic assassins program. And look at
how many of their crazy Castro plots failed and how they would entertain
almost any idea.

--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh

[Canuck]

Do you mean "news flash"? - prw

[Martin Shackelford]

What you read was a webpage ATTACKING her. Not a very objective source,
as even some of McAdams' allies have conceded.
I've seen her evidence. I find her account quite credible.

Martin

[Martin Shackelford]

A depilatory to cause his beard to fall out sounded like a crazy idea,
too, but that was one of the confirmed CIA schemes.
As for "no evidence," that simply isn't true.

Martin

[rob.s...@gmail.com]

Jack,

Judyth has a book due out any time soon. Why don't you pick out a copy
when it comes out and judge for yourself.

Rob

[rob.s...@gmail.com]

Yes "News Flash"

[JLeyd...@aol.com]

That's your story, Shackelford, and you're pretty much stuck with it.
Fortunately (for you), there is never going to be a book so we'll never
know just what "evidence" you found so compelling. However, we do know
from the Nigel Bruce docudrama on Judyth that there is none.

JGL

[Pamela McElwain-Brown]

On 31 Oct 2005 12:18:38 -0500, "Jack Anderson"
<janderso...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

McAdams' page on Judyth Baker is intended to create the impression that
she is a fraud. You have, however, picked up on one issue that does and
will require documentation on Judyth's part to make it convincing. I
didn't think the idea of a poison pill melting in cold cream was so
creative either, but, according to Marita Lorenz that is what happened.
Also, the talk of fish-toxins by CIA seemed ridiculous; but that was the
case as well.

Judyth will have a book out before too long and her documentation will be
available there for everyone to evaluate. Rather than debating whether
she is a 'fraud' or not, perhaps the issue that can be dealt with
constructively at this time is what value her statements have to
understanding what happened (or not) and whether her statements serve to
provide substantiation for LHO's innocence (or not).

Pamela

www.in-broad-daylight.com

[Anthony Marsh]

Pamela McElwain-Brown wrote:

> On 31 Oct 2005 12:18:38 -0500, "Jack Anderson"
> <janderso...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I have read through the Judyth Baker confession and found it to be full of
>>mishaps.
>>1. With all of the sophistocated poisons out, I doubt they would try to give
>>Castro cancer.
>>2. No evidence to prove what she says is true.
>>
>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
>>
>
>
> McAdams' page on Judyth Baker is intended to create the impression that
> she is a fraud. You have, however, picked up on one issue that does and
> will require documentation on Judyth's part to make it convincing. I
> didn't think the idea of a poison pill melting in cold cream was so
> creative either, but, according to Marita Lorenz that is what happened.

She was not the only one who tried to use such an excuse. I think she
simply had no will to murder her former lover. There was a similar
attempt where the cook claimed that the pill had become frozen in
something and could not be retrieved.

> Also, the talk of fish-toxins by CIA seemed ridiculous; but that was the
> case as well.
>

The CIA and others often harvested red tide poison and experimented with it.

> Judyth will have a book out before too long and her documentation will be
> available there for everyone to evaluate. Rather than debating whether
> she is a 'fraud' or not, perhaps the issue that can be dealt with
> constructively at this time is what value her statements have to
> understanding what happened (or not) and whether her statements serve to
> provide substantiation for LHO's innocence (or not).
>
> Pamela
>
> www.in-broad-daylight.com
>

[Martin Shackelford]

Hang on to your certainty as long as you can.

Martin

[JLeyd...@aol.com]

Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Hang on to your certainty as long as you can.
>
> Martin

My "certainty" that the Judyth Baker story is a "fraud" is based on your
inability to prove otherwise. This story is six and one-half years old
now and we've never seen one single shred of evidence in your thousands
and thousands of post that Judyth ever knew Oswald, let alone had a sleazy
affair with him. Absolutely no evidence that they ever worked together in
a secret cancer lab either. .I hope everyone here remembers who the people
were that peddled this fraud. I won't forget.

Certain of that,too.

JGL

[Martin Shackelford]

I can always count on you to place a negative interpretation on the fact
that I have kept a promise not to post evidence pre-publication.

Martin

[JLeyd...@aol.com]

Martin Shackelford wrote:
> I can always count on you to place a negative interpretation on the fact
> that I have kept a promise not to post evidence pre-publication.
>
> Martin
>

It's rather disingenuous of you, Shackelford, to post thousands and
thousands of messages alleging that Judyth has slam-dunk evidence of her
far-fetched romance with Oswald and then refuse to cite even one example
of that evidence. The reason, of course, is you have no evidence. All
you know is what Judyth told you because you never even bothered to check
out her story by interviewing insterested parties like her ex-husband and
Marina Oswald. No wonder this project went south.

JGL

[Martin Shackelford]

Your predictability is comforting.
You ALWAYS cite Robert (omitting that he has said he knows nothing that
would contradict her account) and Marina (whom I contacted, but who
declined to respond) as "proof" that I did NO research on Judyth's
statements. Of course, that is nonsense. Of course I checked out her story.
As for failing to cite any evidence of Judyth's affair with Oswald, that
is also nonsense. I've mentioned witnesses who saw them together, items
in his handwriting, and other material. For the rest, see the book.
If the project "went south," it's news to me. What's your source?

Martin

[atlasrecrd]

And just as soon as Judyth has read Joan Mellen's book, I'm sure we'll
have an, ahem, "update" on Judyth's tale.

[Martin Shackelford]

Won't happen.

Martin

[JLeyd...@aol.com]

I think we can stamp case closed on the whole Judyth thing, Shackelford.
Anyone who can't let go can always rummage through your thousands and
thousands of posts here confidently predicting great things for the story
of Judyth & Lee and wonder how you possibly could have been so wrong. I
think I know but the moderators won't let me get away with my explanation.

JGL

[Pamela McElwain-Brown]

Well, then, what's you're thinking on Gladys from AF2J? Same thing?

Pamela

[Martin Shackelford]

You can thank them later for not allowing you to embarrass yourself.

Martin

[JLeyd...@aol.com]

If you're not embarrassed, Shackelford, after thousands and thousands
of posts slavishly hawking Judyth's story and promising a book was just
around the corner, I think I can handle whatever comes.

JGL

[Martin Shackelford]

I'm not at all embarrassed. I've seen her evidence and read her book.
When I hear uninformed criticism, I just consider the source.

Martin

[JLeyd...@aol.com]

Ah, that's the pity of it, Shackelford. You should be embarrassed by your
more than five years of empty promises on Judyth's behalf but you're not.
We'll have to be embarrassed for you.

JGL

[tomnln]

Hi David;

I was just wondering what the Basis is for your views.

In an attempt to evaluate your views can you tell me if you have read the
26 volumes?.

Thanks in advance Sir.

"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1131755739....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> My thoughts on the tripe known as "TMWKK" (including Judyth's fanciful
> 2003 chapter):
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1FDW1SPYKB354/102-5153972-5835350
>
>

[Martin Shackelford]

Spare yourself. Worry about your own embarrassments.

Martin

[David VP]

>> I was just wondering what the Basis is for your views.

1.) Common sense.
2.) Logical thinking.
3.) Hard facts and evidence leading to nobody but a person named
Oswald.
4.) A non-paranoid mindset that does not have me screaming "Conspiracy"
every few seconds (or when every single thing doesn't quite "add up" --
eg: the "Mauser"/"Carcano" nonsense that so many CTers feel is virtual
PROOF of conspiracy. Which, of course, is pure idiocy from any "Patsy
Plotters'" pre-shooting POV -- WHY on Earth would they plant the WRONG
kind of rifle to be found by police in order to frame Oswald -- a
"Patsy" who didn't own a Mauser...he owned a Carcano).

And, no, I haven't read every single word of every single one of the WC
26 volumes. I know of Zero persons who have done that. (Therefore, I
suppose my LN views are totally worthless now, correct? Pffft.)

If you have managed to read all volumes, bravo to your stalwart effort
in that regard.

But if you think that by missing a few words in those published
volumes, that fact is going to change the vast evidence that says LHO
is a double-murderer -- you'd better take a horizontal position on the
couch until the shrink arrives.