Judyth Baker and the Ex-Lax Plot
David Lifton
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
John McAdams
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
Joe Riehl
DLi...@compuserve.com says...
[autosnip]
Hmm. Interesting. I wonder why she didn't ask you to keep what she said
confidential. Or did she?
John McAdams
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.
JudyandJFK
>From: David Lifton DLi...@compuserve.com
>Date: 9/28/00 3:57 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <200009281657_...@compuserve.com>
>
>
>
Will be waiting for further information. Interesting, I must say.
To go out on a tangent see the report concerning ExLax. Also, noted that
the same article mentions ExLax has been around since the 1960s, but not
which years.
Quote
October 13, 1997
Laxative Lowdown
HealthNews from the publishers of the New England Journal of Medicine
In late summer, the US Food and Drug Administration proposed banning the
active ingredient in Ex-Lax and similar nonprescription laxatives due to
"long-term safety concerns." The request grew from research showing that
rats and mice fed the chemical, phenolphthalein, for two years developed a
variety of tumors. No human studies have revealed any cancer related to
phenolpthalein, the agency noted, and the rodents consumed up to 100 times
the dose recommended for humans. Even so, the FDA concluded that there was
a "potential cancer risk to people who use this ingredient at higher than
recommended doses or for extended periods of time."
Novartis
Stop quote
She had better change her laxative, if nothing else.
Judy
mshack
"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
mshack
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.
mshack
And David agreed to do so.
Tells you a lot, doesn't it?
mshack
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.
John McAdams
>
> 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 McAdams
>
> 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 McAdams
>
>
> 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."
fit...@my-deja.com
David Lifton <DLi...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> Judyth Baker & The Ex-Lax Plot
> (OR: Lee Harvey Oswald - - Reluctant Assassin)
>
> by David S. Lifton, 9/28/00
>
repeated three or four times on this thread. Here's the passage I
found especially interesting;
>
> 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."
IOW, she's saying LHO was a co-conspirator and a shooter. So it's good-
bye innocent patsy in the unlikely event she's telling the truth.
fitz
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
W. Tracy Parnell
of the assassination, it's a wonder they didn't sell tickets!
W. Tracy Parnell
http://www.madbbs.com/~tracy/
"David Lifton" <DLi...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:200009281657_...@compuserve.com...
>
> 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."
>
mshack
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.
mshack
There will be some surprises for everyone in this, I think. It's
more complex that David makes it sound--but of course, he doesn't know
much of the story, except for the brief phone call.
JLeyden900
>From: "W. Tracy Parnell" <Tr...@madbbs.com>
>Date: Fri, Sep 29, 2000 15:41 EDT
>Message-id: <8r2rf...@enews3.newsguy.com>
>
>Thanks for a great post David. Given all the people that had "foreknowledge"
>of the assassination, it's a wonder they didn't sell tickets!
>
>
>W. Tracy Parnell
Well, she did set up chairs around the TV for her friends viewing pleasure but
I don't think she sold tickets.
JGL
Clark Wilkins
mshack <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:39D50D...@concentric.net...
I have to agree with you, Martin, concerning Lifton's attitude towards
Judith. Unfortunately, I might have a similar attitude had I spoken to
her. If I find someone is feeding me BS in a JFK interview, I don't
develop a positive attitude towards the person. However, I also don't
write up a post about it like Dave did in what is clearly a Posner style
political hack job. So now I'm curious. I thought her story to be
another Beverly Oliver tale but, if you have faith in this woman, I'll
give her the benefit of the doubt, something I wouldn't ordinarily do with
anyone who claimed to be Oswald's "lover". But I have faith and respect
in you. So how do I find out more about what she has to say? And how did
she explain arriving at Phillip's name? Feel free to reply to me in
private if you choose.
Just curious.
::Clark::
John McAdams
>
> 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?
mshack
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.
John McAdams
>
> 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 McAdams
>
> Hmm. Interesting. I wonder why she didn't ask you to keep what she said
> confidential. Or did she?
She says she did, although it's an interesting question whether one is
bound by a pledge of confidentiality when keeping quiet helps someone
perpetuate a fraud.
My impression is that the same issue came up with John Stockwell and the
James Files "confession." Vernon claims that Stockwell signed a
"nondisclosure" agreement. I don't know whether he did, and I don't
care. He had a moral obligation to expose Files. See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/files.htm
John McAdams
<DLi...@compuserve.com> wrote:
Well . . . this was the first post where David Lifton revealed some of
the details of his phone conversation with Judyth Baker.
I'll snip to a particularly interesting part:
>
>Judyth Baker & The Ex-Lax Plot
>(OR: Lee Harvey Oswald - - Reluctant Assassin)
>
>by David S. Lifton, 9/28/00
>
[snip]
>
>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!
>
Martin reacted strongly to this. Let me quote a portion of his post:
<Quote on>
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.
<Quote off>
But in an e-mail she sent to a bunch of people, and which was leaked
to me by someone a couple of links down the e-mail chain, she makes it
clear that she *does* have Phillips in her story, both under his real
name, and as "Maurice Bishop" (an alias the conspiracy books believe
he had, but which no evidence supports). She makes it quite clear
that Lifton's version was quite accurate.
See her message in my post "clarification re Lifton."
Martin, it really would make sense not to denounce as "misrepresented"
something that David quoted correctly.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mshack
An accurate quote taken out of context is a misrepresentation.
Robert Harris
> John,
>
> An accurate quote taken out of context is a misrepresentation.
What comes next Martin, JFK was shot from a UFO??
I find it baffling that you refuse to talk about well documented,
proveable issues like the Elrod case, or even the shooting pattern that
was confirmed by most of the DP witnesses.
But you eagerly jump on the bandwagon of unsupportable crap like this,
where you provide nothing more than something to let the McAdams crowd
look good.
Great god Martin, what would you do if some kind of evidence came along
that actually supported her claims??
Robert Harris
John McAdams
>John,
>
> An accurate quote taken out of context is a misrepresentation.
>
Martin, we can take Judyth's context, or David's context, and we still
get the fact that Judyth is claiming that David Atlee Phillips --
using the name "Maurice Bishop" although his *real name* was known to
Riley Coffee Company employees (how's that for spycraft?) -- running a
plot in Mexico City, in New Orleans, and in Dallas.
Your huffy denial was misleading, Martin. It implied what Lifton was
wrong about Judyth putting Phillips into her story, but now we know
that she certainly did.
The Paul Hoch Ratio test is looking *real* bad here, Martin :-).
.John
--
mshack
You're still misrepresenting what Judyth said about Phillips. Maybe
you'd better wait until the accurate account comes out.
Meanwhile, your good buddy Lifton is leaping into the quicksand.
mshack
At least you lack Lifton's attack mentality.