Judyth: From the Beginning, Part 16
Dave Reitzes
The "bloodbath" referred to in the first sentence is the series of
newsgroup exchanges about Judyth initiated by David Lifton and Martin
Shackelford. I have omitted references to another researcher within the
text.
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subj: [ ]
Date: 10/27/00 6:23:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Americanwebworks
To: Dreitzes, [ ]
CC: Americanwebworks
[...]
You have not written again, but just for the record, thaks for not joining
the bloodbath.
Indeed i have accomplished a loyt in my life: what's a "prodigy" who
invented a new process for getting magnesium out of seawater at age 15
supposed to do with her life, anyway, if she's afraid to do cancer
research anymore, because she's afraid she'll be found out in the new
orleans matters? WHY, seeing they see these accomplishments--and many,
such as my art is worldwide, and I've invented various tings safe for the
envirnment in limolene chemistry---they do not know about at all. I have
lived, after all, for 57 years.
I am so heartbroken that I can hardly see to write to you. i have always
been shy about tis. The aching in my soul is so intense.
I knew it would be like this and why they let me stay alive so long ago.
My specialized area of knowledge and the claims that I would make would
have been the destruction of me for the first few years, then, after Dave
and Dr. Mary died, i could be utterly discredited.
I did not offer hard evidence to anyone in the first emails i sent out. I
was trying to find some place to go, somebody to listen. You do not send
hard evidence to strangers, for God's sake. I could not go to the New York
Times. How about Posner? How about Dear Abby?
I sent out tentative emails, and they are saying that I had no evidence to
show them. Not so. They were strangers. People who have seen the evidence
and know me personally know i am a woman of integrity.
You have not seen the evidence, but it is solid.
Just for the two of you, for your personal information, a look into
David (Ferrie) for you two [...]:
Here are some sayings(from Ferrie's all-night sessions) I would like
to share these scraps from a grewat mind: they are quite appropriate
for what i am going through as i am disembowelled on the internet:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Man" can't fulfill the perfect ideal because Man's Society forces him
to be evil." (external nature, in itself, is good.)"
About Gen. Curtis LeMay: "...he is very carefully observing things--
details--he is not an emotional man--he calculates while men drown!
He is VERY insensitive." (I thought this was about Banister at first
but that arrow goes a different direction)
Concerning a hitman: "It is not simple sin, but great sin, in that he
is trying to enforce one particlar aspect of moral law without regard
to compromises &/or reconciliation of opposites, always intricate
factors in human life.
as, "never can you kill" would be a tragic position."
"Man is a creature of & creator of his history--Providence draws
meaning (virtue) out of what seems, at surface, only an evil thing."
"Social justice & society exist not to establish an ideal, but to
establish a COMPROMISE, like it or not."
===I have a whole lecture i wrote down from Dave. He could declaim and
carry on. I wanted to share this with you both, from my files,
because you are both interested in Ferrie, who i would have liked to
try to prove was an innocent man.
Thank you both for listening at least a little.
For a new generation, may the evidence survive me.
-j-
I tell you, this is as good as murdering the truth once more.
Whatever you may think of me, thank you for being a gentleman.
My friends were right. I was told long ago, never say a word, save
yourself the pain. The pain I feel is so intense I can hardly bear
it. All i can say is thank you for not joining in the curcifixion
[...]. Whether they like it or not, I do have evidence. I guess it
shall go to the grave with me.
-j-
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subject: Help Wanted
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:15:58 GMT
From: jpsh...@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
New Orleans Times-Picayune April 27, 1963 S3-P13
HELP WANTED -- MALE
Mechanical
MAINTENANCE MECHANIC HELPER
High school graduate, age 20 to 30, must be a New Orleans resident.
Prefer married veteran with industrial maintenance experience.
Starting pay $1.50 per hour. Apply in person to Mr. Prechter, 640
Magazine.
HELP WANTED -- FEMALE
Clerical
CLERK-TYPIST
Wonderful opportunity for 2 intelligent young ladies to work in our modern
air-conditioned office. Should be between the ages of 18 and 30, able to
type at least 40 accurate words a minute and [have] ability to work with
figures. Apply 640 Magazine, Mr. A.T. Prechter.
[Appeared through May 10.]
July 3, 1963 S3-P9
HELP WANTED -- MALE
Mechanical
MAINTENANCE MECHANIC
High school graduate, age 25 to 40, married, veteran, New Orleans
resident. Starting pay $1.80 per hour. Must have mechanical and industrial
maintenance experience. Excellent working conditions and fringe benefits.
Advancement opportunity. Apply in person to Mr. Prector [sic], 640
Magazine.
[Appeared through July 15. Prector corrected to Prechter starting
July 9.]
July 20, 1963 S3-P11
HELP WANTED -- FEMALE
Clerical
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Young lady to work as secretary for vice-president. Must be intelligent,
good typist and be able to take shorthand. See Mr. Prechter, 640 Magazine.
[Appeared through August 2, with different wording and Mrs. Bertucci
substituted for Mr. Prechter beginning August 1:]
August 1, 1963 S2-P13
HELP WANTED -- FEMALE
Clerical
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
RARE opportunity! You type and take shorthand, we pay you well and give
many company benefits. Interested? See Mrs. Bertucci, 640 Magazine.
ACCOUNTING CLERK
High scholl graduate, must have knowledge of typing and aptitude for
numbers. 5-day, 40-hour week. Many company benefits. See Mrs. Bertucci,
640 Magazine.
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subj: phone tap
Date: 10/29/00 7:44:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], Dreitzes
CC: Atlasrecrd, Howpl, [ ], [ ], re...@louisiana.edu,
[ ], [ ]
[...]
I heard (way back in 1963) from somebody --- perhaps it was even from
D.F. himself--- that Dave Ferrie had his name removed from the phone
book because he thought his phone was tapped---- in 1962! I think he
may have obtained an unlisted number.
I would also like to know where Wm. Monaghan disappeared to.
He lefy , (as some others did, a few months before he did....who were
there temp. at Reily's) as suddenly as he came, and family members
took over that traditional spot of Vice Pres. again for Wm. B. Reily,
just as they had had it prior to their fact-gathering and Pro-Castro
stigmatizing of Lee, their grand co-adventure with INCA. And i think
they kept the vice presidency intact in the family tree after that,
as long and often as possible. Monaghan, brought in from the fruit co.
---and ex-FBI,----was my boss: He sort of looked --and greatly
acted---- like Broderick Crawford of Highway Patrol..
-j-
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subj: Fwd: A Defense
Date: 10/29/00 10:42:37 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: Americanwebworks, [ ], Dreitzes
CC: Atlasrecrd, [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], re...@louisiana.edu
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ]
This came from my dear daughter today. She is a sophomore in college and I
am, of course, very proud of her .She's married, an honor student with a
4.0. moreover, a talented writer, poet and arttist in her own right. She's
a fine woman: I do appreciate her support.
it is rather embarrassing, though.
-j-
-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj: A Defense
Date: 10/29/00 10:30:30 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: IVY 0749
To: ElectLady63
CC: msh...@concentric.net, Howpl
Sometimes it's hard to accept that there are people who live
unusual lives.
It is the usual thing for most people to think that high school
or college were the best years of their lives. Those years were
adventurous, fun, and filled with thousands of possiblities. For some
reason, after getting a job and (maybe) a spouse, almost everyone is
supposed to abandon that world of change and growth for one of statis and
stagnation. Life exists on the level of the temporary thrill, the
momentary rush to the top, the immediate need for prestige or money or
both. Most people are afraid of change, afraid of trying something other
than what they started out with. Most people prefer to predict their
future.
For a moment, consider the possibility that some people prefer to
"wing it." That for some, going to college for four years for one degree,
then getting a master's degree in a faintly related subject is considered
exhilarating. That going out and convincing someone to hire you for a job
in which you have no experience and little preparation for is not
daunting. That trying to make something work that others mock and scorn
you for even attempting is a worthy adventure.
These are just a few examples.
Why is it so hard to believe that someone can do more than three
or four things over the course of about 35 years? Why is it so
unbelievable that one person can have so much energy, so many interests,
and such adventures in 35 years? Simple: They don't know who they're
talking about. If they knew such a person well and/or for years, it would
be easy to believe much more. For a moment, don't judge such a person as
if you are an employer who is looking for a consistent life. You won't
find it anyway, so you might as well stop trying to pooh-pooh something
you're not expecting and that you haven't experienced.
Judyth Anne Vary Baker. Depending on what you've heard, you may
or may not believe that she could raise five kids, a new breed of dog, get
a bachelor's degree in anthopology, and is an excellent (if occasionally
very unusual) artist. Okay, maybe you can believe that. But upon hearing
that she is also an excellent writer and poet, teaches some college
classes (and has taught in the past), has a master's degree in creative
writing, and has constructed viable theories based on everything from use
of colors on commerical business to grafitti to artificial languages (like
Klingon). You might ask: Are we still talking about the same person?
Yes, yes indeed. Then you hear that she knows Ancient Egyptian as well as
a sizeable knowledge of several other languages, has changed important
religious beliefs three times in her life, backpacked alone through Israel
on a very tight budget, has been a social worker, and has lived in Europe
for a few years (for several reasons). Now, I'm sure, you just think that
there simply isn't enough time for all this. Yet I have not even broken
the skin of her "real" life.
Does a dog really respond to sign language? Yes, why not? Why is
that preposterous? I've seen it. It's limited, but definitely real. Why
should people be so incredulous?
Anyone who knows Judyth, and I mean really knows her, would have
no problem accepting that she could have done almost anything. We have
been there for some of these "unbelievable" things. I find it
unbelievable that so many can doubt and bash and mock and jeer without
even bothering to do proper research on her past, but simply dismiss the
possibility that she has just lived an unusual life.
Did she need thousands of books on Oswald to know so much? Well,
I (her daughter) am a voracious bookworm and have been such ever since I
could read (at about five years old). I did not date until my last
semester in high school, I did not and do not care for TV, I liked reading
books better than any friends I made (particularly after puberty hit
them), and I thought nothing of reading a book every couple of days. I
was always searching through any and all books I could find -- needless to
say, my favorite place was and is the library. I even glanced through
such unlikely books on chick embryology, solutions for correct drug
dosages, and old chemistry textbooks. I looked through anything and read
a bit of everything on the offchance that I might get interested in it.
This activity was almost daily. Even through we probably did have
thousands books over the years, I never saw any books on JFk or Oswald or
anything of that kind. I would have noticed anything like that.
I'm sure that the next objection is that she could have looked
this stuff up on the Net or at the library or hoarded them in her bedroom.
First, we didn't have a computer capable of Internet access until 1996 or
late 1995. I don't think we even got Internet access until 1997. Besides,
the information out on the Net is nothing if not unreliable and skewed.
Second, she did go to the library quite a bit these past years -- did it
occur to you that she was working on her doctorate? That such a thing can
require a lot of work? She always brought home books, usually something
like twelve -- and I always looked through them for something interesting.
Lastly, when it came to books, I had no respect for privacy and that
includes my mother's bedroom. I would search through her room for books
as often as I searched my own room.
That no one ever considered asking her kids about whether they saw
any such books is amazing. Apparently, they didn't consider the
possibility that such a bookworm as myself could exist in this generation.
Apparently they just assumed that, no matter what, she could manage to
dodge any evidence of research while simultaneously working to get a
master's and/or doctorate (depending how long they believe she has been at
it) and accumulating a knowledge of such events within a few years which
surpasses experts who have spent much of their lives doing this same
thing. This is more amazing and unbelievable, if not impossible, than the
simple fact that she really was there.
For some reason, perhaps because it's easy, some people find her
emotional responses as hysterical or dramatic. It is not enough that they
think that she's lying about things she's really done, or that they make
fun of the idea that she could have lived such a life, it is also
necessary that they mock her and disparage her for being upset at this and
reacting to this very strongly.
She is human. She has the "gift of gab" which helps her express
herself fluently and strongly, sometimes not to her advantage. And she
has been accused of not having really lived her life. She is being mocked
for telling the truth. Her character is being slandered because of the
facts of her life. Why wouldn't she be worried about her security since
people are certainly killed for less than this, and irresponsible people
publish not only her story but also her residence and place of business?
If someone told these doubters and accusers that they couldn't
have possibly graduated from high school and that they never dated that
guy/ girl, that it was all simply impossible and that they're just a bunch
of liars, they would be indignant, they would be shocked, they would be
emotional. In short, they would act as she is. She knows her life as
facts. She is aware that they're unusual, but they're still facts. And
she is indignant and hurt at being called a liar after so many tests and
testimonies.
Some people would probably prefer to believe that she is lying.
This includes me. I have been uncomfortable with this whole Oswald deal
ever since she told me. Not that I care too much about the affair, but I
honestly wish she didn't feel this need to publish it to the world. I
wish I had found Oswald books everywhere. I wish she'd never said
anything in the first place. But, I know my mother. I have experienced
some of her life right along side of her. I know that it's true. I know
her well enough to know without question. And I know that she will
continue to fight for the validity of her life.
Send this to whomever you want.
------------ Sarah Baker
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subject: Judyth and Jack Ruby
From: dli...@my-deja.com
Date: 11/2/00 12:31 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <8tqu89$bl1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
As you might imagine, I find the whole Judyth business not particularly
credible, but, fwiw, here's additional information that Judyth set forth
when I spoke with her on March 4, 2000.
Judyth told me that she met Jack Ruby (who she repeatedly referred to as
"Sparky", as if she had been in his "inner circle") more than one
occassion.
She also told me she met one or more of his strippers.
She also said something like: "You know, I love to paint (or draw) horses.
And I drew a picture of a horse for Sparky. I wonder if its still
around." (FWIW: My latest check of the National Archives data base does
not indicate that any picture of a horse was found amongst Ruby's
possessions.)
Finally, she told me that one of the psychological turning points in her
dialogue with Martin Shackelford (and presumably, this is also with
Platzman, but she didn't mention him, on this point) occurred when she
told Martin that Ruby (again, who she repeatedly referred to as "Sparky")
had a piece of the tip of one of his finger's missing. (This is called
"Missig Finger Syndrome"; or "Missing Finger Fantasy", if its bogus. But
there is no mention of it in the DSM-IV).
Anyway: Apparently, this is a matter of public record. (Perhaps some
poster can supply where that is stated.) But here's the point: Martin
didn't believe Judyth, saying he'd never of that before, and so they went
round and round on the subject.
Then, voila, Martin "found" (or "discovered") the reference; apparently,
there is evidence that Jack Ruby did have the tip of one of his finger's
missing; and this proved Judyth was right; and, at that point, Martin's
estimation of her then zoomed. (Again, this is what Judyth told me.)
Of course, from what I know, Judyth has read a number of books, and has
visited a number of websites on the JFK assassination. Exactly where she
got the factoid that one of Jack Ruby's finger's has the tip missing (or
bitten off) I do not know. THe point is: she knew it; Martin Shackelford
didn't, and this afforded her a certain psychological leverage with him.
And she fairly glowed with pride when she related this story to me. She
said that Martin told her either it wasn't so, or he had never heard of
that before. Then, it turned out she was right. And when, in the course
of his running debate with Judyth, he found her to be right, why her
credibility increased dramatically.
So what do we learn from this incident? Judyth turned a small piece of
non-essential information---one that most people wouldn't bother trying to
remember--into something to enhance her credibility with Shackelford.
Jack Ruby's finger afforded her that leverage.
In effect, she sent Martin on a scavenger hunt, and he--like a dutiful
golden retriever--"fetched" the incriminating evidence. (Shades of the TV
ad, where the voice says, "Lycos - - - FETCH!!")
What is amazing to me is that Judyth's m.o. is so blatantly transparent.
(It became obvious to me, during our conversation, that Judyth was
possessed of all sorts of factoids, and it became a contest of sorts, when
I spoke with her, to figure out which web site or book each came from.)
One other thing: I don't know where this fits in the puzzle, but on the
subject of Dave Phillips, Judyth told me that Lee specifically told her,
"Phillips. . . don't EVER forget that name." (As in: "American Express. .
. don't leave home without it!")
I have additional insights about Judyth Baker, but I've just expended my
daily ration on that useless subject for today.
To all my fellow Judyth addicts. . . be well.
DSL
FOR THOSE WHO LIKE KEY WORD SEARCHES: Lycos, Fetch, Shackelford,
Sparky
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Judyth and Jack Ruby
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 18:52:13 GMT
From: john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Followup-To: alt.assassination.jfk
On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 05:31:52 GMT, dli...@my-deja.com wrote:
...>Anyway: Apparently, this is a matter of public record. (Perhaps
some
>poster can supply where that is stated.) But here's the point: Martin
>didn't believe Judyth, saying he'd never of that before, and so they went
>round and round on the subject.
An e-mail correspondent of mine recognized one possible source of this
information.
<quote on> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
At The Silver Spur, there were many plays Jack had to take away. He was
not a big man -- five-foot-nine, 175 pounds -- but he was brawny in the
arms and shoulders, and fast, and deft at his tactic of the seized
initiative. We found no memory, in the jumbled fight stories from his
"bucket-of-blood" days, of his ever losing the play. He struck fast. Once,
though, having struck, he left his hand too long in an opponent's face:
"Dub" Dickerson chomped down on his finger and would not let go. By the
time Jack shook him off, the flesh was mangled and one joint of his left
finger had to be amputated. Typically, Jack and Dickerson were friends
when they met after this.
<quote off> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This is from the paperback edition of Gary Wills and Ovid Demaris, *Jack
Ruby* (New York: Da Capo Press, 1994), page 3. *Jack Ruby* was originally
published in 1968.
.John
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subj: Please keep confidential until Cox mess is straightened out--
should be soon---
Date: 11/3/00 9:32:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: Howpl, msh...@concentric.net, [ ]
To: Atlasrecrd
CC: re...@louisiana.edu, [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], Dreitzes
[...]
WAS HE A PATSY (not unwitting dupe, but a (witting) target, made a
prey, even victimized?
Even if you do not believe he was innocent, I always thought he was.
I'm his defender and i have memories of his beliefs about what was
going on.
FYI [...] et al, I know Lee used the word "patsy" meaning he was not
only an unwitting dupe, but was made a target, a tool, a witting
victim. In early emails, I called him a human sacrifice. that is
always the way I looked at it -- within my heart.
SAs you see from the WORDSMITH definition, above, "patsy": does not
have to mean merely duped.. He never hurt the president, yet was
blamed and condemned as his killer, and was set up to take the fall.
That Lee said he was a patsy did not have to include the extended
meaning to "dupe" but merely to mean he was entrapped on purpose. Just
as we were afraid he would be.
Lee was angry and offended at what happened to him in Mexico City, but
he had to play the eager dumb pup who does whatever he's told. He was
praised for 'trying" to go beyond the call of duty. He knew then that
he was being treated like dirt, though he was given a task to do when
he returned form Mexico City--he was set to inspecting photographs
that had been brought in from Ft. Worth, the latest photos of the
devastation in Cuba.
Lee once told me that his work at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall involved
classified materials that helped him learn every possible fact about
Cuban terrain, even to the rivers and streams and smallest villages.
He memorized everything, working late hours and overtime to do so. He
also did a lot of ad photographing, don;t get me wrong. But he got
access to plenty of Cuban photos, and throughout the time he had spent
back in the U.S., he was updated on Cuban radar. i do not know why. I
always thought soeday they'd send him in there, and he'd bring down a
radar station if asked, so an invasion force could land. Or maybe they
wanted him to spy out the advanced state of radar lee said the Cubans
had--it was supposedly state of the art, though nobody wanted "our
people" to know that. These are a few of the things Lee told me about
J-C-S, radar knowledge he had, and its application to his original
mission, what he thought he was originally going to do, going in as a
'nobody" into Cuba.
The attempt to take in the biowqeapon was apparently his own idea. I
have to trust that he was telling me the truth. By saying "yes" if
asked if I knew about certaoin things, I learned a great deal more, I
think, than if I had said, "I don;t know wat you're talking about."
If I ever confessed that, they never would have said anything to me.
But as it was, because of some of my own contacts, and what OI
overheard at times, i knew when to nod my head, or to say., "Yes, I
know, what do you think?" If I had ever shown lack of prior
knowledge, I would have been cut off from these things.
David Ferrie had an MK-ULTRA ste of documents which I described to a
top-notch investigator for CBS. Even though 60M backed out (time
number Four), my description of this document and how it was kept made
tis investigator, who has seen many classified projects (though not
this one), nod his head to me. I think it was not the way I used to
nod my head--I think this special investigator--whose name would amaze
you-- knew I had seen it. he even made the comment to a major news
media reporter who was with him that "they used her because it would
never leave a trace." Oh, how true! I was no doctor, had no ties---
and I was very disposable. I believe to this day that I am still alive
because David ferrie took so much heat for me.
I think he sheltered me and the others who had been involved as bets
he could, but still, they got Dr. Mary. And I think the strain
overwhelmed him. I am so grateful that he never told. I see the
litrtle joke about Lee dating somebody's wife 9used as a threat to
somebody, maybe you were the one who brought it up?)--I see that
little joke created because Lee actually DID date a married woman, and
it naturally came out that way.
Neither Lee nor I leaped into bed with each other.Marina's grumpiness
and her not telling Lee that Kerry Thornley was on their doorstep
apparently very often, really got to him, but she was pregnant, and he
didn't beat her that summer. I think she should verify he was much
nicer to her that summer. mainly because of guilt, because of me.
I was hurt, too. Robert was shipped out into the Gulf--but WHY didn't
he try ot get an in-town job, if he loved me? If he had eveyr asked me
"what did you do today?" when he WAS home--i would have told him. But
as weeks went by and he never asked, I became angry at his not caring,
and I also felt he wanted the bigger paycheck more than having a
chance for us to be together.
This, and our enormous attraction to each other-- that was what
caused us to find in each other's arms what we did noit have anywhere
else.
I ewill never get over Lee.
So they made him the patsy. His surprise was, i think, at how
efficently they laid all the blame on just his shoulders. The irony,
the boldness. NOBODY else--just him? Just him! I am unable to
name "they" ---so much wish I could. He said he did not know who they
were and none of them would have met each other before, when it
happened.
He told me that if he got captured, he was a dead man, it would never
go to a trial. he thought he would be found hung in his cell if not
shot before that in getting "captured." I think originally he was
supposed to be shot. Maybe even in that scuffle in the theater. But
he survived, and they all had to deal with him. Maybe that is why he
smiled that ironic smile. he was STILL alive and they had to deal with
all that trouble!
So, while I did not know everything that was going on in Dallas, and
indeed, probably for my own good, Lee told me he didn't know who would
be in the ring, one thing is for sure: he went in there with his eyes
wide open.
The serious discussions we had on how to get out alive (both of us,
and including Marina, etc. all of us) prompted crazy half-baked ideas,
sure---including the "ex lax" expedient---(actually it was feen-a-
mint, I think, but that was just one of many ideas I offered...not the
only one) (David Lifton does NOT take good notes-- he grabbed one idea
and spun it into absurdity...anyting to discredit the lady who might
wreck his book, i think....He did say to me that his book was almost
finished, and that he would have no room to change anything, only to
put my name in "a footnote" in his book "because it was too late to
place anything "about you and your claims" in the text. . This was
near the end of our conversation: the arrogance with which he said
this was especially offensive to me.
David Lifton actually asked me if I was flown first class or regular
class, and which hotel I had been put in, to see how well they had
treated me (as an index of whether they believed me?) by Sixty
Minutes! When i told him Hotel Parker- Meridien (it's the Sixty
Minutes' hotel of choice, just down the street from CBS, also just a
two city blocks from Carnegie Hall and Newsweek main offices) he
sounded absolutely miserable. I heard him sigh, as if, what a shame
they are taking her seriously, what shall i do? i could hear it in
his tone, and I was offended that he cared more about the hotel i was
put up in than talking to me about New orleans-to-Dallas 1963 as lee's
confidante, which I certainly had been.
Lee had NOBODY to confide in. We did not talk for minutes. we talked
one or two hours each time. I loved him, i knew he loved me. Debra
Conway thinks we had an affair in N.O. and he just abandoned me. If
that were so, why didn;t I just go back to school? Why was i still
doing things for the project, if I had been let go and no longer
useful? But i was still involved. So he could still have a reason to
contact me, and we both took advantage of that.
If he'd backed out, we did believe he'd be eliminated anyway. And
probably i would have been, too.
I have long thought, these past months, how much we believed that
SOMEHOW SURELY everything would work out all right. That the
assassination attempts would not go through.
That he'd be able to rest easy that night of the 22nd in some plane,
winging to Hull Field, and then Dave would make sure he'd get on the
next plane (I am not sure dave would have flown himself, though he
swore it to me. he said he brought along the two guys as alibis, and
one of them would drive his car back. While he flew. I do not know
if he ever told either of these fellows what he was up to, but i think
he did so.
Lee would have got out of there, without fear, and set down far away
in Laredo, and then on to Mexico, and I'd be flown there, too. I
would have to trust that I wouldn't crash, just as he would have to
trust. It was a concern of ours.
This as because crashes were "natural" looking ways to eliminate
people. We had known it was a 'weapon of chopice" ever since
september, when our first real foreboding on this came when Alex Rorke
was lost in a flight that everybody said crashed: he it was who was
originally scheduled to fly me out (Lee and he knew each other....at
least, the man's name came up as the pilot who was murdered and that
another pilot would have to fill his shoes to get me out of there. ).
We talked about how, seeing what happened to Rorke, if I got on a
private plane, it might be rigged and I'd die, too, and this was
likewise a concern of Lee's/
. The solution for my situation was to take a bus as if leaving
Robert, to where his parents lived in Fort walton beach, then leave a
message with them that I was leaving Robert. i would then go over to
Eglin AFB, i think it was claled Hurlbert Field but no longer
remember.
I write these with people present whenever possible. It would be easy
to look that up, but you're getting this spontaneously.
I was to use one of the older training planes always flying in and out
at Eglin, where all sorts of unscheduled flights occurred anyway, as
clandestine missions were being flown. Nobody would be able to rig up
one of these planes to cause a crash, etc. as nobody knew which plane
would be used ay given time ahead of time for anything. that was the
explanation: Eglin did not have the strict controls over these flights
that were everywhere else, and it would be my ticket to Mexico.
I was given a book about Greek (modern) from Eglin AFB's library to
use --there is a name inside we need to look up. that name was the ket
to getting onto the base and into a plane. But I still had to trust
that it wouldn;t carry me to my death. i was willing to take that
chance and had my bags packed.
How to get Lee out of there that day pn the 22nd was supposedly
similarly all set up. While i never got the call until about 6;30
Florida time that evening, and then told don;t go to Eglin after all---
for lee, I have no idea how many thingds went wrong, to me, it seemed
everything possible went wrong. He was betrayed, and that is why you
hear him use the word "patsy." Not that he did not know--but because
he was betrayed.
Of course he always told me not to worry. I think the shock Lee
experienced -- when he was told he was accused of killing JFK---was
because there were supposed to be several ways for him to be able to
get out, and none had worked. there were supposed to be mob to bail
him out before such charges could get leveled at him. He'd be gone
before anything else happened. But no--he was entrapped. nobody came
forward to defend him.
All he had --originally--to do was to make a normal-looking, ordinary
exit (it is hard for me to believe that people think this man was in
flight when he was taking a bus or a cab--what surprises me, though,
is originally he was supposed to get a ride by ducking into some car
or truck --not a public vehicle. We had even talked about not using
any public vehicles, as records could be produced, or false ones.
Better not to use them at all than have a witness pop up that they had
seen him head toeward the airport).
I believe this was redboird Airport because I remember that name and --
now, much later-- somebody else told me the name and i immediately
remembered a number of additional details about a plane, that would be
ready for him there, and everyting. Which I don't wish to discuss
here.and now
So I was saddened to hear that he supposedly rode a bus. What a mix-up
from the way it had been planned, or communicated, it would be, to
me. He did tell me that he was supposed to leave all his ID behind
when he reported "for work" that day.
When I think about all of this, I think I can see Lee's anxiety level
rising if he went to pick up his ID and--just say, I am speculating--
say it was only later when they look into his wallet that there is ID
in there that was not supposed to be there. Because Lee, in flight,
would not have had incriminating ID on him. Yet there it was. I
believe he must have been as surprised as anybody else--because it is
possible stuff was planted in his wallet. He may have had additional
surprises, all of which would have registered even as shock.
I am simply saying that it seemed everythjing went wrong, nothing at
all went right, because he should have had several ways to escape, and
it seems they all vanished. That's why I have thought that Tippit was
killed for trying to help out, by an Oswald double, because Lee NEVER
threw away his cartridges, he re-iused them or collected them
frugally, never tossed them away as somebody told me happened when
Tippit was killed. They were evidence, he never would have left
evidence if that really had be4en him, so I do not think it was him,
unless he was provolked to near-crazed condition somehow by all he had
a;lready been through.
But again, it is mere speculaton. If Lee killed officer Tippit, I
believe it was because he had to. On the other hand, it is impossible
for Lee to have had a gun that could fire into Tippit ---and also
sudden;y be broken when in close quarters with police--- where it
could have gone off and hurt some policeman, heaven forbid. I think it
was planted on him. just my opinion, because lee always checked and
double-checked the condition of his revolver before taking it out to
target poractice, i know because i went with him twice.
. This revolver, in other words, was not his, not if it hadd a broken
firing pin. how handy--it kills Tippit with no trouble, then
conveniently won't fire when Lee is struggling with police. I have
been in physical struggles myself, and the silliest thing I EVER read
was that in the heat of such struggle people claim to have heard the
gun's firing pin misfire. That is about the silliest thing I have ever
heard, esp. since I have recently read that the bullet didn;t really
have an impingement mark on it, and so on.
But I'll let others fight about all of that.
Lee DID have a .38, S&W, I shot it myself, a heavy revolver.In
beautiful condition. He would always have checked things such as the
firing pin, he was methodical and careful. It is impossible that this
gun would have been on his person with a defective firing pin. The
same thing goes for the M-C rifle. He wouldn;t have used a rifle like
that, with the old ammo that it had to use that might not even fire,
it was so old.
. It was a rifle that could kill you as easily as somebody else. Lee
would have used it as close as possible, not after the limo had
already passed by...further, ..I never remeber seeing any such rifle
in Lee's possession, in N.O., although he may have got it out after I
left at very end of August.
I am going into all this detail and listing some objections because I
believe Lee never thought of himself as hopelessly doomed UNTIL the
seond and the last times I talked to him, though he gloomily predicted
it several times before ---even when we were in N.O. By Nov. 20, Lee
thought of himself as trapped no matter what he did--that even if he
got away, he would not be able to ever return to Marina and the
babies. It greatly saddened him.
I think even when he was captured, he was quite unprepared to hear the
crowd yell out that he had killed the president. He already knew he
was being accused of killing Tippit--- Tippit's fellow officers of
course were not going to be very nice to him, suspecting him as the
killer. Still, until he was formally accused of it, he had a chance of
getting bail.
While Lee told me there was little chance he would escape alive,
actually, he thought he would probably be gunned down for what I
presumed was either his failure to cooperate (by staying in the
lunchroom?), or his actually getting off the warning shot he said he
would try to get off (for which he expected to be shot, himself?). I
think that if he was in the lunchroom and did not even watch the
President go by, he was waiting there to get shot for not
cooperating.
He did not have the option of running out there and yelling, "Danger!"
First, it would be an excuse to shoot him, and over at the trade mart,
there was supposedly another ambush waiting as well. . Second, he
would get arrested for doing it, and then later his family and
everybody would suffer--without helping JFK, who would keep on going
to his apppointment with death.
While getting out alive was his priority, he doubted he would. .(I
did not have the option of warning anybody, either, because first, by
reporting this, I and my husband and maybe my family might be accused
of being in on something--or I would be made fun of and
ignored...nobody would have believed me, including my own former
husband, who would then learn of my deeds with Lee and probably
divorce me...and anything i would say would not stop that caravan--a
twenty year old in Florida? I knew it wuld do no good and get
eveyrbodsy I cared about into trouble. ).
....Had no recourse but to hope the assassination would not happen.
Anyway, what I am trying to say is that it is perfectly possible for
Lee to have been made a patsy, that "duped' is not the only meaning.
It also means
Definition 1. (slang) "one who is easily victimized or manipulated.
"==== because his family was hoistage to this, and so was I, he was
thus trapped.
Crossref. Syn. prey == he was made a prey
Related Words weakling , dupe , tool , target
he was made a targte. He was shown to be a weakling by surrounding him
with tall texans wearing tall hats. He was a tool that was used and
then destroyed. i was a tool that was used and then discarded.
And that is the way it was.
-j-
By the time bail was being denied to him, I think Lee would have
realized the I think Lee's shock at being accused as the killer of
the president came about because it meant this:
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subject: Platzman Speaks
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Date: 11/4/00 12:46 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <20001104004633...@ng-cd1.aol.com>
To the few humorless among you, that was tongue in cheek.
To all --
Martin, Matt, and I, along with some others, have been "working with"
Judyth Baker for some time now. I respect many of the people in this
newsgroup, on both sides of the issue, but I do not believe that it is a
good place to lay out a highly complicated story. Misinterpretations of
Matt's few remarks (which were in themselves somewhat misleading) already
abound. I am convinced that further "publication" here will only multiply
the confusion and, on the part of some denizens, the rancor, which is
death to all productive debate in any case.
All of those who know Judyth have made our own choices re the newsgroup.
There is no one "in control," as John McAdams has charged (indeed,
sometimes I wish he were more nearly correct than he is). Martin and Matt
know how I feel about their newsgroup activities, but they are their own
men. Judyth wrote once, out of indignation that David Lifton had broken a
confidence. She has had to fight the urge to respond publicly to the many
unkind and untrue things that have been said about her and her story on
this newsgroup, but she has many demands on her (including demands that
are purely personal in nature), so she has refrained from defending
herself, which she is quite capable of doing, I assure you.
To those who have been skeptical, she offers her understanding and asks
for your patience. Those who have been quick to judge, and cruel about
it, should rejoice: you have caused her as much pain as you intended to
cause.
I am writing now because I feel I owe an apology to those who may feel
they are being teased with information that we won't part with. (I also
owe thanks to certain researchers who have promised to withhold critiques
until all of the story comes out.) Unfortunately, we have encountered
unanticipated problems of varying sorts. For one, Judyth and I both have
legal issues to deal with before we can actively participate in any public
discussion, here or elsewhere. I have no choice but to take these issues
quite seriously.
I truly wish everyone would fold up shop on the Judyth Baker issue; the
facts are not all out there yet, and they can't be, and I see no point in
debating why we can't debate.
We have made certain choices -- in retrospect, some were wrong -- that
have tied us in knots. No one is more frustrated than we are.
I have thought along and hard about saying something to Mr. Lifton and
have restrained myself this far. But having just come across the
following, the response just writes itself.
Mr. Lifton on Ruby's finger:
"Exactly where she got the factoid that one of Jack Ruby's finger's has
the tip missing (or bitten off) I do not know. The point is: she knew it;
Martin Shackelford didn't, and this afforded her a certain psychological
leverage with him."
-- Only if he were interested in verifying her claim to have met him. If
knowing something none (or just a few) of the experts know isn't
impressive, what would be? The term "psychological leverage" is used as
if this were some kind of trick. Somehow, Martin is supposed to think
himself foolish for taking what turns out to be a true report as evidence
that she might actually have known the man.
And she fairly glowed with pride when she related this story to me.
-- And why shouldn't she "glow"? She wants desperately to be believed and
sees the odds piling up against her. When a respected researcher such as
Martin, or a well-known researcher, such as Mr. Lifton, actually comes to
believe that she is right about something neither of them knew about, why
shouldn't she "glow"? Why shouldn't she be happy that, finally, someone
believes her? Must there be something sinister in her happiness? She is
not venomous; is that a crime?
She said that Martin told her either it wasn't so, or he had never heard
of that before. Then, it turned out she was right. And when, in the
course of his running debate with Judyth, he found her to be right, why
her credibility increased dramatically.
-- Isn't that how it usually works? Someone claims something that sounds
dubious to you and they say "look it up." And it takes some effort, but
you do, and you discover they are right. A common experience, yet Mr.
Lifton presents it as a devious trick.
So what do we learn from this incident? Judyth turned a small piece of
non-essential information---one that most people wouldn't bother trying to
remember--into something to enhance her credibility with Shackelford.
-- What we learn is that Mr. Lifton has succeeded in turning logic on
its head.
If you were asked to prove you knew someone closely, you would mention an
intimate detail, something few others know -- but something that could be
verified. Is Ms. Baker to be condemned for knowing something most don't
know, or for knowing how to verify it, or for knowing someone (Martin) who
would be able to verify it? Mr. Lifton has committed the classic logical
fallacy known as circular reasoning. He wants to prove that Ms. Baker is a
fraud and Martin her fool, so he assumes what he is trying to prove. How
does he do this? By assuming that Ms. Baker found out this "non-essential
information" in some distant corner of the internet or an unpublished
manuscript, and then telling Martin about her "discovery" -- only she
makes believe this is a memory. Of course, this is all a story. Mr.
Lifton proves that Judyth is a fraud by making up a story, by assuming
duplicity on her part. Circular reasoning.
Exactly when did knowing the truth from direct experience drop out of the
equation?
Judyth is playing a game with Martin. But in "games" like this, one would
have to find the real source of this information in order to expose
someone as a fraud. Here, however, we have Mr. Lifton accepting the truth
of the claim. Very canny of him. If he did not, Martin might actually
direct him to it and he would have to deal with why his 30 years of
research failed to unearth this information. So he skips over the little
matter of whether or not she is telling the truth. It is "non-essential,"
he says. Sure it is -- unless the object is to prove you knew someone or
at least got a good, close-up look at them.
Jack Ruby's finger afforded her that leverage.
-- How novel a concept! The truth as "leverage."
In effect, she sent Martin on a scavenger hunt, and he--like a dutiful
golden retriever--"fetched" the incriminating evidence. (Shades of the TV
ad, where the voice says, "Lycos - - - FETCH!!") What is amazing to me is
that Judyth's m.o. is so blatantly transparent. (It became obvious to me,
during our conversation, that Judyth was possessed of all sorts of
factoids, and it became a contest of sorts, when I spoke with her, to
figure out which web site or book each came from.)
-- If Mr. Lifton's failure to challenge her report about Ruby's finger is
any indication, then "factoid" is defined as "anything Mr. Lifton doesn't
know." So Judyth is possessed of all sorts of knowledge Mr. Lifton doesn't
have, and yet, in his one conversation with her, and in all this after-
conversation blather, he shows no intellectual curiosity whatsoever.
Might not some of these things he does not know be "essential'?
Note that Mr. Lifton doesn't tell us how he scored in this "game" he
believes Judyth was playing with him.
But, of course, it is a losing proposition for Judyth: if she knows
something he knows, it's meaningless because it's easily available; and if
she knows something he doesn't know, it's meaningless because she
researched it.
This is just the sort of nonsense that makes interesting threads go
threadbare. It is a shame that the worst offender is also its most famous
-- or should I say its most notorious?
What a disgrace.
H
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Platzman Speaks
From: john.m...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)
Date: 11/4/00 2:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <3a03b6d4...@news.primenet.com>
On 04 Nov 2000 05:46:33 GMT, ho...@aol.com (Howpl) wrote:
>To the few humorless among you, that was tongue in cheek.
>
>To all --
>
>Martin, Matt, and I, along with some others, have been "working with" Judyth
>Baker for some time now. I respect many of the people in this newsgroup, on
>both sides of the issue, but I do not believe that it is a good place to lay
>out a highly complicated story. Misinterpretations of Matt's few remarks (which
>were in themselves somewhat misleading) already abound. I am convinced that
>further "publication" here will only multiply the confusion and, on the part of
>some denizens, the rancor, which is death to all productive debate in any case.
>
Look, Howard, whenever some absurd element of Judyth's story comes
out, Martin has been here to claim that it's "out of context."
He won't claim that she never *said* it. He just implies that if you
somehow knew the entire context, that it would make good sense.
Sorry, Howard, but a cancer research prodigy getting a job with the
CIA right out of high school just doesn't cut it. It's absurd. You
can't supply a "context" that allows that to make any sense.
And Lee Oswald going to Mexico City to get into Cuba so he could give
Castro cancer in the service of the CIA doesn't make any sense either.
Indeed, *none* of the Haslam "cancer research" stuff makes any sense.
It's bogus from beginning to end. "Context" doesn't help it.
>
>All of those who know Judyth have made our own choices re the newsgroup. There
>is no one "in control," as John McAdams has charged (indeed, sometimes I wish
>he were more nearly correct than he is).
Howard, when her story first appeared, it was floated by a publicist
who I understand has now been fired. It supposedly had a bunch of
"inaccuracies" in it.
Which raises the questions of how Judyth hired such a publicist to
begin with.
Then there was a version of her story with "encrustations." That was
Martin's term.
Who was responsible for getting the "encrustations" out of the story?
You can see why some of us fear that her story is being "sanitized,"
can't you? You know: absurd elements removed so that what remains
will seem plausible?
I must admit, however, that if it's being "sanitized," the people
doing it aren't doing a good job. It still has a ton of absurdities!
>Martin and Matt know how I feel about
>their newsgroup activities, but they are their own men. Judyth wrote once, out
>of indignation that David Lifton had broken a confidence. She has had to fight
>the urge to respond publicly to the many unkind and untrue things that have
>been said about her and her story on this newsgroup, but she has many demands
>on her (including demands that are purely personal in nature), so she has
>refrained from defending herself, which she is quite capable of doing, I assure
>you.
>
But she did respond at least once. Didn't I see a message from her?
>To those who have been skeptical, she offers her understanding and asks for
>your patience. Those who have been quick to judge, and cruel about it, should
>rejoice: you have caused her as much pain as you intended to cause.
>
>I am writing now because I feel I owe an apology to those who may feel they are
>being teased with information that we won't part with. (I also owe thanks to
>certain researchers who have promised to withhold critiques until all of the
>story comes out.) Unfortunately, we have encountered unanticipated problems of
>varying sorts. For one, Judyth and I both have legal issues to deal with
>before we can actively participate in any public discussion, here or elsewhere.
>I have no choice but to take these issues quite seriously.
>
When will the "legal issues" be taken care of, and the story be told?
And just what kind of "legal issues" would keep you and Judyth from
talking?
If you told the story publicly, and it stood up to scrutiny, that
would make a book contract, a spot on "60 Minutes," etc. easy.
>I truly wish everyone would fold up shop on the Judyth Baker issue; the facts
>are not all out there yet, and they can't be, and I see no point in debating
>why we can't debate.
>
>We have made certain choices -- in retrospect, some were wrong -- that have
>tied us in knots. No one is more frustrated than we are.
>
>I have thought along and hard about saying something to Mr. Lifton and have
>restrained myself this far. But having just come across the following, the
>response just writes itself.
>
>Mr. Lifton on Ruby's finger:
>
>"Exactly where she got the factoid that one of Jack Ruby's finger's has the tip
>missing (or bitten off) I do not know. The point is: she knew it; Martin
>Shackelford
>didn't, and this afforded her a certain psychological leverage with him."
>
>-- Only if he were interested in verifying her claim to have met him. If
>knowing something none (or just a few) of the experts know isn't impressive,
>what would be? The term "psychological leverage" is used as if this were some
>kind of trick. Somehow, Martin is supposed to think himself foolish for taking
>what turns out to be a true report as evidence that she might actually have
>known the man.
>
Yes, Martin *was* foolish to think she had some kind of "inside
knowledge" of Ruby. It turns out the "knowledge" she had was of
something printed in the WCR, in Wills and Demaris' JACK RUBY, and
probably a bunch of other places.
If this is what Martin considers "corroboration," then that destroys
his credibility when he insists that "evidence" exists to support
Judyth's story.
>And she fairly glowed with pride when she related this story to me.
>
>-- And why shouldn't she "glow"? She wants desperately to be believed and sees
>the odds piling up against her. When a respected researcher such as Martin, or
>a well-known researcher, such as Mr. Lifton, actually comes to believe that she
>is right about something neither of them knew about, why shouldn't she "glow"?
>Why shouldn't she be happy that, finally, someone believes her? Must there be
>something sinister in her happiness? She is not venomous; is that a crime?
>
It's a successful con job.
>She said that Martin told her either it wasn't so, or he had never heard of
>that before. Then, it turned out she was right. And when, in the course of his
>running debate with Judyth, he found her to be right, why her credibility
>increased dramatically.
>
BUT IT SHOULDN'T HAVE!
Do you and Martin even *yet* get the point? Judyth had picked up some
little fact that you didn't happen to know about -- but which was
widely available to anybody who read a few books.
And instead of asking "where *did* she get that?" you jumped to the
conclusion that she must have known Ruby.
BTW, the whole "I knew Ruby" thing puts the Paul Hoch Ratio Test meter
off into the red.
>-- Isn't that how it usually works? Someone claims something that sounds
>dubious to you and they say "look it up." And it takes some effort, but you
>do, and you discover they are right. A common experience, yet Mr. Lifton
>presents it as a devious trick.
Has it really never occured to you guys that Judyth has read some
books on the assassination?
>
>So what do we learn from this incident? Judyth turned a small piece of
>non-essential information---one that most people wouldn't bother trying to
>remember--into something to enhance her credibility with Shackelford.
>
Yep.
>-- What we learn is that Mr. Lifton has succeeded in turning logic on its head.
> If you were asked to prove you knew someone closely, you would mention an
>intimate detail, something few others know -- but something that could be
>verified.
AND SOMETHING THAT HADN'T BEEN PUBLISHED IN NUMEROUS BOOKS!
>Is Ms. Baker to be condemned for knowing something most don't know,
>or for knowing how to verify it, or for knowing someone (Martin) who would be
>able to verify it? Mr. Lifton has committed the classic logical fallacy known
>as circular reasoning. He wants to prove that Ms. Baker is a fraud and Martin
>her fool, so he assumes what he is trying to prove. How does he do this? By
>assuming that Ms. Baker found out this "non-essential information" in some
>distant corner of the internet or an unpublished manuscript,
You mean the "unpublished" WARREN COMMISSION REPORT or the
"unpublished" book JACK RUBY?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby4.htm
That's what comes from spending all your life immersed in conspiracy
literature, Howard. The telling little things about people like Ruby are
unfamiliar to you.
>and then telling
>Martin about her "discovery" -- only she makes believe this is a memory. Of
>course, this is all a story. Mr. Lifton proves that Judyth is a fraud by
>making up a story, by assuming duplicity on her part. Circular reasoning.
>
No, David is simply pointing out how Martin could be conned.
>Exactly when did knowing the truth from direct experience drop out of the
>equation?
>
When somebody tells a bunch of wacky tales that lack credibility.
When you find that, you start suspecting a con job.
>Judyth is playing a game with Martin. But in "games" like this, one would have
>to find the real source of this information in order to expose someone as a
>fraud. Here, however, we have Mr. Lifton accepting the truth of the claim.
>Very canny of him. If he did not, Martin might actually direct him to it and
>he would have to deal with why his 30 years of research failed to unearth this
>information. So he skips over the little matter of whether or not she is
>telling the truth. It is "non-essential," he says. Sure it is -- unless the
>object is to prove you knew someone or at least got a good, close-up look at
>them.
>
I'm not following you. David remembered hearing it somewhere, and
various e-mail correspondents of mine quickly produced references.
>Jack Ruby's finger afforded her that leverage.
>
>-- How novel a concept! The truth as "leverage."
>
No, using published information to claim personal knowledge as
"leverage."
You don't get it, Howard, you just flat don't get it.
>In effect, she sent Martin on a scavenger hunt, and he--like a dutiful
>golden retriever--"fetched" the incriminating evidence. (Shades of the TV
>ad, where the voice says, "Lycos - - - FETCH!!") What is amazing to me is that
>Judyth's m.o. is so blatantly transparent. (It became obvious to me, during
>our conversation, that Judyth was possessed of all sorts of factoids, and it
>became a contest of sorts, when I spoke with her, to figure out which web site
>or book each came from.)
>
>-- If Mr. Lifton's failure to challenge her report about Ruby's finger is any
>indication, then "factoid" is defined as "anything Mr. Lifton doesn't know."
Factoid has two different meanings. It can mean "little fact" (USA
TODAY used to print "factoids"), or it can mean "bogus so-called fact"
(the way I use it).
>So Judyth is possessed of all sorts of knowledge Mr. Lifton doesn't have, and
>yet, in his one conversation with her, and in all this after-conversation
>blather, he shows no intellectual curiosity whatsoever. Might not some of
>these things he does not know be "essential'?
>
I still don't follow you.
This is the way it works, Howard: if a witness tells a little "detail"
like this, and one finds that it's not available to the reading public,
one might conclude that it's from personal knowledge.
But if it *is* easily available to somebody who reads a few books on the
assassination, that doesn't *prove* that it comes from reading. But it
does destroy the presumption that a "witness" had "personal knowledge" of
something.
So either you find other evidence, or you *have* no evidence.
>Note that Mr. Lifton doesn't tell us how he scored in this "game" he believes
>Judyth was playing with him.
>
>But, of course, it is a losing proposition for Judyth: if she knows something
>he knows, it's meaningless because it's easily available; and if she knows
>something he doesn't know, it's meaningless because she researched it.
>
>This is just the sort of nonsense that makes interesting threads go threadbare.
>It is a shame that the worst offender is also its most famous -- or should I
>say its most notorious?
>
>What a disgrace.
>
Howard, I sort of feel sorry for you. I know you are honest, and mean
well, and are in a bad spot.
But you really asked for it. You and Martin and Joe have let yourself
be conned. Her story has "bogus" and "con" and "fraud" written all
over it. But you refuse to see that. So the consequence is that all
of you twist in the wind.
Finally, a piece of advice: if you can't come out with the whole
story, *leak* it. Or let somebody else leak it -- with a wink and a
nudge -- you know. Get it all out on the table, the sooner the
better.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/23d9390df6766210?dmode=source
<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------------
From: ho...@aol.com (Howpl)
Subject: Re: Jack Ruby's Finger
Date: 2000/11/05
Message-ID: <20001105035302...@ng-fc1.aol.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 689846468
References: <8u151j$bai$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
X-Admin: n...@aol.com
>Did Judyth Baker personally know Ruby or did she read about his finger
>in an "arcane" source, like the WCR":
>
Did you have to look it up, Jerry? The source might not be arcane, but it
is news to Martin and to Lifton, who are experts by any measure on what's
out there. As I said, she can't win. If it's not well-known, she found it
in a sly attempt to concoct a provable claim. If it is well-known, then
she adds nothing new to the case. Don't worry: soon, I hope, she will
drive you wild with new stuff you won't believe and she can't prove.
H
<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------------
Dave
http://www.jfk-online.com/judythmenu.html