info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Judyth: From the Beginning, Part 20
48 views
Skip to first unread message
Dave Reitzes
Jan 7, 2012, 10:36:06 PM1/7/12
to
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: AN INVITATION TO ATTEND A SPECIAL INTERVIEW IN DALLAS, SAME
HOTEL AND FLOOR AS..
Date: 11/8/00 10:26:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], { ], { ]
To: [ , [ ], Howpl
To: [ ], msh...@concentric.net, [ ]
To: [ ]
CC: [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
ANNOUNCEMENT AND INVITATION
GREETINGS to all:
After reading the schedule for the JFK Lancer Conference, I have
come to a decision.
First, reasons for this decision:
A panel will comnvene on Saturday, November 18, to discuss --
supposedly--everything known about Lee Oswald in New Orleans in 1963.
The Lancer Conference is supposed to reveal new evidence, reasonable
speculations, and information.
1) Jim Olivier will chair this panel.
2) HE ACTUALLY LIVES IN LAFAYETTE, the same city where I live.
However, he has never contacted me, though attempts to contact him
have been made. For whatever reason, this gentleman, who can't live
more than a few miles from me, has never met me.
COMMENT: This is ironic, but reminds me, indeed, of my existence in
New Orleans, in 1963, when I was busily engaged working many hours
side by side with Lee Oswald. Back then, people who should have known
about me did not trouble themselves to even meet me. Mr. Olivier
doesn't even know what I look like -- nor does Dr. Kurtz, who lives
within driving distance.
Interestingly enough, all sorts of former mafia -connected people
here, however, do know me on sight.
3) Steve Tyler (who has met me once, and was very kind) will also be
on this panel.
COMMENT: This panel will meet ----and one by one, each member of the
panel will talk about the events Lee lived through in New Orleans in
1963. It is my understanding that this panel has agreed not to
mention my name or existence publically , or the new information I
have been discussing with some of them for up to a year via email.
Shades of the same secrecy with which certain persons in New
Orleans pretended -- in November, 1963-- that my relationship with Lee
did not exist.
People will pay their money to attend this conference, no doubt
believing that they will hear everything relevant concerning the
events of the summer of 1963 by going to hear the panel members
("Oswald in New Orleans 1963 "). But my existence was -- at least
until now---to be kept hidden (this invitation will change that).
My existence was likewise kept hidden by those "in the know"
from most people in 1963 in New Orleans, too. And now you see how
easily it can be done.
Back then -- just as now--- I was active, and known well to
some, but they never mentioned me. It was about to happen again.
Now you see how it CAN happen, even though this new
information has been the subject of a newsgroup's hundreds of
postings, and some people "in" on the matter will be at the JFK Lancer
Conference. Not a word would have been said (again, unless this
invitation changes that).
I can hear it now, in AD 2030 --- "Nobody mentioned you on that
panel in the year 2000-- the Lancer Conference convened and an expert
from your own city was there, but he did not even mention you. .WHY?
Why didn't anybody on that panel MENTION you, if you had actually
previously contacted them? You are a fraud. You did not contact
them!"
Just as in 1963, my activities can be obscured and denied and
ignored. After all-- Olivier lived in the same town. How could he
have missed me, in AD 2000 --- right?
This is a striking example of how politics and secrecy can
affect the quality and quantity of information that is made available
even to the most honest and inquiring minds, when a bureaucracy (for
whatever reasons)decides what information shall be made available --
or not ---to the public.
Please note that the story originally was under the constraints
of a nondisclosure agreement with CBS which is now no longer in
effect. That's why no mention was originally going to be made of this
matter. But nobody has contacted me since the Sixty Minute withdrawal
(their fourth, let me remind you). Including the chair of that
panel, Jim Olivier.
So I have made a decision.
============================================================================
YOU ARE INVITED TO MEET J. VARY IN THE PARLOR ROOM AT THE RAMADA
HOTEL, MARKET CENTER, DALLAS, TEXAS, NOV. 17-18-19 on the same floor
and at the same time that the JFK Lancer Conference is meeting. There
will be two four hour sessions (morning and afternoon) Nov. 17 & 18,
and one 4 hour session (morning) Nov. 18. the same material will be
presented at each session. You are welcome to contact press concerning
these sessions.
============================================================================
There WILL be (guanateed) an opportunity to learn the NEW
oinformation about Lee Oswald in New Orleans. The material will be
confined only to that time period to avoid speculations. I believe
that by presenting this material in an orderly fashion, that accurate
and true information can thus be made known to those who would like
hear from a person who can provide eidence of proximity to Lee Oswald
at that time with documents and other materials.
I repeat that I do not mind at all not being invited to the
Conference, for whatever political and personal reasons are involved,
but I do, nevertheless, believe this new information should be made
available. I also wish to dispose of any rumors and fact-twisting,
having seen how people with agendas can transform simple truth into
absurdities.
I appreciate your moral support, interest and sincerity in
wanting to know the whole truth and getting the CORRECT details. It
is especially important to hear this first-hand. I simply can't allow
a panel to convene on "Lee Oswald's activities in New Orleans in
1963" that has not conferred with me about any of its contents, and
indeed has, to this time, at least, agreed not to mention the matter
-- or my existence--at all.
Very sincerely yours,
Judyth Vary Baker
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: Re: SPECIAL INTERVIEW IN DALLAS
Date: 11/9/00 1:23:10 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: Howpl, [ ], [ ], [ ]
To: [ ], msh...@concentric.net
To: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
In a message dated 11/08/2000 11:49:22 PM Central Standard Time, Howpl
writes:
> And you want to sacrifice this for a chance to take on Lifton? Please
> reconsider.
>
> love, Howard
>
Uncle, uncle!
OK, everybody, thanks for the emails.
Not one of you thought this was the wise thing to do. Martin called,
as well.
So --- canceled the suite.
And canceled the flight.
Dear God, I hate the lies, that's all.
-j-
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: clarification
Date: 11/9/00 2:41:11 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], [ ], Howpl, [ ]
To: [ ], msh...@concentric.net
To: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
In his latest 'expose' of me, David Lifton has moved from calling me
(in his first emails) somebody who was such a fool that nobody should
believe any of the things HE immediately caught with his bells going
RRRINNNGGG! at every other word I said. he implied that i was
functioning at the level of a cretin. Now, though, he attributes to
me a level of intelloigence which has made it impossible for Howard,
Martin, Riehl and others to discern my clever and insisidious plot.
> QUOTES LIFTON:
"I never said Phillips used his own name with Oswald. That particular
> factoid derives from Lifton--and it's also total nonsense."
>
> FYI:
>
> 1. Judyth told me on March 4, 2000, as quoted at the beginning of this
> thread, that Oswald knew Phillips by his real name.
======Lee and I both had reason to believe Phillips was possibly
Bishop. I was not told even the position Phillips was in-- only that
he was CIA -- and i got to hear his radio-quality voice, by the way,
in some broadcast and he was pointed out as the speaker at that time.
Lee told me never to forget his name. I was confused until almost the
present by thinking that "Mr. B" might be "Bishop." Now i believe
that person to be Frank bender. While Lee had reason to believe the
man he met in Dallas, introduced to him as "Bishop" was actually
"Phillips" because he never met "Phillips" it was always speculation,
though based on strong suspicions.===================
>
> 2. During the same 24 hour period, Judyth spoke with a friend of mine, and
> made the same statement. She was cross examined vigorously by my friend,
> and Judyth insisted that was the case.
JUDYTH:
==============================This 'friend' is Robert Chapman, and
indeed, I told him the same thing as i told Mr. Lifton. However, he
errs in saying that I was "cross examined vigorously" by Chapman. he
did ask a few questions. He was so pleased with my answers that he
also added that he wanted me to talk to David Lifton. he assured me
David would enjoy talking to me. Chapman also promised not to speak to
anyone about our conversation, as i was under obligation not to
divulge information to persons involved in publishing-- so he was not
supposed to talk to Debra (Lancer) or to anyone else who published
materials (such as Mary Ferrell).
Robert Chapman;s attitude soured after Lifton and I talked
together. I talked to Chapman again by phone only a couple of days
later and he said he didn't want to listen to anything more I had to
say. He said Lifton told him i had committed MANY serious errors that
revealed "fatal flaws" in my conversation with him. I asked what they
were, but Chapman refused to tell me even one objection. This is when
I made my statement that i was afraid of Lifton.
Chapman changed almost instantly into somebody who never wanted to
talk to me again. Yet Chapman had recommended that Lifton contact me.
Because of his enthusiasm and Debra's, I said "fine"
How i wish i had listened to Howard and Martin concerning Lifton!
=========================
LIFTON CARRIES ON:
>
> That was a real eyebrow raiser on March 4, 2000. Now, with all the other
> stuff thats come out, its just part of an ongoing pattern.
At the very least, Judyth is a fantast. Personally, I think its worse
> than that. From close analyzis of my own conversation with her,
> personally think she's a combination of con-artist and crackpot.
>
> You apparently do not comprehend the nature of the person you are dealing
> with.
>=========================================================================
JUDYTH RESPONDS:
But he, of the vastly superior mind, does. Lifton talked to me for
ninety minutes (he claimed longer until he admitted he was wrong when
corrected)-- yet contends that Platzman, Riehl, Shackelford, et al,
who together have questioned me, met me in person, talked to me on the
phone, and read literally a thousand emails from me -- a composite of
hundreds of hours of contact, much of it direct---have been unable,
with their dim brains, to see what he could find out in his ninety
minute phone call.
==================================================================
> Indeed, both you and Platzman, through your fallacious "testing" of her
> (using such aids as Mary Ferrell's CD) have only dug youselves in deeper,
> become more deeply enmeshed in this fantasy--and, I might add, provided
> Judyth with still more information with which to embroider her fantasy.
> (And, of course, there is always that word "essentially" which you hide
> behind in assuring news group readers that Judyth's story hasn't changed;
> or, as you put it, hasn't "essentially changed.")
==========================================================================
JUDYTH ANSWERS:
All persons were intially given just a little information, and mostly
in the same pattern, until i felt i could trust them. I own an
original version of the book that carried a basic outline of all
essential elements, from which I have not essentially deviated.
The word 'essentially" is due to the fact that a number of
details were not included, though when asked, i would immediately
supply such details. i have tried to have witnesses present so that it
could be certain i did not look things up. Dr. Riehl did not have
many written detais, but whenever he asked me anything,. I answered
fully, and he obtained many additional details. This pattern does not
mean embroidery was going on, any more than if you had been asked to
give your address, and you did, and then were asked about the house,
and you gave its dimensions, number of rooms, etc. And then later, you
were asked to describe the dishes used in the house---something always
known but not brought up before, which does not constitute an
embroidering, but, rather, additional detail-- supplied on the spot
whenever requested.
====================================================================
>
> What is most alarming to me is that both of you guys were more than
> willing to see Judyth spouting her nonsense on national TV--which, of
> course, is not a scholarly medium at all, but simply a maneuver to try to
> escalate the situation and get this lady a book contract.
===========================================================================
JUDYTH: This alarms him the MOST? WHY:? because he fars for his own
book's becoming obsolete if mine comes out before or soon after his?
I noticed that Mr. Lifton has likewise descended (in his own
career) to appearing on TV and radio programs, and at conferences, and
i have been told he has been known to quote from his book when doing
so.
It is normal to want a book to be published.
We want as many people as possible to hear about this matter.
Mr. Lifton should note that the story has always been freely offered
to anyone who came to see me. It belongs to our country. It is not
for sale. Yet to receive respect, it needs to be published by a strong
house that can get the book out to the people.
========================================================================
LIFTON SAYS HE WAS 'PLEASANT' BUT I THOUGHT HE WAS RUDE TO ME
LIFTON:
> In an email Judyth sent within a few days of speaking with me--a
> conversastion which was very pleasant, by the way, but one in which I
> persistently avoided supplying her with any new information--she said that
> "David Lifton frightens me". She also complained that I wouldn't provide
> information--that I only sought informaiton from her.
======================================================================
JUDYTH: he frightened me because he had such enormous animmediate
influence on Robert Chapman, for one. Chapman broke his promise to
keep his opinions to himself and apparently told Mary Ferrelll I was
a deep disappointment. Lifton would not provide me with any insight
on whether or not he had heard of our love affair, which frustrated
me, as i was hoping he had at least heard a rumor. others have
reported rumors ---and there were some sightings of me with lee,
especially reported by mafia.. Lifton never interviewed Anna Lewis,
for example. He missed Mac McCullough, too. i wonder who else he
missed.
=================================================================
LIFTON:
> Well of course. And imagine such a criticism, from a valid witness! If I
> were interviewing someone in the autopsy room, what kind of an interview
> would it be if the subject said to me, "First tell me your theory of the
> shooting at Dealey Plaza. . . then I'll tell you what wounds I saw."
>
> That's what this lady is involved in. And that's why your questioning her
> using Mary Ferrell's CD, or any other aid, is undoubtedly such a farce.
> You think you're "verifying" her story. Let me assure you she is smarter
> than you are, and she is in fact seeking information. Because that's the
> essence of the way she functions: she attempts to "insert" herself into
> the existing record.
============================================================================
I WOULD LIKE HERE TO 'INSERT' A COMMENT MADE BY MR. LIFTON TO MATT
ALLISON LAST MONTH:
Anything is "possible."
But I, for one, am not going to waste my time trying to separate the
wheat from the chaff, and go on dealing with this lady, looking for
the needle of authenticity in a haystack that is already so damaged,
credibility-wise, if not so provably phony.
Now Matt Allison. . you say you’re an audio engineer.
But it appears to me that you fancy yourself an excellent judge of
humankind, and also you’ve apparently got pretensions to being some
kind of amateur investigator /historian.
You fly to another city; spend time with "the witness" and consider
yourself one of the select few who now know something important about
"the event." You curse and scream and yell at people and tell them
they do not know what they are talking about. But you do. Because, by
gosh, you met her, and you "know."
=============================================================================JUDYTH
COMMENTS: Lifton never met me. But he "knows"--by gosh!
=============================================================================
>LIFTON CONTINUES:
> I was very careful, in my conversation, NOT to provide additional
> information. She definitely wanted prominent mention in my book ("What
> can I do to make you believe me?" she asked, or words to that effect), and
> I made clear to her that, assuming her experience was valid, I would be
> more than glad to mention her in a footnote, and include her book in my
> bibliography (this, of course, was asssuming she was a valid witness, and
> not a fraud).
=========================================================================
JUDYTH: I was concerned that his book would not mention the love
affair, which would have been glaring ommission. It was to make sure
his research would not have a hole in it. I was indeed anxous to do
whatever i couod to prove to him that my claims were valid. "What can
II do?" was my entire intent--to help him. Anybody who knows me knows
that is exactly how I am.
===========================================================================
>LIFTON GOES (interminably) ON.....
> Within days, Platzman was spreading a false account of the conversation,
> and complaining that I "only" offered to put Judyth in a footnote. It was
> at that point that I wrote an email to Platzman saying, in effect, "If you
> can't be trusted about a conversation that happened just 37 hours ago, why
> can you be trusted about an event that occurred 37 years ago?"
==========================================================================
JUDYTH: You indeed showed your hostility and ability to lie. . I was
so dismayed.
============================================================================
>LIFTON ANALYZES ME:
> You guys have been seduced by a charlatan--who has got a vested
> psychological and financial interest in selling a phony story--and the
> amazing thing about it (to me at least) is that both of you stubbornly
> refuse to believe it, and treat her as a valid source of information.
============================================================================
>JUDYTH:
The "vested psychological interest:" is the exoneration of an innocent
man, at jeopardy to my reputation.
The "vested...financial interest" has never existed. I have never
been interested in money and periodically have given everything i own
away, except my books. Anything I get from this will go to establish
a cancer research facility, studying bacteriophage adaptation to
cancers, and to otherwise help people, such as send lee's
grandchildren to college. Period.
=============================================================================
LIFTON:
> When are you guys going to get real, and realize the fundmentally
> fraudulent nature of this witness?
>
> And if that never happens, well then fine. I trust that people on these
> newsgroups are going to realize the kind of "research" in which you are
> engaged, and the sort of standards you bring to bear when analyzing
> evidence.
>
> DSL
>==========================================================================
I do not believe David did a LICK of research about me before coming
to HIS decision.
The numerous persons who support me, who constantly and
thoroughly have questioned me, for many months, did so with a mind to
getting to the truth. among them all, they know everything now.
Even so--- David Blackburst and Mary Ferrell recently come up
with questions nobody else asked! Didn't think there were any left!
I have tried to answer these with a witness present when opening
emails, so that it will be known I have not done any " research."
Sadly, Mr. Lifton never spoke to me again. But he has invested
plenty of time and effort, nevertheless, talkig ABOUT me.
WHY has he cared so much about Martin, and Howard's
conclusions? WHY has he invested such a mass of time and energy
(why, if I am a nothing?) attempting to destroy me?
Had he invested this much effort in doing research--i could have
supplied him leads--he would have found out things about Lee Oswald--
for example, what he was really doing at Jackson, and who that "woman"
was who was spotted with him---that would have clothed him in honor.
As it is, I am embarrassed that he reacts so violently to me---
without bothering to find out a thing about me. Well, he missed me,
plain and simple. Despite al;l his research and book writing. That
must sting. He would rather spend immense time and effort trying to
destroy me than to change a word he wrote in his book. Perhaps
because it is too late to fix, so he has to 'fix' me?
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: letter to bertrand russell: clarification
Date: 11/9/00 5:29:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], Howpl, [ ]
To: msh...@concentric.net, [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
I have a copy, obtained from the Bertrand Russell Archive, of Judyth
Baker's letter to Russell.
http://www.mcmaster.ca/russdocs/russell1.htm
It's dated May 19, 1968.
=======================================Judyth: My birthday was May
15th, Russells' was May 18th. Our first letter to Russell was written
on his birthday and sent to him. It was signed by me, lee and Dave F.
under the FPCC headers. later i wrote Russell, after the
assassination, and asked him to destroy the letter. So there were, in
all, originally three letteers.
Of course there would be NO reference to lee in this letter, it was
kept whole and entire for two reasons: one, Russell was too inform to
handle his own correspondence anymore, and secondly, i knew better in
1968 than to write anything at all about Lee, etc. We didn't even
mention ourselves except in our signatures even in 1963.
Dave Ferrie had a friend bring him a prayer book from england (I own
it , he gave it to me so i would have two books and the Greek book by
itself would not look "odd" in my possessions...anyway, it is a
prayerbook he gave me because i liked it, and it came from England,
along with a few other things. The information about how to contact
Bertrand russell was also at this time made available to us., so we
wrote the letter.
i wrote Russelll early in 1964 asking him t destroy the New orleans
letter. he returned a short note saying he had complied and would not
allow anything about the matter to be discovered. At that time, he
also gave me some political , religious, and philosophical sentences
of advice. My husband knew that i had corresponded with russell: I
did tell him and he should remember.
i own a carbon copy of the letter mcAdams quotes and rather
mutilates. For anyone who wants to see the entire text, just let me
know. I haven;t checked to see if it is at the site he says it
is....will check tonight. COMMENTS BELOW ON THIS 1968 LETTER, WHICH OF
COURSE WOULD NOT REFER TO LEE. AT THE TIME I WROTE IT, IT WAS ONLY TEN
DAYS BEFORE MY FIRST BABY WAS BORN, AND I WAS SORT OF REACHING OUT TO
RUSSELL BECAUSE OF
THAT.===============================================================
It's a birthday greeting that rather gushes its appreciation of the
famous philosopher and anti-war activist. Judyth claims to have been
"committed" to reading everything she could find by Russell.
=======================THIS IS
TRUE=========================================
One important theme of the letter is Judyth's religious views. She
thanks Russell, saying "Your words released me from an adolescence
twisted by guilt and worry about God (Catholic style, then any style),
morals, sex, making money, etc., etc."
====================================================WHEN WE WROTE TO
RUSSELL, NEITHER LEE NOR I HAD YET STARTED SLEEPING TOGETHER.
RUSSELL'S WORDS WERE BASICALLY, DO NOT LET RELIGION MAKE YOU AS
UNHAPPY AS IT HAS MADE SO MANY. LIVE YOUR LIFE TO THE FULL MEASURE OF
ITS POTENTIAL JOY." I AM PARAPHRASING. IT HELPED ME PUT ASIDE MY
PURITANICAL WAYS AND TO GO AHEAD AND SLEEP WITH LEE. I AM THANKING HIM
FOR THAT ADVICE.=====================
She says she "began a crazy, 'frigid' 'dedicated to science' stick-in-
the-mud . . ." but with the help of Russell's philosophy overcame
this. She says she "chucked the silly moral tic-tac-toes for reality,
via your counsels."
===============================================YES. I HAD BEEN SO
SCIENCE ORIENTED, AS YOU KNOW, THAT LEE HAD TO CHECK A BOOK OUT OFTHE
LIBRARY ABOUT COMMUNISM JUST TO GET ME UP TO SPEED ON THAT BASIC
POLITICAL SYSTEM. I FELL IN LOVE WITH LEE AND FINALLY DID REALIZE
THAST IT WAS BETTER TO RESPOND TO THE LOVE WE HAD THAN TO LET IT PASS,
AND BE WITHOUT THAT LOVE. I NEVER REGRETED IT. RUSSELL'S ENCOURAGEMENT
IS MENTIONED IN MY
BOOK.=====================================================================
She ends the letter by saying "May the godlets [sic] bless you . . . "
She explains in the letter that she is an artist, and is trying to
become a good writer. She remains interested in science, but realizes
her "limitations in that field."
===============================UNABLE TO BECOME A DOCTOR, A CANCER
RESEARCHER, OR A SCIENTIST FOR FEAR OF BEING DISCOVERED AS INVOLVED IN
THE EVENTS OF 1963, I WAS INDEED LIMITED. BUT NOT INTELLECTUALLY.
HOW WAS I TO SAY IT, IF THE LETTER WAS TO SEEM AN INNOCENT
ONE?
I DID NOT DARE MENTION THE PAST, BUT i DID TRY TO MENTION
ENOUGH OF THE PAST TO REMIND RUSSELL WHO I WAS. AND I KNEW HE WAS ILL,
SO I WAS THANKING HIM FOR HIS ADVICE. OIF COURSE I ALSO READ ALL HIS
BOOKS, FUELED BY THOSE FEW SENTENCES ADVICE. I ALMOST WORSHIPED
RUSSELL. AND I WAS ACTIVE AGAINST WAR, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. IT WAS A
DANGEROUS THING, WORKING IN THE NEWSPAPER UNDERGROUND AND MARCHINGFOR
PEACE, BECAUSE IF I WEREW ARRESTED, AND MY PAST INVESTIGATED, I FEARED
WHAT WOULD BECOME OF ME. AT THE SAME TIME, I COULD NOT BE IDLE AND
WATCH THE COUNTRY GO DOWN THE DRAIN DUE TO LBJ'S VIETNAM
WAR,.==============================================
One paragraph of the letter deals with what Judyth calls her
"political activism." She claims to be "frightened at the cost" of
her activism, because of the attitude of the "powers that be" which
she describes as punitive in their view of student dissent and
assembly.
=========================================THE COST FOR ME WOULD HAVE
BEEN HIGH, INDEED, IF MY HIDDEN PAST WAS EVER
DISCOVERED========================
She claims it's one's duty to become "compassionately involved with
the daily problems of ordinary ====people relative to
religion, poverty, and minorities . . . ." but that government wants
to ignore these problems and punish those who publicize them.
==============================================HAVE ALWAYS FELT THIS
WAY AND NEVER CHANGED ALL THESE YEARS. AS ANYONE WHO KNOWS ME IS
AWARE, IF ANY MONEY COMES FROM THE BOOK, ETC. IT WILL GO TO HELP
PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY IMPOVERISHED PEOPLE. THE STATEMENT ABOUT
MINORITIES SHOWS THAT LEE AND I SHARED THE SAME ATTITUDE, SUPPORTING
THE CAUSES OF THE BLACKS AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO WAS DOWNTRODDEN. LEE
WAS CONSISTENT THAT WAY. SO WAS I. AND STILL AM.
=============================
There is nothing in the letter about the Kennedy assassination, nor
about Lee Oswald.
==============================OF COURSE NOT! THIS IS TEN DAYS BEFORE
MY BABY WAS BORN! I AM GOING TO BLAT MY MOUTH OFF ABOUT THE
ASSASSINATION AT THIS TIME? I WAS ALREADY DOING ALL I COULD DO.
WAS MARCHING FOR PEACE --- BUT AVOIDED EVERY HINT OF INTEREST IN
THAT AREA (ASSASSINATION) FOR MY OWN SAFETY. I NEVER MENTIONED
KENNEDY, THE ASSASSINATION, ETC.
I CONCENTRATED MY FIERCE PASSION ON DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS (AFTER
ALL, LOOK WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO LEE), ON ANTI-WAR EFFORTS, ETC. AND
OF COURSE, ANTI-NUCLEAR EFFORTS.
SO I EVEN MISSED THE GARRISON INVESTIGATION, AS I ALWAYS
PUNCTILIOUSLY AVOIDED THE SLIGHTEST TALK ABOUT ANYTHING TO DO WITH
JFK. ALWAYS CHANGED THE SUBJECT TO PRESENT HOUR.
. IT WAS FOR MY SAFETY. HERE I WAS, VERY PREGNANT, HAD HAD TWO
MISCARIAGES ALREADY, YET WAS INVOLVED IN SOME ACTUALLY DANGEROUS
ACTIVITIES WHERE SOMETIMES WE WERE KCKED, SHOVED AROUND, THREATENED
AND EVEN GOT SPAT ON.
I WAS DOING EVERYTHING I COULD DO AS ANONYMOUSLY AS POSSIBLE,
TO FORWARD THE CAUSES OF THE POOR, MINORITIES, TO STOP WAR, TO STOP
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, ETC. I KNEW WHAT ABUSE OF POWER WAS ALL ABOUT,
AFTER ALL.
AS I'VE SAID, MY LIFE PROVES HOW MUCH THE KILL-CASTRO PROJECT
MEANT TO ME BACK 1963, FOR IT MEANT AN END TO NUCLEAR THREATS IN THE
HEMISPHERE. I WAS WILLING TO RISK A LOT EVEN IN 1968--- AND HAVE
NEVER CHANGED..======================DOES JOHN MCADAMS THINK I SHOULD
HAVE BEEN FOOL ENOUGH TO MENTION KENNEDY, ETC? AT THIS TIME? BUT
RUSSELL KNEW WHAT OI WAS DOING AND I HOPED HE WAS PROUD OF ME. I
WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT UP THIS LETTER'S CONTENTS, BUT FEEL NOW IT
MUST BE CLARIFIED. I DO NOT REGRET HAVING DONE THESE CONTROVERSIAL
THINGS.
PERHAPS THIS LETTER REVEALS THAT I WAS INDEED CAPABLE OF THE
BOLDNESS I HAD TO HAVE TO PARTICIPATE WITH PEOPLE SUCH AS DAVE FERRIE
IN THE KILL-CASTRO PLOT.
===JUDYTH=====
.John
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: one great love of my life
Date: 11/9/00 5:34:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], Howpl, msh...@concentric.net
To: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ]
One important theme of the letter is Judyth's religious views. She
thanks Russell, saying "Your words released me from an adolescence
twisted by guilt and worry about God (Catholic style, then any style),
morals, sex, making money, etc., etc." She says she "began a crazy,
'frigid' 'dedicated to science' stick-in-the-mud . . ." but with the
help of Russell's philosophy overcame this. She says she "chucked the
silly moral tic-tac-toes for reality, via your counsels."
BY THE WAY, THOSE 'SILLY MORAL TIC-TAC-TOES' INCLUDED REMAINING
FAITHFUL TO A MAN WHO DIDN'T SHOW VERY MUCH LOVE FOR ME..ROBERT, AS
YOU KNOW, HAD ME BUY MY OWN WEDDING BAND, HE WAS SUCH A
CHEAPSKATE.....WHEREAS LEE WAS SO PATIENT AND UNDEMANDING--AND
WONDERFULLY ROMANTIC. NO, WILL NEVER REGRET LOVING LEE OSWALD. THE
LOVE OF MY LIFE. -J-
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: McAdams irritating.....
Date: 11/9/00 5:51:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], [ ], Howpl, [ ]
To: msh...@concentric.net
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
She explains in the letter that she is an artist, and is trying to
>become a good writer. She remains interested in science, but realizes
>her "limitations in that field."
>
Her "limitations?"
I thought she was a prodigy? A crack cancer researcher?
.John
===================This man does not seem to realize that i was forced
out of the field by fear. what was i to do? THERE were my
limitations.
I did not indicate what kind of limitations, after all. I was
being frank with him, as he had last heard from me as a custom -
chemical creator/ assistant chemist (at age 20) in gas chromatography
analysis of rare compounds, including rare carcinogens, and associated
halogen research. . Certainly didn't have any limitations at THAT
time!
And yet--nobody ever dropped more precipitously from known
expertise to unknown nothingness as did i. I consoled myself by trying
to forge a life of some kind, trapped in my marriage, by painting and
writing--and causing as much trouble for those who benefited from
JFK's death as i possibly could.
At the time of Susie's birth (Susan Mavinee--her middle name
reflected "Lee" in rhyme) (she was named after Susie Hanover in New
Orleans, my landlady who hid Lee so Robert didn;t catch him, several
times) I penetrated so close to the LBJ household that my obstetrician
was LKBJ';s daughter's obstetrician.
I paid this high price myself (Robert would not have had a
pricy O.B./GYN!) by painting him a hunting dog scene. His name: Dr.
Robert Zschappel, and you can look it up.
Now WHY do you think i would have ferreted out somebody close to the
LBJ family, such as Zschappel, there in Austin, Texas?
To get inside info on the LBJ family, the Robbs, etc. And i
did, too, and sent it to the Village Voice, Space City News, and the
Rag.
It wasn't cancer research -- the JFK matter ruined that--- but it
was research, nonetheless.
I helped break out info on Brown & Root to discomfit LBJ dynasty,
too.
it was my own little bit of revenge.
-j-
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: (no subject)
Date: 11/9/00 5:56:47 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], [ ], Howpl, [ ]
To: msh...@concentric.net, [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
OK, she seems to have junked religion, or at least any religious moral
doctrines that might be inconvenient.
But then she became a Mormon *after* this letter was written, right?
Did she rediscover the "silly moral tic-tac-toes?"
.John
=======After my baby was born, i had to rethink tings out. Robert and
i had tried to help a crippled girl. She came to live with us in
Houston, Texas. She was a mormon, and she sent Mormon missionaries
our way. All the old longings for order and goodness overwhelmed me.,
I had an inocent baby.
the prospect of trying to have a better marriage with Robert hinged
on the mormon daydream of being remarried in the temple. White dress,
veil, everything i had never had with this man.
in 1969, i joine the mormon church.
Robert joined six weks after I did,
we went through the mormon church's Salt Lake temple and had a real
wedding there in 1971. I wanted a fresh start with robert. i have
always believed that children need a religion. What they learn there
is important. mormons seemed so family oriented.
i plunged into this world, very isolated one, too, from so much of
the outside world, and pledged to be the best wife and mother I could.
mormons want you to have as many babies as possible. it is how a woman
'saves herself from her sins."
i had four miscarriages and five children in ten years.
-j-
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: Bertrand Russell and Judyth Baker:
Date: 11/10/00 7:02:44 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], [ ], Howpl
To: msh...@concentric.net, [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
I first wrote Lord Bertrand Russell in early 1962, after
receiving a telegram from the entertainment mogul Arthur Godfrey, who
contacted the Damon Runyon Foundation. Lord Russell heard of me from a
member oif the foundation and sent me an encouraging note about my
cancer research. I received dozens of notes and letters that year and
left most of them with my parents when I left for Roswell Park
Memorial Institute in Buffalo, to work (directly) in Dr. George
Moore's lab.
.. In early 1964, I wrote again, this time asking him to destroy
both that first letter and a letter that had been sent to him from New
Orleans in May, 1963, by the "FPCC.".(Lee, me, Dave Ferrie, and two
Cubans, one named Carlos, had all signed the letter--this terrified
me in early 1964).
I told him in this January,1964 letter that I had been forced
to leave the medical field, and was even forced to stay married, to
keep my maiden name unknown, for having personally associated with the
accused assassin. I added that I feared for my life. I also told him
that Lee was innocent.
Lord Russell kindly sent me a reply, a real letter, a few weeks
later, saying he routinely destroyed all letters such asthe
politically dangerous one written to him, and that I must do the same,
since many people considered him a communist. He agreed that Lee was
innocent and said nobody in Europe thought he had done it. He then
gave me advice that ended with "Live! Death is when you cease to die!"
which I later incorporated into a poem.
Four years later, ten days before giving birth to a daughter,
Susie mavinee (Susie named after susie Hanover, landlady in New
Orleans...Susie's middele name is Mavinee, which reflects Lee's name),
I wanted to cheer Lord Russell, as I heard he was quite ill.
I believed it was now safe to write again, at last.. So I
fdid, reminding him of his positive impact on my life. His secretary
eventually sent me an letter that Lord Russell expressed regret that
he was too ill to write to me. I still own that reply.
You may wish to see a bitmap file of the letter. Just ask. -j-
........................................................................................................................................................................
May 19, 1968
Dear Lord Russell:
Greetings for your 96th birthday! ever since I read a single
line of your philosophical works (which I began reading because
it was 'stylish" to do so), I have been committed to reading every-
thing I could find. Your words released me from an adolescence
twisted by guilt and worry about God (Catholic style, then any
style),
morals, sex, making money, etc., etc. I had always vowed
to write to you and say 'thank you" for freeing me from this sorry
welter of cultural harness. You must be as humane and compassionate
as you are brilliant; you taught me also how to think about love,
and finally, how to give it.
I owe so many debts to you that I can only list what you have
done for me and repeat my thanks. I began a crazy, "frigid"
"dedicated to science" stick-in-the-mud who only wanted the satis-
faction that comes from monetary success and a sense of self-sacri-
fice to certain implanted ideals which i did not value for them-
selves but for the approbation others gave them.
Today I am handsomely married! we love each other, but it would
all have been ruined if, six years ago, I had not chucked the silly
moral tic-tac-toes for reality, via your counsels. We will try to
be so good to our coming child. Further, today I am an artist and
hope to become a good writer--though still interested in science,
I realize my limitations in that field despite the prestige it might
have accorded me--and have avoided a career in same. I am politi-
cally active, even though frightened at the cost of this, since
the United States powers-that-be are increasingly punitive in their
outlook on such things as student dissent and assembly, to say
nothing of their attitudes, in general, to the ordinary XXXXXXduty
of becoming passionately involved with the daily problems of
ordinary people relative to religion, poverty, and minorities---
they wish to ignore, or, when forced to see, to punish.
May the godlets bless you for enlightening me, and surely many
others. Certainly, history will do so!
With love,
Judyh Baker
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: McAdams and Martin square off over Bertrand Russell, etc.
Date: 11/10/00 10:06:32 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], [ ], Howpl, [ ]
To: msh...@concentric.net
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ]
THIS IS AN EXCHANGE BETWEEN MARTIN AND McADMAS. BELOW IS THE LETTER
IN ITS ENTIRETY. IT IS BROKEN INTO SEGMENTS SO THAT YOU CAN SEE
EXACTLY WHAT McADAMS SAID ABOUT IT. MAINLY, HE LEFT OUT WORDING, SUCH
AS, "LOVE, JUDYTH BAKER" THAT TENDED TO SHOW I HAD WRITTEN BEFORE TO
BERTRAND RUSSELL. YOU MAY NOTICE OTHER SELECTIVITY IN HIS RENDERING OF
THE LETTER. BESIDES THE MATERIAL AT THE END OF THIS EMAIL, I WILL ALSO
COMMENT BRIEFLY ON WHAT IS POSTED JUST BELOW THESE CAPS: (thanks for
your patience, J):
==========================================================================
-------MARTIN SAID:________________
As for the attitudes she expressed, they are nothing unusual for a
1968
>political activist.
_________________McADAMS SAID: _______________________
True, but it's interesting that this "political activist" who is
living in New Orleans expresses no interest in the Garrison
investigation. Nor does she complain about the obvious injustice of
the framing of her dear boyfriend, your favorite patsy and mine, Lee
Oswald.
______________jJUDYTH: McADAMS ERRS. I AM NOT LIVING IN NEW ORLEANS!
KNOWING NOTHING OF MY LIFE, HE JUMPS TO STRANGE CONCLUSIONS AND
PRESENTS THEM AS FACTS, MAKING IT LOOK STRANGE THAT I DO NOT NOTE THE
GARRISON TRIALS. BUT I WAS LIVING IN AUSTIN, TEXAS --- INFILTRATING
THE LBJ POLITICAL NETWORK FOR UNDERGROUND NEWSPAPERS (THE RAG, SPACE
CITY NEWS, AND VILLAGE VOICE).
. I AM NINE MONTHS PREGNANT. MY OB/GYN IS DR. ROBERT ZSCHAPPEL,
LBJ'S DAUGHTER'S OB/GYN TOO. I PAINT A FANCY HUNTING DOG OIL FOR
ZSCHAPPEL, TO COVER HIS HIGH BILL. WAS SICK ALL SPRING. BEFORE THAT,
AND BEFORE THAT, HAD A MISCARRIAGE. PRIOR TO THAT, LIVED THE ENTIRE
SUMMER OF 1967 IN ISOLATED MOUNTAIN CLIMBING AND MAPPING IN SALTILLO,
MEXICO.
---WHERE I WROTE A 350 PAGE BOOK CALLED "SIX FOOT SEVEN" ---THE HEIGHT
INSPIRED BY THE 6 FOOT 7 GERRY PATRICK HEMMING. IT'S ON RECORD.
THE BOOK "SIX FOOT SEVEN"
IN THE BOOK, THE MAIN CHARACTER (OF BYELORUSSIAN AND HUNGARIAN
EXTRACT) IS FRAMED AND BLAMED FOR A POLITICAL ASSASSINATION---BY A
SMALL-TOWN GOVERNMENT. HE IS MADE A PATSY ---IS INTERROGATED FOR
HOURS--- IS BEATEN BY POLICE ---AND THEN IS SHOT BY A MOBSTER. HE IS
A GOOD MAN WHO TRIED TO HELP PEOPLE, BUT HIS WIFE, A "GOOD
AMERICAN," BETRAYS HIM. I THINK I WAS TRYING TO DEAL WITH MY GRIEF.
THE BOOK WAS NEARLY ACCEPTED BY CROWN PUBLISHERS, BUT IT REEWEMBLED
YOU-KNOW-WHAT TOO MUCH, ACCORDING TO EDITORS......MY AGENT WAS RUTH
CANTOR.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN SAID:
>Finally, the fact that she is writing in 1968 to someone who has been
>active on the subject of the JFK assassination, and mentions nothing of
>the topic, is only further confirmtion that she remained silent about it
>for 35 years, as she has consistently said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McADAMS OPINED:
Sure, but "silent" because she was scared, or "silent" because in fact
she had no interest in the topic?
------------------------------------------------
JUDYTH CLARIFIES:
Lord Russell had asked that I destroy his letter and not to mention
anything about the assassination.. I have always believed that our New
Orleans FPCC letter ----and my comments that Lee was innocent ---
helped convince Russell to conduct his investigation. I was afraid to
disobey Russell's directive. IHe was my hero -- I LOVED him because he
was trying to get justice for Lee. That meant a lot to me. Why else
would i sign "love" and be that gushy, no matter hoiw wonderful this
philosopher was? because he was doing something wonderful fighting for
Lee.
THE LETTER IS BELOW:.-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just when did she first see the movie JFK?
==i WALKED OUT OF THE SHOWING MY KIDS HAD WHICH i THOUGHT as end of
dec. 1991. i am told it had to be 1992. whatever. i could not bear any
of it FIRST SAW THE FILM APPROX. BETWEEN DEC. 30 AND JAN. 1, 1999.
ALONE. DID NOT WANT ANYBODY TO SEE MY REACTIONS. I WAS MOSTLY VERY
ANGRY AFTER SEEING HOW LEE AND DAVID F. WERE PORTRAYED. LAYETEN
MARTENS WAS THERE, THOUGH. BANISTER WAS UGLIER THAN HE SHOULD HAVE
LOOKED, COSTNER WAS HANDOMSER...OH, WELL....
------------------------LETTER
BELOW-------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McADAMS TELLS US ALL ABOUT THE LETTER ON THE NEWSGROUP AND OFFERS IT
BY SNAIL MAIL TO READERS. BUT I HAVE THE ORIGINAL CARBON, SO I OFFER
YOU THE ENTIRE LETTER. McADAMS SELECTED PORTIONS OF THE LETTER AND
USED UP ENOUGH WORDS AND SPACE THAT HE COULD HAVE PRINTED THE ENTIRE
CONTENTS OF THE LETTER. INSTEAD, HE PREFERRED TO SLICE AND DICE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HEEEEEEEER'S MCADAMS!----------
McADAMS WRITES:
It's dated May 19, 1968.
It's a birthday greeting that rather gushes its appreciation of the
famous philosopher and anti-war activist. Judyth claims to have been
"committed" to reading everything she could find by Russell.
One important theme of the letter is Judyth's religious views. She
thanks Russell, saying "Your words released me from an adolescence
twisted by guilt and worry about God (Catholic style, then any style),
morals, sex, making money, etc., etc." She says she "began a crazy,
'frigid' 'dedicated to science' stick-in-the-mud . . ." but with the
help of Russell's philosophy overcame this. She says she "chucked the
silly moral tic-tac-toes for reality, via your counsels."
She ends the letter by saying "May the godlets [sic] bless you . . . "
She explains in the letter that she is an artist, and is trying to
become a good writer. She remains interested in science, but realizes
her "limitations in that field."
One paragraph of the letter deals with what Judyth calls her
"political activism." She claims to be "frightened at the cost" of
her activism, because of the attitude of the "powers that be" which
she describes as punitive in their view of student dissent and
assembly. She claims it's one's duty to become "compassionately
involved with the daily problems of ordinary people relative to
religion, poverty, and minorities . . . ." but that government wants
to ignore these problems and punish those who publicize them.
There is nothing in the letter about the Kennedy assassination, nor
about Lee Oswald.
.John
========================================================================
THE LETTER FOR EVERYONE TO SEE IS BELOW THIS BACKGROUND REPORT:
BACKGROUND:
I first DASHED OFF A REALLY SLOPPY NOTE to Lord Bertrand Russell in
early 1962, after receiving a telegram from the entertainment mogul
Arthur Godfrey, who contacted the Damon Runyon Foundation. Lord
Russell heard of me from a member oif the foundation and sent me an
encouraging note about my cancer research. I received dozens of notes
and letters that year and left most of them with my parents when I
left for Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, to work
(directly) in Dr. George Moore's lab. I had not yet discovered his
great writings.
.. In early 1964, I wrote again, this time asking Russell to
destroy both that first note, and also a letter that had been sent to
him from New Orleans in May, 1963, by the "FPCC.".(Lee, me, Dave
Ferrie, and two Cubans, one named Carlos, had all signed the letter--
this terrified me in early 1964).
I told him in this January,1964 letter that I had been forced
to leave the medical field, and was even forced to stay married, to
keep my maiden name unknown, for having personally associated with the
accused assassin. I added that I feared for my life. I also told him
that Lee was innocent.
Lord Russell kindly sent me a reply, a real letter, a few weeks
later, saying he routinely destroyed all dangerous political letters,
of which he received quite a few. The letter he now sent was also
politically dangerous, he said, and I must do the same, destroy it,
since many people considered him a communist. He agreed that Lee was
innocent and said nobody in Europe thought he had done it. He then
gave me advice that ended with "Live! Death is when you cease to die!"
which I later incorporated into a poem.
Four years later, ten days before giving birth to a daughter,
Susie Mavinee (Susie named after Susie Hanover, landlady in New
Orleans...Susie's middle name is Mavinee, which reflects Lee's name),
I wanted to cheer Lord Russell, as I heard he was quite ill.
I believed it was now safe to write again, at last.. So I
did, reminding him of his positive impact on my life. His secretary
eventually sent me a short letter saying that Lord Russell expressed
regret that he was too ill to write to me. I still own that reply.
You may wish to see a bitmap file of the letter. Just ask. -j-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the letter to Bertrand Russel is printed here in its entirety-----
you won't have to "order it" from McAdams. McAdams' dissection is
under the letter. See what you
think. ............................................................................................................................................................................
May 19, 1968
Dear Lord Russell:
Greetings for your 96th birthday! ever since I read a single
line of your philosophical works (which I began reading because
it was 'stylish" to do so), I have been committed to reading every-
thing I could find. Your words released me from an adolescence
twisted by guilt and worry about God (Catholic style, then any
style),
morals, sex, making money, etc., etc. I had always vowed
to write to you and say 'thank you" for freeing me from this sorry
welter of cultural harness. You must be as humane and compassionate
as you are brilliant; you taught me also how to think about love,
and finally, how to give it.
I owe so many debts to you that I can only list what you have
done for me and repeat my thanks. I began a crazy, "frigid"
"dedicated to science" stick-in-the-mud who only wanted the satis-
faction that comes from monetary success and a sense of self-sacri-
fice to certain implanted ideals which i did not value for them-
selves but for the approbation others gave them.
Today I am handsomely married! we love each other, but it would
all have been ruined if, six years ago, I had not chucked the silly
moral tic-tac-toes for reality, via your counsels. We will try to
be so good to our coming child. Further, today I am an artist and
hope to become a good writer--though still interested in science,
I realize my limitations in that field despite the prestige it might
have accorded me--and have avoided a career in same. I am politi-
cally active, even though frightened at the cost of this, since
the United States powers-that-be are increasingly punitive in their
outlook on such things as student dissent and assembly, to say
nothing of their attitudes, in general, to the ordinary XXXXXXduty
of becoming passionately involved with the daily problems of
ordinary people relative to religion, poverty, and minorities---
they wish to ignore, or, when forced to see, to punish.
May the godlets bless you for enlightening me, and surely many
others. Certainly, history will do so!
With love,
Judyh Baker
================================================end of
letter==================
the dissection (which McAdams took so many words to do): why didn't he
simply ask me to print the entire
letter?--------------------------------------------
...
1. J WROTE:
...................................................................................................................................................................
May 19, 1968
Dear Lord Russell:
Greetings for your 96th birthday! ever since I read a single
line of your philosophical works (which I began reading because
it was 'stylish" to do so), I have been committed to reading every-
thing I could find.
=======================
1. McADAMS SAID:
It's a birthday greeting that rather gushes its appreciation of the
famous philosopher and anti-war activist. Judyth claims to have been
"committed" to reading everything she could find by Russell.
=========================================================================
=========================================================================
2. J WROTE:
Your words released me from an adolescence
twisted by guilt and worry about God (Catholic style, then any
style),
morals, sex, making money, etc., etc.
===============================
2. McADAMS SAID, CONCERNING THE ABOVE One important theme of the
letter is Judyth's religious views. She thanks Russell, saying "Your
words released me from an adolescence twisted by guilt and worry about
God (Catholic style, then any style), morals, sex, making money, etc.,
etc."
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
3. J. WROTE:
I had always vowed
to write to you and say 'thank you" for freeing me from this sorry
welter of cultural harness. You must be as humane and compassionate
as you are brilliant; you taught me also how to think about love,
and finally, how to give it.
I owe so many debts to you that I can only list what you have
done for me and repeat my thanks. I began a crazy, "frigid"
"dedicated to science" stick-in-the-mud who only wanted the satis-
faction that comes from monetary success and a sense of self-sacri-
fice to certain implanted ideals which i did not value for them-
selves but for the approbation others gave them.
Today I am handsomely married! we love each other, but it would
all have been ruined if, six years ago, I had not chucked the silly
moral tic-tac-toes for reality, via your counsels. We will try to
be so good to our coming child.
============
3. McADAMS REPRESENTED ALL THE ABOVE INTO WITH THESE LINES:
She says she "began a crazy, 'frigid' 'dedicated to science' stick-in-
the-mud . . ." but with the help of Russell's philosophy overcame
this. She says she "chucked the silly moral tic-tac-toes for reality,
via your counsels."
============================================================================
============================================================================
4. J WROTE:
Further, today I am an artist and
hope to become a good writer--though still interested in science,
I realize my limitations in that field despite the prestige it might
have accorded me--and have avoided a career in same.
======================
4. McADAMS SAID:
She explains in the letter that she is an artist, and is trying to
become a good writer. She remains interested in science, but realizes
her "limitations in that field."
===========================================================================
============================================================================
5. J WROTE:
I am politically active, even though frightened at the cost of this,
since
the United States powers-that-be are increasingly punitive in their
outlook on such things as student dissent and assembly, to say
nothing of their attitudes, in general, to the ordinary XXXXXXduty
of becoming passionately involved with the daily problems of
ordinary people relative to religion, poverty, and minorities---
they wish to ignore, or, when forced to see, to punish.
=============================================
5. McADAMS SAID:
One paragraph of the letter deals with what Judyth calls her
"political activism." She claims to be "frightened at the cost" of
her activism, because of the attitude of the "powers that be" which
she describes as punitive in their view of student dissent and
assembly. She claims it's one's duty to become "compassionately
involved with the daily problems of ordinary people relative to
religion, poverty, and minorities . . . ." but that government wants
to ignore these problems and punish those who publicize them.
============================
6. J. WROTE:
May the godlets bless you for enlightening me, and surely many
others. Certainly, history will do so!
With love,
Judyh Baker
===============================
6. McADAMS SAID: She ends the letter by saying "May the godlets
[sic] bless you . . . "
(McADAMS PLACES THE ENDING HIGHER UP, OUT OF SEQUENCES, FOR SOME
REASON)..
I guess my signing'love' wasn't worth mentioning.......?
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: clarification--o EVIDENCE HAS ALWAYS BEEN PRESENT--WE JUST KEEP
FINDING MORE.
Date: 11/10/00 10:57:31 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ],[ ]
To: [ ]
To: [ ], [ ], Howpl
To: [ ], msh...@concentric.net
To: [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ]
'THIS NEEDS STRAIGHTENING OUT.>"JUDYTH HAD NO
DOCUMENTS" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
David,
>
>Thanks for pointing out that initially Judyth had no documents and told
>that to the first group of researchers she initiated contact with.
>===========================I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. I SAID, I WILL HAVE TO HUNT THIS OR THAT DOCUMENT UP, BECAUSE I HAVE A HUGE STACK OF THEM, AND SOME WERE IN CHRISTMAS BOXES IN MY CLOSET.
WHAT NONSENSE PEOPLE PERPETRATE, WHO THINK THEY 'KNOW' SOMETHING,
AND HAVE NEVER EVEN MET ME! I RECENTLY LOCATED A PIECE OF EVIDENCE I
OWNED THAT HAD BEEN PLACED BEHIND A PICTURE FRAME I'VE HAD FOR THIRTY
YEARS. . SOME TICKETS WERE IN ADICTIONARY. I HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE
EVIDENCE AT HAND. IT WAS NOT ALWAYS ORGANIZED. IT WAS FISTRIBUTED SO
THAT MY HUSBAND WOULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT IT WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT.
I CARRIED THESE DOCUMENTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WITH ME BY
PLANE EVEN FROM NORWAY INSTEAD OF TRUSTING THEM TO BE SHIPPED. LEAVING
THINGS TO BE SHIPPED SUCH AS MY JEWELRY!
THIS SILLY RUMOR BEGAN BECAUSE I HAD TO HUNT FOR ODDS AND ENDS
IN MY CHRISTMAS BOXES. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A RESEARCH PAPER, OR A
TROLLEY RECEIPT. MINOR THINGS.
I HAVE NO ATTIC. THESE WERE IN MY CLOSET.
I HAVE A BAD BAD AND IT IS HARD FOR ME TO GO THROUGH THE BOXES,
SO I DID JUST ONE BOX EVERY WEEK OR SO. I HAD ALL THE MAJOR
DOCUMENTS TOGETHER AT ALL TIMES IN SEVERAL THICK FILES ABOUT TWO FEET
HIGH. .===============================================
>Debra Hartman, whom many believe is or is connected to the La Fontaines
>has also affirmed that fact - initially Judyth had no Oswald documents.
====I HAVE NEVER MET DEBRA HARTMAN! SHE HAS NEVER SEEN ONE SHRED OF
ORIGINAL EVIDENCE. HOW CAN SHE 'AFFIRM' ANY SUCH THING?========
>
>It was only after she had no success that she performed "a second
>search" of her attic and found what she claims are Oswald documents.
======================THIS RIDICULOUS RUMOR IS OVER WRITINGS OF LEE'S
THAT I OWN. I DID NOT THINK THEY WERE IMPORTANT BECAUSE HIS
SIGNATURE WAS NOT PRESENT. WHEN I WAS TOLD THEY COULD BE ANALYZED, I
WENT THROUGH SEVERAL BOOKS WHERE I KNEW HE HAD WRITTEN IN SOME
MARGINAL COMMENTS. I MADE COPIES OF THESE MARGIN WRITINGS. THEN PUT
THEM ON THE INTERNET FOR MY RESEARCHERS. I ALWAYS OWNED THEM. THE
BOOKS, IN FACT, WERE NUMBERED IN 1965 AND WERE STAMPED IN 1965 AS
WELL, SO THAT SHOWS HOW MANY YEARS THEY HAVE BEEN IN MY FAMILY.-
=================================
>
>Reasonable people have to wonder about these late-appearing documents!
>
Jerry,
Other reasonable people have to wonder how you and Lifton can jump on
the debunk train so readily armed with such little information.
==================================ARMED? 'JERRY' IS ABSOLUTELY
CRIPPLED! THE EVIDENCE BEGAN IN 1958 AND GOES THROUGH 1968. IT HAS
NEVER LEFT MY POSSESSION--NEVER.
WHAT GETS TO ME IS THAT JERRY PROCLAIMS THAT I HAVE "LATE-
APPEARING DOCUMENTS." OF COURSE WE KEEP FINIDING ADDITIONAL
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE -- MORE HAS RECENTLY BEEN FOUND--- AN AD THAT
SAYS THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A REPLACEMENT FOR REILY CO'S VICE PRES'
SECRETARY THE DATE LEE WAS FIRED. THAT WAS WHEN I WASN'T NEEDED ANY
MORE AT REILY'S, SINCE LEE WAS NOW GONE (i COVERED FOR HIM MANY A TIME
THERE). THE AD SHOWS THEY GOT RID OF LEE, NOW THEY MUST GET RID OF
ME.
RE: documents I have had from day one:
When was I hired at Reily?
I WAS INTERVIEWED THE SAME DAY AS LEE BY THE SAME PERSON IN THE
SAME BUILDING.
I WAS HIRED THE SAME DAY AS LEE.
WE BOTH STARTED WORK IN THE SAME SUB-COMPANY OF REILY'S ON THE
SAME DAY.
WE BOTH MOVED TO REILY'S MAIN BUILDING SIX DAYS LATER.
LEE WAS FIRED JULY 19TH.
AN AD WAS ORDERED JULY 29TH FOR JULY 20TH'S PAPER SEEKING A
REPLACEMENT FOR ME.
I'D SAY THAT THIS AD, RECENTLY FOUND, SUPPLEMENTS WHAT I
ALREADY HAVE A MOUND OF PROOF FOR IN JUST THIS ONE SMALL AREA SHOWING
THESE SIDE-BY-SIDE EXPERIENCES WITH LEE.
WE ALSO LIVED ONLY BLOCKS AWAY ON THE SAME BUS ROUTE, ONLY ONE
BUS STOP BETWEEN US.
WE RODE THE MAGAZINE BUS ALL THE WAY INTO TOWN TOGETHER, AND
BACK OUT TOGETHER, DAILY.
I'D SAY THAT WAS PROXIMITY, BIG-TIME.
ADD TO THIS, I WAS TRAINED TO SPEAK RUSSIAN.
I WAS ALSO TRAINED TO CREATE BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS.
I WAS FIERCELY ANTI-CASTRO AND HAD ANTI-CASTRO BOYFRIENDS. I
HAD BEEN GOOD FRIENDS WITH THE THE SON OF CASTRO'S FINANCE MINISTER
AND WE'D GONE HORSEBACKRIDING AND DRIVING TOGETHER.
I LOOKED LIKE MARINA OSWALD AT SAME HEIGHT, WEIGHT, EYE COLOR,
HAIR COLOR, AND BUILD. I WENT MANY PLACES WITH LEE OSWALD AND WAS
THOUGHT TO BE HIS WIFE
MY HUSBAND WAS NIOT PRESENT MOST OF THE SUMMER.
DO I HAVE EVIDENCE?
I HAVE enough to provide DAILY RECORDS FOR ALMOST EVERY DAY
LIVED IN NEW ORLEANS BETWEEN APRIL 26 AND SEPT. 3, 1963..
new evidence keeps rolling in
RECENTLY an AD WAS FOUND THAT SUPPORTS A LITTLE BIT OF THE HUGE AMOUNT
OF DETAIL.
YE.
IN THE CASE OF THIS AD, IT PROVES I WAS NOT NEEDED AFTER LEE
WAS FIRED. LEE IS FIRED JULY 19TH, AND THIS AD FOR ME TO BE REPLACED
COMES OUT JULY 20. YES, THAT'S NEW SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR WHAT I
HAVE TO SAY-----TO LAY ATOP A PILE THAT IS SEVERAL FEET THICK.===
thank you for your patience. Just setting the record straight. Over
forty people have seen the evidence, a half dozen for decades. (five
children, one husband--not that they knew what it meant! to them, they
were just check stubs, w-2 forms, memorabilia such as trolley tickets,
and lots of photos, letters, and newspaper articles and ads......
).
JUDYTH
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
Dave
http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-menu.html
Subj: AN INVITATION TO ATTEND A SPECIAL INTERVIEW IN DALLAS, SAME
HOTEL AND FLOOR AS..
Date: 11/8/00 10:26:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], { ], { ]
To: [ , [ ], Howpl
To: [ ], msh...@concentric.net, [ ]
To: [ ]
CC: [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
ANNOUNCEMENT AND INVITATION
GREETINGS to all:
After reading the schedule for the JFK Lancer Conference, I have
come to a decision.
First, reasons for this decision:
A panel will comnvene on Saturday, November 18, to discuss --
supposedly--everything known about Lee Oswald in New Orleans in 1963.
The Lancer Conference is supposed to reveal new evidence, reasonable
speculations, and information.
1) Jim Olivier will chair this panel.
2) HE ACTUALLY LIVES IN LAFAYETTE, the same city where I live.
However, he has never contacted me, though attempts to contact him
have been made. For whatever reason, this gentleman, who can't live
more than a few miles from me, has never met me.
COMMENT: This is ironic, but reminds me, indeed, of my existence in
New Orleans, in 1963, when I was busily engaged working many hours
side by side with Lee Oswald. Back then, people who should have known
about me did not trouble themselves to even meet me. Mr. Olivier
doesn't even know what I look like -- nor does Dr. Kurtz, who lives
within driving distance.
Interestingly enough, all sorts of former mafia -connected people
here, however, do know me on sight.
3) Steve Tyler (who has met me once, and was very kind) will also be
on this panel.
COMMENT: This panel will meet ----and one by one, each member of the
panel will talk about the events Lee lived through in New Orleans in
1963. It is my understanding that this panel has agreed not to
mention my name or existence publically , or the new information I
have been discussing with some of them for up to a year via email.
Shades of the same secrecy with which certain persons in New
Orleans pretended -- in November, 1963-- that my relationship with Lee
did not exist.
People will pay their money to attend this conference, no doubt
believing that they will hear everything relevant concerning the
events of the summer of 1963 by going to hear the panel members
("Oswald in New Orleans 1963 "). But my existence was -- at least
until now---to be kept hidden (this invitation will change that).
My existence was likewise kept hidden by those "in the know"
from most people in 1963 in New Orleans, too. And now you see how
easily it can be done.
Back then -- just as now--- I was active, and known well to
some, but they never mentioned me. It was about to happen again.
Now you see how it CAN happen, even though this new
information has been the subject of a newsgroup's hundreds of
postings, and some people "in" on the matter will be at the JFK Lancer
Conference. Not a word would have been said (again, unless this
invitation changes that).
I can hear it now, in AD 2030 --- "Nobody mentioned you on that
panel in the year 2000-- the Lancer Conference convened and an expert
from your own city was there, but he did not even mention you. .WHY?
Why didn't anybody on that panel MENTION you, if you had actually
previously contacted them? You are a fraud. You did not contact
them!"
Just as in 1963, my activities can be obscured and denied and
ignored. After all-- Olivier lived in the same town. How could he
have missed me, in AD 2000 --- right?
This is a striking example of how politics and secrecy can
affect the quality and quantity of information that is made available
even to the most honest and inquiring minds, when a bureaucracy (for
whatever reasons)decides what information shall be made available --
or not ---to the public.
Please note that the story originally was under the constraints
of a nondisclosure agreement with CBS which is now no longer in
effect. That's why no mention was originally going to be made of this
matter. But nobody has contacted me since the Sixty Minute withdrawal
(their fourth, let me remind you). Including the chair of that
panel, Jim Olivier.
So I have made a decision.
============================================================================
YOU ARE INVITED TO MEET J. VARY IN THE PARLOR ROOM AT THE RAMADA
HOTEL, MARKET CENTER, DALLAS, TEXAS, NOV. 17-18-19 on the same floor
and at the same time that the JFK Lancer Conference is meeting. There
will be two four hour sessions (morning and afternoon) Nov. 17 & 18,
and one 4 hour session (morning) Nov. 18. the same material will be
presented at each session. You are welcome to contact press concerning
these sessions.
============================================================================
There WILL be (guanateed) an opportunity to learn the NEW
oinformation about Lee Oswald in New Orleans. The material will be
confined only to that time period to avoid speculations. I believe
that by presenting this material in an orderly fashion, that accurate
and true information can thus be made known to those who would like
hear from a person who can provide eidence of proximity to Lee Oswald
at that time with documents and other materials.
I repeat that I do not mind at all not being invited to the
Conference, for whatever political and personal reasons are involved,
but I do, nevertheless, believe this new information should be made
available. I also wish to dispose of any rumors and fact-twisting,
having seen how people with agendas can transform simple truth into
absurdities.
I appreciate your moral support, interest and sincerity in
wanting to know the whole truth and getting the CORRECT details. It
is especially important to hear this first-hand. I simply can't allow
a panel to convene on "Lee Oswald's activities in New Orleans in
1963" that has not conferred with me about any of its contents, and
indeed has, to this time, at least, agreed not to mention the matter
-- or my existence--at all.
Very sincerely yours,
Judyth Vary Baker
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: Re: SPECIAL INTERVIEW IN DALLAS
Date: 11/9/00 1:23:10 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: Howpl, [ ], [ ], [ ]
To: [ ], msh...@concentric.net
To: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
In a message dated 11/08/2000 11:49:22 PM Central Standard Time, Howpl
writes:
> And you want to sacrifice this for a chance to take on Lifton? Please
> reconsider.
>
> love, Howard
>
Uncle, uncle!
OK, everybody, thanks for the emails.
Not one of you thought this was the wise thing to do. Martin called,
as well.
So --- canceled the suite.
And canceled the flight.
Dear God, I hate the lies, that's all.
-j-
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: clarification
Date: 11/9/00 2:41:11 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], [ ], Howpl, [ ]
To: [ ], msh...@concentric.net
To: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
In his latest 'expose' of me, David Lifton has moved from calling me
(in his first emails) somebody who was such a fool that nobody should
believe any of the things HE immediately caught with his bells going
RRRINNNGGG! at every other word I said. he implied that i was
functioning at the level of a cretin. Now, though, he attributes to
me a level of intelloigence which has made it impossible for Howard,
Martin, Riehl and others to discern my clever and insisidious plot.
> QUOTES LIFTON:
"I never said Phillips used his own name with Oswald. That particular
> factoid derives from Lifton--and it's also total nonsense."
>
> FYI:
>
> 1. Judyth told me on March 4, 2000, as quoted at the beginning of this
> thread, that Oswald knew Phillips by his real name.
======Lee and I both had reason to believe Phillips was possibly
Bishop. I was not told even the position Phillips was in-- only that
he was CIA -- and i got to hear his radio-quality voice, by the way,
in some broadcast and he was pointed out as the speaker at that time.
Lee told me never to forget his name. I was confused until almost the
present by thinking that "Mr. B" might be "Bishop." Now i believe
that person to be Frank bender. While Lee had reason to believe the
man he met in Dallas, introduced to him as "Bishop" was actually
"Phillips" because he never met "Phillips" it was always speculation,
though based on strong suspicions.===================
>
> 2. During the same 24 hour period, Judyth spoke with a friend of mine, and
> made the same statement. She was cross examined vigorously by my friend,
> and Judyth insisted that was the case.
JUDYTH:
==============================This 'friend' is Robert Chapman, and
indeed, I told him the same thing as i told Mr. Lifton. However, he
errs in saying that I was "cross examined vigorously" by Chapman. he
did ask a few questions. He was so pleased with my answers that he
also added that he wanted me to talk to David Lifton. he assured me
David would enjoy talking to me. Chapman also promised not to speak to
anyone about our conversation, as i was under obligation not to
divulge information to persons involved in publishing-- so he was not
supposed to talk to Debra (Lancer) or to anyone else who published
materials (such as Mary Ferrell).
Robert Chapman;s attitude soured after Lifton and I talked
together. I talked to Chapman again by phone only a couple of days
later and he said he didn't want to listen to anything more I had to
say. He said Lifton told him i had committed MANY serious errors that
revealed "fatal flaws" in my conversation with him. I asked what they
were, but Chapman refused to tell me even one objection. This is when
I made my statement that i was afraid of Lifton.
Chapman changed almost instantly into somebody who never wanted to
talk to me again. Yet Chapman had recommended that Lifton contact me.
Because of his enthusiasm and Debra's, I said "fine"
How i wish i had listened to Howard and Martin concerning Lifton!
=========================
LIFTON CARRIES ON:
>
> That was a real eyebrow raiser on March 4, 2000. Now, with all the other
> stuff thats come out, its just part of an ongoing pattern.
At the very least, Judyth is a fantast. Personally, I think its worse
> than that. From close analyzis of my own conversation with her,
> personally think she's a combination of con-artist and crackpot.
>
> You apparently do not comprehend the nature of the person you are dealing
> with.
>=========================================================================
JUDYTH RESPONDS:
But he, of the vastly superior mind, does. Lifton talked to me for
ninety minutes (he claimed longer until he admitted he was wrong when
corrected)-- yet contends that Platzman, Riehl, Shackelford, et al,
who together have questioned me, met me in person, talked to me on the
phone, and read literally a thousand emails from me -- a composite of
hundreds of hours of contact, much of it direct---have been unable,
with their dim brains, to see what he could find out in his ninety
minute phone call.
==================================================================
> Indeed, both you and Platzman, through your fallacious "testing" of her
> (using such aids as Mary Ferrell's CD) have only dug youselves in deeper,
> become more deeply enmeshed in this fantasy--and, I might add, provided
> Judyth with still more information with which to embroider her fantasy.
> (And, of course, there is always that word "essentially" which you hide
> behind in assuring news group readers that Judyth's story hasn't changed;
> or, as you put it, hasn't "essentially changed.")
==========================================================================
JUDYTH ANSWERS:
All persons were intially given just a little information, and mostly
in the same pattern, until i felt i could trust them. I own an
original version of the book that carried a basic outline of all
essential elements, from which I have not essentially deviated.
The word 'essentially" is due to the fact that a number of
details were not included, though when asked, i would immediately
supply such details. i have tried to have witnesses present so that it
could be certain i did not look things up. Dr. Riehl did not have
many written detais, but whenever he asked me anything,. I answered
fully, and he obtained many additional details. This pattern does not
mean embroidery was going on, any more than if you had been asked to
give your address, and you did, and then were asked about the house,
and you gave its dimensions, number of rooms, etc. And then later, you
were asked to describe the dishes used in the house---something always
known but not brought up before, which does not constitute an
embroidering, but, rather, additional detail-- supplied on the spot
whenever requested.
====================================================================
>
> What is most alarming to me is that both of you guys were more than
> willing to see Judyth spouting her nonsense on national TV--which, of
> course, is not a scholarly medium at all, but simply a maneuver to try to
> escalate the situation and get this lady a book contract.
===========================================================================
JUDYTH: This alarms him the MOST? WHY:? because he fars for his own
book's becoming obsolete if mine comes out before or soon after his?
I noticed that Mr. Lifton has likewise descended (in his own
career) to appearing on TV and radio programs, and at conferences, and
i have been told he has been known to quote from his book when doing
so.
It is normal to want a book to be published.
We want as many people as possible to hear about this matter.
Mr. Lifton should note that the story has always been freely offered
to anyone who came to see me. It belongs to our country. It is not
for sale. Yet to receive respect, it needs to be published by a strong
house that can get the book out to the people.
========================================================================
LIFTON SAYS HE WAS 'PLEASANT' BUT I THOUGHT HE WAS RUDE TO ME
LIFTON:
> In an email Judyth sent within a few days of speaking with me--a
> conversastion which was very pleasant, by the way, but one in which I
> persistently avoided supplying her with any new information--she said that
> "David Lifton frightens me". She also complained that I wouldn't provide
> information--that I only sought informaiton from her.
======================================================================
JUDYTH: he frightened me because he had such enormous animmediate
influence on Robert Chapman, for one. Chapman broke his promise to
keep his opinions to himself and apparently told Mary Ferrelll I was
a deep disappointment. Lifton would not provide me with any insight
on whether or not he had heard of our love affair, which frustrated
me, as i was hoping he had at least heard a rumor. others have
reported rumors ---and there were some sightings of me with lee,
especially reported by mafia.. Lifton never interviewed Anna Lewis,
for example. He missed Mac McCullough, too. i wonder who else he
missed.
=================================================================
LIFTON:
> Well of course. And imagine such a criticism, from a valid witness! If I
> were interviewing someone in the autopsy room, what kind of an interview
> would it be if the subject said to me, "First tell me your theory of the
> shooting at Dealey Plaza. . . then I'll tell you what wounds I saw."
>
> That's what this lady is involved in. And that's why your questioning her
> using Mary Ferrell's CD, or any other aid, is undoubtedly such a farce.
> You think you're "verifying" her story. Let me assure you she is smarter
> than you are, and she is in fact seeking information. Because that's the
> essence of the way she functions: she attempts to "insert" herself into
> the existing record.
============================================================================
I WOULD LIKE HERE TO 'INSERT' A COMMENT MADE BY MR. LIFTON TO MATT
ALLISON LAST MONTH:
Anything is "possible."
But I, for one, am not going to waste my time trying to separate the
wheat from the chaff, and go on dealing with this lady, looking for
the needle of authenticity in a haystack that is already so damaged,
credibility-wise, if not so provably phony.
Now Matt Allison. . you say you’re an audio engineer.
But it appears to me that you fancy yourself an excellent judge of
humankind, and also you’ve apparently got pretensions to being some
kind of amateur investigator /historian.
You fly to another city; spend time with "the witness" and consider
yourself one of the select few who now know something important about
"the event." You curse and scream and yell at people and tell them
they do not know what they are talking about. But you do. Because, by
gosh, you met her, and you "know."
=============================================================================JUDYTH
COMMENTS: Lifton never met me. But he "knows"--by gosh!
=============================================================================
>LIFTON CONTINUES:
> I was very careful, in my conversation, NOT to provide additional
> information. She definitely wanted prominent mention in my book ("What
> can I do to make you believe me?" she asked, or words to that effect), and
> I made clear to her that, assuming her experience was valid, I would be
> more than glad to mention her in a footnote, and include her book in my
> bibliography (this, of course, was asssuming she was a valid witness, and
> not a fraud).
=========================================================================
JUDYTH: I was concerned that his book would not mention the love
affair, which would have been glaring ommission. It was to make sure
his research would not have a hole in it. I was indeed anxous to do
whatever i couod to prove to him that my claims were valid. "What can
II do?" was my entire intent--to help him. Anybody who knows me knows
that is exactly how I am.
===========================================================================
>LIFTON GOES (interminably) ON.....
> Within days, Platzman was spreading a false account of the conversation,
> and complaining that I "only" offered to put Judyth in a footnote. It was
> at that point that I wrote an email to Platzman saying, in effect, "If you
> can't be trusted about a conversation that happened just 37 hours ago, why
> can you be trusted about an event that occurred 37 years ago?"
==========================================================================
JUDYTH: You indeed showed your hostility and ability to lie. . I was
so dismayed.
============================================================================
>LIFTON ANALYZES ME:
> You guys have been seduced by a charlatan--who has got a vested
> psychological and financial interest in selling a phony story--and the
> amazing thing about it (to me at least) is that both of you stubbornly
> refuse to believe it, and treat her as a valid source of information.
============================================================================
>JUDYTH:
The "vested psychological interest:" is the exoneration of an innocent
man, at jeopardy to my reputation.
The "vested...financial interest" has never existed. I have never
been interested in money and periodically have given everything i own
away, except my books. Anything I get from this will go to establish
a cancer research facility, studying bacteriophage adaptation to
cancers, and to otherwise help people, such as send lee's
grandchildren to college. Period.
=============================================================================
LIFTON:
> When are you guys going to get real, and realize the fundmentally
> fraudulent nature of this witness?
>
> And if that never happens, well then fine. I trust that people on these
> newsgroups are going to realize the kind of "research" in which you are
> engaged, and the sort of standards you bring to bear when analyzing
> evidence.
>
> DSL
>==========================================================================
I do not believe David did a LICK of research about me before coming
to HIS decision.
The numerous persons who support me, who constantly and
thoroughly have questioned me, for many months, did so with a mind to
getting to the truth. among them all, they know everything now.
Even so--- David Blackburst and Mary Ferrell recently come up
with questions nobody else asked! Didn't think there were any left!
I have tried to answer these with a witness present when opening
emails, so that it will be known I have not done any " research."
Sadly, Mr. Lifton never spoke to me again. But he has invested
plenty of time and effort, nevertheless, talkig ABOUT me.
WHY has he cared so much about Martin, and Howard's
conclusions? WHY has he invested such a mass of time and energy
(why, if I am a nothing?) attempting to destroy me?
Had he invested this much effort in doing research--i could have
supplied him leads--he would have found out things about Lee Oswald--
for example, what he was really doing at Jackson, and who that "woman"
was who was spotted with him---that would have clothed him in honor.
As it is, I am embarrassed that he reacts so violently to me---
without bothering to find out a thing about me. Well, he missed me,
plain and simple. Despite al;l his research and book writing. That
must sting. He would rather spend immense time and effort trying to
destroy me than to change a word he wrote in his book. Perhaps
because it is too late to fix, so he has to 'fix' me?
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: letter to bertrand russell: clarification
Date: 11/9/00 5:29:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], Howpl, [ ]
To: msh...@concentric.net, [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
I have a copy, obtained from the Bertrand Russell Archive, of Judyth
Baker's letter to Russell.
http://www.mcmaster.ca/russdocs/russell1.htm
It's dated May 19, 1968.
=======================================Judyth: My birthday was May
15th, Russells' was May 18th. Our first letter to Russell was written
on his birthday and sent to him. It was signed by me, lee and Dave F.
under the FPCC headers. later i wrote Russell, after the
assassination, and asked him to destroy the letter. So there were, in
all, originally three letteers.
Of course there would be NO reference to lee in this letter, it was
kept whole and entire for two reasons: one, Russell was too inform to
handle his own correspondence anymore, and secondly, i knew better in
1968 than to write anything at all about Lee, etc. We didn't even
mention ourselves except in our signatures even in 1963.
Dave Ferrie had a friend bring him a prayer book from england (I own
it , he gave it to me so i would have two books and the Greek book by
itself would not look "odd" in my possessions...anyway, it is a
prayerbook he gave me because i liked it, and it came from England,
along with a few other things. The information about how to contact
Bertrand russell was also at this time made available to us., so we
wrote the letter.
i wrote Russelll early in 1964 asking him t destroy the New orleans
letter. he returned a short note saying he had complied and would not
allow anything about the matter to be discovered. At that time, he
also gave me some political , religious, and philosophical sentences
of advice. My husband knew that i had corresponded with russell: I
did tell him and he should remember.
i own a carbon copy of the letter mcAdams quotes and rather
mutilates. For anyone who wants to see the entire text, just let me
know. I haven;t checked to see if it is at the site he says it
is....will check tonight. COMMENTS BELOW ON THIS 1968 LETTER, WHICH OF
COURSE WOULD NOT REFER TO LEE. AT THE TIME I WROTE IT, IT WAS ONLY TEN
DAYS BEFORE MY FIRST BABY WAS BORN, AND I WAS SORT OF REACHING OUT TO
RUSSELL BECAUSE OF
THAT.===============================================================
It's a birthday greeting that rather gushes its appreciation of the
famous philosopher and anti-war activist. Judyth claims to have been
"committed" to reading everything she could find by Russell.
=======================THIS IS
TRUE=========================================
One important theme of the letter is Judyth's religious views. She
thanks Russell, saying "Your words released me from an adolescence
twisted by guilt and worry about God (Catholic style, then any style),
morals, sex, making money, etc., etc."
====================================================WHEN WE WROTE TO
RUSSELL, NEITHER LEE NOR I HAD YET STARTED SLEEPING TOGETHER.
RUSSELL'S WORDS WERE BASICALLY, DO NOT LET RELIGION MAKE YOU AS
UNHAPPY AS IT HAS MADE SO MANY. LIVE YOUR LIFE TO THE FULL MEASURE OF
ITS POTENTIAL JOY." I AM PARAPHRASING. IT HELPED ME PUT ASIDE MY
PURITANICAL WAYS AND TO GO AHEAD AND SLEEP WITH LEE. I AM THANKING HIM
FOR THAT ADVICE.=====================
She says she "began a crazy, 'frigid' 'dedicated to science' stick-in-
the-mud . . ." but with the help of Russell's philosophy overcame
this. She says she "chucked the silly moral tic-tac-toes for reality,
via your counsels."
===============================================YES. I HAD BEEN SO
SCIENCE ORIENTED, AS YOU KNOW, THAT LEE HAD TO CHECK A BOOK OUT OFTHE
LIBRARY ABOUT COMMUNISM JUST TO GET ME UP TO SPEED ON THAT BASIC
POLITICAL SYSTEM. I FELL IN LOVE WITH LEE AND FINALLY DID REALIZE
THAST IT WAS BETTER TO RESPOND TO THE LOVE WE HAD THAN TO LET IT PASS,
AND BE WITHOUT THAT LOVE. I NEVER REGRETED IT. RUSSELL'S ENCOURAGEMENT
IS MENTIONED IN MY
BOOK.=====================================================================
She ends the letter by saying "May the godlets [sic] bless you . . . "
She explains in the letter that she is an artist, and is trying to
become a good writer. She remains interested in science, but realizes
her "limitations in that field."
===============================UNABLE TO BECOME A DOCTOR, A CANCER
RESEARCHER, OR A SCIENTIST FOR FEAR OF BEING DISCOVERED AS INVOLVED IN
THE EVENTS OF 1963, I WAS INDEED LIMITED. BUT NOT INTELLECTUALLY.
HOW WAS I TO SAY IT, IF THE LETTER WAS TO SEEM AN INNOCENT
ONE?
I DID NOT DARE MENTION THE PAST, BUT i DID TRY TO MENTION
ENOUGH OF THE PAST TO REMIND RUSSELL WHO I WAS. AND I KNEW HE WAS ILL,
SO I WAS THANKING HIM FOR HIS ADVICE. OIF COURSE I ALSO READ ALL HIS
BOOKS, FUELED BY THOSE FEW SENTENCES ADVICE. I ALMOST WORSHIPED
RUSSELL. AND I WAS ACTIVE AGAINST WAR, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. IT WAS A
DANGEROUS THING, WORKING IN THE NEWSPAPER UNDERGROUND AND MARCHINGFOR
PEACE, BECAUSE IF I WEREW ARRESTED, AND MY PAST INVESTIGATED, I FEARED
WHAT WOULD BECOME OF ME. AT THE SAME TIME, I COULD NOT BE IDLE AND
WATCH THE COUNTRY GO DOWN THE DRAIN DUE TO LBJ'S VIETNAM
WAR,.==============================================
One paragraph of the letter deals with what Judyth calls her
"political activism." She claims to be "frightened at the cost" of
her activism, because of the attitude of the "powers that be" which
she describes as punitive in their view of student dissent and
assembly.
=========================================THE COST FOR ME WOULD HAVE
BEEN HIGH, INDEED, IF MY HIDDEN PAST WAS EVER
DISCOVERED========================
She claims it's one's duty to become "compassionately involved with
the daily problems of ordinary ====people relative to
religion, poverty, and minorities . . . ." but that government wants
to ignore these problems and punish those who publicize them.
==============================================HAVE ALWAYS FELT THIS
WAY AND NEVER CHANGED ALL THESE YEARS. AS ANYONE WHO KNOWS ME IS
AWARE, IF ANY MONEY COMES FROM THE BOOK, ETC. IT WILL GO TO HELP
PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY IMPOVERISHED PEOPLE. THE STATEMENT ABOUT
MINORITIES SHOWS THAT LEE AND I SHARED THE SAME ATTITUDE, SUPPORTING
THE CAUSES OF THE BLACKS AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO WAS DOWNTRODDEN. LEE
WAS CONSISTENT THAT WAY. SO WAS I. AND STILL AM.
=============================
There is nothing in the letter about the Kennedy assassination, nor
about Lee Oswald.
==============================OF COURSE NOT! THIS IS TEN DAYS BEFORE
MY BABY WAS BORN! I AM GOING TO BLAT MY MOUTH OFF ABOUT THE
ASSASSINATION AT THIS TIME? I WAS ALREADY DOING ALL I COULD DO.
WAS MARCHING FOR PEACE --- BUT AVOIDED EVERY HINT OF INTEREST IN
THAT AREA (ASSASSINATION) FOR MY OWN SAFETY. I NEVER MENTIONED
KENNEDY, THE ASSASSINATION, ETC.
I CONCENTRATED MY FIERCE PASSION ON DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS (AFTER
ALL, LOOK WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO LEE), ON ANTI-WAR EFFORTS, ETC. AND
OF COURSE, ANTI-NUCLEAR EFFORTS.
SO I EVEN MISSED THE GARRISON INVESTIGATION, AS I ALWAYS
PUNCTILIOUSLY AVOIDED THE SLIGHTEST TALK ABOUT ANYTHING TO DO WITH
JFK. ALWAYS CHANGED THE SUBJECT TO PRESENT HOUR.
. IT WAS FOR MY SAFETY. HERE I WAS, VERY PREGNANT, HAD HAD TWO
MISCARIAGES ALREADY, YET WAS INVOLVED IN SOME ACTUALLY DANGEROUS
ACTIVITIES WHERE SOMETIMES WE WERE KCKED, SHOVED AROUND, THREATENED
AND EVEN GOT SPAT ON.
I WAS DOING EVERYTHING I COULD DO AS ANONYMOUSLY AS POSSIBLE,
TO FORWARD THE CAUSES OF THE POOR, MINORITIES, TO STOP WAR, TO STOP
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, ETC. I KNEW WHAT ABUSE OF POWER WAS ALL ABOUT,
AFTER ALL.
AS I'VE SAID, MY LIFE PROVES HOW MUCH THE KILL-CASTRO PROJECT
MEANT TO ME BACK 1963, FOR IT MEANT AN END TO NUCLEAR THREATS IN THE
HEMISPHERE. I WAS WILLING TO RISK A LOT EVEN IN 1968--- AND HAVE
NEVER CHANGED..======================DOES JOHN MCADAMS THINK I SHOULD
HAVE BEEN FOOL ENOUGH TO MENTION KENNEDY, ETC? AT THIS TIME? BUT
RUSSELL KNEW WHAT OI WAS DOING AND I HOPED HE WAS PROUD OF ME. I
WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT UP THIS LETTER'S CONTENTS, BUT FEEL NOW IT
MUST BE CLARIFIED. I DO NOT REGRET HAVING DONE THESE CONTROVERSIAL
THINGS.
PERHAPS THIS LETTER REVEALS THAT I WAS INDEED CAPABLE OF THE
BOLDNESS I HAD TO HAVE TO PARTICIPATE WITH PEOPLE SUCH AS DAVE FERRIE
IN THE KILL-CASTRO PLOT.
===JUDYTH=====
.John
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: one great love of my life
Date: 11/9/00 5:34:49 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], Howpl, msh...@concentric.net
To: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ]
One important theme of the letter is Judyth's religious views. She
thanks Russell, saying "Your words released me from an adolescence
twisted by guilt and worry about God (Catholic style, then any style),
morals, sex, making money, etc., etc." She says she "began a crazy,
'frigid' 'dedicated to science' stick-in-the-mud . . ." but with the
help of Russell's philosophy overcame this. She says she "chucked the
silly moral tic-tac-toes for reality, via your counsels."
BY THE WAY, THOSE 'SILLY MORAL TIC-TAC-TOES' INCLUDED REMAINING
FAITHFUL TO A MAN WHO DIDN'T SHOW VERY MUCH LOVE FOR ME..ROBERT, AS
YOU KNOW, HAD ME BUY MY OWN WEDDING BAND, HE WAS SUCH A
CHEAPSKATE.....WHEREAS LEE WAS SO PATIENT AND UNDEMANDING--AND
WONDERFULLY ROMANTIC. NO, WILL NEVER REGRET LOVING LEE OSWALD. THE
LOVE OF MY LIFE. -J-
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: McAdams irritating.....
Date: 11/9/00 5:51:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], [ ], Howpl, [ ]
To: msh...@concentric.net
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
She explains in the letter that she is an artist, and is trying to
>become a good writer. She remains interested in science, but realizes
>her "limitations in that field."
>
Her "limitations?"
I thought she was a prodigy? A crack cancer researcher?
.John
===================This man does not seem to realize that i was forced
out of the field by fear. what was i to do? THERE were my
limitations.
I did not indicate what kind of limitations, after all. I was
being frank with him, as he had last heard from me as a custom -
chemical creator/ assistant chemist (at age 20) in gas chromatography
analysis of rare compounds, including rare carcinogens, and associated
halogen research. . Certainly didn't have any limitations at THAT
time!
And yet--nobody ever dropped more precipitously from known
expertise to unknown nothingness as did i. I consoled myself by trying
to forge a life of some kind, trapped in my marriage, by painting and
writing--and causing as much trouble for those who benefited from
JFK's death as i possibly could.
At the time of Susie's birth (Susan Mavinee--her middle name
reflected "Lee" in rhyme) (she was named after Susie Hanover in New
Orleans, my landlady who hid Lee so Robert didn;t catch him, several
times) I penetrated so close to the LBJ household that my obstetrician
was LKBJ';s daughter's obstetrician.
I paid this high price myself (Robert would not have had a
pricy O.B./GYN!) by painting him a hunting dog scene. His name: Dr.
Robert Zschappel, and you can look it up.
Now WHY do you think i would have ferreted out somebody close to the
LBJ family, such as Zschappel, there in Austin, Texas?
To get inside info on the LBJ family, the Robbs, etc. And i
did, too, and sent it to the Village Voice, Space City News, and the
Rag.
It wasn't cancer research -- the JFK matter ruined that--- but it
was research, nonetheless.
I helped break out info on Brown & Root to discomfit LBJ dynasty,
too.
it was my own little bit of revenge.
-j-
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: (no subject)
Date: 11/9/00 5:56:47 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], [ ], Howpl, [ ]
To: msh...@concentric.net, [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
OK, she seems to have junked religion, or at least any religious moral
doctrines that might be inconvenient.
But then she became a Mormon *after* this letter was written, right?
Did she rediscover the "silly moral tic-tac-toes?"
.John
=======After my baby was born, i had to rethink tings out. Robert and
i had tried to help a crippled girl. She came to live with us in
Houston, Texas. She was a mormon, and she sent Mormon missionaries
our way. All the old longings for order and goodness overwhelmed me.,
I had an inocent baby.
the prospect of trying to have a better marriage with Robert hinged
on the mormon daydream of being remarried in the temple. White dress,
veil, everything i had never had with this man.
in 1969, i joine the mormon church.
Robert joined six weks after I did,
we went through the mormon church's Salt Lake temple and had a real
wedding there in 1971. I wanted a fresh start with robert. i have
always believed that children need a religion. What they learn there
is important. mormons seemed so family oriented.
i plunged into this world, very isolated one, too, from so much of
the outside world, and pledged to be the best wife and mother I could.
mormons want you to have as many babies as possible. it is how a woman
'saves herself from her sins."
i had four miscarriages and five children in ten years.
-j-
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: Bertrand Russell and Judyth Baker:
Date: 11/10/00 7:02:44 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], [ ], Howpl
To: msh...@concentric.net, [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
I first wrote Lord Bertrand Russell in early 1962, after
receiving a telegram from the entertainment mogul Arthur Godfrey, who
contacted the Damon Runyon Foundation. Lord Russell heard of me from a
member oif the foundation and sent me an encouraging note about my
cancer research. I received dozens of notes and letters that year and
left most of them with my parents when I left for Roswell Park
Memorial Institute in Buffalo, to work (directly) in Dr. George
Moore's lab.
.. In early 1964, I wrote again, this time asking him to destroy
both that first letter and a letter that had been sent to him from New
Orleans in May, 1963, by the "FPCC.".(Lee, me, Dave Ferrie, and two
Cubans, one named Carlos, had all signed the letter--this terrified
me in early 1964).
I told him in this January,1964 letter that I had been forced
to leave the medical field, and was even forced to stay married, to
keep my maiden name unknown, for having personally associated with the
accused assassin. I added that I feared for my life. I also told him
that Lee was innocent.
Lord Russell kindly sent me a reply, a real letter, a few weeks
later, saying he routinely destroyed all letters such asthe
politically dangerous one written to him, and that I must do the same,
since many people considered him a communist. He agreed that Lee was
innocent and said nobody in Europe thought he had done it. He then
gave me advice that ended with "Live! Death is when you cease to die!"
which I later incorporated into a poem.
Four years later, ten days before giving birth to a daughter,
Susie mavinee (Susie named after susie Hanover, landlady in New
Orleans...Susie's middele name is Mavinee, which reflects Lee's name),
I wanted to cheer Lord Russell, as I heard he was quite ill.
I believed it was now safe to write again, at last.. So I
fdid, reminding him of his positive impact on my life. His secretary
eventually sent me an letter that Lord Russell expressed regret that
he was too ill to write to me. I still own that reply.
You may wish to see a bitmap file of the letter. Just ask. -j-
........................................................................................................................................................................
May 19, 1968
Dear Lord Russell:
Greetings for your 96th birthday! ever since I read a single
line of your philosophical works (which I began reading because
it was 'stylish" to do so), I have been committed to reading every-
thing I could find. Your words released me from an adolescence
twisted by guilt and worry about God (Catholic style, then any
style),
morals, sex, making money, etc., etc. I had always vowed
to write to you and say 'thank you" for freeing me from this sorry
welter of cultural harness. You must be as humane and compassionate
as you are brilliant; you taught me also how to think about love,
and finally, how to give it.
I owe so many debts to you that I can only list what you have
done for me and repeat my thanks. I began a crazy, "frigid"
"dedicated to science" stick-in-the-mud who only wanted the satis-
faction that comes from monetary success and a sense of self-sacri-
fice to certain implanted ideals which i did not value for them-
selves but for the approbation others gave them.
Today I am handsomely married! we love each other, but it would
all have been ruined if, six years ago, I had not chucked the silly
moral tic-tac-toes for reality, via your counsels. We will try to
be so good to our coming child. Further, today I am an artist and
hope to become a good writer--though still interested in science,
I realize my limitations in that field despite the prestige it might
have accorded me--and have avoided a career in same. I am politi-
cally active, even though frightened at the cost of this, since
the United States powers-that-be are increasingly punitive in their
outlook on such things as student dissent and assembly, to say
nothing of their attitudes, in general, to the ordinary XXXXXXduty
of becoming passionately involved with the daily problems of
ordinary people relative to religion, poverty, and minorities---
they wish to ignore, or, when forced to see, to punish.
May the godlets bless you for enlightening me, and surely many
others. Certainly, history will do so!
With love,
Judyh Baker
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: McAdams and Martin square off over Bertrand Russell, etc.
Date: 11/10/00 10:06:32 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ], [ ], Howpl, [ ]
To: msh...@concentric.net
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ]
THIS IS AN EXCHANGE BETWEEN MARTIN AND McADMAS. BELOW IS THE LETTER
IN ITS ENTIRETY. IT IS BROKEN INTO SEGMENTS SO THAT YOU CAN SEE
EXACTLY WHAT McADAMS SAID ABOUT IT. MAINLY, HE LEFT OUT WORDING, SUCH
AS, "LOVE, JUDYTH BAKER" THAT TENDED TO SHOW I HAD WRITTEN BEFORE TO
BERTRAND RUSSELL. YOU MAY NOTICE OTHER SELECTIVITY IN HIS RENDERING OF
THE LETTER. BESIDES THE MATERIAL AT THE END OF THIS EMAIL, I WILL ALSO
COMMENT BRIEFLY ON WHAT IS POSTED JUST BELOW THESE CAPS: (thanks for
your patience, J):
==========================================================================
-------MARTIN SAID:________________
As for the attitudes she expressed, they are nothing unusual for a
1968
>political activist.
_________________McADAMS SAID: _______________________
True, but it's interesting that this "political activist" who is
living in New Orleans expresses no interest in the Garrison
investigation. Nor does she complain about the obvious injustice of
the framing of her dear boyfriend, your favorite patsy and mine, Lee
Oswald.
______________jJUDYTH: McADAMS ERRS. I AM NOT LIVING IN NEW ORLEANS!
KNOWING NOTHING OF MY LIFE, HE JUMPS TO STRANGE CONCLUSIONS AND
PRESENTS THEM AS FACTS, MAKING IT LOOK STRANGE THAT I DO NOT NOTE THE
GARRISON TRIALS. BUT I WAS LIVING IN AUSTIN, TEXAS --- INFILTRATING
THE LBJ POLITICAL NETWORK FOR UNDERGROUND NEWSPAPERS (THE RAG, SPACE
CITY NEWS, AND VILLAGE VOICE).
. I AM NINE MONTHS PREGNANT. MY OB/GYN IS DR. ROBERT ZSCHAPPEL,
LBJ'S DAUGHTER'S OB/GYN TOO. I PAINT A FANCY HUNTING DOG OIL FOR
ZSCHAPPEL, TO COVER HIS HIGH BILL. WAS SICK ALL SPRING. BEFORE THAT,
AND BEFORE THAT, HAD A MISCARRIAGE. PRIOR TO THAT, LIVED THE ENTIRE
SUMMER OF 1967 IN ISOLATED MOUNTAIN CLIMBING AND MAPPING IN SALTILLO,
MEXICO.
---WHERE I WROTE A 350 PAGE BOOK CALLED "SIX FOOT SEVEN" ---THE HEIGHT
INSPIRED BY THE 6 FOOT 7 GERRY PATRICK HEMMING. IT'S ON RECORD.
THE BOOK "SIX FOOT SEVEN"
IN THE BOOK, THE MAIN CHARACTER (OF BYELORUSSIAN AND HUNGARIAN
EXTRACT) IS FRAMED AND BLAMED FOR A POLITICAL ASSASSINATION---BY A
SMALL-TOWN GOVERNMENT. HE IS MADE A PATSY ---IS INTERROGATED FOR
HOURS--- IS BEATEN BY POLICE ---AND THEN IS SHOT BY A MOBSTER. HE IS
A GOOD MAN WHO TRIED TO HELP PEOPLE, BUT HIS WIFE, A "GOOD
AMERICAN," BETRAYS HIM. I THINK I WAS TRYING TO DEAL WITH MY GRIEF.
THE BOOK WAS NEARLY ACCEPTED BY CROWN PUBLISHERS, BUT IT REEWEMBLED
YOU-KNOW-WHAT TOO MUCH, ACCORDING TO EDITORS......MY AGENT WAS RUTH
CANTOR.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN SAID:
>Finally, the fact that she is writing in 1968 to someone who has been
>active on the subject of the JFK assassination, and mentions nothing of
>the topic, is only further confirmtion that she remained silent about it
>for 35 years, as she has consistently said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McADAMS OPINED:
Sure, but "silent" because she was scared, or "silent" because in fact
she had no interest in the topic?
------------------------------------------------
JUDYTH CLARIFIES:
Lord Russell had asked that I destroy his letter and not to mention
anything about the assassination.. I have always believed that our New
Orleans FPCC letter ----and my comments that Lee was innocent ---
helped convince Russell to conduct his investigation. I was afraid to
disobey Russell's directive. IHe was my hero -- I LOVED him because he
was trying to get justice for Lee. That meant a lot to me. Why else
would i sign "love" and be that gushy, no matter hoiw wonderful this
philosopher was? because he was doing something wonderful fighting for
Lee.
THE LETTER IS BELOW:.-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just when did she first see the movie JFK?
==i WALKED OUT OF THE SHOWING MY KIDS HAD WHICH i THOUGHT as end of
dec. 1991. i am told it had to be 1992. whatever. i could not bear any
of it FIRST SAW THE FILM APPROX. BETWEEN DEC. 30 AND JAN. 1, 1999.
ALONE. DID NOT WANT ANYBODY TO SEE MY REACTIONS. I WAS MOSTLY VERY
ANGRY AFTER SEEING HOW LEE AND DAVID F. WERE PORTRAYED. LAYETEN
MARTENS WAS THERE, THOUGH. BANISTER WAS UGLIER THAN HE SHOULD HAVE
LOOKED, COSTNER WAS HANDOMSER...OH, WELL....
------------------------LETTER
BELOW-------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McADAMS TELLS US ALL ABOUT THE LETTER ON THE NEWSGROUP AND OFFERS IT
BY SNAIL MAIL TO READERS. BUT I HAVE THE ORIGINAL CARBON, SO I OFFER
YOU THE ENTIRE LETTER. McADAMS SELECTED PORTIONS OF THE LETTER AND
USED UP ENOUGH WORDS AND SPACE THAT HE COULD HAVE PRINTED THE ENTIRE
CONTENTS OF THE LETTER. INSTEAD, HE PREFERRED TO SLICE AND DICE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
HEEEEEEEER'S MCADAMS!----------
McADAMS WRITES:
It's dated May 19, 1968.
It's a birthday greeting that rather gushes its appreciation of the
famous philosopher and anti-war activist. Judyth claims to have been
"committed" to reading everything she could find by Russell.
One important theme of the letter is Judyth's religious views. She
thanks Russell, saying "Your words released me from an adolescence
twisted by guilt and worry about God (Catholic style, then any style),
morals, sex, making money, etc., etc." She says she "began a crazy,
'frigid' 'dedicated to science' stick-in-the-mud . . ." but with the
help of Russell's philosophy overcame this. She says she "chucked the
silly moral tic-tac-toes for reality, via your counsels."
She ends the letter by saying "May the godlets [sic] bless you . . . "
She explains in the letter that she is an artist, and is trying to
become a good writer. She remains interested in science, but realizes
her "limitations in that field."
One paragraph of the letter deals with what Judyth calls her
"political activism." She claims to be "frightened at the cost" of
her activism, because of the attitude of the "powers that be" which
she describes as punitive in their view of student dissent and
assembly. She claims it's one's duty to become "compassionately
involved with the daily problems of ordinary people relative to
religion, poverty, and minorities . . . ." but that government wants
to ignore these problems and punish those who publicize them.
There is nothing in the letter about the Kennedy assassination, nor
about Lee Oswald.
.John
========================================================================
THE LETTER FOR EVERYONE TO SEE IS BELOW THIS BACKGROUND REPORT:
BACKGROUND:
I first DASHED OFF A REALLY SLOPPY NOTE to Lord Bertrand Russell in
early 1962, after receiving a telegram from the entertainment mogul
Arthur Godfrey, who contacted the Damon Runyon Foundation. Lord
Russell heard of me from a member oif the foundation and sent me an
encouraging note about my cancer research. I received dozens of notes
and letters that year and left most of them with my parents when I
left for Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, to work
(directly) in Dr. George Moore's lab. I had not yet discovered his
great writings.
.. In early 1964, I wrote again, this time asking Russell to
destroy both that first note, and also a letter that had been sent to
him from New Orleans in May, 1963, by the "FPCC.".(Lee, me, Dave
Ferrie, and two Cubans, one named Carlos, had all signed the letter--
this terrified me in early 1964).
I told him in this January,1964 letter that I had been forced
to leave the medical field, and was even forced to stay married, to
keep my maiden name unknown, for having personally associated with the
accused assassin. I added that I feared for my life. I also told him
that Lee was innocent.
Lord Russell kindly sent me a reply, a real letter, a few weeks
later, saying he routinely destroyed all dangerous political letters,
of which he received quite a few. The letter he now sent was also
politically dangerous, he said, and I must do the same, destroy it,
since many people considered him a communist. He agreed that Lee was
innocent and said nobody in Europe thought he had done it. He then
gave me advice that ended with "Live! Death is when you cease to die!"
which I later incorporated into a poem.
Four years later, ten days before giving birth to a daughter,
Susie Mavinee (Susie named after Susie Hanover, landlady in New
Orleans...Susie's middle name is Mavinee, which reflects Lee's name),
I wanted to cheer Lord Russell, as I heard he was quite ill.
I believed it was now safe to write again, at last.. So I
did, reminding him of his positive impact on my life. His secretary
eventually sent me a short letter saying that Lord Russell expressed
regret that he was too ill to write to me. I still own that reply.
You may wish to see a bitmap file of the letter. Just ask. -j-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the letter to Bertrand Russel is printed here in its entirety-----
you won't have to "order it" from McAdams. McAdams' dissection is
under the letter. See what you
think. ............................................................................................................................................................................
May 19, 1968
Dear Lord Russell:
Greetings for your 96th birthday! ever since I read a single
line of your philosophical works (which I began reading because
it was 'stylish" to do so), I have been committed to reading every-
thing I could find. Your words released me from an adolescence
twisted by guilt and worry about God (Catholic style, then any
style),
morals, sex, making money, etc., etc. I had always vowed
to write to you and say 'thank you" for freeing me from this sorry
welter of cultural harness. You must be as humane and compassionate
as you are brilliant; you taught me also how to think about love,
and finally, how to give it.
I owe so many debts to you that I can only list what you have
done for me and repeat my thanks. I began a crazy, "frigid"
"dedicated to science" stick-in-the-mud who only wanted the satis-
faction that comes from monetary success and a sense of self-sacri-
fice to certain implanted ideals which i did not value for them-
selves but for the approbation others gave them.
Today I am handsomely married! we love each other, but it would
all have been ruined if, six years ago, I had not chucked the silly
moral tic-tac-toes for reality, via your counsels. We will try to
be so good to our coming child. Further, today I am an artist and
hope to become a good writer--though still interested in science,
I realize my limitations in that field despite the prestige it might
have accorded me--and have avoided a career in same. I am politi-
cally active, even though frightened at the cost of this, since
the United States powers-that-be are increasingly punitive in their
outlook on such things as student dissent and assembly, to say
nothing of their attitudes, in general, to the ordinary XXXXXXduty
of becoming passionately involved with the daily problems of
ordinary people relative to religion, poverty, and minorities---
they wish to ignore, or, when forced to see, to punish.
May the godlets bless you for enlightening me, and surely many
others. Certainly, history will do so!
With love,
Judyh Baker
================================================end of
letter==================
the dissection (which McAdams took so many words to do): why didn't he
simply ask me to print the entire
letter?--------------------------------------------
...
1. J WROTE:
...................................................................................................................................................................
May 19, 1968
Dear Lord Russell:
Greetings for your 96th birthday! ever since I read a single
line of your philosophical works (which I began reading because
it was 'stylish" to do so), I have been committed to reading every-
thing I could find.
=======================
1. McADAMS SAID:
It's a birthday greeting that rather gushes its appreciation of the
famous philosopher and anti-war activist. Judyth claims to have been
"committed" to reading everything she could find by Russell.
=========================================================================
=========================================================================
2. J WROTE:
Your words released me from an adolescence
twisted by guilt and worry about God (Catholic style, then any
style),
morals, sex, making money, etc., etc.
===============================
2. McADAMS SAID, CONCERNING THE ABOVE One important theme of the
letter is Judyth's religious views. She thanks Russell, saying "Your
words released me from an adolescence twisted by guilt and worry about
God (Catholic style, then any style), morals, sex, making money, etc.,
etc."
===========================================================================
===========================================================================
3. J. WROTE:
I had always vowed
to write to you and say 'thank you" for freeing me from this sorry
welter of cultural harness. You must be as humane and compassionate
as you are brilliant; you taught me also how to think about love,
and finally, how to give it.
I owe so many debts to you that I can only list what you have
done for me and repeat my thanks. I began a crazy, "frigid"
"dedicated to science" stick-in-the-mud who only wanted the satis-
faction that comes from monetary success and a sense of self-sacri-
fice to certain implanted ideals which i did not value for them-
selves but for the approbation others gave them.
Today I am handsomely married! we love each other, but it would
all have been ruined if, six years ago, I had not chucked the silly
moral tic-tac-toes for reality, via your counsels. We will try to
be so good to our coming child.
============
3. McADAMS REPRESENTED ALL THE ABOVE INTO WITH THESE LINES:
She says she "began a crazy, 'frigid' 'dedicated to science' stick-in-
the-mud . . ." but with the help of Russell's philosophy overcame
this. She says she "chucked the silly moral tic-tac-toes for reality,
via your counsels."
============================================================================
============================================================================
4. J WROTE:
Further, today I am an artist and
hope to become a good writer--though still interested in science,
I realize my limitations in that field despite the prestige it might
have accorded me--and have avoided a career in same.
======================
4. McADAMS SAID:
She explains in the letter that she is an artist, and is trying to
become a good writer. She remains interested in science, but realizes
her "limitations in that field."
===========================================================================
============================================================================
5. J WROTE:
I am politically active, even though frightened at the cost of this,
since
the United States powers-that-be are increasingly punitive in their
outlook on such things as student dissent and assembly, to say
nothing of their attitudes, in general, to the ordinary XXXXXXduty
of becoming passionately involved with the daily problems of
ordinary people relative to religion, poverty, and minorities---
they wish to ignore, or, when forced to see, to punish.
=============================================
5. McADAMS SAID:
One paragraph of the letter deals with what Judyth calls her
"political activism." She claims to be "frightened at the cost" of
her activism, because of the attitude of the "powers that be" which
she describes as punitive in their view of student dissent and
assembly. She claims it's one's duty to become "compassionately
involved with the daily problems of ordinary people relative to
religion, poverty, and minorities . . . ." but that government wants
to ignore these problems and punish those who publicize them.
============================
6. J. WROTE:
May the godlets bless you for enlightening me, and surely many
others. Certainly, history will do so!
With love,
Judyh Baker
===============================
6. McADAMS SAID: She ends the letter by saying "May the godlets
[sic] bless you . . . "
(McADAMS PLACES THE ENDING HIGHER UP, OUT OF SEQUENCES, FOR SOME
REASON)..
I guess my signing'love' wasn't worth mentioning.......?
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
<QUOTE ON>-------------------------------------
Subj: clarification--o EVIDENCE HAS ALWAYS BEEN PRESENT--WE JUST KEEP
FINDING MORE.
Date: 11/10/00 10:57:31 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: ElectLady63
To: [ ],[ ]
To: [ ]
To: [ ], [ ], Howpl
To: [ ], msh...@concentric.net
To: [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ], [ ], [ ]
CC: [ ]
'THIS NEEDS STRAIGHTENING OUT.>"JUDYTH HAD NO
DOCUMENTS" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
David,
>
>Thanks for pointing out that initially Judyth had no documents and told
>that to the first group of researchers she initiated contact with.
>===========================I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING. I SAID, I WILL HAVE TO HUNT THIS OR THAT DOCUMENT UP, BECAUSE I HAVE A HUGE STACK OF THEM, AND SOME WERE IN CHRISTMAS BOXES IN MY CLOSET.
WHAT NONSENSE PEOPLE PERPETRATE, WHO THINK THEY 'KNOW' SOMETHING,
AND HAVE NEVER EVEN MET ME! I RECENTLY LOCATED A PIECE OF EVIDENCE I
OWNED THAT HAD BEEN PLACED BEHIND A PICTURE FRAME I'VE HAD FOR THIRTY
YEARS. . SOME TICKETS WERE IN ADICTIONARY. I HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE
EVIDENCE AT HAND. IT WAS NOT ALWAYS ORGANIZED. IT WAS FISTRIBUTED SO
THAT MY HUSBAND WOULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT IT WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT.
I CARRIED THESE DOCUMENTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WITH ME BY
PLANE EVEN FROM NORWAY INSTEAD OF TRUSTING THEM TO BE SHIPPED. LEAVING
THINGS TO BE SHIPPED SUCH AS MY JEWELRY!
THIS SILLY RUMOR BEGAN BECAUSE I HAD TO HUNT FOR ODDS AND ENDS
IN MY CHRISTMAS BOXES. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A RESEARCH PAPER, OR A
TROLLEY RECEIPT. MINOR THINGS.
I HAVE NO ATTIC. THESE WERE IN MY CLOSET.
I HAVE A BAD BAD AND IT IS HARD FOR ME TO GO THROUGH THE BOXES,
SO I DID JUST ONE BOX EVERY WEEK OR SO. I HAD ALL THE MAJOR
DOCUMENTS TOGETHER AT ALL TIMES IN SEVERAL THICK FILES ABOUT TWO FEET
HIGH. .===============================================
>Debra Hartman, whom many believe is or is connected to the La Fontaines
>has also affirmed that fact - initially Judyth had no Oswald documents.
====I HAVE NEVER MET DEBRA HARTMAN! SHE HAS NEVER SEEN ONE SHRED OF
ORIGINAL EVIDENCE. HOW CAN SHE 'AFFIRM' ANY SUCH THING?========
>
>It was only after she had no success that she performed "a second
>search" of her attic and found what she claims are Oswald documents.
======================THIS RIDICULOUS RUMOR IS OVER WRITINGS OF LEE'S
THAT I OWN. I DID NOT THINK THEY WERE IMPORTANT BECAUSE HIS
SIGNATURE WAS NOT PRESENT. WHEN I WAS TOLD THEY COULD BE ANALYZED, I
WENT THROUGH SEVERAL BOOKS WHERE I KNEW HE HAD WRITTEN IN SOME
MARGINAL COMMENTS. I MADE COPIES OF THESE MARGIN WRITINGS. THEN PUT
THEM ON THE INTERNET FOR MY RESEARCHERS. I ALWAYS OWNED THEM. THE
BOOKS, IN FACT, WERE NUMBERED IN 1965 AND WERE STAMPED IN 1965 AS
WELL, SO THAT SHOWS HOW MANY YEARS THEY HAVE BEEN IN MY FAMILY.-
=================================
>
>Reasonable people have to wonder about these late-appearing documents!
>
Jerry,
Other reasonable people have to wonder how you and Lifton can jump on
the debunk train so readily armed with such little information.
==================================ARMED? 'JERRY' IS ABSOLUTELY
CRIPPLED! THE EVIDENCE BEGAN IN 1958 AND GOES THROUGH 1968. IT HAS
NEVER LEFT MY POSSESSION--NEVER.
WHAT GETS TO ME IS THAT JERRY PROCLAIMS THAT I HAVE "LATE-
APPEARING DOCUMENTS." OF COURSE WE KEEP FINIDING ADDITIONAL
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE -- MORE HAS RECENTLY BEEN FOUND--- AN AD THAT
SAYS THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A REPLACEMENT FOR REILY CO'S VICE PRES'
SECRETARY THE DATE LEE WAS FIRED. THAT WAS WHEN I WASN'T NEEDED ANY
MORE AT REILY'S, SINCE LEE WAS NOW GONE (i COVERED FOR HIM MANY A TIME
THERE). THE AD SHOWS THEY GOT RID OF LEE, NOW THEY MUST GET RID OF
ME.
RE: documents I have had from day one:
When was I hired at Reily?
I WAS INTERVIEWED THE SAME DAY AS LEE BY THE SAME PERSON IN THE
SAME BUILDING.
I WAS HIRED THE SAME DAY AS LEE.
WE BOTH STARTED WORK IN THE SAME SUB-COMPANY OF REILY'S ON THE
SAME DAY.
WE BOTH MOVED TO REILY'S MAIN BUILDING SIX DAYS LATER.
LEE WAS FIRED JULY 19TH.
AN AD WAS ORDERED JULY 29TH FOR JULY 20TH'S PAPER SEEKING A
REPLACEMENT FOR ME.
I'D SAY THAT THIS AD, RECENTLY FOUND, SUPPLEMENTS WHAT I
ALREADY HAVE A MOUND OF PROOF FOR IN JUST THIS ONE SMALL AREA SHOWING
THESE SIDE-BY-SIDE EXPERIENCES WITH LEE.
WE ALSO LIVED ONLY BLOCKS AWAY ON THE SAME BUS ROUTE, ONLY ONE
BUS STOP BETWEEN US.
WE RODE THE MAGAZINE BUS ALL THE WAY INTO TOWN TOGETHER, AND
BACK OUT TOGETHER, DAILY.
I'D SAY THAT WAS PROXIMITY, BIG-TIME.
ADD TO THIS, I WAS TRAINED TO SPEAK RUSSIAN.
I WAS ALSO TRAINED TO CREATE BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS.
I WAS FIERCELY ANTI-CASTRO AND HAD ANTI-CASTRO BOYFRIENDS. I
HAD BEEN GOOD FRIENDS WITH THE THE SON OF CASTRO'S FINANCE MINISTER
AND WE'D GONE HORSEBACKRIDING AND DRIVING TOGETHER.
I LOOKED LIKE MARINA OSWALD AT SAME HEIGHT, WEIGHT, EYE COLOR,
HAIR COLOR, AND BUILD. I WENT MANY PLACES WITH LEE OSWALD AND WAS
THOUGHT TO BE HIS WIFE
MY HUSBAND WAS NIOT PRESENT MOST OF THE SUMMER.
DO I HAVE EVIDENCE?
I HAVE enough to provide DAILY RECORDS FOR ALMOST EVERY DAY
LIVED IN NEW ORLEANS BETWEEN APRIL 26 AND SEPT. 3, 1963..
new evidence keeps rolling in
RECENTLY an AD WAS FOUND THAT SUPPORTS A LITTLE BIT OF THE HUGE AMOUNT
OF DETAIL.
YE.
IN THE CASE OF THIS AD, IT PROVES I WAS NOT NEEDED AFTER LEE
WAS FIRED. LEE IS FIRED JULY 19TH, AND THIS AD FOR ME TO BE REPLACED
COMES OUT JULY 20. YES, THAT'S NEW SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR WHAT I
HAVE TO SAY-----TO LAY ATOP A PILE THAT IS SEVERAL FEET THICK.===
thank you for your patience. Just setting the record straight. Over
forty people have seen the evidence, a half dozen for decades. (five
children, one husband--not that they knew what it meant! to them, they
were just check stubs, w-2 forms, memorabilia such as trolley tickets,
and lots of photos, letters, and newspaper articles and ads......
).
JUDYTH
<QUOTE OFF>------------------------------------
Dave
http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-menu.html
0 new messages