Judith Baker Contacts Ricland
RICLAND
I am replying to all of these posts. Bugliosi lied about me. He took the
word of characters on newsgroups who spend their time name calling,as
Bugliosi does. I was subjected to ridicule and no doubt Von Pein will
dismiss me here with more name allng. However, read Dr. Mary's onkey by
Ed Haslam and go to YOUTUBE tosee the banned documentaries the history
Channel got rid of after LBJ's wife and tosde who had penty to lose
complained.
See THE LOVE AFFAIR, THE SMOKNG GUNS, THE GUILTY MEN as presented on
YOUTUBE-- we are living witnesses who have been stabbed in te back with
name calling. It's alled the crown of thorns approach, youan take the
most august witness and make fun f them.
I my case, Bugliosi claimed I neer worked with lee (long ago proven)...
he never interviewed me, instead relyig on Von peinand others whoare
attackinghere..they seem t have made a caeer of debunking serious
questioners and new witnesses. Bugliosi also lied when he said I did not
write my own book,even tough researcher jamie Sawa told him differently.
Detractors will ell you my testimony is not plausible, but they never
met me. Gaslam did and wrote two full final chapters updatigis origial
book Mary,Ferrie and the okey Virus.
Nigelturner researched me AND my living witnesses (which Bugliosi AND
people such as Von Pein never interviewed)-- these people had little
kids and/or were threatened, as was I. I had to wait for years be$fore
it was safe enough to talk. We living witnesses have been ignored by
Bugliosi or called names, but not inerviewed by him.
I my case Bugliosi deliberately lied. he also had totally ot f ate
hearsay...such as I was living in The Neterlands when at that time i was
teaching Apache inians in Arizona. At prsent, i am lving in Europe
again, due to threats. Ask yourself why my life has been threatened, why
I've had my possessios stolen, and why he histor Channelcaved in
concerning those dcumentaries. because they lead to the trut, and the
coup d'etat that took place. Every agency had someting o lose if it
didn't go along with the cover up.
I ask you, if it had not been for the internet, wouldpeople have learned
of the abuses in iraq of prisoners there? yet note ow otrageous the
events there and ow many who were involved, and the efforts to cover
that up. Roll back to 1963 and how comparatively easy to mismanage
evidence, pant evidence. lee didn't do it.
Please forgive typos, i have eye problems. In time, the new eidence will
be known to all who are not duped by the likes of Bugliosi and is
mcarthy-style name-calling--he lied aout me and that's enough to tell me
what kind of character he is. Judyth vary Baker (now belw this no doubt
you'll find liws and name-calling aout me, or claims I did tis for oney.
a on record as refusig any money at any time. Go to JFKMURDERSOLVED.com
to see my witnesses NOW. JVB J.
--
Max Holland on Bugliosi:
"He is absolutely certain even when he is not necessarily right."
-- Max Holland
---
Reclaiming History -- Bugliosi's Blunders
The Rebuttals to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com
justm...@gmail.com
Gee, I wonder how much money Dankbaar paid her for her interviews to
push up the sales of his book and DVD. Ricland, knowing the liar you
are..how long did it take you to type up this phoney email from
Judith? Keep finding the trash on VB...we're all going to enjoy
seeing you stripped of everything you have when he takes you to
court.
YoHarvey
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Judith has less creditbility....dare I say it than
Chico Jesus. Damn, I can't believe I said that.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Message to Ricland? If you are attempting to
post comments from those considered bigger
liars than you are, Judith Baker is a great
beginning. However, it won't diminish what
we on the newsgroup know you to be:
PATHOLOGICALLY NUTS!
Sam Brown
desperate, compulsive liar. I feel sorry for her. She'll contact anyone who
she thinks will support her delusions. She contacted me back in 2000, so
don't believe for a second that you are privileged to hear from her.
"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:esWdnUm1QN9djwTb...@comcast.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "I am replying to all of these posts. Bugliosi lied about me. He took the word of characters on newsgroups who spend their time name calling, as Bugliosi does. I was subjected to ridicule and no doubt Von Pein will dismiss me here with more name allng [calling]. ... I [sic] my case, Bugliosi claimed I neer [sic; 'never'] worked with lee [sic] (long ago proven)....he never interviewed me, instead relyig [sic] on Von pein [sic] and others who are attacking here..they seem t [to] have made a caeer [sic] of debunking serious questioners and new witnesses." <<<
LOL. I have no idea if the thread-starting Ricland post represents an
actual message from Judyth Vary Baker or not (it could be an actual e-
mail message I suppose; I don't know). But, in any event, it's
hilarious in every way....mostly due to the horrid spelling and many,
many grammatical errors, etc. (Plus the fact that Ric couldn't spell
Judyth's first name correctly in the title of the thread.)
By the way, Bugliosi did not say in his book that Judyth Baker "never"
worked with Lee Oswald at Reily's (circa 1963). In fact, Mr. Bugliosi
specifically says in his book that he thinks she might very well have
been employed at Reily's at the same time Oswald worked there in 1963.
Vince fully admits that that is a possibility. (Now, whether or not
she "worked with Lee" at Reily's could be another matter altogether.
Was Judyth a machine greaser at Reily's too? I suppose, though, that
the words "worked with Lee" could just simply mean "I worked in the
same building that LHO worked in".)
Anyway, since this can of Baker worms has been opened up (by Judyth or
otherwise), I guess now would be a good time to post the following
excerpts from my review of Vince Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (re.
Ms. Baker):
=======================================
DVP: Judyth Baker's ridiculous fairy tale is discussed in an endnote
on the Compact Disc, with the justified sarcasm being doled out in
copious quantities, as VB lights into Judyth with all barrels blazing.
It's a treat-and-a-half to see. A few examples.....
"The story Judyth {Vary Baker} came up with was so fraudulent on its
face that even most conspiracy theorists have ganged up on her to
debunk it. .... Judyth's story started when she saw Oliver Stone's
fantasy film 'JFK' in 1998 and decided she had an even bigger fantasy
story to tell, partially through the technique of "recovered" memory.
"And as with so many of the fantastic tales told by nuts in the
assassination saga, there's some small kernel of truth on which she
built her fable: the fact that for a short period in the late spring
and summer of 1963, she may have worked for the same company in New
Orleans that Oswald did, William B. Reily and Company, Inc. ....
"Before she got her job there, Judyth...was on the fast track to a
bright and promising future flipping hamburgers at a small White
Castle chain restaurant in New Orleans. But because Judyth had shown
promise {in high school}...for her amateur work on cancer
research...she says she was recruited...into a clandestine project
funded by the CIA and Mafia: developing a bioweapon with which to kill
Fidel Castro. ....
"It was around this time that she met and fell hopelessly in love with
Lee Harvey Oswald, who became a part of the project and with whom she
had a torrid sexual affair.
"In an amusing footnote to the affair, Judyth said that their feelings
for each other got "out of control," and they "were so desperate we
even slept together in a red van that was being overhauled in Adrian
Alba's garage." .... But she said that when Clay Shaw learned about
their lack of money forcing them to make love in such places, he felt
sorry for them and started paying for their trysts at nice hotels in
the city." {It's time for a large-sized "LOL" here.} ....
"Just how does Judyth say she came by her knowledge? She claims she
either personally met conspiracy icons like Jack Ruby, David Ferrie,
Carlos Marcello, Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, et cetera, or Lee told her
about them during pillow talk. So the remarkable 20-year-old, in just
a few months, had more contact in New Orleans with the leading figures
of conspiracy lore than perhaps any other known figure in the
conspiracy community. I, for one, find this to be perfectly
reasonable. {LOL time once more.} ....
"Judyth claims the National Enquirer offered her $600,000 for her
story (an amount the publisher might offer if Jesus returned and his
agent promised an exclusive), but Judyth apparently wasn't interested.
Only British producer Nigel Turner, who has made a fortune peddling
phony stories, gave Judyth national exposure, devoting a full segment
to her on his television show 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy'. ....
{ www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f0a3e91565c5c2cf } ....
"It is an established fact that the CIA did do research...to develop
some medical concoction to kill Castro. But what we didn't know until
Judyth told us was that the CIA decided to also fund the motley group
in New Orleans {consisting of Judyth, Oswald, and David Ferrie}. ....
"Judyth Baker has been called a "pathological liar." Although her
story is a lie, this might be too harsh an indictment. From what I
have read, she sounds more like a sick puppy to me. ....
"If anyone even had the smallest doubt that Judyth is a gold-plated
phony, all he or she has to do to remove that doubt is to read (if you
can withstand the pain) Baker's book {"Lee Harvey Oswald: The True
Story Of The Accused Assassin Of President John F. Kennedy By His
Lover"; Volumes 1 and 2}. ....
"Baker's book is a total, embarrassing failure. Is there any way to
stop Judyth from continuing to propagate her fantasy? Two volumes of
nonsense, at this late date, show that the answer to this question is
no." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 539-541 and 543-544 of the CD's
endnotes
=======================================
http://google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e020f809d5a0b5fe
=======================================
Martin Shackelford
As for the message, it sounds to me an authentic communication from Judyth,
who indeed has eye problems and short-term memory problems in recent years.
Martin
<justm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184437468....@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
worked at Reily.
She "worked with Lee" in the sense that she worked in the office and dealt
with time cards and other matters with a variety of other employees. Most of
her contacts with Lee were outside Reily.
He is also incorrect regarding the sequence--she wrote a series of letters
to her son in the summer of 1998, telling him about her relationship with
Lee Oswald and related matters; at the suggestion of her professor, she
later turned this into a manuscript. In December of that year, she finally
watched "JFK."
His moronic comments regarding "White Castle" ignore her educational
background and cancer research--he makes a deprecating mention of the
latter, but ignores her two years of college--suggesting that Bugliosi's
source was a poster here who has repeatedly played the same game with the
facts on this matter.
The exaggeration of the National Enquirer offer amount also traces back to a
poster here.
There is no evidence in the footnote, despite his reference to it, that
Bugliosi ever read her book. He is in no position to call anyone else a
phony.
Martin
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184470219....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
named Baker. Surprise!
I'll just repeat a couple of VB's gems (for the laughs)......
"Judyth said that their feelings for each other got "out of control,"
and they "were so desperate we even slept together in a red van that
was being overhauled in Adrian Alba's garage." .... But she said that
when Clay Shaw learned about their lack of money forcing them to make
love in such places, he felt sorry for them and started paying for
their trysts at nice hotels in the city." -- V. Bugliosi
(BTW, Martin, do you believe the above story of Judyth's? Or do you
think Vince just pulled that out of a hat too?)
"Just how does Judyth say she came by her knowledge? She claims she
either personally met conspiracy icons like Jack Ruby, David Ferrie,
Carlos Marcello, Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, et cetera, or Lee told her
about them during pillow talk. So the remarkable 20-year-old, in just
a few months, had more contact in New Orleans with the leading figures
of conspiracy lore than perhaps any other known figure in the
conspiracy community. I, for one, find this to be perfectly
reasonable." -- VB
(LOL time once more.)
Martin Shackelford
with Oswald.
A waitress at nearby Thompson's Restaurant, Anna Lewis, also confirmed
seeing the two together.
Martin
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184490432.7...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> Adrian Alba identified a photo of Judyth Baker as someone whom he had seen
> with Oswald.
> A waitress at nearby Thompson's Restaurant, Anna Lewis, also confirmed
> seeing the two together.
>
> Martin
A question for the crowd: Who is more pathetic here -- Judyth Baker or
Martin Shackelford? Here we have the Shack still trying to suck up
to the woman after she accused him in her blog of sneaking around
(with Harry Livingstone) behind her back and sabotaging her book.
She finally went ahead and killed the book and never even told the
Shack after he had talked "investors" into picking up the up-front
printing costs. You can leave anytime, Shack. Your work here is
done.
JGL
>
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1184490432.7...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Martin, the lead Judyth cheerleader, shows up to prop up a total fraud
> > named Baker. Surprise!
>
> > I'll just repeat a couple of VB's gems (for the laughs)......
>
> > "Judyth said that their feelings for each other got "out of control,"
> > and they "were so desperate we even slept together in a red van that
> > was being overhauled in Adrian Alba's garage." .... But she said that
> > when Clay Shaw learned about their lack of money forcing them to make
> > love in such places, he felt sorry for them and started paying for
> > their trysts at nice hotels in the city." -- V. Bugliosi
>
> > (BTW, Martin, do you believe the above story of Judyth's? Or do you
> > think Vince just pulled that out of a hat too?)
>
> > "Just how does Judyth say she came by her knowledge? She claims she
> > either personally met conspiracy icons like Jack Ruby, David Ferrie,
> > Carlos Marcello, Clay Shaw, Guy Banister, et cetera, or Lee told her
> > about them during pillow talk. So the remarkable 20-year-old, in just
> > a few months, had more contact in New Orleans with the leading figures
> > of conspiracy lore than perhaps any other known figure in the
> > conspiracy community. I, for one, find this to be perfectly
> > reasonable." -- VB
>
> > (LOL time once more.)- Hide quoted text -
Martin Shackelford
1963, but we have had our disagreements about more recent matters.
She never accused us of "sabotaging" her book. She wrote it, made
corrections after it was edited, and that was the form in which it was
published.
Apparently your "work" is never done, Leyden.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184511199.7...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> I'm not trying to "suck up" to anyone. Judyth Baker told the truth about
> 1963, but we have had our disagreements about more recent matters.
> She never accused us of "sabotaging" her book. She wrote it, made
> corrections after it was edited, and that was the form in which it was
> published.
> Apparently your "work" is never done, Leyden.
>
> Martin
I'm not sure what the social niceties are in Saginaw, Shack, but when
someone (Judyth) says you went behind her back and did something she
didn't approve of... well, she's calling you a pretty nasty name --
you know, like a Sneak. Let me post her blog entry from July '06:
"Now an Unauthorized Version of my book has been published -- without
my permission -- which has typos, missing photos, and other flaws.
But it is a big book, and Harrison Edward Livingstone and Martin
Shackelford published it despite my objections, believing it needed to
get out to the people now, not later. I am unhappy about the book
having been published BEHIND MY BACK [emphasis supplied], but I do not
sue people unless it is a last resort. Eventually the authorized
version will be available -- hopefully before my death." (BTW, this
blog entry didn't last long as Shack and his partner leaned on Judyth
and told her it was only going to upset the "investors" they had
talked into picking up the up-front printing costs.)
As I said, Shack, your work here is done. Even Judyth doesn't want
anything to do with you anymore.
JGL
>
> <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Martin Shackelford
something you want to believe.
How "unauthorized" can a book be when she wrote it and corrected the book
after it was edited. It was published exactly in the form it existed after
she made her corrections. For her to complain--after she went through the
entire book herself making corrections--that the book has "typos" is absurd.
As for "missing photos and other flaws," the same thing applies. It was
published as she corrected it. Nonetheless, she would like to blame Harry
Livingstone for those problems--but he made NO changes after she corrected
the book. After everyone had done their work on the book, and it was ready
for publication, she tried to demand additional business concessions in
return for "permission" to publish it. As both sides had already met all
agreed-upon conditions, there was no legal reason not to publish the book.
The only reason she claims that publication was done "behind her back" is
because she refused further involvement and thus didn't keep up with
developments in the final stages. That's ALL it means.
The story is much muddier than you imagine, and has nothing to do with
whether the book was authentic.
Unauthorized isn't the same as inauthentic, by the way. The conflict was
over other issues entirely.
As for not wanting to have anything more to do with me, Judyth and I have
since corresponded a number of times. You have a lot of trouble getting your
facts straight, Leyden--mainly because you make them up based on false
assumptions arising from fragmentary data.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184596982.5...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> I find it hilarious that you don't find Judyth credible unless she says
> something you want to believe.
Hey, Shack, Judyth is the one who said you sneaked around behind her
back and sabotaged her book, not I. You need to convince her that
you're a Stand-Up Guy, again not me, because I've already made up my
mind on that. The two of you certainly are a credit to the whole CT
community. Talk about "hilarious."
JGL
> How "unauthorized" can a book be when she wrote it and corrected the book
> after it was edited. It was published exactly in the form it existed after
> she made her corrections. For her to complain--after she went through the
> entire book herself making corrections--that the book has "typos" is absurd.
> As for "missing photos and other flaws," the same thing applies. It was
> published as she corrected it. Nonetheless, she would like to blame Harry
> Livingstone for those problems--but he made NO changes after she corrected
> the book. After everyone had done their work on the book, and it was ready
> for publication, she tried to demand additional business concessions in
> return for "permission" to publish it. As both sides had already met all
> agreed-upon conditions, there was no legal reason not to publish the book.
> The only reason she claims that publication was done "behind her back" is
> because she refused further involvement and thus didn't keep up with
> developments in the final stages. That's ALL it means.
> The story is much muddier than you imagine, and has nothing to do with
> whether the book was authentic.
> Unauthorized isn't the same as inauthentic, by the way. The conflict was
> over other issues entirely.
> As for not wanting to have anything more to do with me, Judyth and I have
> since corresponded a number of times. You have a lot of trouble getting your
> facts straight, Leyden--mainly because you make them up based on false
> assumptions arising from fragmentary data.
>
> Martin
>
Martin Shackelford
"normal," Leyden.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184684096....@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> I find it hilarious that you don't find Judyth credible unless she says
> something you want to believe.
I think we all know what Judyth meant when she said you and
Livingstone went "behind her back" and it's not a compliment. And,
indeed, it does appear that you two took the book out of her hands.
When Trafford Publishing, the Kinko's style outfit you set her up
with, boasts "Your book your way," it means the author's way not the
hangers-on. And just look at the monstrostity you produced. Judyth
could take only so much of it and then cancelled the book and lit out
for Europe. I would love to see how you explained all this to your
"investors." Hope you coordinated it with your lawyer.
JGL
> How "unauthorized" can a book be when she wrote it and corrected the book
> after it was edited. It was published exactly in the form it existed after
> she made her corrections. For her to complain--after she went through the
> entire book herself making corrections--that the book has "typos" is absurd.
> As for "missing photos and other flaws," the same thing applies. It was
> published as she corrected it. Nonetheless, she would like to blame Harry
> Livingstone for those problems--but he made NO changes after she corrected
> the book. After everyone had done their work on the book, and it was ready
> for publication, she tried to demand additional business concessions in
> return for "permission" to publish it. As both sides had already met all
> agreed-upon conditions, there was no legal reason not to publish the book.
> The only reason she claims that publication was done "behind her back" is
> because she refused further involvement and thus didn't keep up with
> developments in the final stages. That's ALL it means.
> The story is much muddier than you imagine, and has nothing to do with
> whether the book was authentic.
> Unauthorized isn't the same as inauthentic, by the way. The conflict was
> over other issues entirely.
> As for not wanting to have anything more to do with me, Judyth and I have
> since corresponded a number of times. You have a lot of trouble getting your
> facts straight, Leyden--mainly because you make them up based on false
> assumptions arising from fragmentary data.
>
> Martin
>
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> I find it hilarious that you don't find Judyth credible unless she says
> something you want to believe.
I think we all know what Judyth meant when she said you and your buddy
went behind her back, Shack. It was not a compliment. And you do
appear to have taken control of the book away from her altho Trafford
Publishing, that Kinko's style outfit you fixed her up with, proudly
boasts "Your book your way," By that they mean the author's way, not
the way of the hangers on. It might have all been for the best if you
had turned out a half-way decent product but the book drivels on for
700+ pages about an alleged four-month, part-time relationship. And
the cover is a real turn off with its photo of LHO in the uniform he
disgraced. The title also was misleading. The book wasn't about
Oswald; it was about Judyth or, at least, Judyth's rather warped view
of her life -- i.e., cheating on a brand new husband with an
unemployed, uneducated married man who had a pregnant wife and small
child at home. Not much to brag about, was it?
JGL
> How "unauthorized" can a book be when she wrote it and corrected the book
> after it was edited. It was published exactly in the form it existed after
> she made her corrections. For her to complain--after she went through the
> entire book herself making corrections--that the book has "typos" is absurd.
> As for "missing photos and other flaws," the same thing applies. It was
> published as she corrected it. Nonetheless, she would like to blame Harry
> Livingstone for those problems--but he made NO changes after she corrected
> the book. After everyone had done their work on the book, and it was ready
> for publication, she tried to demand additional business concessions in
> return for "permission" to publish it. As both sides had already met all
> agreed-upon conditions, there was no legal reason not to publish the book.
> The only reason she claims that publication was done "behind her back" is
> because she refused further involvement and thus didn't keep up with
> developments in the final stages. That's ALL it means.
> The story is much muddier than you imagine, and has nothing to do with
> whether the book was authentic.
> Unauthorized isn't the same as inauthentic, by the way. The conflict was
> over other issues entirely.
> As for not wanting to have anything more to do with me, Judyth and I have
> since corresponded a number of times. You have a lot of trouble getting your
> facts straight, Leyden--mainly because you make them up based on false
> assumptions arising from fragmentary data.
>
> Martin
>
Martin Shackelford
which Judyth was
referring.
Comparing Trafford to Kinkos only makes you a complete ignoramus.
In addition, you seem to have ignored every bit of information on how the
book process developed. In October 2004, Harrison Livingstone, who had
included a reference to Judyth in his recently-published book The Radical
Right....., learned that Judyth was having difficulty getting her book
published, and offered to publish it under the following conditions:
1) She would provide the complete manuscript (instead, she doled it out a
chapter at a time over a
period of ten months, violating the first condition to which she agreed;
the projected time frame
had initially been much shorter, but we stuck with it, despite mounting
expenses).
2) He would edit the book and arrange for its publication through a POD, the
same way he had been
publishing his own recent books, which she had praised.
3) A colleague of ours with extensive layout skills would do the layout for
the book, for a minimal cost.
(She later denied that she had been told he would be paid, despite
responding to e-mails in which
this had been clearly discussed; she insisted she had been told
everything would be "free"--what
that meant, to the extent it had been said, was that she wouldn't have
to contribute any money--
she translated it to mean that no one's expenses would have to be
reimbursed out of royalties.)
4) We would raise the money to publish the book, relieving her of the costs.
This and the layout guy
(and the $500 advance which she later received) would be repaid out of
royalties, once they began.
5) After the book was edited, she would make corrections; no further editing
would be done.
She agreed to these five conditions enthusiastically, and expressed
gratitude to the investors and those
putting their efforts into the book.
All of these steps were completed--it was at THAT point that she decided she
wanted to change the agreement, and hold the book hostage, AFTER everyone
had donated their efforts for ten months, and
the investments necessary to publish the book. The new conditions she sought
were totally unacceptable.
Since all of the elements of the original agreement had been completed in
full by all parties involved, we went ahead with publication of the
book--but only after several more months of discussions in an effort to get
her to see reason. There was no precipitous decision to "go behind her
back."
She decided, unilaterally, that the book couldn't be published without her
"permission," which was conditional on meeting her new set of demands. Thus,
she was startled when the book was published.
As she had cut off all communication, we were unable to keep her abreast of
developments, and when the book came out, she learned about it indirectly,
even as copies were being boxed (along with promotional materials, etc.) to
ship to her. Things tend to happen "behind their back" when a person turns
their back on all of the work and money invested in a project, and just
expects everyone to walk away.
Finally, in December 2005, after $2200 had been invested in the book, in
addition to materials (more than originally projected, because she insisted
on having over 400 illustrations, which increased the costs), she offered to
"buy back" the book for $500--in other words, she sought only to return her
advance, and wanted everyone to agree to eat their costs while she went
shopping for a more lucrative deal--with a manuscript edited by Livingstone,
who wasn't even to have his costs reimbursed.
Does that help to clarify what was meant by "behind her back," Leyden?
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184768542.6...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
wasn't long enough.
The book was edited down from its original 1500 pages; Judyth approved the
cover photo.
It's too bad that you have let bitterness and bile consume you to a degree
that you have no interest at all in the facts.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184781236....@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> I see that, in your restless hostility, you decided that your earlier rant
> wasn't long enough.
> The book was edited down from its original 1500 pages; Judyth approved the
> cover photo.
> It's too bad that you have let bitterness and bile consume you to a degree
> that you have no interest at all in the facts.
>
> Martin
The longer you go on the worse it sounds, Shack. You watched this
woman grind out 1,500 pages on an alleged four-month, part-time
relationship with Oswald and didn't realize you were dealing with an
obsessed ding-a-ling. Amazing! That's the point when anyone with an
IQ higher than Forrest Gump's (and maybe F.G. himself) would have
walked awa) But you stuck around and talked a group of "investors"
into picking up the upfront printing costs, even giving Judyth a small
advance (you say). I wonder how they're feeling now that Judyth has
killed off the book and taken off for Europe with their advance.
You're not really cut out for this, Shack.
Martin Shackelford
I found one of the investors. Both have been partly repaid for their
investments.
Judyth had no problem accepting free copies of the book to sell at 100%
profit. Nor has she ever denied receiving the advance.
You don't seem to be cut out for truth-telling. You suck at it.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184899080....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
steve
wrote:
> Adrian Alba identified a photo of Judyth Baker as someone whom he had seen
> with Oswald.
> A waitress at nearby Thompson's Restaurant, Anna Lewis, also confirmed
> seeing the two together.
>
> Martin
Ok i'll bite Shack, when did Adrian Alba pick out Judyth's picture?
(approximate date will do) Also, who did he pick it out for(name
please)? I seem to remember being through this with you before. You
posted this same allegation about a year and a half ago if i remember
correctly. I called Alba. The man said he did no such thing. You shut
up about it for the past year after i called you out on it. Now you
decide to spit it out again. Is there any evidence that Adrian Alba
picked Judyth's picture out and said he had seen her with Oswald? The
answer is of course not. So why do you keep mentioning Alba as a
witness to Judyth and Oswald? Could it be, that in order to sound more
credible, 2 witnesses are better than one? If we take Alba out of the
equation that leaves us with Anna Lewis who was married to a guy David
Lewis. David Lewis told Jim Garrison all kinds of tall tales when the
D.A. was conducting his JFK assasination. Why would he not tell
Garrison about his and Anna's double dates with Oswald and Judyth?
The answer is because it didnt happen. I have to give it to you
Martin, 2 bogus witnesses are always better than 1.
steve
> with Oswald.
> A waitress at nearby Thompson's Restaurant, Anna Lewis, also confirmed
> seeing the two together.
>
I also cant wait to tell Alba that you MARTIN SHACKELFORD are
making the same false claims about him and what he saw/knows regarding
Oswald. Mabey this time you wont try and weasle out of it saying YOU
didnt say it. It was some guy who you cant name who was saying it. Got
news for ya Shack. YOU are the one posting this B.S. not some unknown
Canadian guy from "parts unknown" who hired an investigator to check
out Judyth and told you she was the real deal. YOU made the allegation
regarding Alba, and i cant wait to hear what he(ALBA) has to say about
it.
steve
> You don't seem to be cut out for truth-telling. You suck at it.
your one to talk Martin
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> Always exciting to hear your opinion, Forrest.
> I found one of the investors. Both have been partly repaid for their
> investments.
> Judyth had no problem accepting free copies of the book to sell at 100%
> profit. Nor has she ever denied receiving the advance.
> You don't seem to be cut out for truth-telling. You suck at it.
>
> Martin
So both investors have been "partly repaid," you say. Encouraging, if
true, but I remember you previously told us these investors had been
kept "fully informed" about the book when it turned out you didn't
even know Judyth had scrubbed publication. Moreover, these two
investors deserve a full refund because you and Livingstone published
the book behind Judyth's back (her description) and without her
"authorization" or "approval" and she quickly complained about this in
her blog. She even primised to kill off your's and Livingstone's
version and replaced it with an "authorized" (her) version. In short,
your two investors got suckered. Pay up.
Martin Shackelford
private investigator to interview Alba and other witnesses, including Reily
employees. Interestingly, the Reily employees all recalled Judyth but not
all recalled Oswald.
As I recall, you asked Alba if he had been interviewed by a Canadian--of
course, he hadn't, as the investigator was local to New Orleans. His report
(of which we were given a summary by the Canadian) includes the information
on Alba.
I don't have much interest in the results of your "interview" with Alba. I
know how you guys interview witnesses. One of your LN colleagues obtained an
e-mail from Reily's son stating that Judyth never worked for them--of
course, her employment there is well-documented, and now in dispute by
almost no one.
There has also been no claim (wisely) that Anna Lewis didn't work near Reily
at Thompson's Restaurant. Since she went public, Joan Mellen found other
witnesses who also saw Oswald at Thompson's. Before Judyth, Thompson's
hadn't been mentioned as an Oswald hangout.
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184935928.3...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184936423....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Having accused us of going behind her back, Judyth did the same with the
POD.
As a result, she prevented further reimbursement of the investors, though
she had pledged (in writing) that at least one of them would be "fully
repaid" even if she had to do it out of her own pocket. Apparently she has
reneged on this pledge.
As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, and are ranting
ignorantly.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1184953056....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> The investors were kept up to date with everything I knew.
> Having accused us of going behind her back, Judyth did the same with the
> POD.
> As a result, she prevented further reimbursement of the investors, though
> she had pledged (in writing) that at least one of them would be "fully
> repaid" even if she had to do it out of her own pocket. Apparently she has
> reneged on this pledge.
> As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, and are ranting
> ignorantly.
>
> Martin
You guys on Team Judyth were really a bunch of stand-up citizens. You
sneak around behind Judyth's back; Judyth sneaks around behind the
printer's and "investors" backs and Platzman told us in a recent e-
mail that you have your head up your butt (altho he was a bit more
descriptive than that) and described Judyth's book as "godawful." I
think we've had just about enough of you all. Take your shabby act
someplace else.
> ...
>
> read more - Hide quoted text -
steve
wrote:
> The information was provided to us by a Canadian researcher, who had hired a
> private investigator to interview Alba and other witnesses, including Reily
> employees. Interestingly, the Reily employees all recalled Judyth but not
> all recalled Oswald.
> As I recall, you asked Alba if he had been interviewed by a Canadian--of
> course, he hadn't, as the investigator was local to New Orleans.
Grasping at straws there Martin, because Alba said he had NEVER
seen Oswald with any girl period! GOT IT? Didnt even recall being
asked that by ANYONE. I already have a few pictures of Judyth printed
out and will be going over all of this with him, including copies of
your wacky posts about your B.S. still unnamed Canadian researcher and
HIS still unnamed local investigator. i just cant wait to post a link
on here to a video with Alba saying that you are making this up. Cause
in reality there is no Canadian guy or investigator, its just a way
for YOU to make claims with nothing to back it up. Then when things
are proven otherwise you can dump the blame on someone else who
probably does not even exist. (not to mention a waste of time for
anyone<this case me> interested enough to check out YOUR bogus claims)
Not to mention the fact that you were in New Orleans at one time and
didnt even bother to contact Alba YOURSELF for a video interview. You
decided to interview Anna Lewis. Is there any record of Anna being
associated with Oswald? NOPE! Any proof? NOPE! Why interview her?
Because she will say what I want to hear! Great move on your part
Martin. What about Alba? Any record of him being associated with
Oswald? Hell yeah! Well lets NOT get him on video saying he saw Judyth
and Oswald together. The only person that LN's and CT's KNOW AND AGREE
is genuine you DONT get on video. I wonder why that is!
steve
wrote:
> The investors were kept up to date with everything I knew.
> Having accused us of going behind her back, Judyth did the same with the
> POD.
> As a result, she prevented further reimbursement of the investors, though
> she had pledged (in writing) that at least one of them would be "fully
> repaid" even if she had to do it out of her own pocket. Apparently she has
> reneged on this pledge.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO your mean Judyth was dishonest? People have
been telling you that for years now Martin, glad your starting to pick
up on it!
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> The information was provided to us by a Canadian researcher, who had hired a
> private investigator to interview Alba and other witnesses, including Reily
> employees. Interestingly, the Reily employees all recalled Judyth but not
> all recalled Oswald.
> As I recall, you asked Alba if he had been interviewed by a Canadian--of
> course, he hadn't, as the investigator was local to New Orleans. His report
> (of which we were given a summary by the Canadian) includes the information
Well, this certainly clears up things, doesn't it, Steve? You'll
notice that Shackelford never interviewed Alba but feels comfortable
repeating hearsay. Not surprising. The man doesn't do research.
Amazingly, he never picked up the phone and asked Judyth's ex-husband
the obvious questions about her story. Never made a serious effort to
contact Marina Oswald either. Said he sent her a letter ... wow! Of
course, the chickens came home to roost: the book crashed and burned,
Judyth took off for Europe and the members of the former Team Judyth
are at each others throats. Why am I smiling? It's a human tragedy
of sorts
JGL
> I don't have much interest in the results of your "interview" with Alba. I
> know how you guys interview witnesses. One of your LN colleagues obtained an
> e-mail from Reily's son stating that Judyth never worked for them--of
> course, her employment there is well-documented, and now in dispute by
> almost no one.
> There has also been no claim (wisely) that Anna Lewis didn't work near Reily
> at Thompson's Restaurant. Since she went public, Joan Mellen found other
> witnesses who also saw Oswald at Thompson's. Before Judyth, Thompson's
> hadn't been mentioned as an Oswald hangout.
>
> Martin
>
> "steve" <misledrks...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > Martin, 2 bogus witnesses are always better than 1.- Hide quoted text -
howardp
> > You don't seem to be cut out for truth-telling. You suck at it.
>
> your one to talkMartin
Martin -
Your account of the Baker-Livingstone fiasco is full of self-serving
nonsense. I can understand why you would want, after six years of
newsgroup fencing, to get her book out. And I believe that, in your
heart, you felt you were legally permitted to have it published. But
your heart is quite irrelevant. There are professional standards, and
a body of law, governing the relationships of the parties to this
"agreement." Your blind acceptance of Harrison Livingstone's legal
theories continues to astound me, but it is no more astounding than
your insistence that the book you put out was even half-way to
professional. If Judyth did not provide a finished work, and Lord
knows she didn't, that was the time to call a halt and redefine the
terms of your "agreement." It's not about the money, Martin, as nobody
makes money in POD-land. It's about how you and Livingstone were able
to take an overstuffed, disorganized, speculation-filled jumble and,
after much hard work all around, turn it into an overstuffed,
disorganized, speculation-filled jumble -- and publish it despite the
copyright owner's explicit instructions not to.
If it's so damned good, Martin, why is it not having the desired
effect? I don't suppose you were aiming for more derision. Judyth
remains thankful that you and Livingstone "get" her story, as it takes
a bit of work to put the pieces together. She didn't put them together
in her manuscript -- and she is, I'm sure, hurting over my opinion.
But it really doesn't take much to see the book for what it isn't. You
can do it in your head, Martin, and out of your mouth, but not on the
printed page. Apparently, your editorial crew did not recognize the
challenge (understandable), took poorly to informed advice (arrogant),
and still do not see the result (astounding).
Leyden - You have always made it up as you go along. I see nothing has
changed. Get an education.
Howard P.
Martin Shackelford
months after it began, and his information on how it began comes from Judyth
(as he promptly rejected a chronology I provided giving him the information
in detail--he had already decided that he was "on Judyth's side" and that I
was "on Livingstone's side").
Howard's positions, as stated here, are familiar from months of prior
e-mails.
The statement that she didn't provide "a finished work" is puzzling. She
went into the project with the idea that she would provide her manuscript,
and Harrison Livingstone would edit it. NO ONE expected that she would
submit "a finished work" ready to publish.
It is good of Howard to confirm indirectly that he felt even more should
have been cut from the book--though Judyth's position was that another
thirty pages should be put back in.
The "informed advice" to which he refers is his own. Livingstone was a bit
put off when, arriving late in the project, Howard began telling the editor
(Livingstone) what to do.
At least we agree on Leyden, and on the veracity of Judyth's account.
Martin
"howardp" <ho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1185171523.2...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Your silly charge that I invented it all doesn't merit a response.
When I was in New Orleans, a meeting with Anna Lewis had already been
arranged. When we went down to the Reily/Crescent City garage area, Alba
wasn't available, and as it was later that we heard from the Canadian, I had
no awareness at the time that he had made any comment on the issue.
By the way, I didn't have a camera and wasn't in a position to do ANY video
interview with anyone. I was simply present when Debra Conway videotaped the
two interviews. They were both done at one location, and she made no plans
for other interviews.
As for "no proof" of any association between Anna Lewis and Oswald, she
worked at Thompson's Restaurant that summer, and Joan Mellen reports a
number of witnesses who saw Oswald at Thompson's.
You are doing an impressive job of manipulating the facts to paint a false
picture.
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1185028399.5...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
times in head injuries, Judyth has had short-term memory problems in recent.
years. This has caused a variety of problems. Her long-term memory remains
fine and reliable--and it is that on which her account is based.
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1185028516.6...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
and our time in New Orleans was very limited, much of it scheduled in
advance.
You seem to have forgotten that YOU are the one who admits never doing
research. My research is on the record in numerous published articles.
As usual, you omit that Judyth's ex-husband wrote a statement that he knew
of nothing that would contradict her account of that year.
You also completely misrepresent the matter regarding Marina--also as usual.
I wrote her a letter, to which she didn't respond. I then made efforts
through two friends of hers to arrange something. This also didn't work, but
one of them did provide her response to "The Love Affair"--matter of fact,
no skepticism.
As usual, you have your chronology muddled. Conflict between Howard and
myself over the book had nothing to do with responses to its publication. He
went on the attack almost as soon as he entered the project in the Spring of
2005. Judyth had gotten into a dispute with Livingstone, and at that point
decided to tell Howard about the project (which she had concealed from him
for several months) in order to bring him in as an ally against Livingstone.
When I suggested that Judyth may have given Howard a less than accurate
picture of the dispute, he rejected the idea, despite having been burned by
her a few times before on similar matters.
Judyth's departure for Europe also didn't relate to reactions to the
book--it happened months later.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1185028922.9...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
steve
wrote:
> As a result of two incidents in which her car was run into, resulting both
> times in head injuries, Judyth has had short-term memory problems in recent.
> years. This has caused a variety of problems. Her long-term memory remains
> fine and reliable--and it is that on which her account is based.
>
> Martin
>
in other words the dog ate her homework?
steve
> Well, this certainly clears up things, doesn't it, Steve? You'll
> repeating hearsay. Not surprising. The man doesn't do research.
> Amazingly, he never picked up the phone and asked Judyth's ex-husband
> the obvious questions about her story. Never made a serious effort to
> contact Marina Oswald either. Said he sent her a letter ... wow! Of
> course, the chickens came home to roost: the book crashed and burned,
> Judyth took off for Europe and the members of the former Team Judyth
> are at each others throats. Why am I smiling? It's a human tragedy
> of sorts
>
> JGL
Excellent post Leyden. I agree totally. We went through the whole
Alba thing over a year ago, and guess what? Martin still hadnt
contacted the man personally. Probably because he would find out the
same thing i did when i talked to Alba. I discovered he hadnt picked
ANY picture of ANY woman out, because he never saw Oswald with a girl.
My question is, would Martin Shackelford (in the event he actually did
some research on the subject of Alba and Judyth) apollogize to Adrian
for spreading rumors, hearsay, and direct falsehoods about the man and
his connection to the jfk case regarding Judyth Baker? You know! Just
like he had to with that post a few years back titled "Clarification,
Correction and Retraction Regarding Judyth's Agent" we all remember
that episode, and it speaks volumes as to the level the last surviver
of team Judyth would stoop to keep this lame hoax going. He should be
ashamed! Not only for stating something as true that he has not even
confirmed for himself (he still wont up the name of the canadian or
the investigator he supposedly hired), but for muddying the waters in
regards to countless other areas of this case(all to prop up the
Judyth angle mind you). Its a disgrace to the research community as a
whole, Ln or Ct!
steve
wrote:
> The information was provided to us by a Canadian researcher, who had hired a
> employees. Interestingly, the Reily employees all recalled Judyth but not
> all recalled Oswald.
WOW thats soooooooooo interesting
> As I recall, you askedAlbaif he had been interviewed by a Canadian--of
> course, he hadn't, as the investigator was local to New Orleans.
this matters because of what? do you think Alba asked where
the guy was from? He said he NEVER picked out a picture of a girl he
had seen with Oswald because HE NEVER SAW OSWALD WITH A GIRL! You have
a pretty hard head when it comes to understanding that point. He
actually said no one ever asked him to pick out a picture period!
Thats why i think your whole canadian bit is b.s. to begin with. NO
ONE EVER SHOWED HIM PICTUERS AND ASKED HIM IF HE RECOGNIZED A GIRL! He
said it never happened! Let me guess he just didnt want to tell
MEEEEEEEEEE that he had seen her, right? he only talks to locals that
are hired by canadians!
His report
> (of which we were given a summary by the Canadian) i
and this canadian is? name please?
ncludes the information
> onAlba.
and whats the info?
> I don't have much interest in the results of your "interview" withAlba.
im sure you dont, because its not what you want to hear, it would
take one whole "witness" out of the 3 you claim you have for Judyth
I
> know how you guys interview witnesses. One of your LN colleagues
my LN colleagues? you have no idea what i think about the
assassination, except mabey that you and Judyth are full of bull
obtained an
> e-mail from Reily's son stating that Judyth never worked for them--of
> course, her employment there is well-documented, and now in dispute by
> almost no one.
so what? did i ever say she didnt work there?
> There has also been no claim (wisely) that Anna Lewis didn't work near Reily
> at Thompson's Restaurant.
so what? did i ever say she didnt work there?
Since she went public, Joan Mellen found other
> witnesses who also saw Oswald at Thompson's.
right and i'm sure they are all credible right? but wait a minute,
i take that back. YOU FIND JUDYTH BAKER CREDIBLE LOL why do i even
bother
Before Judyth, Thompson's
> hadn't been mentioned as an Oswald hangout.
wow thats interesting, so nowhere in the known record is Oswald
placed at Thompsons, it just so happens Judyth mentions the place, and
people come out the woodwork saying Oswald was hanging out there,
including the woman who claims to have double dated with Oswald and
Judyth, the person who happens to be your STAR witness. Id laugh if it
wasnt so sad that you believe this big sack of crapola!
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
>At least we agree on Leyden, and on the veracity of Judyth's account.
Hey, Shack, why are you picking on me? Two of your ex-teammates --
Judyth and Platzman -- have accused you of unethical behavior in
publishing her "godawful" book against her wishes. Very serious
charges. Why don't you straighten that out first and then come after
me... if you're still here.
JGL
>
> > Howard P.- Hide quoted text -
Martin Shackelford
several years due to her short-term memory problems, and sometimes
overreacts when reminded of something she doesn't remember.
That was part of the conflict with the book, in my opinion.
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1185218768.4...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
patting him on the back.
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1185220764.9...@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
"steve" <misled...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1185220875.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 23, 2:57 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>> Albawasn't available when we were in the area of the Crescent City
>> garage,
>> and our time in New Orleans was very limited, much of it scheduled in
>> advance.
>> You seem to have forgotten that YOU are the one who admits never doing
>> research. My research is on the record in numerous published articles.
>> As usual, you omit that Judyth's ex-husband wrote a statement that he
>> knew
>> of nothing that would contradict her account of that year.
>
> but he knew of nothing to support it either! NEWSFLASH because it
> didnt happen
>
Martin Shackelford
and the record is clear.
Howard has only the later correspondence, and is taking Judyth's word
(despite his awareness of her recent memory problems) for the first few
months' details. When I sent him an accurate chronology from the
correspondence, he rejected it as "anti-Judyth," because it contradicted
what she had told him.
Martin
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1185244122.3...@m3g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...