Judyth's book and documentation
pame...@mindspring.com
impressions about perhaps its most central issue -- that of
documentation.
What kinds of documentation should we expect? And what kinds of
documentation are available to us?
First, it seems that there are three main concepts at work:
1 -- LHO and Judyth knowing of each other because they both worked at
Reily at the same time
2 -- LHO and Judyth having a personal relationship
3 -- LHO and Judyth being involved in a kill-Castro plot involving Dr
Sherman, David Ferrie, Dr Oschner, Bannister, et al.
Basically, it seem that there are two levels of documentation: --
direct/objective documentation that can be verified; or
inderect/subjective documentation that may contribute to information
known by or about the subjects involved at that time in history.
Judyth does have documentation that she and LHO worked at Reily at the
same time. I am willing to extend the privilege offered by that
documentation to anyone else she says she knew or met at Reily, such
as Monaghan. That seems only logical.
Judyth does not seem to have in her book objective verification of her
having a personal relationship with LHO. The handwriting analysis,
which has come later, may be considered documentation at that level.
However, we have not as yet seen the documents involved in this blind
test nor documentation of the results, which should be forthcoming.
In terms of the other relationships Judyth describes as part of the
kill-Castro plot, there does not seem to be any objective
documentation connecting her to the others she claims are involved. In
an ideal world, especially when the stakes are as high as they are in
Judyth's case, there should be objective documentation connecting
Judyth to each person she says she and LHO were involved with. Having
LHO open the door for her into this secret world may be enough to make
a great-reading book, but not enough to demonstrate to us that such a
plot existed and that she and LHO were at the center of it.
At the same time, we have to acknowledge that we are asking for
documentation of secret plots and hidden agendas for which there was
not supposed to be any documentation.
Trusting Judyth and Martin's statements that (most of) the
documentation is in the book, we must assume that the remainder of any
documentation is not going to be forthcoming from Judyth or Martin. It
is perhaps the task, if we so desire, of the research community to
follow up on some of the numerous statements Judyth has made to see
where witnesses may still be living who can corroborate or deny her
statements.
Pamela McElwain-Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
SecretServiceguy
better areas of research: people and events that really happened and
can be verified.
vince palamara
Judyth reminds me of the whole Lifton and Greer-shot-JFK theories: they
seem to captivate and tantalize, in and of themselves, regardless of
the lack of proof.
pame...@mindspring.com
Judyth and her statements, so you are reading my post from your
preconceived position. That's fine.
I happen to find Judyth's statements sufficiently interesting to want
to follow up on some of them.
One example are her statements about LHO being involved with the SS in
the selection of routes in Dallas. On the surface, this hardly sounds
possible. Yet, in fact, there does not seem to have been much
definition yet of the process specifically as it relates to people
involved in Texas.
Does your SS expertise extend to the agents in Dallas/Ft. Worth at
that time and the process involved?
Pamela
On 31 Jul 2006 16:58:57 -0700, "SecretServiceguy"
<vince...@yahoo.com> wrote:
SecretServiceguy
silliness, I respect Martin's, too...which is why I am flabbergasted by
his backing of her story! In any event, "Yes" to the Dallas/ Ft. Worth
Secret Service---what did you want to know (or did you want to
correspond via e-mail)? :)
vince palamara
pame...@mindspring.com
I am starting to ask why Martin, who has a history background, has
chosen to back everything Judyth says without also requiring objective
documentation at every turn. I realize that there is a theory in the
research community that claims everything a witness says is 'right'
(whether or not it actually is), but I had not thought anyone with
history as a specialty would be a part of it.
I am interested in knowing who the SS agents were in Dallas/Ft. Worth
who were involved in the planning of the Texas events, and at what
point in time they became involved. Posting here is fine with me; I
think there has been enough backchanneling. :-0
Pamela
On 31 Jul 2006 17:53:42 -0700, "SecretServiceguy"
<vince...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Martin
Oswald. One of the three dislikes her, and another of the three has had
no contact with her in recent years. They would seem to be relatively
objective on the subject.
Something that seems to be forgotten is her handwritten notes of a talk
by David Ferrie. It would seem that people who know Ferrie could
evaluate whether the notes seem to reflect the sort of thing that Ferrie
might say. It could also be compared to known Ferrie statements and
writings.
The idea that further documentation "should" be "forthcoming from
Martin" assumes that I HAVE documentation that isn't in the book. We
made an effort to include all significant documentation IN the book.
Some researchers have already followed up on elements of Judyth's
account, and discovered new evidence as a result. It will be up to them
to publish or make it available as they choose.
There seems to be a suggestion that Howard Platzman and I heard from
Judyth and immediately began taking her word as gospel. In fact, we both
spent quite a considerable period of time testing her, questioning her,
examining her documentation, even meeting her in New Orleans to test her
on the sites relating to her account. Even after we decided that she was
genuine, we continued to test her on various things, and knowing the
flaws of human memory, have continued to challenge her on things, as she
will certainly attest.
I have never backed "everything Judyth says," and I have consistently
sought documentation. In some instances, due to the nature of the
information. documentation is unlikely (secret project, affair, etc.).
Anyone who knows me know that I've never accepted everything a witness
says as right. A prime example was my challenge to Jean Hill at the
Sudbury, Ontario JFK conference. There's no question she is a genuine
witness--but there was also no question that she had drifted some
distance from an accurate account of things.
Vince has never bothered to inform himself on any of this. Perhaps it's
time that he did so.
Martin
SecretServiceguy
Martin: I need to buy the book and read it for myself, without being
distracted from the posters. I will TRY to keep an open mind.
vince palamara
JLeyd...@aol.com
concurs) that you've got no documentation to prove Judyth even knew
Oswald or worked in a secret cancer lab with "Dr." David Ferrie (a guy
who would be on a sex offender registers if he were still alive). And
Judyth couldn't have picked a worse witness than Anna Lewis because her
husband beat her to the witness box by about 35 years and never said a
word about their alleged double dates with those two marital cheaters,
Judyth & Lee, although he was running all over the place claiming
Oswald sightings in an effort to horn in on the Garrison investigation.
Moreover, the fact that Anna Lewis refused to appear in the Nigel
Turner docudrama on Judyth and repeat this fable tells us she's sorry
she ever got involved with Team Judyth in the first place. And they
want $49.99 for all of this.
JGL
Frans Lupschen
You know some might be right and some are wrong if it comes up to Judyth
Vary Baker.
One thing I want to bring forward today, nobody is perfect and that brings
me to the next level.
It proofs that you just believe everthing she says about us, you claim you
have proof in email format what can be posted by anyone its no proof, same
as I have emails from her could be posted by somebody else yet you are
attacking us as social worker, 25 years working together with the police?
That brings questions because your answers based on what I see are personal
to us and they have nothing to do with JFK, Judyth does the same, she
promised me a copy of her book yet she talks about items she forgot or
things I just don't know what she means with "black book" I don't. Its time
that she tells you, so you can ask me how that book looks like, so I can
look for it don't you think?
Respectfully,
Frans Lupschen
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154457243.1...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
pame...@mindspring.com
>There are three witnesses to Judyth's personal relationship with Lee
>Oswald. One of the three dislikes her, and another of the three has had
>no contact with her in recent years. They would seem to be relatively
>objective on the subject.
Whether they are objective about Judyth or not, these are your and
Judyth's witnesses. They too managed to stay silent for many years,
so are not on record anywhere. They are not available for us to
question.
>Something that seems to be forgotten is her handwritten notes of a talk
>by David Ferrie. It would seem that people who know Ferrie could
>evaluate whether the notes seem to reflect the sort of thing that Ferrie
>might say. It could also be compared to known Ferrie statements and
>writings.
If the notes had been in Ferrie's handwriting, which was my original
impression, that would be significant. As they are in Judyth's, that
has much less weight.
>The idea that further documentation "should" be "forthcoming from
>Martin" assumes that I HAVE documentation that isn't in the book. We
>made an effort to include all significant documentation IN the book.
>Some researchers have already followed up on elements of Judyth's
>account, and discovered new evidence as a result. It will be up to them
>to publish or make it available as they choose.
Acknowledged.
>
>There seems to be a suggestion that Howard Platzman and I heard from
>Judyth and immediately began taking her word as gospel. In fact, we both
>spent quite a considerable period of time testing her, questioning her,
>examining her documentation, even meeting her in New Orleans to test her
>on the sites relating to her account.
It still sounds as if your vetting was Judyth-oriented. With all due
respect, it does seem that a less subjective approach might have
illuminated the gaps in documentation more quickly.
> Even after we decided that she was
>genuine, we continued to test her on various things, and knowing the
>flaws of human memory, have continued to challenge her on things, as she
>will certainly attest.
Aha. Here is the nexus of the issue -- "You decided Judyth was
geniune". What made you think you were capable of making that
decision on your own? And what does "genuine" mean?
The unspoken tenet behind many of your statements seems to be "it's
good enough for us; it should be good enough for you."
>I have never backed "everything Judyth says," and I have consistently
>sought documentation.
Martin, you posted a photo of a green glass as documentation, a photo
of Judyth, and an unsent letter of Judyth's. How can you possibly
consider any of them in and of themselves 'documentation' of anything
other than Judyth?
> In some instances, due to the nature of the
>information. documentation is unlikely (secret project, affair, etc.).
>Anyone who knows me know that I've never accepted everything a witness
>says as right.
I would hope not.
>A prime example was my challenge to Jean Hill at the
>Sudbury, Ontario JFK conference. There's no question she is a genuine
>witness--but there was also no question that she had drifted some
>distance from an accurate account of things.
I acknowledge that. I am very concerned about how much Judyth's
'digging' has amplified her statements.
>
>Vince has never bothered to inform himself on any of this. Perhaps it's
>time that he did so.
lazu...@webtv.net
there is little or no documentation-does that mean the person is lying?
No. Sometimes there is no corroborating witnessess or any that will go
on the record, does that mean the person is lying? No.
Look at McAdams website filled with supposed debunkings that haven't
been debunked. or Posner's book-There is a lot more to Robert Morrow and
Roscoe White than you would find there.
Martin Shackelford
confirm that Judyth and Lee were together that summer. In case you've
forgotten, witnesses are a form of documentation.
As for Anna not willing to be interviewed for the Turner program, she
declined to be interviewed by ANYONE after her statement was on
videotape--she felt that once was enough. You leave out the fact that
when she was asked if she had changed her mind, she STOOD BY HER
STATEMENT 100%!!!!!!
The only thing "pretty clear" here is that you have no interest
whatsoever in the truth.
As for Frans, you think that Judyth has a big pile of free books she can
hand out to anyone who wants one? Buy the book like everyone else.
Pamela, why do you say "these are your and Judyth's witnesses"? It's
true that Judyth located two of them--and I spent time testing Anna with
a variety of questions. I found it telling later that even after she had
a dispute with Judyth and refused to have anything more to do with her,
she stressed that she still stood by her statement completely.
McCullough was reluctant even to talk with Judyth, but finally allowed
her to audiotape a statement. The third witness is by NO stretch of the
imagination my witness or Judyth's witness. Another researcher,
SKEPTICAL of Judyth's account, hired a private investigator to look into
it himself--and ended up believing her after finding Reily employees
that remembered her, and after Adrian Alba picked her out of a photo
array as someone who he had seen with Lee that summer. How does he
become "our" witness? Neither of us has ever met the man.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Judyth-oriented"--it was HER
account we were challenging.
"Genuine" means an actual witness to events in New Orleans in the summer
of 1963. I made my best judgment on the matter, and I stand by it. And
what the hell gives you the idea that I made it entirely "on my own"?
Howard was also scrutinizing her; I spent a day with former
Congressional investigator Howard Liebengood, who told us he had reason
to believe she was authentic. The producers at "60 Minutes" also told us
they believed she was genuine.
You don't seem to have a clue about why I posted the items I did. I
posted them because they have been much talked-about, but most people
had never seen them. No other reason.
Martin
Barb Junkkarinen
Excellent questions and responses, Pamela. I believe your having
withheld much comment and your support of Judyth having a story that
needed to be heard and evaluated pre-book bolsters the credibility of
your level headed and common sense comments and questions now that you
have read the book. And that is, imo, quite telling ... should be a
heads up to people anyway.
I think you went into this wanting very much to believe, and very
much expecting all that documentation Martin promised for years ...
and have now seen for yourself that the "documentation" is really not
documentation at all and basically the entire house of cards stand on
Judyth's sayso.
Thank you for your comments, incisive questions ... and challenges.
It's valuable for all of us.
Barb :-)
Grizzlie Antagonist
polly brown
I am working my way through the book and I do find it very interesting.
>
> I think you went into this wanting very much to believe, and very
> much expecting all that documentation Martin promised for years ...
> and have now seen for yourself that the "documentation" is really not
> documentation at all and basically the entire house of cards stand on
> Judyth's sayso.
What I'm hoping to do here is define what different levels of
documentation are used and, in the process, perhaps understand why there
seems to have been such a disconnect between Martin and Judyth and much of
the rest of the community.
My first thought is how much I had hoped Martin would place Judyth's
documentation in the framework of that of an historical document, where
there are different types and levels of documentation that are weighed
differently. I have found that everything seems to be glopped in
together, and that is distressing. I am not saying that there is not
documentation for many of the statements Judyth is making; it is that the
documentation frequently consists of statements which need to be further
investigated, or inner knowledge of things that may or may not be true, as
not much definition has yet been done.
So, far from dismissing Judyth's book, I am finding myself drawn more into
it, looking at avenues of research in a new light, looking also to the
expertise of others in hopes of gaining further definition.
>
> Thank you for your comments, incisive questions ... and challenges.
> It's valuable for all of us.
> u
> Barb :-)
You're welcome.
Pamela
Martin Shackelford
wrote nor edited it.
Martin
Grizzlie Antagonist
> Interesting that you expected ME to arrange the book, when I neither
> wrote nor edited it.
I hope that you at least lent some hair to be used as a bookmark.
You've got plenty of it to spare, hippie.
And when Larry King calls you and asks you on his program, be sure to
wear your very best T-shirt.
JLeyd...@aol.com
Lewis but that was a good six months after Judyth had done a bland
audiotape interview with her. Who knows what Judyth promised her.
At any rate, when Judyth couldn't deliver, Anna said I'm outta here.
Told Nigel Turner to go fly a kite when he asked to interview her for
his docudrama on Judyth. Some "documentation."
JGL