Re: Judyth Baker Book

11 views
Skip to first unread message

John McAdams

unread,
Jun 22, 2006, 1:19:50 PM6/22/06
to
On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 04:59:53 GMT, "Jean Davison"
<walter.jeff...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>"Martin" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:e7d6n5$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>> Happy to provide some details about the book, now that I am back at the
>> computer.
>> There are two volumes, totaling over 700 pages, including an index and 55
>> pages of End Notes with additional documentation.
>> In the main text, there are over 300 illustrations, including photographs
>> and reproductions of documents.
>>
>> Martin
>>
>
>Martin,
>
> Now that you're free to talk, please tell us what evidence is
>provided that Oswald was involved in an anti-Castro plot. What is the best
>piece of evidence in this book?

Oh, my!

Martin is now deprived of that excuse, isn't he?

When people here actually get the book and have a chance to look at
it, he's going to be *very* busy!

.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 22, 2006, 5:03:43 PM6/22/06
to
After reviewing it, most of the *evidence* is Judyth saying so.

She does have a short story, supposedly written by Lee, typed on paper from
Robert Baker's family...without handwriting...

She has the green glass that she says he gave her. She has an example of a
code system that Lee wrote on a napkin for her...but it is a reproduced
example that she came up with.

She has the initial 'J' that doesn't look anything like hers on the bottom
of Lee's timecards, with two examples of her 'J's' that don't look like it-
but serve as an example of how her handwriting changes in a couple of years.

I haven't found much of anything in the book that proves she had any actual
acquaintence with Sherman, Lee, etc., yet she apparently saved every scrap
of paper she ever touched.

Good luck examining most of her *evidence*, as it only rarely could be
printed in any worse clarity than it is.

Chad
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:449ad0e2...@news.alt.net...

Tom Lowry

unread,
Jun 23, 2006, 12:23:05 AM6/23/06
to
Don't expect much at this late date , from a women who until recentely was
flipping hamburgers . I think that occupation is what probably what gave
her the inspiration to write the book : Put it on the griddle and see if
it sizzles . Frys with that book anyone ? Tom Lowry

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 23, 2006, 9:03:19 AM6/23/06
to
Not so busy after all. I'll discuss the book with anyone who has read
it--but continue to reject item-by-item piecemeal attack pieces, so
don't waste your time, unless you are just bulking things up again for
propaganda purposes.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 23, 2006, 9:03:49 AM6/23/06
to
Chad is hilarious. He would have us believe that he has already
received, reviewed and carefully evaluated the evidence in a 720 page
book. He grabs on to a few examples that he feels easily able to
dismiss--the usual piecemeal approach taken here by her critics. He
misleadingly describes the clarity of the illustrations--a few didn't
come out as well as expected, but most are quite sharp and clear.
Apparently, his primary goal is to discourage anyone else from looking
at the book. Not surprisingly, his speed-evaluation confirms what he has
been saying all along. I'm satisfied to wait for a credible reviewer.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 23, 2006, 9:04:33 AM6/23/06
to
The Spring of 1963 was "recently'? That's the last time she (briefly)
flipped burgers. She has been a journalist, and a teacher for many years
now.
Try not to be quite so completely off the beam, Tom.

Martin

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 23, 2006, 12:22:25 PM6/23/06
to
Tom Lowry wrote:
> Don't expect much at this late date , from a women who until recentely was
> flipping hamburgers . I think that occupation is what probably what gave
> her the inspiration to write the book : Put it on the griddle and see if
> it sizzles . Frys with that book anyone ? Tom Lowry

Don't expect much from a WC defender who can't even spell correctly and
misrepresents the facts.

jpsh...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jun 23, 2006, 12:28:33 PM6/23/06
to

Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Chad is hilarious. He would have us believe that he has already
> received, reviewed and carefully evaluated the evidence in a 720 page
> book. He grabs on to a few examples that he feels easily able to
> dismiss--the usual piecemeal approach taken here by her critics. He
> misleadingly describes the clarity of the illustrations--a few didn't
> come out as well as expected, but most are quite sharp and clear.
> Apparently, his primary goal is to discourage anyone else from looking
> at the book. Not surprisingly, his speed-evaluation confirms what he has
> been saying all along. I'm satisfied to wait for a credible reviewer.

What did Publishers Weekly say?

>
> Martin
>
> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>


steve

unread,
Jun 23, 2006, 11:26:14 PM6/23/06
to

Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Not so busy after all. I'll discuss the book with anyone who has read
> it

in other words bought it


--but continue to reject item-by-item piecemeal attack pieces

this logic is just plain silly, your basically stating that there is no
smoking gun in her book by responding that way. your saying dont look at
the evidence piece by piece when thats how an investigation is done.
instead you want us to look at her whole "story" i'd like to see how a ct
disects the wc or hsca without doing it buy each piece of evidence on
record. your proble is there is no evidence besides a reily's paystub,
everything else has been just her word (and yours)so far.


so
> don't waste your time, unless you are just bulking things up again for
> propaganda purposes.

the only propaganda on this newsgroup is you trying to sell this
chick book

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 23, 2006, 11:34:20 PM6/23/06
to
Haven't seen any published reviews yet--those may begin once the book is
more widely available, which should be soon.

Martin

Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 23, 2006, 11:37:43 PM6/23/06
to

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7g9m7$k...@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Chad is hilarious.

Hehe. Yeah, I was trying to be funny. Actually, I was relating some of
this wonderous evidence to the NG.

He would have us believe that he has already
> received, reviewed and carefully evaluated the evidence in a 720 page
> book.

Carefully, no. Have I examined some of it, yes. Have I received it, yes.

He grabs on to a few examples that he feels easily able to
> dismiss--the usual piecemeal approach taken here by her critics.

Oh, boy. Actually, there are points that I know about that I'm not going
to discuss yet (grin).

He
> misleadingly describes the clarity of the illustrations--a few didn't come
> out as well as expected, but most are quite sharp and clear.

Baloney. Some are "sharp and clear". Many are reproduced with such
pixelated reproduction that they are very difficult to read.

Would you like me to scan selections for the NG?

Hey, on page 377, she tries to substantiate her claim that she initialed
Lee's timecards by printing a couple of examples of her signature- neither
of which are anywhere remotely close to her own 'J'. Couldn't she find one
single 'J' of hers that looked like that? She claims that this is a
transitionary period for her signature (1962-1964). Any 1963's?


> Apparently, his primary goal is to discourage anyone else from looking at
> the book.

Actually, I'd like everyone to read it! The more the merrier!

Not surprisingly, his speed-evaluation confirms what he has
> been saying all along. I'm satisfied to wait for a credible reviewer.

I'm not done, Martin- neither are several others that will scrutinize her
account very closely. You're touting a book that is nothing more than a
ticking time bomb. Now that she's printed it, she can't go back and
minimize the blunders...as she did with the Cancun reference and Lee's
tooth episode.

Cripes, with all the emails and talking she's done over the years about
things, it'll only be a short while before the bombs start exploding.

Chad

JLeyd...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 23, 2006, 11:38:25 PM6/23/06
to
Chad, is there anything in this thing that would validate Judyth's claim
to have worked in a secret caner lab. That's even more improbable than
the Oswald affair in my view. She said in the sample Chap. 4 on line that
she went to New Orleans to be a summer intern in Dr. Mary Sherman's lab so
there must be some correspondence to that effect, IF she's talling the
truth. She also indicated in that chapter that the internship was to be a
paid position so she should have pay slips (or something similar) like she
did at Reily's. As you can see, I'm trying to save $49.99 + S&H here.

JGL

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 24, 2006, 10:32:58 AM6/24/06
to
You seem to have been "born yesterday," as far as this newsgroup is
concerned. I've never claimed there was a "smoking gun." It is VERY RARE
that a "smoking gun" resolves an issue. What the book contains is a
detailed, coherent, consistent body of evidence which support's Judyth's
account. If someone is too lazy to deal with evidence in a mature way,
they might as well skip the book. Your theory that isolated evaluation
of individual pieces of evidence out of context is "how an investigation
is done" is absurd. Investigators place everything in its context to
arrive at conclusions. I'd say that you has been watching too much TV,
but even an intelligent TV viewer knows better.
Your statement (without seeing the book) that the "only evidence" is a
Reily paystub is dead wrong. You may be excused for Your gross
ignorance, but not for your assumption that you know all the relevant
facts.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 24, 2006, 10:33:36 AM6/24/06
to
You've received the book, but admit having only examined "some of it,"
which doesn't explain why you felt qualified to make sweeping judgments
about it at a point when you had examined even less of it. You again
make vague references to "many" illustrations which are hard to read.
Opening the book at random (p. 188), I looked to see whether the
illustrations matched your description. I looked at the next 62
illustrations, or about one-sixth of those in the book:
61 were entirely clear
1 (of which the relevant portion appeared in a clear enlargement next to
it) was a bit fuzzy.
Your claim that "many" illustrations are unclear is simply false. You
rely on others not having the book and being able to evaluate your phony
claims.
You asks if there are "any 1963" examples of her handwriting. If you had
waited to launch your attack until you had actually carefully READ the
book, you would know that there are.
You predict that "bombs" will soon be exploding, but so far you have
produced only duds.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 24, 2006, 10:20:49 PM6/24/06
to

Under the mistaken impression that Chad is a reliable source, you've
jumped back in to seek his "expertise." You would like to be able to cite
Chad's OPINION in future posts as a FACT. You continue to ignore the
ACTUAL fact that there are at least three witnesses to her relationship
with Oswald. You also apparently skipped over the fact, mentioned in
earlier posts, that a Ferrie neighbor described a young woman fitting
Judyth's description frequently going in and out of Ferrie's apartment
that summer. As we know, he didn't have a lot of girlfriends over. Chad's
OPINION, I"m sure, will be much more convenient for you.

You go with another red herring as well--Judyth mentioned that she was
SUPPOSED to work as an intern under Dr. Mary Sherman --that never
happened. So you ask if there are "pay stubs," as those from Reily, FOR A
JOB THAT DIDN"T HAPPEN. You don't want to save your money--you want to
protect your carefully-nurtured ignorance. In case you ever decide to
emerge from your "bubble boy" shell, the original summer plan is discussed
in the last section of Chapter 3. Continuing to spoon-feed the research to
you, the change in plans is detailed in Chapter 4, section 8, Chapter 5,
Chapter 6 section 3, and Chapter 10.

No need to thank me--you've previously admitted that you do no research
yourself.

Martin

Dr. Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 24, 2006, 10:29:02 PM6/24/06
to

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7iroi$h...@dispatch.concentric.net...

> You've received the book, but admit having only examined "some of it,"
> which doesn't explain why you felt qualified to make sweeping judgments
> about it at a point when you had examined even less of it.

You, who only has limited comments from me, aren't qualified enough to
know what parts I've read or any peripheral research I may have conducted.

You again
> make vague references to "many" illustrations which are hard to read.

Many of the illustrations are so small and poorly reproduced that one
cannot properly examine them, Martin.

Would you prefer I make a list?

> Opening the book at random (p. 188), I looked to see whether the
> illustrations matched your description. I looked at the next 62
> illustrations, or about one-sixth of those in the book:
> 61 were entirely clear
> 1 (of which the relevant portion appeared in a clear enlargement next to
> it) was a bit fuzzy.
> Your claim that "many" illustrations are unclear is simply false. You rely
> on others not having the book and being able to evaluate your phony
> claims.
> You asks if there are "any 1963" examples of her handwriting. If you had
> waited to launch your attack until you had actually carefully READ the
> book, you would know that there are.
> You predict that "bombs" will soon be exploding, but so far you have
> produced only duds.

Nice to see you have such confidence in her tale.

Time will tell, won't it?

Chad

Dr. Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 24, 2006, 10:30:00 PM6/24/06
to

If you're looking for proof of the deep stuff, good luck. She's documented
her early research quite well, but beyond that...most of it is her
word...or that of her cohorts- Anna Lewis, etc.

I'll see if I can find anything of any real substance for you. Don't hold
your breath. It is not as impressive as Martin has deemed.

Chad
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151085266....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 24, 2006, 10:47:26 PM6/24/06
to
JLeyd...@aol.com wrote:
> Chad, is there anything in this thing that would validate Judyth's claim
> to have worked in a secret caner lab. That's even more improbable than
> the Oswald affair in my view. She said in the sample Chap. 4 on line that

What in your opinion is so improbably about the idea? Have you read lots
of MK/ULTRA documents?

paul seaton

unread,
Jun 24, 2006, 10:53:04 PM6/24/06
to

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7irhh$k...@dispatch.concentric.net...

> You seem to have been "born yesterday," as far as this newsgroup is
> concerned. I've never claimed there was a "smoking gun." It is VERY RARE
> that a "smoking gun" resolves an issue. What the book contains is a
> detailed, coherent, consistent body of evidence which support's Judyth's
> account. If someone is too lazy to deal with evidence in a mature way,
> they might as well skip the book.

"dealing with evidence in a mature way" seems to mean "not actually being
so uncouth as to ask for actual PROOF of any of Judyth's wilder claims".

Without actual PROOF Martin, why the hell would anyone take any of this
stuff seriously ? It would be like accepting at face value those alien
abduction stories, just because they are not actually DISprovable.

Paul Seaton

Canuck

unread,
Jun 24, 2006, 10:53:17 PM6/24/06
to

Tom Lowry wrote:
> Don't expect much at this late date , from a women who until recentely was
> flipping hamburgers . I think that occupation is what probably what gave
> her the inspiration to write the book : Put it on the griddle and see if
> it sizzles . Frys with that book anyone ? Tom Lowry
>

Tom, "women" should be "woman", "recentely" should be "recently" and
"Frys" should be "Fries". And what's wrong with flipping hamburgers,
for flipping sakes? - prw

Dr. Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 24, 2006, 10:55:58 PM6/24/06
to
Martin,

Surely you missed the beautiful reproduction of the photograph on page 39
and the blob that is of Mary Sherman.

Perhaps you missed the really inadequate image on page 47 of a letter
written to Robert Baker.

Maybe you missed the completely inadequate reproduction of an envelope,
letter and ad on page 52.

The left hand image on page 54 is almost unreadable...in any language.

The image on page 93 that is hard to read because of the small size of the
reproduction.

The 'Ferrie lecture notes' on page 99 are terribly small and largely
unreadable.

The blow up of Lee on page 104 is terribly pixelated. The caption, which
is on the wrong page, states: "...Could the white area shown (blown up)
here, of Lee's pocket be a container holding Lee's tooth?" Gee, it looks
like it could just about be anything white, since the blow up is so poor
as to prevent exclusion of most things.

The newspaper article and report on page 119 is almost impossible to read.

Nice, quality picture of Anna Lewis on page 124.

Inadequate reproduction of document on page 214, very hard to read.

On page 229, Judyth proclaims that the A-1 agency document links her and
Lee together. Unfortunately, you can't read it.

Page 240, image of clasp is virutally unreadable, hence Judyth's notation
telling us what it says.

Page 247, image of Junie is terribly pixelated.

Page 269, paystubs are hard to read due to poor reproduction, same with
blow-ups on next page. Judyth has to clarify what they say.

Page 312, blowup of 'tattoos' is horrible and you can't even tell if tattoos
are there.

Need I even mention the images on page 313? Picture of Lee, two unreadable
and tiny reproductions of documents and a pixilated blow up.

I think we'll stop there. The reproductions in the source notes get quite a
bit worse. Anyone looking for quality reprints of her *evidence* will be
very disappointed with this book.

Tell me, Martin, what do you think the most convincing evidence is that
proves that Judyth knew:

1. Dr. Mary Sherman
2. "Dr." David Ferrie
3. Dr. Alton Ochsner

Chad

Dr. Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 24, 2006, 11:41:29 PM6/24/06
to

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7iruo$i...@dispatch.concentric.net...

>
> Under the mistaken impression that Chad is a reliable source, you've
> jumped back in to seek his "expertise." You would like to be able to cite
> Chad's OPINION in future posts as a FACT. You continue to ignore the
> ACTUAL fact that there are at least three witnesses to her relationship
> with Oswald. You also apparently skipped over the fact, mentioned in
> earlier posts, that a Ferrie neighbor described a young woman fitting
> Judyth's description frequently going in and out of Ferrie's apartment
> that summer. As we know, he didn't have a lot of girlfriends over. Chad's
> OPINION, I"m sure, will be much more convenient for you.

Actually, he was asking me as someone that owns the book to see if there
was any real evidence of the alleged relationship with Dr. Mary Sherman.
He was not asking of my opinion, but asking me to be a vehicle of
information.

And, no, thus far, I've seen no real evidence that Dr. Sherman knew Judyth
at all. Of course, I'm still looking.

Chad

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 24, 2006, 11:43:01 PM6/24/06
to
I haven't seen any sign of qualifications on your part either, Chad.
By all means, make a list of the illustrations you claim are "too
pixillated" to understand. Now you seem to be shifting to "small and
poorly reproduced," which also misrepresents them.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 24, 2006, 11:43:43 PM6/24/06
to
You seem quick to make claims about things you know nothing about. Anna
Lewis has never liked Judyth much. They got along briefly, and then parted
company. After they did so, Debra Conway tried to get Anna to "admit" that
she hadn't seen Judyth and Lee together, but Anna responded that
everything she had said was true, and she took back nothing. For you, of
course, Anna is a "cohort" because she is a supporting witness. I suppose
this also applies to Mac MacCullough, Adrian Alba, and Ferrie's
neighbor--though the neighbor had contact only with Ed Haslam, and Alba
was interviewed by an investigator hired by a Canadian researcher. Like
McAdams, you declare any supporting evidence "not credible". On what
grounds? Because it supports her account.

Frankly, anyone looking for an objective evaluation of Judyth's book
should not rely on "Dr. Chad."

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 24, 2006, 11:45:02 PM6/24/06
to
The proof is there. What I said is that there is no single "smoking
gun," and that the elements of evidence reinforce each other.

Martin

Dr. Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 12:38:00 PM6/25/06
to

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7iruo$i...@dispatch.concentric.net...

>
> Under the mistaken impression that Chad is a reliable source, you've
> jumped back in to seek his "expertise." You would like to be able to cite
> Chad's OPINION in future posts as a FACT. You continue to ignore the
> ACTUAL fact that there are at least three witnesses to her relationship
> with Oswald. You also apparently skipped over the fact, mentioned in
> earlier posts, that a Ferrie neighbor described a young woman fitting
> Judyth's description frequently going in and out of Ferrie's apartment
> that summer.

Oh, so Dave had a woman that visited and it fit her general description...

Case Closed. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Her three witnesses are really good ones, too. She spends a fair amount of
time
in the source notes pacifying some of these, doesn't she, Martin?

Anna Lewis and her spontaneously spontaneous recording...that was made
spontaneously.
Mac McCullough the mob musician.
Michael Riconoscuito, convicted felon.
Her family.
William Findley, another felon.
Ed Haslam- whose own book is dovetailed by this one and is promoted numerous
time
in the book.

By the way, Deb Conway was present during this spontaneously spontaneous
recording. Why doesn't she support Judyth anymore? Do you know what it was
that
turned her off of Judyth's claims?

You've mentioned that you have to take this thing as a whole, and not look
at individual
things. Why?

Because there isn't squat for good, hard evidence in the book and you have
to be wowed by
the volume of stuff she's assembled.

I love how she counters points made by others that conflict with her
version. She simply says
that it isn't true because she was there and knew otherwise.

Chad

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 12:38:36 PM6/25/06
to
I randomly opened the book at p. 188, and found only one slightly fuzzy
illustration out of 62.
You report 9 prior to that, and 7 after that. Out of well over 300
illustrations, 16 is hardly "many," as you originally reported.
Let's see how reliable this handful of examples is:

p. 39: This photo isn't very good. We used the best copy we could find,
and it didn't blow up well. It isn't, however, too pixillated to
comprehend, as you reported "many" illustrations were.

p. 47: The Robert Baker is clear and easily readable. Perhaps you need
to define "inadequate."

p. 52: the image of the envelope, which you describe as "completely
inadequate," is clear and easily readable.

p. 54: this is a portion of a page from a Russian textbook. It is not
expected that the reader would be trying to read the Russian text. This
is really a silly criticism, Chad--utterly without merit.

p. 93: this illustration is clear and easy to read. I had no trouble
reading it without my glasses. Maybe you need a magnifier, Chad--or new
reading glasses.

p. 99: The Ferrie lecture notes are not easy to read. I apologize for
not making them larger, as they would have fit with no problem. This is
a valid criticism.

p. 104: the blowups aren't great, but neither are they "terribly
pixillated." Had I noticed it, I would have made the blowup from a
better copy of the picture. My apologies. Partly valid criticism.

p. 119: I had no trouble reading the newspaper article.

p. 124: Anna doesn't like having her picture taken, so this was made
from the best of three Polaroid photos. No apologies for this one.

p. 214: the document is clear and readable.

p. 229: The document is particularly readable, but then the text of a
standard employment agency contract isn't the key point. As it is
Commission Exhibit 1951, I have no doubt you can find a clearer copy if
you need to confirm this.

p. 240: The caption includes the entire text of the clasp, and the photo
is clear enough to confirm its accuracy. This is a quibble at best.

p. 247: Image of Junie is SOMEWHAT pixilated--no difficulty knowing what
it is. A partly valid criticism. Some of these photos appeared clearer
in the file sent to the printer--but a few unaccountably appeared
noticeably fuzzier in print, while others came out fine.

p. 269: images of the pay stubs are clear and readable. The illustration
is about what she WROTE on one of them, which is easily readable.

p. 312: This is one of these I mentioned that was much clearer
originally--I pointed out the problem with this one myself when I saw
the book.

p. 313: we recognized that the two documents were in small
format--that's why we enlarged the relevant portions. The Oswald photo
is a familiar one, and clearer than the Junie photo you objected to. The
text is easily readable. You are grasping at straws, Chad.

OK--out of well over 300 illustrations, of which you said "many" were
too pixilated to understand, you finally came up with only 16. Out of
those 16, NONE are too pixilated to understand.
Six of them are a little fuzzy, but present no real problem
One is a photo of a textbook, the text of which wasn't intended to be read.
One readable, but could be better.
One just appears to be a photo you don't like the looks of--no problem
with the reproduction.
One just seems to be a quibble about the presentation.
Six are perfectly clear and readable.
Even if one granted you 9, instead of 3, valid criticisms, that's hardly
"many" out of well over 300.
You then return to the vagueness of your original charge, calling the
illustrations in the source notes "quite a bit worse." This charge is
also without merit--I challenge you to come up with a list of examples
that fit that statement (hopefully closer than what you came up with to
support your original false claim).

Martin

Dr. Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 12:38:58 PM6/25/06
to

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7l00k$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...

> The proof is there. What I said is that there is no single "smoking gun,"
> and that the elements of evidence reinforce each other.

So do those in any well researched book...

The 1353 source notes in the back should be a clue to that.

Chad

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 12:39:30 PM6/25/06
to
We're seeing the usual patterns begin to emerge again:
1) Red herrings to divert focus from the actual subject matters.
2) Ad hominem attacks.
3) Exaggerated claims which rapidly shrink as examples are presented.
4) Silly demands to post parts of the book so it can be discussed,
presented as demands for "discussion."
5) A behind the scenes effort to stop sales of the book.

Martin


Dr. Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 12:39:58 PM6/25/06
to

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7kvld$e...@dispatch.concentric.net...

> You seem quick to make claims about things you know nothing about. Anna
> Lewis has never liked Judyth much. They got along briefly, and then parted
> company. After they did so, Debra Conway tried to get Anna to "admit" that
> she hadn't seen Judyth and Lee together, but Anna responded that
> everything she had said was true, and she took back nothing. For you, of
> course, Anna is a "cohort" because she is a supporting witness. I suppose
> this also applies to Mac MacCullough, Adrian Alba, and Ferrie's neighbor--

The neighbor didn't pinpoint Judyth, Martin. You, youself, said it was a
general description.

though the neighbor had contact only with Ed Haslam, and Alba
> was interviewed by an investigator hired by a Canadian researcher. Like
> McAdams, you declare any supporting evidence "not credible". On what
> grounds? Because it supports her account.

We shall see in time, won't we.

>
> Frankly, anyone looking for an objective evaluation of Judyth's book
> should not rely on "Dr. Chad."

Yeah, you should believe all of the wonderful quotes attributed to "Dr."
Dave Ferrie because
Judyth says so.

It is a wonderous read, however, Martin. It is so nice that she went into so
much detail!

Chad

Dr. Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 6:15:54 PM6/25/06
to
LOL! Most are quite small, Martin. Some are completely unreadable. Some
are fine for their purpose, but many are horrid- particularly many in the
source notes.

Chad

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message

news:e7kv83$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 6:16:52 PM6/25/06
to
John Leyden has been blatantly misrepresenting the "60 Minutes" matter
again, so I guess it's time to go back over the actual details again.

Quoting from a message from the "60 Minutes" producer who, under Don
Hewitt, worked on the planned Judyth segment for the program:

"Let me just say that we did not walk away from the story...indeed we are
prepared to go ahead."

He explains that the reason they backed away was a contract her former
agent tried to get them to sign which contained objectionable provisions.
He continues:

"We have the highest regard for Judyth."

This is one of the people her critics keep claiming "dumped" her.

You have already seen Don Hewitt's confirmation that he, too, remained
ready to go ahead with the story--in a videotaped interview for the Sixth
Floor Museum, broadcast on CSPAN in November 2003.

There is also the fact that one of their consultants for the segment,
former Congressional staffer Howard Liebengood, found the often-mentioned
psychiatrist's report worthless, and made a point of reading it to us over
the phone. No one there took it seriously. Liebengood spent hours going
through Judyth's documentation (as did Nigel Turner, before deciding to
devote an hour to her), and said it was consistent with documents he had
seen during the Church Committee investigation intelligence agencies.

"60 Minutes" was so uninterested that they spent many months working on
the segment, flew Judyth to New York, reimbursed her for lost wages, and
made coordinated plans for a simultaneous story in U.S. News and World
Report and another in a prominent newspaper. This continued for weeks
after the psychiatrist submitted his report, if that gives you any idea of
the impact it had.

Martin


JLeyd...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 6:17:40 PM6/25/06
to
Thanks, Chad, but don't bother looking on my account any longer,
Shackelford already has changed Judyth's story. She said she went to New
Orleans to work for Dr. Mary Sherman but Shackelford says she didn't work
for Dr. Sherman. Apparently, she didn't get paid either so there will be
no pay slips. In fact, there is no paper trail at all to validate her
work in the secret cancer lab. All we have is this Ferrie neighbor who
claims to have seen a Judyth look alike going into Ferrie's apartment and
apparently could recall it vividly 35 years later. Amazing stuff!

JGL

Dr. Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 10:07:28 PM6/25/06
to

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7l952$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...

Nobody is trying to reduce the book sales...which apparently is of concern
to you and the rest of the Team.

This book lacks the blockbuster *proof* that the Team has been touting for
years.

Chad

Dr. Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 10:08:04 PM6/25/06
to

<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151257399.9...@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> Thanks, Chad, but don't bother looking on my account any longer,
> Shackelford already has changed Judyth's story. She said she went to New
> Orleans to work for Dr. Mary Sherman but Shackelford says she didn't work
> for Dr. Sherman. Apparently, she didn't get paid either so there will be
> no pay slips. In fact, there is no paper trail at all to validate her
> work in the secret cancer lab. All we have is this Ferrie neighbor who
> claims to have seen a Judyth look alike going into Ferrie's apartment and
> apparently could recall it vividly 35 years later. Amazing stuff!

According to the book, Judyth was in Mary's place all the time...just not
when Mary was around.

The neighbor, apparently, described someone of Judyth's general
description...

Chad

Dr. Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 25, 2006, 10:37:51 PM6/25/06
to

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7l7qb$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...

YEah, let me get right on that, Martin. I don't have anything better to do
than deal with your denials that the picture reproductions in that book
are less than stellar.

Anyone buying the book can see for themselves...as they squint to try and
read what is on the document, etc.

Chad

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 1:10:57 PM6/26/06
to
Well, you certainly don't know much about the witnesses you're discussing.
As for Ms. Conway, you'd have to ask her.
Adding another batch of misrepresentations of what's in the book doesn't
impress me, Chad.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 1:11:23 PM6/26/06
to
By the way, Ms. Conway wasn't simply "present" during the
videotaping--it was her idea, and she brought the camera. We found out
about it when we arrived--it wasn't on the agenda at all, but it's nice
to have the tapes.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 1:11:44 PM6/26/06
to
Given the "accuracy" of your earlier general statements, one should also
take this one with a grain of salt. I personally edited the End Notes,
so misrepresenting them won't go over well with me.

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 1:12:17 PM6/26/06
to
Another false "contradiction."
As Judyth said, the PLAN was for her to work in Dr. Sherman's lab.
In fact, it didn't work out that way. The contradiction was not in
Judyth's account, but between what was planned and how things turned out.
Try to be more logical.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 1:12:39 PM6/26/06
to
You aren't reading very carefully, Chad--but that was already apparent.
The neighbor reported a woman fitting Judyth's description going in and
out of Dave Ferrie's apartment that summer, not Mary Sherman's.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 2:49:00 PM6/26/06
to
You know nothing about it, Chad.
An attempt was made to block sales of the book. That's a fact, reported
to us by Trafford.
Stick to what you know--skip what you "think" you know.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 2:55:42 PM6/26/06
to
Fine. Let them compare your description with mine and see what
conclusion they come to regarding your credibility.
Not one of your regular allies, but someone objective. Support from the
usual suspects is about as valuable as John Garner thought the Vice
Presidency.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 2:58:14 PM6/26/06
to
OK. You're fine with making vague accusations, but when you can't come
up with enough genuine supportive examples, and throw in a bunch of
ringers, you can't be bothered to respond. Very understandable.

Martin

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 3:00:38 PM6/26/06
to
JLeyd...@aol.com wrote:
> Thanks, Chad, but don't bother looking on my account any longer,
> Shackelford already has changed Judyth's story. She said she went to New
> Orleans to work for Dr. Mary Sherman but Shackelford says she didn't work
> for Dr. Sherman. Apparently, she didn't get paid either so there will be
> no pay slips. In fact, there is no paper trail at all to validate her
> work in the secret cancer lab. All we have is this Ferrie neighbor who
> claims to have seen a Judyth look alike going into Ferrie's apartment and
> apparently could recall it vividly 35 years later. Amazing stuff!
>

"Work for" or "work with"?
There is a slight difference you know.

Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 3:12:39 PM6/26/06
to
Martin,

How the hell can anyone stop the sales of the book? That usually happens on
the grounds that someone will sue for libel. Is that what you're suggesting
to us?

Chad

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message

news:e7nulj$i...@dispatch.concentric.net...

steve

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 7:07:58 PM6/26/06
to

Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Not so busy after all. I'll discuss the book with anyone who has read
> it--but continue to reject item-by-item piecemeal attack pieces, so
> don't waste your time, unless you are just bulking things up again for
> propaganda purposes.
>


just to clarify, if someone reads the book and thinks its crap, how
should we go about asking you about it, i only know how to do things
item by item, i dont have more than 2 hands and one keyboard. so when
i see something that is bogus how do you propose i start a debate?


Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 7:08:27 PM6/26/06
to
Yeah, I know. I didn't mention Ferrie, but should have. The way I wrote it
makes it sound like it was Sherman's place and not Ferrie's.

However, I was addressing JL's comments, where he mentions Sherman AND
Ferrie.
He even went so far as to mention the neighbor of Ferrie's, which is what I
was
addressing.

Chad


"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message

news:e7nuon$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...

Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 7:10:16 PM6/26/06
to

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7nuc9$k...@dispatch.concentric.net...

> Given the "accuracy" of your earlier general statements, one should also
> take this one with a grain of salt. I personally edited the End Notes, so
> misrepresenting them won't go over well with me.

Apparently this is a subjective discussion. Your opinion versus mine. I
stand by
mine. You stand by yours.

A stand off.

Chad

Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 7:11:23 PM6/26/06
to

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7nu14$h...@dispatch.concentric.net...

> Well, you certainly don't know much about the witnesses you're discussing.

Martin, I took it from the source notes on page 665:

Anna Lewis- "Anna made a spontaneous videotape in the presence of seven
people
early in January, 2000...Anna then made a spontaneous audiotape with her
daughter
was present as a witness to its spontaneous...She speaks spontaneously..."

William 'Mac' McCullough- "...was once employed for various duties by Carlos
Marcello's organization in New Orleans as
a musician..."

Michael Riconosciuto-"He doesn't count, either, because he's in prison..."

William Findley- "A former prisoner at Angola has also spoken out- he
doesn't count because he
was a felon."

Ed Haslam- "His evidence supposedly doesn't count because my book helps
support his book."

So, Martin, exactly where was I off about the witnesses? Those quotes are
directly from her book, from the
source notes that you edited.

Chad

Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 7:13:23 PM6/26/06
to

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7nu4m$8...@dispatch.concentric.net...

> By the way, Ms. Conway wasn't simply "present" during the videotaping--it
> was her idea, and she brought the camera. We found out about it when we
> arrived--it wasn't on the agenda at all, but it's nice to have the tapes.

Great. I really needed to know that, not only was she present, she brought
the videocamera for the spontaneous meeting.

Doesn't exactly answer why she flew the Team's coop, does it?

Chad

JLeyd...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 8:27:24 PM6/26/06
to
Shackelford seems to have a problem with my use of the verb "dumped" as
in CBS 60 Minutes dumped Judyth. Well, fine let him pick any verb he
likes as long as it doesn't change the final result of Judyth's 60
Minutes episode. As we all know, she never made it on the air and
that, of course, is the bottome line.

And if it makes him feel any better about this sorry episode, he's free
to invent any little story he chooses to ease the pain of Judyth's
dumping.... ooops, departure. Just one word of caution for him. Don't
blame Judyth's former agent as you seem to be doing for the flameout.
You know what happened when you accused him of "messing up" Judyth's
ms. You had to issue a humniliating on-line apology that anyone can
see in the Google archives. Just type "Clarification, Correction and
Retraction Regarding Judyth's Agent" in the search box. Amazing how
the threat of a lawsuit can straighten out a guy's thinking.

JGL

steve

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 8:37:34 PM6/26/06
to

Martin Shackelford wrote:
> The proof is there. What I said is that there is no single "smoking
> gun," and that the elements of evidence reinforce each other.
>

1st personal insult


> >>You seem to have been "born yesterday," as far as this newsgroup is
> >>concerned.

you claimed her story was provable. which dosent/shouldnt include her
saying so or newsclippings or a paystub that puts her in the city of
new orleans.


I've never claimed there was a "smoking gun."

you claimed there is proof, whats the difference between
proof and a smoking gun?

It is VERY RARE
> >>that a "smoking gun" resolves an issue.

thats what a smoking gun is Martin!

What the book contains is a
> >>detailed,

well read

>>>>coherent,

well understood

>>>> consistent

well thought out

>>>>body of evidence

stories

which support's Judyth's
> >>account.

what you mean to say is "we reasearched all available materials and
came up with a pretty good story by injecting judith into places and
events that have been known/suspected" now i know you and her will deny
it, you'll cite this that and the other, but the question has to be asked,
which came first, the chicken or the egg? does judith's account prove what
is known, or does what has been known prove judith's account. is there
anything independent/NEW that can be verified?

2nd personal insult


If someone is too lazy to deal with evidence in a mature way,
> >>they might as well skip the book.
> >
> >


if you think i was "born yesterday" just call me stupid next time(FYI as
far as this newsgroup is concerned i'v been reading it for years how do
you think i know you said there was proof AND THAT YOU WOULD DISCUSS IT
WHEN THE BOOK WAS OUT", if you think i'm "too lazy to deal with the
evidence in a mature way" call me immature, get to the point. you get too
worked up when someone disagrees with you.


steve

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 8:38:25 PM6/26/06
to

Martin Shackelford wrote:
> You seem to have been "born yesterday," as far as this newsgroup is
> concerned. I've never claimed there was a "smoking gun." It is VERY RARE
> that a "smoking gun" resolves an issue. What the book contains is a
> detailed, coherent, consistent body of evidence which support's Judyth's
> account. If someone is too lazy to deal with evidence in a mature way,
> they might as well skip the book. Your theory that isolated evaluation
> of individual pieces of evidence out of context is "how an investigation
> is done" is absurd.

can you point out where i said my "theory that isolated evaluation
of individual pieces of evidence out of context is how an
investigation
is done" "
i never mentioned context did i? and also, what is considered evidence
to you? your not saying that something bogus would be considered
evidence? this is where you and i have a problem, you consider things
that judith says as evidence. the rest of us want something a little
more, for some of us a lot more, and for some reason you cant provide
it. the book is supposed to be her story and evidence but instead we
get 300 illustrations, reproductions, and 1300 source notes to other
previous work(some of which is unproven in itself.) but you will scream
till the end that there is independent verification of her tale and she
didnt even read any of this jfk stuff till after she came public with
her story. which may or may not be true( once again we can only take
her word) but even if she didnt read any of it pre 2000 she has had 6
years to read and get her stuff straight, which in my opinion is the
reason it has taken so long to get what you said would be the facts out
in the public.


Chad Zimmerman

unread,
Jun 26, 2006, 8:38:42 PM6/26/06
to

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:e7nvt6$i...@dispatch.concentric.net...

> OK. You're fine with making vague accusations, but when you can't come up
> with enough genuine supportive examples, and throw in a bunch of ringers,
> you can't be bothered to respond. Very understandable.

Actually, I supplied several examples, you denied them...case closed.
Typical Shackelford.

Chad

JLeyd...@aol.com

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 12:20:53 AM6/27/06
to
To learn the true relationship between Judyth and her "star" witness, Anna
Lewis, check out the photo of them taken in New Orleans in Jan. 2000.
You can find it in Google Image Search by typing in the name of Martin
Shackelford. Ms. Lewis is hugging Judyth so tightly she could be busted
for lewd & lascivious behavior if a vice cop had happened on the scene.
One pix is worth a thousand words. It's just Shackelford.

JGL


Martin Shackelford wrote:
> You seem quick to make claims about things you know nothing about. Anna
> Lewis has never liked Judyth much. They got along briefly, and then parted
> company. After they did so, Debra Conway tried to get Anna to "admit" that
> she hadn't seen Judyth and Lee together, but Anna responded that
> everything she had said was true, and she took back nothing. For you, of
> course, Anna is a "cohort" because she is a supporting witness. I suppose
> this also applies to Mac MacCullough, Adrian Alba, and Ferrie's
> neighbor--though the neighbor had contact only with Ed Haslam, and Alba
> was interviewed by an investigator hired by a Canadian researcher. Like
> McAdams, you declare any supporting evidence "not credible". On what
> grounds? Because it supports her account.
>
> Frankly, anyone looking for an objective evaluation of Judyth's book
> should not rely on "Dr. Chad."


>
> Martin
>
> Dr. Chad Zimmerman wrote:
>

> > If you're looking for proof of the deep stuff, good luck. She's documented
> > her early research quite well, but beyond that...most of it is her
> > word...or that of her cohorts- Anna Lewis, etc.
> >
> > I'll see if I can find anything of any real substance for you. Don't hold
> > your breath. It is not as impressive as Martin has deemed.
> >
> > Chad
> > <JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1151085266....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 12:55:44 AM6/27/06
to
Good point, Tony.

And in addition to the false "contradiction" Leyden has attempted, there
is his false assumption that the interview with the neighbor was "35 years
later"--and, of course, no one has described the neighbor's recollection
as "vivid" except Leyden, who is about as "well-informed" by his biases as
usual.

35 years would be 1998--not sure where Leyden came up with this figure,
except the off the top of his head. Ed Haslam's book came out in 1995--had
the interview been the last thing he did, that would have been in 1994, or
31 years--but it wasn't. The interview had been sitting in Ed's file for
years because, until he learned of Judyth, he didn't connect it to
anything else. The interview, therefore, was conducted less than 30 years
after the events, and likely much less than that. But, for Leyden's
purposes, a "creative" figure of 35 must have sounded better than using
logic or seeking the facts. Leyden, as we recall, has said he doesn't do
research.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 12:57:54 AM6/27/06
to
There has been no libel action. As it is a legal matter, you know I
can't discuss it here. Suffice it to say that sales were stopped
briefly, but the action was groundless and I don't expect it to be more
than a temporary problem.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 12:58:18 AM6/27/06
to
Any objective individual with a copy of the book can, of course, make up
their own mind about it.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 12:58:51 AM6/27/06
to
If your only comment turns out to be that the book is crap, there isn't
really anything to discuss, is there Steve?

If you want to discuss a particular topic based on what's in the book,
that's fine. If you one to focus on nit-picking one single piece of
evidence, it's not worth anyone's time.

If you think something's bogus, be specific.

Chad made some general criticisms, then couldn't back them up--but at
least he provided specifics (something he now seems to be backing away
from doing, saying that he doesn't have the time).

If someone is going to attack someone else's reputation, I expect them to
be able to back up their attacks with more than vague misrepresentations.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 1:06:14 AM6/27/06
to
As I said, you don't know much about the witnesses you're discussing.

1) I didn't know what to expect with Anna Lewis, but found her a very
credible witness--and one who, despite disliking Judyth, and being
offered the chance to retaliate against her by retracting her statement,
responded by saying that she told the truth and she wasn't retracting a
word. She was the wife of David Lewis, but was never questioned during
the Garrison investigation, or any other for that matter. She worked as
a waitress at Thompson's restaurant, and saw Lee and Judyth together there.
2)Mac McCullough was the son of New Orleans restaurant owners. At
various times, he was a musician, and a bouncer in one of the French
Quarter clubs. He saw Lee and Judyth together in the French Quarter, and
in Lafayette Park, a block or so from Reily's, and across the street
from Banister's office.
3) Michael Riconosciuto isn't someone on whom I rely heavily, but he did
seem to know some things about what was happening that summer in New
Orleans that he couldn't have gotten from anything published. His
comments came to us from another researcher.
4) William Findley was a prisoner at Angola who recalled the
relationship the prison had with the state hospital for medical experiments.
5) There has been a lot of loose talk about Ed Haslam's book and
Judyth's account being virtually carbon copies--anyone who has read both
books will recognize that isn't the case. Ed was kind enough to tell us
about the unpublished interview in his files with Ferrie's neighbor.

6) Apparently the footnote didn't mention Adrian Alba, owner of the
Crescent City Garage next door to Reily, who was questioned by an
investigator hired by a Canadian researcher who wanted to see if
Judyth's account was credible. Alba picked out a picture of Judyth from
a photo array of early '60s women about the same age--and identified her
as someone he had seen with Oswald.
7) The same investigator also questioned several Reily employees, all of
whom recalled Judyth, but none of whom recalled Oswald working there
that summer. Of course, Judyth worked in an office where all of the
employees would have seen her when they signed in and out each day--and
in 1963, she was quite a looker.

8) There was also Howard Liebengood, aide to Sen. Howard Baker during
the intelligence committee investigations of the 1970s, who examined
Judyth's evidence, and reported to us that her account was consistent
with classified materials he had examined at the C.I.A. He became a
consultant for "60 Minutes," and when he saw the farce of a
"psychiatrist's report," read it to us over the phone, and told us that
no one there was taking it seriously. "60 Minutes" continued planning a
Judyth segment for some time after that, which would seem to confirm that.

9) We were also told by a relative of Carlos Marcello that everyone in
the Marcello circle knew about Lee and Judyth's affair. The relative had
heard about it in that circle well before Judyth surfaced in 1999.

10) And then there is Marina Oswald, who viewed "The Love Affair" on the
History Channel with a friend who is also a researcher. Her only comment
when it was over was "So--he was having an affair." After that, one of
her daughters contacted Judyth.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,
Jun 27, 2006, 1:07:01 AM6/27/06