Pamela Brown Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) I have had a year of blissfully killfiling Barb and Glenn's posts. Unfortunately, when I went to search for a document in this thread without being logged in last week, I determined that a number of false claims have been made here. I have returned their posts from being invisible in order to address them. Hence the delay in response time. As my agreement with Judyth to keep an open mind on what she had to say has ended with the publication of her authorized book this summer, I will be taking some time to analyse various aspects of her statements. In addition, I am starting research for an article on her which will appear in the near future. But first, I hope to do some housecleaning so as to get rid of false information in hopes of moving forward with that which is accurate. For those of you not at all interested in Judyth, I completely understand and will in no way be miffed if you ignore my posts. Nor does it matter to me if you find what Judyth has to say of value or not. I am doing this to clear my own name: Judyth can stand on her own now. For starters, Glenn and Barb have insisted in this thread that the only appropriate word used to describe the asylum process by which Judyth's passport was taken from her and she was placed in protective custody as 'asylum seeker'. This happens to be a narrow legal term that does not appear in regular dictionaries. In addition, it describes the status of the individual, not the housing and passport process. Judyth instructed me to use the terms 'provisional' or 'temporary' asylum while she was involved in her petition for permanent legal asylum in Sweden. In retrospect, I find those terms confusing and even misleading. There does not as yet seem to be a term that is appropriate -- Tillfallig asyl (temporary asylum) or preliminara asyl (provisional asylum) appear to have legal connotations. The closest I have come so far is asylforfarandet, or asylum process. Edited January 6, 2011 by Pamela Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Why was Pamela TAKING INSTRUCTIONS from Judyth? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Why was Pamela TAKING INSTRUCTIONS from Judyth? Jack Fair question, Jack. When Judyth contacted me in 2003, about the time TMWKK new segments were televised I had already received at least one email from David Lifton warning me not to trust anything she said. At the same time, I knew that she had documentation placing her in proximity to LHO in NOLA, as they both worked at Reily Coffee. So, I decided on a course of action that has changed my life for the last seven years. I told her I would keep an open mind on what she had to say until her book, which she told me about, was published. I decided to try to take a stand against the libel she was subject to on aaj. I tried to get Debra Conway to return the videos she had taken of Judyth, Martin and Anna Lewis when they were in NOLA in 2000. By trying to do what I thought was right and decent I managed to make myself controversial on both sides. So I was in email contact with Judyth during her stay in Hungary on, and knew how difficult her life had become. At some time after she began her petition for legal asylum in Sweden she emailed me and Martin S. and explained what was taking place. I was puzzled that this was happening, yet relieved that she at least had a safe haven. I knew nothing of this situation except what she said. She told me specifically to say 'temporary' or 'provisional' asylum to explain her current status, and I parroted that back to aaj. Soon afterword, I realized that I was not entirely comfortable with those terms, and used more vague terminology such as 'involved in the asylum process'. I also used the term 'in asylum' referencing her status without her passport when she was unable to attend her mother's funeral. So that has caused some confusion, for which I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Thanks for the clarification, Pamela. To me, JVB is a pitiable character, regardless of what is true or false. If nothing else, she suffers from an unusual compulsion. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Thanks for the clarification, Pamela. To me, JVB is a pitiable character, regardless of what is true or false. If nothing else, she suffers from an unusual compulsion. Jack She was (is) a targeted person like de Mohrenschild, Jean Hill or Roger Craig: thats in fact pitiable. KK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) GV said: "Two years after I provided the relevant documentation about the asylum seeker issue, now you want it translated? A document that you have fought and discredited for two years without you being aware of what it says? " To say that I have "fought and discredited" this document is completely false. Apparently Glenn ignored my posts where I have stated my appreciation for this document being available. He has also read by now my posts where I state that I look forward to more information being made available on the asylum and all other issues. Hopefully any other posts on behalf of him or anyone else that attempts to push this falsehood of my 'rejecting' any documentation will itself be rejected. I have also stated that my understanding of Judyth's experience during the 10 months she was involved with the Swedish is consistent with the Migration document he asked McAdams to post as well as with the Migration Board verification of the two court dates for appeal, resulting in Judyth's NOT being granted permanent legal asylum. My statements to this effect have also been dismissed while he persued a wacky theory of his own. I hope that any implication that I believe anything other than that the documents are valid is rejected. I do acknowledge that when Glenn first popped in with the document I was dismayed at the thought that confidential aslylum information was being published. My posts reflect my initial distress on Judyth's behalf and distrust of Mr. Vicklund for being the one to do this. However, he has stated that these are public documents and that Judyth should have had no promise of confidentiality, and I acknowledge that this seems to be the case. Since Glenn is a relative newcomer to the debate he may be unaware of my agreement with Judyth in 2003 to keep an open mind on what she had to say until her book (authorized) came out. That happened this summer. So, whereas I had chosen not to do research of her statements before at her request, now I am beginning to do so. I will present my findings in an article in the near future. A relevant post I also just made to aaj: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_frm/thread/00848d441b40affc/0027ed76566eb112#0027ed76566eb112 Edited January 10, 2011 by Pamela Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 BJ said: This asylum ruckus was started by Pamela posting that she knew where Judyth was but could only tell anyone interested that she was living under asylum in a foreign land. Martin followed a short while later saying that he could now reveal Judyth was in Sweden. And off it went. This is misleading. When Judyth asked me to, I posted that she had been given provisional or temporary asylum abroad. I had no more information than that. In retrospect, my use of 'provisional' or 'temporary' asylum was confusing in that she was in fact involved in a petition for permanent legal asylum that ended up lasting for 10 months and was after two appeals rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) [...] Judyth has spoken cyber reams on assorted newsgroups, websites and blogs. She has spoken freely on radio shows, she has published a book. But you are annoyed and consider it "attacking" that people don't gather silently at her feet like 'sheeple' and soak it all up, but that some seek to objectively verify elements of her account that can be fact checked. One has to wonder how you think research can move forward if people do nothing but listen to a self proclaimed witness tell her story without any efforts to determine if it is factually true. What a difference having gotten seemingly "swept up in the momentum" has made in your attitude toward what research must be done: Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk From: pame...@primenet.com (pamela mcelwain-brown) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:24:59 GMT Local: Thurs, Nov 2 2000 7:24 pm Subject: Re: Judyth and Jack Ruby David, It seems as though you have no alternative but to invest a considerable amount of time and energy attempting to objectively verify the statements of this person. Coming from my research on the Weldon "Man from the Rouge", I can sympathize, in that when even a part of the research community is hyped about a *new witness* that momentum can have a tendency to move more quickly than actual facts might warrant. As I follow these threads, a bit belatedly, I must ask the question -- what difference does it make? If Judyth had continued to maintain her anonymity, what would we not know about LHO that we do *know* now? It seems that she provides LHO-Ruby connections, but that has been done by other less new witnesses, such as Beverly Oliver, so that is not *new* information. In addition, some of the statements attributed to Judyth seem to be almost silly; so it is difficult to attach any value to them. It had been my thinking that once a *witness* had at least a name, a job description, a voice, and was willing to communicate with the research community (things the MFTR was unable to do) that vetting such a witness in terms of their relevance to the assassination would be a relatively simple thing. Not so, I am discovering. Pamela http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...+verify+pamela# Barb actually reposted one of my early emails on Judyth, (which she must have gotten from David Lifton as it was not sent to her and despite the fact that she did not have my permission), and yet seems to refuse to acknowledge the position I have maintained for the last seven years or the fact that I have no qualms about saying that my initial reaction to Judyth's statements was skepticism. Prior to being contacted by Judyth in 2003, at about the time TMWKK was airing, I had received at least one or two emails from David Lifton, who had been a voice of sanity to me during the earlier days of the weldon mystery witness. As he was working on a book on LHO I had to take his concerns about Judyth's credibility seriously. As a result, when contacted by Judyth I agreed simply to keep an open mind on what she had to say until her book came out. So I sidelined myself and have attempted to keep a level field here and on aaj. That has created controversy on both sides. While I have repeatedly said that I do not believe or disbelieve witnesses, both sides have falsely claimed that I 'believe' Judyth. That agreement has now been fulfilled with the publication of her authorized book this summer. I am now examining her claims and will publish an article in the near future. I hope to be fair and honest. I believe that anyone who is doing their best to tell the truth has nothing to fear from me. On the other hand, if anyone thinks I will be giving Judyth a free pass or not holding her feet to the fire on issues that seem false they have, as my Mother would say, 'another think coming'. Edited January 11, 2011 by Pamela Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 BJ said: in regard to the publication of ME AND LEE, Judyth's authorized book: I expect that such cleansing to conform to facts will not be rare finds in this new book. Having been involved in examining the claims of the, at the time, Weldon mystery witness, from the first presentation using an audio taped interview at NID 98 on, attempting to nail down the statements of someone who says they are a witness, or those presenting the witness, by confronting them with the more eggregious errors can be as frustrating as it is productive. That is not to say it should not be done; simply that this aspect of research is better not done alone, but combined with an overall process. In the case of the mystery witness, gross misstatements which were heard on the audio tape were excised, some of the more glaring errors toned down, and, thanks to the hefty research fees at Henry Ford Museum I paid for research requests on the Rouge, where he claimed he had seen the limo just days after the assassination, this scruffy witness emerged as the somewhat more polished and clean Mr. Whittaker in TMWKK. So, in a sense, Barb's work researching Judyth's claims cannot help but be a factor in what we are reading in M+L that we did not find in the earlier unauthorized book. Ironically, too, Weldon's main rebuttal to my claim that his witness was making things up was that he was 'such a nice man, he would never lie', or words to that effect. And, in double irony, Weldon has stepped up to the plate in the Judyth debate with insights and clarity that I only wish had been present when he was vetting Mr. Whitaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 BJ said: in regard to the publication of ME AND LEE, Judyth's authorized book: I expect that such cleansing to conform to facts will not be rare finds in this new book. Having been involved in examining the claims of the, at the time, Weldon mystery witness, from the first presentation using an audio taped interview at NID 98 on, attempting to nail down the statements of someone who says they are a witness, or those presenting the witness, by confronting them with the more eggregious errors can be as frustrating as it is productive. That is not to say it should not be done; simply that this aspect of research is better not done alone, but combined with an overall process. In the case of the mystery witness, gross misstatements which were heard on the audio tape were excised, some of the more glaring errors toned down, and, thanks to the hefty research fees at Henry Ford Museum I paid for research requests on the Rouge, where he claimed he had seen the limo just days after the assassination, this scruffy witness emerged as the somewhat more polished and clean Mr. Whittaker in TMWKK. So, in a sense, Barb's work researching Judyth's claims cannot help but be a factor in what we are reading in M+L that we did not find in the earlier unauthorized book. Ironically, too, Weldon's main rebuttal to my claim that his witness was making things up was that he was 'such a nice man, he would never lie', or words to that effect. And, in double irony, Weldon has stepped up to the plate in the Judyth debate with insights and clarity that I only wish had been present when he was vetting Mr. Whitaker. Mr. Whittaker was a VERY RELUCTANT WITNESS with little life left to live, and he wanted to get a secret "off of his chest". He had NOTHING to gain. Mrs. Baker is the exact opposite. Your comparison is not apt. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Plus Jack; he left it in writing...also, you don't get any better imo, plus his son and wife and the executive, ower of the plant backed his honesty..like others she is just going to have to wait for the book, perhaps that is what continues to bother her, the forthcoming book, i do not know, but she certainly enjoys harping on dougs info and work , with the least provocation..perhaps he will be along, to answer her..?.b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Plus Jack; he left it in writing...also, you don't get any better imo, plus his son and wife and the executive, ower of the plant backed his honesty..like others she is just going to have to wait for the book, perhaps that is what continues to bother her, the forthcoming book, i do not know, but she certainly enjoys harping on dougs info and work , with the least provocation..perhaps he will be along, to answer her..?.b He also left a tape recording which Doug gave me a copy of. I don't remember just where it is right now. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) Plus Jack; he left it in writing...also, you don't get any better imo, plus his son and wife and the executive, ower of the plant backed his honesty..like others she is just going to have to wait for the book, perhaps that is what continues to bother her, the forthcoming book, i do not know, but she certainly enjoys harping on dougs info and work , with the least provocation..perhaps he will be along, to answer her..?.b He also left a tape recording which Doug gave me a copy of. I don't remember just where it is right now. Jack When you and Weldon chose to move forward, did you even think about finding out where the limo actually went when it was in Dearborn? Or did you just move ahead with this story because you found it persuasive? Isn't that what Judyth is asking of us -- that we set aside anything else we may have heard about LHO in NOLA and listen to her? And yet Weldon was able to ask a myriad of questions about her statements. What accounts for the difference in insight? The tape you mention was the one played at NID 98. It has a number of gaffes in it. I don't want to rehash them, we did enough of that on the RDR forum; just to point out that, probably as a result, they were mostly eliminated from the interview in TMWKK. I believe the same thing is happening with Judyth's statements -- glaring errors in the earlier book will have been removed or reworked based on the issues that have been debated here and on aaj. Edited January 12, 2011 by Pamela Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Plus Jack; he left it in writing...also, you don't get any better imo, plus his son and wife and the executive, ower of the plant backed his honesty..like others she is just going to have to wait for the book, perhaps that is what continues to bother her, the forthcoming book, i do not know, but she certainly enjoys harping on dougs info and work , with the least provocation..perhaps he will be along, to answer her..?.b He also left a tape recording which Doug gave me a copy of. I don't remember just where it is right now. Jack When you and Weldon chose to move forward, did you even think about finding out where the limo actually went when it was in Dearborn? Or did you just move ahead with this story because you found it persuasive? Isn't that what Judyth is asking of us -- that we set aside anything else we may have heard about LHO in NOLA and listen to her? And yet Weldon was able to ask a myriad of questions about her statements. What accounts for the difference in insight? The tape you mention was the one played at NID 98. It has a number of gaffes in it. I don't want to rehash them, we did enough of that on the RDR forum; just to point out that, probably as a result, they were mostly eliminated from the interview in TMWKK. I believe the same thing is happening with Judyth's statements -- glaring errors in the earlier book will have been removed or reworked based on the issues that have been debated here and on aaj. As far as I know Doug has not eliminated anything from the recording and stands behind everything said. It is more trustworthy than ANY OFFICIAL RECORDS. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Brown Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Plus Jack; he left it in writing...also, you don't get any better imo, plus his son and wife and the executive, ower of the plant backed his honesty..like others she is just going to have to wait for the book, perhaps that is what continues to bother her, the forthcoming book, i do not know, but she certainly enjoys harping on dougs info and work , with the least provocation..perhaps he will be along, to answer her..?.b He also left a tape recording which Doug gave me a copy of. I don't remember just where it is right now. Jack When you and Weldon chose to move forward, did you even think about finding out where the limo actually went when it was in Dearborn? Or did you just move ahead with this story because you found it persuasive? Isn't that what Judyth is asking of us -- that we set aside anything else we may have heard about LHO in NOLA and listen to her? And yet Weldon was able to ask a myriad of questions about her statements. What accounts for the difference in insight? The tape you mention was the one played at NID 98. It has a number of gaffes in it. I don't want to rehash them, we did enough of that on the RDR forum; just to point out that, probably as a result, they were mostly eliminated from the interview in TMWKK. I believe the same thing is happening with Judyth's statements -- glaring errors in the earlier book will have been removed or reworked based on the issues that have been debated here and on aaj. As far as I know Doug has not eliminated anything from the recording and stands behind everything said. It is more trustworthy than ANY OFFICIAL RECORDS. Jack You are making my point for me. Are there not some who say the same thing about Judyth's statements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now