Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Dixie Dea]

Fetzer..read my first post again! I said exactly what transpired at Richs forum as related to JUdyth and Mink agreed with me on that. I did not make the claims you have just now accused me of. Just knock off your false accusations! Barb was not even on Rich's forum at that time and stated she wasn't and didn't know what had transpired. She says she didn't even get involved about Judyth until around 2004. I had been involved long before that.

Dixie

Edited March 23, 2010 by Dixie Dea

[Greg Burnham]

"Mink" ??? LOL

A friendly suggestion to all: Dial it down a bit -- at this rate, we'll soon be assassinating each other!

GO_SECURE

monk

Fetzer..read my first post again! I said exactly what transpired at Richs forum as related to JUdyth and Mink agreed with me on that. I did not make the claims you have just now accused me of. Just knock off your false accusations! Barb was not even on Rich's forum at that time and stated she wasn't and didn't know what had transpired. She says she didn't even get involved about Judyth until around 2004. I had been involved long before that.

Dixie

[Michael Hogan]

When Oswald's death was announced, it was clear that the alleged assassin would take certain secrets

to the grave. At that time most people probably didn't realize just how many enduring secrets that would be.

.......Let me clarify my meaning: I think he went to the grave with a lot of information, but--he may not have been aware of the significance of the majority of it himself.

For sure that must be true. One thing's for certain though; at some point he realized he was being framed for murder.

And however limited his level of knowledge and understanding might have been, those secrets that died with him

would have had the potential to change history as we know it.

[Dixie Dea]

Sorry Monk, (Mink) that was not at all intentional I am an excellent speller, but a poor typist.

Dixie

[Greg Burnham]

When Oswald's death was announced, it was clear that the alleged assassin would take certain secrets

to the grave. At that time most people probably didn't realize just how many enduring secrets that would be.

.......Let me clarify my meaning: I think he went to the grave with a lot of information, but--he may not have been aware of the significance of the majority of it himself.

For sure that must be true. One thing's for certain though; at some point he realized he was being framed for murder.

And however limited his level of knowledge and understanding might have been, those secrets that died with him

would have had the potential to change history as we know it.

Agreed--

[Greg Burnham]

Sorry Monk, (Mink) that was not at all intentional I am an excellent speller, but a poor typist.

Dixie

No worries, Dixie.

[Jack White]

Dear Jim...I must communicate very poorly, because your post grossly misrepresents my viewpoint,

which I have explained many times.

I HAVE NO "MASSIVE BIAS AGAINST JUDYTH". I care nothing at all about this poor woman, who

obviously is a victim of some covert operation which she does not fully understand. I DO care if

some things she says are untrue.

I have only reported what appear to be things in her various stories which seem to be untrue.

I have only reported my memory of things that happened on the DellaRosa forum some ten

years ago, after stating that my memory of that long ago may be faulty.

You are shooting the messenger here. I am telling what I believe happened. I am certain

that much of it is based in truth as opposed to JVB later revisions. I stand with Mary Ferrell,

Rich DellaRosa and others who found her story wanting. It is NOT Judyth bashing to study the

information she offers and form opinions about it.

Because of our LONG TIME FRIENDSHIP I would hope you would withdraw your MASSIVE BIAS

characterization. It is grossly untrue. I only seek truth. I wish the best for this poor woman,

who has suffered much. I seek to clear LHO. I do it the traditional way. She seeks to clear LHO,

but in a truly bizarre manner. She and I have a common goal, but her approach hinders the

search for truth.

Warm regards,

Jack

Jack,

I'm very troubled by your incessant repetition of points that have long since been resolved. If Judyth and Monk and I have all explained to you had she was NOT "booted" but "resigned", why is that too difficult for you to accept? And listening to your laundry list of mistakes you allege she has made in her story, when her rebuttals are more convincing than your accounts, I am VERY troubled that your massive bias against her feeds your posts and leads to distortions in your all-too-fallible memory.

You want to discount that she and Lee were romantically involved, but don't you understand that, unless she had been on very personal terms with Lee, she almost certainly would not have learned so much about him? And anyone who suggests that what she knows could have come from books is committing a greater fantasy than those of which she has been accused. I have been dealing with her very extensively involving many exchanges and, in my opinion, there is no way she could be faking this!

And while, when you first encountered my psy ops expert's opinions about why she was being harassed, you said that you found that more reasonable than anything else that might explain it, since then you have turned a deaf ear to everything she has had to say on this forum. I know you think I am committing some kind of gross blunder, but, at this point in time, I am convinced that she is "the real deal" and that most of the attacks upon her from the past were not warranted.

I am not alone in this assessment, as you know, since Nigel Turner, Jim Marrs, Edward Haslam, Wim Dankbaar, and others unnamed come out on her side, too. I suggest that you consider the possibility that Judyth posed such a threat, once she decided she could no longer remain silent, that massive efforts have been exerted in repeated attempts to discredit her, including planting false stories attributed to her that have subsequently been used against her.

You have observed--more than once--that perhaps the right approach is to study her book when it appears, but of course you aren't waiting. My best guess is that you are wary of Judyth because you believe that her account has the potential to undermine the "Harvey & Lee" scenario to which you are committed. Well, I have explained--several times now--why her knowledge of the man she knew as "Lee" in New Orleans does not necessarily conflict with "the two Oswalds", unless, of course, it turns out that "the second Oswald" was concocted out of a rather varied assortment of impersonators across time, where the creation of false documentary records has been mistaken for a single person living a parallel life.

You have strong opinions about this, while I do not. But unless you doubt there was "a second Oswald", why become apoplectic about the man that Judyth appears to have known in New Orleans? If she really were a flake, a fake, or a phony, then why should you or anyone else be so concerned about her? The big picture, in my view, makes no sense at all unless there is a great deal more truth to what she has to say than you are willing to allow. And, with virtually every exchange on this forum, I become more and more convinced that she is right and that most of her critics are wrong, not in every detail, of course-since I cannot imagine how anyone could reconstruct any significant portion of their lives without some shortcomings or failings--but in its general features and, with respect to its crucial aspects.

When you and Dixie and Barb cannot even recollect accurately what happened on Rich's forum during the past ten years, for example, and are unwilling to even admit that Judyth resigned from the forum after confronting massive hostility, then I despair of the claims that your charges against her carry any weight. You are a dear friend, Jack, and I do not want to rupture our friendship, but the weight of the evidence available to me places me on her side of this divide, not on yours. Too many of your arguments depend upon your presumptions about making phone calls and the like, to cite a small example, where you don't appear to know the facts.

Please grant Judyth a modicum of respect and place less emphasis upon your fallible memory and appeals to what is or is not plausible to you. The bottom line is that, but for her personal relationship, she would not have known so much about him, where she seems to know more than anyone else on this forum. You should care about their personal relationship, since, as I see it, that was the framework for their interaction and for placing her in the position to observe and learn so much about him. I don't expect this post to resolve our differences, but I wanted to explain to you my point of view.

Jim

Thanks, Dixie...I was unaware that Harry published a book about JVB. I have not kept up

with any of her tales since she left Rich's forum. I am not interested in her romance.

Jack

Jack....Judyth already did have her long awaited, first book published. In fact, it was in two volums, one of which contained all of her Endnotes....which were numerous. Harry Livingstone published it through a print to read company. Sometimes that is the only way to do so. I did obtain the copies, but then she stopped the publication, becaus eit did not turn out as she had hoped. There again, there are descrepencies as to her reason and with Martin Shacklefords reasons. So this upcoming book is actually her second book. There were numerous inconsistencies from her forum post claims and in her first book.

Dixie

[Jack White]

I believe the "Memorandum to McCone" has to be faked (purpose unknown).

It is unbelievable that anyone would write such a SMOKING GUN, or that

the recipient would allow it to survive.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dixie,

Tell me if I'm wrong, but my presumption is that the sentence of mine

that has (at least mildly) infuriated you is this, namely: "When you and

Dixie and Barb cannot even recollect accurately what happened on Rich's

forum during the past ten years, for example, and are unwilling to even

admit that Judyth resigned from the forum after confronting massive

hostility, then I despair of the claims that your charges against her carry

any weight." Tell me if I'm wrong, because that is what I shall discuss.

My point is not that you individually might not be right in your opinions

but that three three of you, taken as a group, appear to have opinions

that are either inconsistent or else provably wrong. My argument is an

easy one to state: Since Jack believes that Judyth was booted from the

forum, either you and Barb agree with him or you do not. If you do not,

then your views collectively are inconsistent and cannot all be true. But

if you do agree, then your views are provably false. How can I prove it?

If you all agree, you must agree that Judyth was booted from the forum,

since Jack has made no bones about it. But it is provable that she was

NOT booted from the forum. So either you agree on this point or you do

not. If you do not, then your views as a group are inconsistent and can't

all be true together. But if you are all consistent, then, since Jack claims

that Judyth was given the boot, you must all hold the same opinion, which

however, is provably false. And the proof I offer is an email from Rich:

On Sun, 4 Jul 2004 02:43:59 -0400, Judyth Baker wrote

(in article <cc50d850.0407032243.4e65b...@posting.google.com>):

> Dear Mr. DellaRosa:

> You wrote:

>

> I had no bias toward Judyth. I allowed her ample time to tell her

> story and provide her evidence.

>

> If, sir, you had no bias toward me, why did you state that I was

> perhaps a woman for hire?

>

> You are beholden to your benefactor. Let's leave it at that, OK?

<snip>

> I deleted your posts which contained nothing of interest to the forum.

> 98% of the forum believe LHO to be innocent of killing JFK. They didn't wish to

> continue to read your claims of something they already knew. They wanted

> more -- and -- never got it.

[NOTE FROM JVB: I SENT FILES WHICH DELLA ROSA WOULD NOT POST]

> When people resign or are booted for cause, it

> was routine to delete all their posts...

>

>I asked for more time because I was in and out of the

>hospital. I had short term memory problems. I asked you to have

>patience. Instead, you ersased (sic) everything.

>

>You resigned. As for being in and out of the hospital you apparently felt

>fine enough to travel to New orleans and film Nigel Turner's comedic

>contribution to THWKK.

If the point that I am making here is not apparent, let me know. Q.E.D.

From Judyth to Dixie via Fetzer........what are you talking about? I didn't say anything that you didn't just say, in a different way. I am aware of the doings about your first book I have your words and then there is also Martins words (who was always one of your biggest supporters) ....I have no idea who is or isn't correct. What all Martin has to say, can be found at McAdams archives discussion group and I am not going to try and hunt it all down and don't want to repeat all that Martin had to say because I don't like to carry things from one forum to another. Others can look it up, if interested.

Citations! You would be surprised at what all I have accumulated, including the Timeline that you and Rich attermpted over some time. And do not pull that game on me that Barb and I are aligned to create havoc on you! I figure there is a good chance we would both tell each other (or anyone else for that matter) where to go if we even made such a suggestion to each other. In the first place, I hardly even know Barb and we do not run in the same circle at all....and even our JFK interests are in quite different areas, as far as I can tell. I can never figure out why it is thought some of us are too ignorant to be able to form our own opinions iwthout anyones help or being a part of some group. That is just some more of the psych. intimidation. I do not care what anyone else does or doesn't believe...none of my business. I only care what I think!! In addition, I have been known to change my views in some areas, through the years and have always said that if I should change my mind about your claims, I would freely admit it. However, when you just make up stuff..like saying Barb and I are involved on this together...that is also quite telling. I doubt that anyone except you and Fetzer would even think such things or make such accusations. Its true that I tend to write long messages, including most of my emails. I tend to forget it is just a simple email and think I am writing a book...but then you do the same thing. That is just the way we are!

I was hoping you would accept that I had nothing personal against you. I have mentioned before, that I have had clients who I also couldn't believe, but still I did like them very much. I really don't want to continue trying to antagonize each other!!!

Dixie

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO GREG BURNHAM:

[NOTE: Why would anyone be surprised if Judyth's recollections involve a romanticized image of of Oswald? The

only source of which I am aware for the information that Lee Harvey Oswald was dyslexic is Judyth Vary Baker.]

ABOUT LEE'S WISDOM AND EXPERIENCE FOR HIS AGE

It is obvious that Lee had his flaws and faults. I do not dwell on them as much as others because I have tried to present the other side of the coin.

1) Lee did not use much Russian in the USSR...Yet he was fluent....And Marina was impressed with his speaking abilities...But when he arrived, he actually pulled it off that he knew very little, and they believed him....

This is intelligent behaviour for a young man still 19 when entering Russia.

2) Listen to Lee's live radio interviews where he mentions the economic systems of Latin American countries, and elsewhere, and he is one against three in that 'debate' -- He is 23 at the time and is not enrolled in college...His common environment is theoretically in Reily's coffee plant, oiling machines...But please listen to him....

3) Ignore the dyslexia and look at his word choices -- including, "I emphatically deny these charges!" -- a word choice under pressure, exhaustion and having been beaten -- A mature choice of words for one so young....

4) Propaganda goes far to hide the truth, but glimmers of his intelligence still survive -- His favourite opera was "Pikova Dama"... Wait a minute -- what is y-o-u-r favourite opera, Greg? Jim? Pamela?

His favorite music? Classical music.

His favorite game? When others of his age and income level are playing poker, his favorite game is chess.

His favorite reading? Karl Marx, John Locke, Russian classics, 1984, science fiction

His favourite poet? Pushkin. Ever read Pushkin?

Have you read Oswald's "Atheian System"? Atheian means divested of any connections to religions...If rewritten free of dyslexian misspellings, it's a good bit of writing about an ideal political system rejecting both communism and capitalism... Not bad for a 23 year old.

5) His mother stated he taught himself to read before he started school.

6) You can't judge his intelligence by letters he was asked to write. They were not meant to reflect a brilliance that might have made him look suspicious to the communist party, etc.

So much 'bad' has been written about Lee that it has pretty well sifted down to everybody who did not know him. I presented a paper to the Popular Culture Association some years back -- after which my university forbade me to go to any more conventions or publish any more papers. I was 'punished' for writing it. But I intend to present a distillation of it to those forums which would allow it. Along with Lee's facility for Russian, his selection of books, when properly explained, bespeaks of an inquiring and intelligent mind.

Why is this important to know? Because Oswald knew more than you think about what was going on. The problem was, he didn't find out in time to be able to get out of it. It is healthy to debate these things without rancour. I also have to say that there were a lot of things we did not know. No doubt of that. Hindsight is so nice!

JVB

Cogent thoughts that go to the heart of the matter, in my opinion.

When Oswald's death was announced, it was clear that the alleged assassin would take certain secrets

to the grave. At that time most people probably didn't realize just how many enduring secrets that would be.

Thanks, Mike. I find it interesting that we sometimes forget (or neglect to remember) the obvious significance of this man's age: He was ONLY 24 years old! Imagine that...it was one of us? Hard to imagine--reliving my 24th year in his shoes or even in my own shoes for that matter! Yet, he--of such limited life experience--we presume went to the grave with extraordinary secrets about the crime of the century! Or, at least that's what we're being asked to believe... Let me clarify my meaning: I think he went to the grave with a lot of information, but--he may not have been aware of the significance of the majority of it himself. This is in no way "proof" of my assertion-- but, he was ONLY 24 -- I don't think that he or Judyth knew at that tender age (as HEMMING would say): "xxxx from shinola" -- And, who among us would have? Yet, Judyth paints an unrealistic picture of his abilities, IMO. His exceptional level of "wisdom" (as reported by her) is inconsistent with his years of life experience and with his poor judgment. --I'm just thinking out loud, now--

GO_SECURE

monk

[Dixie Dea]

Fetzer..Yes I dispute you! Go back and re-read Post #529..or else post where I said what you are claiming. Stop making conflict that is not there.

Dixie

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack, I dealt with this issue in post #548, which now appears on page 37.

I believe the "Memorandum to McCone" has to be faked (purpose unknown).

It is unbelievable that anyone would write such a SMOKING GUN, or that

the recipient would allow it to survive.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Yes, I have read it, and it confirms my belief that you and Jack hold different views about whether or not

Judyth was banned from the forum or resigned. I think you have mistakenly supposed I was talking about

each of you as individuals when I am not. Thus, Jack says she was banned, but you say that she resigned:

I recall things somewhat different too Jack. First of all, this was in year 2000. I don't believe that Judyth was

banned at all. I think she quit that forum on her own because she got frustrated with all of us critics. . . . . I

don't recall Judyth ever being abusive...other things, but not abusive. It was more like we were abusive to her!

Now the point I was making is that you, Barb, and Jack together do not even hold positions where they could all

be true together. He says Judyth was banned. You say she resigned. Rich's email supports you. But it remains

the case the the opinions the three of you hold cannot all be true at the same time, which also proves my point.

You are drawing on your recollections about events that occurred during the past decade. The fact that you are

not even able to agree on whether or not she was banned or resigned causes me to despair over the weight we

should give to your opinions, which either cannot all be true together or else are provably false! Do you get it?

Fetzer..Yes I dispute you! Go back and re-read Post #529..or else post where I said what you are claiming. Stop making conflict that is not there.

Dixie

[Kathleen Collins]

Rich did have moderators. I was one of them. One night I screwed up by losing my temper -- in the category I was supposed to be moderating. My second expulsion from there. People thought I was an "agent provocateur." He called me the Manchurian Candidate. I'll always miss Rich.

Kathy C

Rich only had moderators for a very brief time. He decided to start that on a "trial" basis...and later decided against it. It wasn't just you, Kathy--he discontinued a moderated forum in general, as he thought it had been running fine (even better) before he had moderators.

I was never technically a "moderator" --and didn't want to be. But, without citing details, you were banned for an accumulation of reasons. Actually, that's an over-statement. There was "Judyth bashing" reasons (to which Rich uncharacteristically turned a blind eye at first) and losing your temper as you stated on a different topic that you were moderating.

Hey, it's ancient history now. I'm glad you're here. Thanks for identifying yourself--I really wasn't talking about Barb. )

I miss Rich, too.

GO_SECURE

monk

Mink, I only "bashed" Judyth when I was new and heard that she was claiming she had a love affair with Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald is not a guy I'd want to wake up to. I thought it funny. The strangest website I'd ever seen was Judyth's. A large photo of Oswald's mug shot and Judyth showing her paintings and telling about her love for Oswald. Anyway, you called me out on it.

I don't think that Judyth recalls how I would write to her and ask her why she couldn't tell Rich's Forum more than she did, always complaining she was sick. We had a brief coorespondance. She told me she wasn't going to be around for sometime, but she told me an email address where I could write to her and she said she would always respond. That never happened, Mink. And as you know, neither Oswald nor Judyth did anything to stop the assassination. Two people could have stopped the Kennedy Assassination but didn't. The Secret Service didn't either.

Furthermore, Mink, you know I believe in Harvey and Lee. Harvey was shot by Ruby. Lee later that day wound up at Redbird Airport: Destination Unknown -- with Plumlee?

Kathy C

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

I esteem you beyond words. But my commitment to truth overrides my loyalty to my friends.

Your bias against Judyth has been palpable from the beginning. You right off the bat asserted

that she was a mental case. Then you offered eight or ten reasons her story was false, none

of which survived critical scrutiny. Now you go on and on about phone call Lee could not have

made because he could not have paid for them. But they were using a free service accessed by

the mafia. I have always considered you to be a paragon of intellectual virtue and I have stood

with you in many debates when I was convinced your were right. In this case, I am sorry to say,

I am not only not convinced you are right but I am convinced you are wrong. I cannot take back

an assertion for which there so much obvious evidence. Your massive bias against Judyth, in my

view, is beyond dispute. I wish you could see it, but it must be painfully apparent to the rest of us.

Warm regards,

Jim

Dear Jim...I must communicate very poorly, because your post grossly misrepresents my viewpoint,

which I have explained many times.

I HAVE NO "MASSIVE BIAS AGAINST JUDYTH". I care nothing at all about this poor woman, who

obviously is a victim of some covert operation which she does not fully understand. I DO care if

some things she says are untrue.

I have only reported what appear to be things in her various stories which seem to be untrue.

I have only reported my memory of things that happened on the DellaRosa forum some ten

years ago, after stating that my memory of that long ago may be faulty.

You are shooting the messenger here. I am telling what I believe happened. I am certain

that much of it is based in truth as opposed to JVB later revisions. I stand with Mary Ferrell,

Rich DellaRosa and others who found her story wanting. It is NOT Judyth bashing to study the

information she offers and form opinions about it.

Because of our LONG TIME FRIENDSHIP I would hope you would withdraw your MASSIVE BIAS

characterization. It is grossly untrue. I only seek truth. I wish the best for this poor woman,

who has suffered much. I seek to clear LHO. I do it the traditional way. She seeks to clear LHO,

but in a truly bizarre manner. She and I have a common goal, but her approach hinders the

search for truth.

Warm regards,

Jack

Jack,

I'm very troubled by your incessant repetition of points that have long since been resolved. If Judyth and Monk and I have all explained to you had she was NOT "booted" but "resigned", why is that too difficult for you to accept? And listening to your laundry list of mistakes you allege she has made in her story, when her rebuttals are more convincing than your accounts, I am VERY troubled that your massive bias against her feeds your posts and leads to distortions in your all-too-fallible memory.

You want to discount that she and Lee were romantically involved, but don't you understand that, unless she had been on very personal terms with Lee, she almost certainly would not have learned so much about him? And anyone who suggests that what she knows could have come from books is committing a greater fantasy than those of which she has been accused. I have been dealing with her very extensively involving many exchanges and, in my opinion, there is no way she could be faking this!

And while, when you first encountered my psy ops expert's opinions about why she was being harassed, you said that you found that more reasonable than anything else that might explain it, since then you have turned a deaf ear to everything she has had to say on this forum. I know you think I am committing some kind of gross blunder, but, at this point in time, I am convinced that she is "the real deal" and that most of the attacks upon her from the past were not warranted.

I am not alone in this assessment, as you know, since Nigel Turner, Jim Marrs, Edward Haslam, Wim Dankbaar, and others unnamed come out on her side, too. I suggest that you consider the possibility that Judyth posed such a threat, once she decided she could no longer remain silent, that massive efforts have been exerted in repeated attempts to discredit her, including planting false stories attributed to her that have subsequently been used against her.

You have observed--more than once--that perhaps the right approach is to study her book when it appears, but of course you aren't waiting. My best guess is that you are wary of Judyth because you believe that her account has the potential to undermine the "Harvey & Lee" scenario to which you are committed. Well, I have explained--several times now--why her knowledge of the man she knew as "Lee" in New Orleans does not necessarily conflict with "the two Oswalds", unless, of course, it turns out that "the second Oswald" was concocted out of a rather varied assortment of impersonators across time, where the creation of false documentary records has been mistaken for a single person living a parallel life.

You have strong opinions about this, while I do not. But unless you doubt there was "a second Oswald", why become apoplectic about the man that Judyth appears to have known in New Orleans? If she really were a flake, a fake, or a phony, then why should you or anyone else be so concerned about her? The big picture, in my view, makes no sense at all unless there is a great deal more truth to what she has to say than you are willing to allow. And, with virtually every exchange on this forum, I become more and more convinced that she is right and that most of her critics are wrong, not in every detail, of course-since I cannot imagine how anyone could reconstruct any significant portion of their lives without some shortcomings or failings--but in its general features and, with respect to its crucial aspects.

When you and Dixie and Barb cannot even recollect accurately what happened on Rich's forum during the past ten years, for example, and are unwilling to even admit that Judyth resigned from the forum after confronting massive hostility, then I despair of the claims that your charges against her carry any weight. You are a dear friend, Jack, and I do not want to rupture our friendship, but the weight of the evidence available to me places me on her side of this divide, not on yours. Too many of your arguments depend upon your presumptions about making phone calls and the like, to cite a small example, where you don't appear to know the facts.

Please grant Judyth a modicum of respect and place less emphasis upon your fallible memory and appeals to what is or is not plausible to you. The bottom line is that, but for her personal relationship, she would not have known so much about him, where she seems to know more than anyone else on this forum. You should care about their personal relationship, since, as I see it, that was the framework for their interaction and for placing her in the position to observe and learn so much about him. I don't expect this post to resolve our differences, but I wanted to explain to you my point of view.

Jim

Thanks, Dixie...I was unaware that Harry published a book about JVB. I have not kept up

with any of her tales since she left Rich's forum. I am not interested in her romance.

Jack

Jack....Judyth already did have her long awaited, first book published. In fact, it was in two volums, one of which contained all of her Endnotes....which were numerous. Harry Livingstone published it through a print to read company. Sometimes that is the only way to do so. I did obtain the copies, but then she stopped the publication, becaus eit did not turn out as she had hoped. There again, there are descrepencies as to her reason and with Martin Shacklefords reasons. So this upcoming book is actually her second book. There were numerous inconsistencies from her forum post claims and in her first book.

Dixie