Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[William Kelly]

If Jim Fetzer's friend Judyth Vary Baker denies being the graduate student Ed Haslam met in New Orleans in the late 60s, and she too had an affair with Oswald, why is anyone surprised that there are two Judyth Vary Bakers?

BK

Edited April 10, 2010 by William Kelly

[David Lifton]

Judyth,

Re your statement concerning my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel Oswald, you write, QUOTE:He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing. UNQUOTE

Judyth, you're a bald faced xxxx, and --as the saying goes--someone should wash your mouth out with soap.

As I have already noted, in a previous (and fairly detailed) post, explaining the full circumstances of my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel, in Austin:

1. Rachel Oswald consented to be interviewed by me, in 1991--an interview that was extremely detailed, ran about two hours; and covered many aspects of what it was like to grow up as the daughter of Lee Oswald. For that privilege, Rachel Oswald was paid about $1500.

2. A year later, HARDCOPY learned about this interview, and wanted to broadcast a small portion--about 5 minutes worth. Rachel was approached, consented, and was paid an additional $2500.

In sum, Rachel was paid a total of about $4,000 (at least, for I do not know the full arrangement) for a five minute broadcast version of her multi-hour interview with me.

In connection with that broadcast (or as a consequence, I do not remember the exact details), Rachel was also flown to Europe for about a week, all expenses paid, to the Netherlands.

Marina Oswald Porter, Rachel's mother, told me that Rachel was very pleased with the two hour 1991 interview, after it occurred.

Her stepfather, Kenneth Porter, told me that she banked the money and it helped accelerate her entry to graduate school. He, too, thanked me personally.

Flashing forward now a full year to the 1992 broadcast: Both Rachel and I were angry at the tasteless manner in which HARDCOPY used the few minutes they were licensed to use.

Returning now to your false charge: whether the show was up to par or not (and it definitely was not) Rachel received about $4,000.

To this day, some 18 years later, I have a signed copy of a release for the entire two hour interview, but only about 5 minutes have ever publicly been used.

As is often the case, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Returning now to your statement: "He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing."

I repeat what I said at the outset of this post: This is a total falsehood, and your continued repetition of this false statement expose you as nothing but a cheap and uninformed xxxx. Further, very time you repeat this, I'm going to post a rebuttal, until you stop lying about it.

For whatever reason, Jim Fetzer insists on believing you, and has invested his self image and reputation in the rubbish you promote.

But I won't stand for your nonsense.

DSL

4/10/10; 2:10 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

P.S. I could care less whether you now say you were referring to "Kan Kun" rather than "Cancun" in your March, 2000 conversation with me. You said "Cancun"--that is quite obvious--but if you can't

be trusted to relate the truth about whether someone was paid $4,000 in fees, for the use of several minutes of a 2 hour filmed interview, and instead promote the fiction they were paid nothing, etc.,

then I have no interest in anything else you have to say, for that incident alone provides an accurate barometer to your utter lack of truthfulness and connection to reality.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bill, since you were displaying extreme hostility toward Judyth as early as post #4, I am not surprised by your flippancy. But I have no idea where you got the idea that the Judyth impersonator--which indicates to me that the agency was already very concerned about neutralizing her--had had sex with Lee Oswald. Where did you come up with this? I would hate to accuse you of being a "fantasist"!

If Jim Fetzer's friend Judyth Vary Baker denies being the graduate student Ed Haslam met in New Orleans in the late 60s, and she too had an affair with Oswald, why is anyone surprised that there are two Judyth Vary Bakers?

BK

Edited April 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[William Kelly]

Bill, since you were displaying extreme hostility toward Judyth as early as post #4, I am not surprised by your flippancy. But I have no idea where you got the idea that the Judyth impersonator--which indicates to me that the agency was already very concerned about neutralizing her--had had sex with Lee Oswald. Where did you come up with this? I would hate to accuse you of being a "fantasist"!

If Jim Fetzer's friend Judyth Vary Baker denies being the graduate student Ed Haslam met in New Orleans in the late 60s, and she too had an affair with Oswald, why is anyone surprised that there are two Judyth Vary Bakers?

BK

Excuse me, I stand corrected, the Judyth Vary Baker Ed Haslam knew in New Orleans only claimed to have known Oswald, not to have had an affair with him.

Since your friend JVB denies being this women, then there must be two JVBs, right?

And I admire your loyalty to her since apparently even her family has abandoned her over this issue.

BK

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

While we both know that our different takes on Judyth has created tension in our (your and my) relationship, I would

observe that four conditions must be satisfied for an assertion A to qualify as a lie: one party (1) must assert A to be

the case, (2) when A is not the case, (3) yet the party is still asserting A deliberately, even though s/he knows that A is

false, and (4) with the intention to deceive their audience. Neither of you trusts the other, even remotely, where each

of you has "good reasons". But if Judyth sincerely believes what she has said, then that assertion does not satisfy the

third condition for properly qualifying as a lie. The word is used too freely within this community, where the fact that

someone is making an assertion that another party regards as false does not mean that the first party is committing a

lie. Based upon my interaction with Judyth, which has been overwhelmingly greater than your own, I have found her

to be painstakingly committed to getting things right, where she has corrected my own understanding on specific points

on more than one occasion. Indeed, I have found her commitment to "getting things right" extremely persuasive about

her integrity and truthfulness. I regard her as extremely scrupulous and therefore I will be very surprised if she has, in

fact, committed a lie. I regard the prospect that she was acting on a false belief as enormously more likely than that

she was deliberately distorting the truth, if, as you claim, she has asserted something that is actually false. So I will be

certain that she responds to this post as promptly as she can and, if she's made a mistake, ask her to apologize to you.

By the same token, however, if she sincerely believed what she was saying, you should extend an apology to her. OK?

Jim

Judyth,

Re your statement concerning my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel Oswald, you write, QUOTE:He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing. UNQUOTE

Judyth, you're a bald faced xxxx, and --as the saying goes--someone should wash your mouth out with soap.

As I have already noted, in a previous (and fairly detailed) post, explaining the full circumstances of my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel, in Austin:

1. Rachel Oswald consented to be interviewed by me, in 1991--an interview that was extremely detailed, ran about two hours; and covered many aspects of what it was like to grow up as the daughter of Lee Oswald. For that privilege, Rachel Oswald was paid about $1500.

2. A year later, HARDCOPY learned about this interview, and wanted to broadcast a small portion--about 5 minutes worth. Rachel was approached, consented, and was paid an additional $2500.

In sum, Rachel was paid a total of about $4,000 (at least, for I do not know the full arrangement) for a five minute broadcast version of her multi-hour interview with me.

In connection with that broadcast (or as a consequence, I do not remember the exact details), Rachel was also flown to Europe for about a week, all expenses paid, to the Netherlands.

Marina Oswald Porter, Rachel's mother, told me that Rachel was very pleased with the two hour 1991 interview, after it occurred.

Her stepfather, Kenneth Porter, told me that she banked the money and it helped accelerate her entry to graduate school. He, too, thanked me personally.

Flashing forward now a full year to the 1992 broadcast: Both Rachel and I were angry at the tasteless manner in which HARDCOPY used the few minutes they were licensed to use.

Returning now to your false charge: whether the show was up to par or not (and it definitely was not) Rachel received about $4,000.

To this day, some 18 years later, I have a signed copy of a release for the entire two hour interview, but only about 5 minutes have ever publicly been used.

As is often the case, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Returning now to your statement: "He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing."

I repeat what I said at the outset of this post: This is a total falsehood, and your continued repetition of this false statement expose you as nothing but a cheap and uninformed xxxx. Further, very time you repeat this, I'm going to post a rebuttal, until you stop lying about it.

For whatever reason, Jim Fetzer insists on believing you, and has invested his self image and reputation in the rubbish you promote.

But I won't stand for your nonsense.

DSL

4/10/10; 2:10 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

P.S. I could care less whether you now say you were referring to "Kan Kun" rather than "Cancun" in your March, 2000 conversation with me. You said "Cancun"--that is quite obvious--but if you can't

be trusted to relate the truth about whether someone was paid $4,000 in fees, for the use of several minutes of a 2 hour filmed interview, and instead promote the fiction they were paid nothing, etc.,

then I have no interest in anything else you have to say, for that incident alone provides an accurate barometer to your utter lack of truthfulness and connection to reality.

Edited April 11, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

While we both know that our different takes on Judyth has created tension in our (your and my) relationship, I would

observe that four conditions must be satisfied for an assertion A to qualify as a lie: one party (1) must assert A to be

the case, (2) when A is not the case, (3) yet the party is still asserting A deliberately, even though s/he knows that A is

false, and (4) with the intention to deceive their audience. Neither of you trusts the other, even remotely, where each

of you has "good reasons". But if Judyth sincerely believes what she has said, then that assertion does not satisfy the

third condition for properly qualifying as a lie. The word is used too freely within this community, where the fact that

someone is making an assertion that another party regards as false does not mean that the first party is committing a

lie. Based upon my interaction with Judyth, which has been overwhelmingly greater than your own, I have found her

to be painstakingly committed to getting things right, where she has corrected my own understanding on specific points

on more than one occasion. Indeed, I have found her commitment to "getting things right" extremely persuasive about

her integrity and truthfulness. I regard her as extremely scrupulous and therefore I will be very surprised if she has, in

fact, committed a lie. I regard the prospect that she was acting on a false belief as enormously more likely than that

she was deliberately distorting the truth, if, as you claim, she has asserted something that is actually false. So I will be

certain that she responds to this post as promptly as she can and, if she's made a mistake, ask her to apologize to you.

By the same token, however, if she sincerely believed what she was saying, you should extend an apology to her. OK?

Jim

Judyth,

Re your statement concerning my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel Oswald, you write, QUOTE:He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing. UNQUOTE

Judyth, you're a bald faced xxxx, and --as the saying goes--someone should wash your mouth out with soap.

As I have already noted, in a previous (and fairly detailed) post, explaining the full circumstances of my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel, in Austin:

1. Rachel Oswald consented to be interviewed by me, in 1991--an interview that was extremely detailed, ran about two hours; and covered many aspects of what it was like to grow up as the daughter of Lee Oswald. For that privilege, Rachel Oswald was paid about $1500.

2. A year later, HARDCOPY learned about this interview, and wanted to broadcast a small portion--about 5 minutes worth. Rachel was approached, consented, and was paid an additional $2500.

In sum, Rachel was paid a total of about $4,000 (at least, for I do not know the full arrangement) for a five minute broadcast version of her multi-hour interview with me.

In connection with that broadcast (or as a consequence, I do not remember the exact details), Rachel was also flown to Europe for about a week, all expenses paid, to the Netherlands.

Marina Oswald Porter, Rachel's mother, told me that Rachel was very pleased with the two hour 1991 interview, after it occurred.

Her stepfather, Kenneth Porter, told me that she banked the money and it helped accelerate her entry to graduate school. He, too, thanked me personally.

Flashing forward now a full year to the 1992 broadcast: Both Rachel and I were angry at the tasteless manner in which HARDCOPY used the few minutes they were licensed to use.

Returning now to your false charge: whether the show was up to par or not (and it definitely was not) Rachel received about $4,000.

To this day, some 18 years later, I have a signed copy of a release for the entire two hour interview, but only about 5 minutes have ever publicly been used.

As is often the case, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Returning now to your statement: "He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing."

I repeat what I said at the outset of this post: This is a total falsehood, and your continued repetition of this false statement expose you as nothing but a cheap and uninformed xxxx. Further, very time you repeat this, I'm going to post a rebuttal, until you stop lying about it.

For whatever reason, Jim Fetzer insists on believing you, and has invested his self image and reputation in the rubbish you promote.

But I won't stand for your nonsense.

DSL

4/10/10; 2:10 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

P.S. I could care less whether you now say you were referring to "Kan Kun" rather than "Cancun" in your March, 2000 conversation with me. You said "Cancun"--that is quite obvious--but if you can't

be trusted to relate the truth about whether someone was paid $4,000 in fees, for the use of several minutes of a 2 hour filmed interview, and instead promote the fiction they were paid nothing, etc.,

then I have no interest in anything else you have to say, for that incident alone provides an accurate barometer to your utter lack of truthfulness and connection to reality.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks for the clarification. Well, I appear to be having more communication with her than some members of her family. I think the problem began long ago when, in an effort to protect them from things she knew, she did not confide in them for what she took to be "good reasons". It looks to me as though that induced a degree of unjustified mistrust, where she thought she was going the right thing, but probably over the long run she was wrong, since it has led to disaffection from part of her family. Of course, she could be right that it might have placed them in harm's way, too. So I believe she was in a moral dilemma where, no matter what she decided to do--confide or not confide--it had risky consequences. She tried to protect them, which, I think, is what most mothers would do.

Bill, since you were displaying extreme hostility toward Judyth as early as post #4, I am not surprised by your flippancy. But I have no idea where you got the idea that the Judyth impersonator--which indicates to me that the agency was already very concerned about neutralizing her--had had sex with Lee Oswald. Where did you come up with this? I would hate to accuse you of being a "fantasist"!

If Jim Fetzer's friend Judyth Vary Baker denies being the graduate student Ed Haslam met in New Orleans in the late 60s, and she too had an affair with Oswald, why is anyone surprised that there are two Judyth Vary Bakers?

BK

Excuse me, I stand corrected, the Judyth Vary Baker Ed Haslam knew in New Orleans only claimed to have known Oswald, not to have had an affair with him.

Since your friend JVB denies being this women, then there must be two JVBs, right?

And I admire your loyalty to her since apparently even her family has abandoned her over this issue.

BK

Edited April 11, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

I've been reading posts on the Judyth topic for years as co-moderator of alt.assassination.jfk.

This thread is just another "episode" in the ongoing saga. I suppose it is a more interesting topic if one is a participant (and a sharpshooter with the facts such as Barb) and actively doing some legwork to ferret out the facts. As a longtime lurker -- but an attentive one through the posting bouts involving Shackleford, Barb J, Pamela and a host of others -- I have yet to be the least impressed by Judyth's tale. At least The Young and The Restless moves forward in its plot development and thus tries to prolong the viewer's devotion to the characters. This soap opera, on the other hand, is replete with slightly altered replays and subject to re-colorization.

Judyth is an aquired taste; some people get her, some people don't. You seem to be one who doesn't. That's fine.

The 'soap opera' that you reference, though, works better as a description of the forces arrayed against Judyth's trying to come forward, rather than simply Judyth herself. But I don't know of a soap with a heroine who has had to face betrayal and libel at every level and is still moving forward with kindness and grace.

[Jack White]

I am baffled about how an UNAUTHORIZED VERSION could be published by Livingstone.

Did Harry just make up stuff and write FICTION? How and why did the story change?

What did Harry have wrong? What was his source? What portion of Harry's version was

objectionable, and where did it originate? How did Harry get the original manuscript

which he then corrupted? I find this all very strange.

Jack

JUDYTH REPLIES TO A REASONABLE QUESTION FROM MICHAEL HOGAN

NOTE: Judyth apparently caught something that I had missed, namely: what she takes

to have been a "very reasonable question" concerning the book published by Harrison

Livingstone. It completely slipped by me, so I am pleased to be able to publish Judyth's

response and extend an apology to Michael for my utter failure to recognize the question.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

About the very reasonable question that has been broached, concerning the book, published by

Harrison Livingstone behind my back, which was an unauhorized edition due to many flaws and

problems, and why Ed Haslam could mention that my book was withdrawn without knowing that

it was an unauthorized book:

Here is how that happened:

I sent the press release out about the book at the end of July, 2006 to book publishers and some

press members, but did not want Martin Shackelford to be attacked by John McAdams and his crew:

Shackelford is a good researcher who has consistently defended me, and has for his efforts been

mercilessly vilified on McAdams' newsgroup.

So I didn't speak to researchers about why I forced Trafford to stop the printing of my book as

published by Harrison Livingstone. McAdams' clones were saying I got it printed myself at Kinko's.

That's their style.

It should be noted that Livingsone would not have personally published this book unless he thought

it was important. However, we argued over his editing job and the fact that I was not allowed to see

the final galleys: Livingsone is known to be a difficult man to work with.

Haslam heard about the book. I told him I stopped publication of the book, but I had been sent some

copies by Shackelford. I then sent him a copy. But I encountered a dilemma when it came to talking

about the book's problems to Haslam.

Shackelford and Livingstone wanted the true text to get into print as quickly as possible because some

thieves stole an unedited version of a book Dr. Platzman wrote, based on my emails. A lot was missing,

and some errors. Now it was in the hands of thieves. (They would end up sending it to people such as

McAdams, who now quote from this flawed version.)

Speed was more important to them than a good editing job, in my opinion. (Trine Day, this time, is doing

a good job.) In the end, Livingstone simply took it.

Martin preferred to support his old friend, to make a long story short.

I did not want to interfere, however, in any interviewng processes going on between Haslam and Shackelford.

Shackelford's treatment of me had nothing to do with his massive knowledge of the case. In addition, I did not

know Haslam was writing another book. It came as a complete surprise, or otherwise I would have warned

him about the unauthorized status of the book.

Because he kept asking questions, I knew that inaccuracies in the book of concern did not affect what Haslam

learned from me. I never told Haslam why I withdrew the book, because I did not want him to have any

prejudice against Mr. Shackelford.

My personal feelings were not as important as Shackelford's input to Haslam.

Shackelford is a fine researcher, whose knowledge of me and my history was largely accurate.

Shackelford occasionally had some odd misunderstandings: once he wrote that I had not been a Catholic. He

had never examined my early life, as Haslam did.

He was concerned only with the story of Oswald and me. Each researcher has his or her own style.

I hope this explains why I did not bring up why the book was withdrawn to Haslam. I don't think he ever knew

that Shackelford was involved in the matter. I don't know.

JVB

When I read this latest post, I picked up my copy and noticed that, while Michael

said that he had reread the appendix, "Judyth's Story", but apparently he ignored Chapter

13, The Witness, which he does not mention. I question the competence

of someone who claims to have read a book but forgets the key chapter in

relation to Judyth. (emphasis mine) It discusses "60 Minutes" enthusiasm for featuring her

on one of its programs, where it spend more time and money on her than

on any other prospective feature. So Michael might want to reread it, too.

More than half my post dealt with the JVB Haslam said he encountered in 1972.

I quoted Haslam directly from Chapter 13. I describe Haslam's story as he wrote it.

All from Chapter 13. What's wrong with you, Jim?

Why do you think Haslam (living in New Orlean during the middle of the Garrison investigation)

showed so little interest in meeting with someone that said she knew Lee Harvey Oswald?

Why do you think Haslam made no mention of Baker's book being unauthorized by her,

when his book came out a year after hers did?

Your avoidance of those two elementary issues shows that, contrary to your words much

earlier in this thread, you have no interest in a fair discussion on the subject of JVB.

You'd rather deflect posts by questioning motives or insulting the intelligence of the poster.

You're not really in an advantageous position to question other people's competence

when it comes to this subject. You didn't make one reply of substance in regard to my

original post. Not one.

You can rectify that by giving your take on my two questions above. You might want to

read Chapter 13 before answering.

Why don't you address your false and misleading use of the term "evasive?"

I can answer for you. When you are wrong, you prefer insults over facts. You prefer insinuations

and innuendo about others' competence over substance. You love to give advice and seldom take any.

You are on the right side of many issues. It's a shame. You could do so much better.

[Jack White]

Is JVB claiming that ALLAN EAGLESHAM of New York is one of her supporters?

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO DAVID LIFTON AND TO THE BLIZZARD OF POSTS

NOTE: David Lifton and I have had some rather heated exchanges about Judyth and the recording

he made of his conversation with her. I have asked him to send me a cassette copy, which would

enable me to listen to it to determine for myself whether it has been edited and whether or not it is

reasonable to suppose that he could have discerned some difference in the pronunciation of "Kan

Kun" as opposed to "Cancun", which I submit is virtually impossible. At that point in time, I doubt

that David was aware that there was a Kankun as opposed to a Cancun, which, for me, undermines

his credibility in this exchange. In fact, I no longer regard any of his views about Judyth as credible.

Judyth, it becomes clear, has been there before and detects patterns to the attacks occurring here.

Lifton referred to me as Judyth's "manager", but that is not my role. I am facilitating her posting.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Dear Jim--I regret more than you will ever know any ruptures of friendships...In my own family, I

have precious children who no longer speak to me over this. It is a burden that is almost unbearable.

History and what happens to a country that is almost overwhelmed by an oligarchy running things after

a violent Coup upon a sitting President, and active in front of and behind the scenes--these facts are

more important than our feelings.

We must ever keep before us that if Oswald had been a 'lone nut'--this man surrounded by people in

almost every photograph of him ever taken outside of official photos--we must keep before us that

this 'lone nut'--had he alone killed the president--would not have generated any "national security"

excuses for why so many files have been hidden, lost, destroyed, altered and redacted. The power

of the cabal is evident when one inspects the overwhelming evidence tha Oswald is innocent, versus

the money, power and low standards (they lie all the time) of the media and the supporters of the

Warren Commission.

We have killed so many people and wrecked our country and its dreams, led by these vicious people

and their fawning, well-paid servants.

As I think you can see, neither person who posted on this page seems to have read the thread carefully.

They congratulate Barb about her showing that some enclosures with a letter from Kennedy's personal

assistant (not a secretary)--the same man who was in charge, along with Shriver, of arranging Kennedy's

funeral--from the White House--were not described accurately. What Barb does not understand is that

items were enclosed that were not on the list. It was quite a lengthy list, by the way. I received a large

package from the White House--not just a regular envelope. Barb assumes that the list of enclosures

was complete. I assure you it was not.

For example, I have a photograph of President Kennedy that was enclosed, and it is not on the list.

Ralph Dungan was a special assistant. Despite what Barb has written, he did not crank out boilerplate

letters to JFK fans, as she implies, though I have been told tha Dungan himself did write letters to

ordinary individuals when the President read certain letters and asked him to respond for him. I thus

believe the President may have personally read my letter, though of course I cannot prove it. So I

was very pleased to hear from Ralph Dungan.

Below is a list showing that receiving a Dungan letter was not receiving a boilerplate mass-produced

response, as Barb J tried to say:

1. DUNGAN WRITES TO NEHRU, PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA, IN REPLY TO NEHRU'S LETTER TO PRESIDENT KENNEDY:

RALPH A. DUNGAN THE WHITE HOUSE Subject: Reply to Prime Minister Nehru's letter of February 20 to the President.

2. Dungan, as Kennedy's special advisor on Latin American affairs, write JFK memos about cover operations. Note this:

"Memo, Ralph A. Dungan to President Kennedy, “Covert Operations in Cuba... "

3. Dungan arranged positions in Kennedy's government:

"...After the election, Ralph Dungan asked [Peterson] what position she wanted. Because of her interest in working

women...Peterson chose the Women's Bureau. Peterson's appointment had the support of virtually every member of

the Women's Bureau coalition."[Esther Peterson]

4. Judith Stein: wrote two letters to Kennedy and then got a reply from Dungan, at about the same time I wrote my

letter to Kennedy:

"Another political event occurred early in February, 1963. I received at that time from Special White House Aide Ralph

Dungan a letter of appreciation of my earlier two letters to the President, indicating that my comments had been

incorporated into his State of the Union address for that year. Dungan's letter to me is reproduced herein..." Stein

says she was injected with drugs to give her cancer (Mae Brussell Archives).

5. Ralph Dungan, of course, had his own secretaries; he was not a drudge writing letters for JFK to fans: "Gerri

Whittington, a secretary to aide Ralph Dungan..."

6. An example of Dungan's advisory position with Kennedy:

"The President's Special Assistant Ralph A. Dungan feared that the Alliance was returning to the Eisenhower emphasis

on monetary stabilization, which provided the proper climate for private investment and economic growth and included

tolerating military dictatorships. Dungan suggested that a reversion to Eisenhower's policy meant the United States

"might as well kiss the Alliance(and the hemisphere(good-bye." (47)

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/frus/summari...II_1961-63.html

Below is an interesing compilation of letters a friend of Kennedy received. Once the President wrote to him personally,

and twice, Ralph Dungan wrote:

Archive is that of Mr. Henry Borntraeger of Latrobe Pennsylvania.

1) Mr. Borntraeger received a White House letter dated August 14, 1961 from Ralph Dungan, special assistant to

the President, that reads: “Thank you, in the President’s behalf, for your message…in support of bills to create a

U. S. Disarmament Agency.”

2) On August 19, Borntraeger responded in a letter to the President....

3) A White House letter dated September 5, 1961, was the response: : "Dear Mr. Borntraeger: I was pleased to receive

your letter and to learn of the support you are giving my Disarmament Agency proposal. It is gratifying to know that my

old friends are supporting me and your kind words are very much appreciated. With every good wish, Sincerely, (signed)

John Kennedy

On September 20th, Borntraeger sent another telegram: “Delighted to learn that the House has passed your proposal to

create…Disarmament Agency…in search of a just and lasting peace…for realistic solutions to the arms race and international

anarchy.”

4) On September 29th, he received a White House letter from Ralph Dungan, that reads: “The President asked me to

thank you for the message you sent to him prior to his address to the United Nations..." ...included is a copy of the

President’s speech given to the United Nations on September 25, 1961.

Borntraeger responds in a seven-page typed letter to the President, outlining some peace initiatives that might be put

into place while constructing a “Peace Race.” In fine condition. COA John Reznikoff/PSA/DNA and R&R COA.

(This collection of 2 Dungan letters and one JFK letter sold at auction for $4,145.00)

7. Later, Dungan tesified before the Church Committee on US intelligence activities in Chile:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r...rchV7_0014a.htm

8. In order to reach the President, Dungan might be approached:

(Lee White, former civil rights adviser to JFK and LBJ) stated: "...And I had a contact in the White House and I just

thought that the president was - President Kennedy was going too slow and I'd always tell him, Ralph - his name was

Ralph Dungan - Ralph, tell the president this, tell the president. Finally, he said, you know this stuff, I don't know this

stuff, write him a memo, I'll give it to him.

Barb reported that Ralph Dungan wrote a boilerplate letter in response to my letter to JFK, as he must have done for

oodles of others, which is not true. In addition, Barb did not analyze or address the aspects of the letter from Walter

Reed. She concentrated on my interpretation of MEDE-ZOE as a "special file" (which my mentor, Col. Doyle, said it

was) when she says she learned it was an "address" on the letter, over which she makes great hoopla, while ignoring

the contents of the letter itself, which addresses advanced research considerations, free chemicals, offers of mentoring,

etc.

Barb says she is "checking facts". But is Barb neutral--"Just the facts, ma'am"? (She far from neutral.)

Barb recently wrote the remark below, that my friend Allan just sent to me from New York:

Wrote Barb:

Oh, Judyth has been chattering like crazy thru Fetzer on the Ed Forum.

He's her new lackey. And yes, it all is convenient timing for her new

book ... which has once again been postponed ... this time, no new

date given, and refunds available ...

Barb :-)

[NOTE: No one who knows me would ever make such an insinuation. I have always been my own man, and if I

did not believe in Judyth, I would not be expending the time and effort involved here. I think Barb is projecting.]

(P.S. from JVB: The book has been delayed as the Trine Day book, A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, about US biowarfare in

France, has been selling so well that printing schedules had to change. DR. MARY'S MONKEY and A TERRIBLE MISTAKE

will prepare readers for Me & Lee. The book is in line for printing.)

Someone named "Karin" wrote to Barb and John McAdams, frustrated because they twisted her questions around:

"What "research assistant" job are you talking about? John, If you'll

simply review the thread, my original question related to her getting a

job as a research assistant in chemistry after she returned to Florida.

("Karin" says she sent me an email which did not get answered. She can send emails to Dr. Fetzer, or to Pamela,

and I will reply to them! But whoever "Karin" is, she tried to actually reason with McAdams and Barb at McAdams'

newsgroup, where Dave Reitzes chimed in that I was a mental case. Here's what Karin wrote:

McA: "Your not assuming that she got such a job in New Orleans, are you?"

Again John, if you'll review the original thread, I was quite clearly

referencing the job that she got working as a research assistant AFTER she

returned to Florida. Sheesh.

McA: "I'm not aware that Barb was wrong."

Again John, the reason for that is that you didn't even bother to REVIEW THE DARN THREAD.

Barb had asked: "How do you know she got a job as a research assistant? Oooo, oooo, call

on me .... I know the answer to that question! 'cuz Judyth tells us so."

That was a wrong assumption on Barb's part, John. I was relying on pay stubs from her work, as I clearly stated in

the thread.

McA: "Please provide some proof that Judyth was ever a "research assistant" in New Orleans."

YET AGAIN, John, it would help if you even glanced at the original thread. I said nothing about her being a research

assistant in New Orleans. I referred to her working in Florida.

McA: "I'm afraid things you think are "well established" are "well established only in the minds of people who take

Judyth's word."

For the last time, it would help if you had actually read the thread. To recap: I had asked a simple question about

how this "college dropout" with no prospects in life would have managed to acquire employment working as a research

assistant upon her return to Florida.

Rather than straightforwardly addressing the question, Barb chose to state that I ONLY knew that Judyth had acquired

such a job because Judyth herself told me so.

Again, that was a WRONG assumption. Then, after I proceeded to inform Barb that her assumption was wrong because

the evidence of it came in the form of PAY STUBS (physical evidence, NOT Judyth's word), Barb chose to suddenly

concede that there is "no doubt that Judyth worked at PenChem."

Hence my question about why she wasted my time asking about things that are well established--not to mention avoiding

the actual original question!

I am still very eager to learn about all of those "devilish details" which show that she did NOT actually acquire a job working

as a research assistant in Florida! And I still can't wait!

Karin

Thank you, Karin, whoever you are. (No, I am not karin, as these people suggested--I keep people between myself and

them for good reason--they always sent viruses to my computer!)

I (JVB) now add these remarks:

That newsgroup, Karin and Allan and all, also faulted me by telling supportive researchers I never wrote President

Kennedy---that I made it up. You know, the you believe that because "Judyth says so" argument. Then Tony Marsh

went to the Archives and found my letter.

But they won't give any credit for long....Recently, a McAdams-clone asked Barb if it was 'she' who found the letter,

though he well knew it was Marsh.

I haven't read anything over there for some time, as I rely on others to send me information to keep my computer

safe, but the above poss from McAdams show that they have no interest in telling people such as Karin the truth.

Barb picked on my making an error about when I said I was told to write President Kennedy, when I was told to

write to the President, and yes, I finally did write the letter...Eisenhower being a lame duck, I didn't get around

to it until later. Yes, I forgot 'the right name' when I said I was asked to write to President Kennedy.

But in fact, I'd been asked to write "the president" and Col, Doyle, my high school physics and science seminar teacher,

asked if I had done so. He reminded me that I had been asked to write, differing my services to my country and said

this would help me get more help in obtaining materials and support for my work. The Peace Corps was forming at that

time, and youth were being encouraged to get involved with their country. I was once such young person. I was told such

a letter would place me on a list of those who would get more favors regarding scholarships and research opportunities.

That's what he said, and I reported what he said. Make of it what you will.

I received numerous letters and materials in 1960-61 with tons of enclosures. Surely the letter proves I was patriotic.

I wrote to my President. Barb was alive back then, I presume. Did she write to JFK? How about David Lifton? Did he

ever write JFK? How many of my critics wrote to Kennedy? One? None? I cared deeply about my country--more than

they did, possibly.

It seems that the people who truly care about what I have to say, who are intelligent enough to have read what has

been posted here--intelligent enough to see that I am trying to place information of importance before their eyes--

I will not be distracted by propaganda.

I urge them to follow us to the blogs being set up, where we can post information for all who have a genuine interest in

the life of Lee Harvey Oswald between April 26, 1963 and November 21, 1963, where I have information concerning him

due to our relationship during that time period.

The blogs won't get buried or trivialized as the thread does here--and people such as Karin will not have to put up with

half-baked facts and ridicule form the likes of Barb and McAdams. She will be treated with respect (that goes both ways--

abusive comments will be erased).

I have tried to present information about Lee H. Oswald here, but keep getting attacked on such matters as mouse

urine! I had to take time to defend why I was inspecting mouse urine under a microscope for a pseudo-scientist. She

now understands that mouse urine can be used to detect cancer, which she did not understand before, and mocked,

until I showed her the research in the field going back into the 1930's.

But this simply buries what we are trying to present to those who care about the identity of Lee H. Oswald and

his activities, and why he was murdered along with Kennedy.

I have explained how David Lifton misconstrued my statements--and that tape had better be intact, when sent to Dr.

Fetzer--because I took full notes on what I said and sent them to Shackelford and Platzman at once.

Of interest to me was how much time Mr. Lifton spent trying to get information about my book and about "60 Minutes",

rather than asking more than a couple of specific questions, in his one and only interview, which he variously described

as two hours long and as short as a half-hour long. I have documented how long the interview was.

Lifton promised to keep everything I said to him confidential--a promise he broke in six months. He promised to help

Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing. Thus, this is a man I do not trust. In addition,

he just praised Barb J, whose efforts on this thread revealed bias and prejudice. Further, I had just exposed her inability

to "fact check"--yet he praised her work. That was unconscionable, as Dr. Fetzer pointed out.

I invite everyone who cares about the truth to visit judythbaker.blogspot.com which has finally been unblocked on google

(yes, it was blocked, for weeks). The rest of you can keep on going around in circles, as has been done for decades. You

will not find the answer at The Education Forum. You are being distracted and derailed, whenever you move close to the

truth, a pattern I have seen now for a decade.

JVB

Barb,

You get a small gold star for doing all this work.

Same goes for Anthony Marsh, for actually digging up this obscure letter at the JFK Library.

When are people going to catch on and stop wasting time on this lady?

Life is finite.

Should even a minute be wasted on this lady, and her fictions?

DSL

[Kevin Greenlee]

Hi Jack,

Martin Shackleford posted an account of the creation and publication of the "unauthorized" version of Judyth's book in some newgroup messages a few years ago. i will post highlights but if you wish to read Martin's complete posts you can find them at the address i post at the bottom of each quotation.

"How "unauthorized" can a book be when she wrote it and corrected the book

after it was edited. It was published exactly in the form it existed after

she made her corrections. For her to complain--after she went through the

entire book herself making corrections--that the book has "typos" is absurd.

As for "missing photos and other flaws," the same thing applies. It was

published as she corrected it. Nonetheless, she would like to blame Harry

Livingstone for those problems--but he made NO changes after she corrected

the book. After everyone had done their work on the book, and it was ready

for publication, she tried to demand additional business concessions in

return for "permission" to publish it. As both sides had already met all

agreed-upon conditions, there was no legal reason not to publish the book.

The only reason she claims that publication was done "behind her back" is

because she refused further involvement and thus didn't keep up with

developments in the final stages. That's ALL it means.

The story is much muddier than you imagine, and has nothing to do with

whether the book was authentic.

Unauthorized isn't the same as inauthentic, by the way. The conflict was

over other issues entirely."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc

and

"In October 2004, Harrison Livingstone, who had

included a reference to Judyth in his recently-published book The Radical

Right....., learned that Judyth was having difficulty getting her book

published, and offered to publish it under the following conditions:

1) She would provide the complete manuscript (instead, she doled it out a

chapter at a time over a

period of ten months, violating the first condition to which she agreed;

the projected time frame

had initially been much shorter, but we stuck with it, despite mounting

expenses).

2) He would edit the book and arrange for its publication through a POD, the

same way he had been

publishing his own recent books, which she had praised.

3) A colleague of ours with extensive layout skills would do the layout for

the book, for a minimal cost.

(She later denied that she had been told he would be paid, despite

responding to e-mails in which

this had been clearly discussed; she insisted she had been told

everything would be "free"--what

that meant, to the extent it had been said, was that she wouldn't have

to contribute any money--

she translated it to mean that no one's expenses would have to be

reimbursed out of royalties.)

4) We would raise the money to publish the book, relieving her of the costs.

This and the layout guy

(and the $500 advance which she later received) would be repaid out of

royalties, once they began.

5) After the book was edited, she would make corrections; no further editing

would be done.

She agreed to these five conditions enthusiastically, and expressed

gratitude to the investors and those

putting their efforts into the book.

All of these steps were completed--it was at THAT point that she decided she

wanted to change the agreement, and hold the book hostage, AFTER everyone

had donated their efforts for ten months, and

the investments necessary to publish the book. The new conditions she sought

were totally unacceptable.

Since all of the elements of the original agreement had been completed in

full by all parties involved, we went ahead with publication of the

book--but only after several more months of discussions in an effort to get

her to see reason. There was no precipitous decision to "go behind her

back."

She decided, unilaterally, that the book couldn't be published without her

"permission," which was conditional on meeting her new set of demands. Thus,

she was startled when the book was published.

As she had cut off all communication, we were unable to keep her abreast of

developments, and when the book came out, she learned about it indirectly,

even as copies were being boxed (along with promotional materials, etc.) to

ship to her. Things tend to happen "behind their back" when a person turns

their back on all of the work and money invested in a project, and just

expects everyone to walk away.

Finally, in December 2005, after $2200 had been invested in the book, in

addition to materials (more than originally projected, because she insisted

on having over 400 illustrations, which increased the costs), she offered to

"buy back" the book for $500--in other words, she sought only to return her

advance, and wanted everyone to agree to eat their costs while she went

shopping for a more lucrative deal--with a manuscript edited by Livingstone,

who wasn't even to have his costs reimbursed. "

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc

quote name='Jack White' date='Apr 10 2010, 04:42 PM' post='189369']

I am baffled about how an UNAUTHORIZED VERSION could be published by Livingstone.

Did Harry just make up stuff and write FICTION? How and why did the story change?

What did Harry have wrong? What was his source? What portion of Harry's version was

objectionable, and where did it originate? How did Harry get the original manuscript

which he then corrupted? I find this all very strange.

Jack

[Jack White]

Thanks for the background, Kevin. It offers further insight into the character of this person.

Jack

Hi Jack,

Martin Shackleford posted an account of the creation and publication of the "unauthorized" version of Judyth's book in some newgroup messages a few years ago. i will post highlights but if you wish to read Martin's complete posts you can find them at the address i post at the bottom of each quotation.

"How "unauthorized" can a book be when she wrote it and corrected the book

after it was edited. It was published exactly in the form it existed after

she made her corrections. For her to complain--after she went through the

entire book herself making corrections--that the book has "typos" is absurd.

As for "missing photos and other flaws," the same thing applies. It was

published as she corrected it. Nonetheless, she would like to blame Harry

Livingstone for those problems--but he made NO changes after she corrected

the book. After everyone had done their work on the book, and it was ready

for publication, she tried to demand additional business concessions in

return for "permission" to publish it. As both sides had already met all

agreed-upon conditions, there was no legal reason not to publish the book.

The only reason she claims that publication was done "behind her back" is

because she refused further involvement and thus didn't keep up with

developments in the final stages. That's ALL it means.

The story is much muddier than you imagine, and has nothing to do with

whether the book was authentic.

Unauthorized isn't the same as inauthentic, by the way. The conflict was

over other issues entirely."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc

and

"In October 2004, Harrison Livingstone, who had

included a reference to Judyth in his recently-published book The Radical

Right....., learned that Judyth was having difficulty getting her book

published, and offered to publish it under the following conditions:

1) She would provide the complete manuscript (instead, she doled it out a

chapter at a time over a

period of ten months, violating the first condition to which she agreed;

the projected time frame

had initially been much shorter, but we stuck with it, despite mounting

expenses).

2) He would edit the book and arrange for its publication through a POD, the

same way he had been

publishing his own recent books, which she had praised.

3) A colleague of ours with extensive layout skills would do the layout for

the book, for a minimal cost.

(She later denied that she had been told he would be paid, despite

responding to e-mails in which

this had been clearly discussed; she insisted she had been told

everything would be "free"--what

that meant, to the extent it had been said, was that she wouldn't have

to contribute any money--

she translated it to mean that no one's expenses would have to be

reimbursed out of royalties.)

4) We would raise the money to publish the book, relieving her of the costs.

This and the layout guy

(and the $500 advance which she later received) would be repaid out of

royalties, once they began.

5) After the book was edited, she would make corrections; no further editing

would be done.

She agreed to these five conditions enthusiastically, and expressed

gratitude to the investors and those

putting their efforts into the book.

All of these steps were completed--it was at THAT point that she decided she

wanted to change the agreement, and hold the book hostage, AFTER everyone

had donated their efforts for ten months, and

the investments necessary to publish the book. The new conditions she sought

were totally unacceptable.

Since all of the elements of the original agreement had been completed in

full by all parties involved, we went ahead with publication of the

book--but only after several more months of discussions in an effort to get

her to see reason. There was no precipitous decision to "go behind her

back."

She decided, unilaterally, that the book couldn't be published without her

"permission," which was conditional on meeting her new set of demands. Thus,

she was startled when the book was published.

As she had cut off all communication, we were unable to keep her abreast of

developments, and when the book came out, she learned about it indirectly,

even as copies were being boxed (along with promotional materials, etc.) to

ship to her. Things tend to happen "behind their back" when a person turns

their back on all of the work and money invested in a project, and just

expects everyone to walk away.

Finally, in December 2005, after $2200 had been invested in the book, in

addition to materials (more than originally projected, because she insisted

on having over 400 illustrations, which increased the costs), she offered to

"buy back" the book for $500--in other words, she sought only to return her

advance, and wanted everyone to agree to eat their costs while she went

shopping for a more lucrative deal--with a manuscript edited by Livingstone,

who wasn't even to have his costs reimbursed. "

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc

quote name='Jack White' date='Apr 10 2010, 04:42 PM' post='189369']

I am baffled about how an UNAUTHORIZED VERSION could be published by Livingstone.

Did Harry just make up stuff and write FICTION? How and why did the story change?

What did Harry have wrong? What was his source? What portion of Harry's version was

objectionable, and where did it originate? How did Harry get the original manuscript

which he then corrupted? I find this all very strange.

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Hi Jack,

Martin Shackleford posted an account of the creation and publication of the "unauthorized" version of Judyth's book in some newgroup messages a few years ago. i will post highlights but if you wish to read Martin's complete posts you can find them at the address i post at the bottom of each quotation.

"How "unauthorized" can a book be when she wrote it and corrected the book

after it was edited. It was published exactly in the form it existed after

she made her corrections. For her to complain--after she went through the

entire book herself making corrections--that the book has "typos" is absurd.

As for "missing photos and other flaws," the same thing applies. It was

published as she corrected it. Nonetheless, she would like to blame Harry

Livingstone for those problems--but he made NO changes after she corrected

the book. After everyone had done their work on the book, and it was ready

for publication, she tried to demand additional business concessions in

return for "permission" to publish it. As both sides had already met all

agreed-upon conditions, there was no legal reason not to publish the book.

The only reason she claims that publication was done "behind her back" is

because she refused further involvement and thus didn't keep up with

developments in the final stages. That's ALL it means.

The story is much muddier than you imagine, and has nothing to do with

whether the book was authentic.

Unauthorized isn't the same as inauthentic, by the way. The conflict was

over other issues entirely."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc

and

"In October 2004, Harrison Livingstone, who had

included a reference to Judyth in his recently-published book The Radical

Right....., learned that Judyth was having difficulty getting her book

published, and offered to publish it under the following conditions:

1) She would provide the complete manuscript (instead, she doled it out a

chapter at a time over a

period of ten months, violating the first condition to which she agreed;

the projected time frame

had initially been much shorter, but we stuck with it, despite mounting

expenses).

2) He would edit the book and arrange for its publication through a POD, the

same way he had been

publishing his own recent books, which she had praised.

3) A colleague of ours with extensive layout skills would do the layout for

the book, for a minimal cost.

(She later denied that she had been told he would be paid, despite

responding to e-mails in which

this had been clearly discussed; she insisted she had been told

everything would be "free"--what

that meant, to the extent it had been said, was that she wouldn't have

to contribute any money--

she translated it to mean that no one's expenses would have to be

reimbursed out of royalties.)

4) We would raise the money to publish the book, relieving her of the costs.

This and the layout guy

(and the $500 advance which she later received) would be repaid out of

royalties, once they began.

5) After the book was edited, she would make corrections; no further editing

would be done.

She agreed to these five conditions enthusiastically, and expressed

gratitude to the investors and those

putting their efforts into the book.

All of these steps were completed--it was at THAT point that she decided she

wanted to change the agreement, and hold the book hostage, AFTER everyone

had donated their efforts for ten months, and

the investments necessary to publish the book. The new conditions she sought

were totally unacceptable.

Since all of the elements of the original agreement had been completed in

full by all parties involved, we went ahead with publication of the

book--but only after several more months of discussions in an effort to get

her to see reason. There was no precipitous decision to "go behind her

back."

She decided, unilaterally, that the book couldn't be published without her

"permission," which was conditional on meeting her new set of demands. Thus,

she was startled when the book was published.

As she had cut off all communication, we were unable to keep her abreast of

developments, and when the book came out, she learned about it indirectly,

even as copies were being boxed (along with promotional materials, etc.) to

ship to her. Things tend to happen "behind their back" when a person turns

their back on all of the work and money invested in a project, and just

expects everyone to walk away.

Finally, in December 2005, after $2200 had been invested in the book, in

addition to materials (more than originally projected, because she insisted

on having over 400 illustrations, which increased the costs), she offered to

"buy back" the book for $500--in other words, she sought only to return her

advance, and wanted everyone to agree to eat their costs while she went

shopping for a more lucrative deal--with a manuscript edited by Livingstone,

who wasn't even to have his costs reimbursed. "

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc

Thank you for posting these Kevin. Martin ,who defended Judyth doggedly, at all costs, for years, finally spoke out after some time after the book was pulled. Here is one other post he did on the subject:

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

From: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>

Date: 14 Apr 2008 11:35:12 -0400

Local: Mon, Apr 14 2008 7:35 am

Subject: Re: JUDYTH: The Roswell Park evidence: and an answer to a question

Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

As she corrected the text, and it was published with her corrections (so

much for her claim that the book was "incomplete"--perhaps she means it

wasn't the entire original 1500 page version), the "unauthorized" comment simply

means that she tried to back out of the contract and was unable to do so--the

"behind her back" comment refersto the same thing.

Her "objections" had nothing to do with the book's contents.but with the

fact that Livingstone published the book after they had a dispute,and he

declined to accept a $500 payoff to drop the project and give her

his edit--AND his introduction, after he had put considerably more into the

book.

As she was in a hurry, in October 2004, to get the book published, she

can hardly blame Livingstone or myself for getting it out in 2006 as us

"rushing" it.

She didn't sue anybody because she had no grounds on which to do so. Her

lawyer made that clear to her after he tried to impose a ridiculous

alternative contract on Livingstone.

She hadn't received royalties because the book's expenses hadn't yet been

fully paid. She had rejected a more reasonable alternative contract by

which she would have begun receiving partial royalties right away. Had

she not gotten the book canceled, she would have begun receiving royalties

within a few months.

When she couldn't impose a ridiculous alternative contract on Livingstone

(first her version, and then her lawyer's even worse substitute version),

she tried to "withdraw permission" by unilaterally canceling the original

contract AFTER everyone had performed as the contract required. This you

can't legally do.

The contracts she is talking about:

Livingstone's contract: he offered her an alternative contract . She

rejected this. It included the following provisions:

1) She would receive 50% of the royalties from the start, the other 50%

going

to pay off the book's costs.

2) After one year, she would be free to take the text to another publisher

if she

found a better publishing deal, as long as the book's costs were paid.

3) Royalty statements would go to her, so she would be able to keep track of

the amounts adequately.

4) All subsidiary rights would belong solely to her.

5) Written guarantee that she had the final edit rights [which she was

granted

even after rejecting the alternative contracts]

6) She had to accept responsibility if the book contained any libel.

7) The book would be published as "A Harrison Edward Livingstone Book,"

rather than self-published.

[He kept trying to offer her a better contract as late as January 2006]

Her re-write of the contract (AFTER saying she accepted the final draft

offered by Livingstone--then going silent for a week) included:

1) A detailed, searchable index (with no provision for paying for it)

2) Livingstone's costs to be "deducted from" money that had already

been spent--in other words, from no actual source.

3) Royalties to go directly to her--she would decide who got reimbursed.

[it made her angry that Livingstone might receive ANYTHING.]

4) She claimed that Livingstone owed HER $19,000, due to his "actions"

which she "estimated" cost her that amount.

Her lawyer's contract:

1) Referred to Livingstone simply as a "packager," implying that he did no

editing.

2) Added several new expenses that Livingstone was expected to pay.

3) Reduced the amount to be paid to Livingstone for his expenses.

4) Canceled her repeated commitment to repay the investors.

5) Livingstone's editing to be "at his own expense."

6) Livingstone to take legal responsibility for any libel in the book.

7) Demand that the price of the book be lowered (it is set by the POD,

not by Livingstone).

8) ALL free copies of the book to go to Judyth.

As a result, no substitute contract was agreed upon, and the original

contract remained in effect, and under it the book was published.

Martin

Here is another....

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

From: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@charter.net>

Date: 11 Mar 2009 08:05:29 -0400

Local: Wed, Mar 11 2009 5:05 am

Subject: Re: Me and Lee

Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

In order to post this with any credibility, you had to omit my post.

I haven't disputed that there may be a book coming out--just wondered where

the cover image came from, as it isn't on Haslam or Judyth's websites.

I don't know where you're getting your information that the book was

"master-minded by Ed Haslam," as nowhere is there any such suggestion.

Not sure what "masterminded by Shackelford" means, as a matter of fact. I

brought Judyth and Livingstone together, with her enthusiastic cooperation.

She praised the result in August 2005, when the manuscript was finalized--only

later, after her added demands weren't met, did she change her tune. There was no

"sabotaging" of her book--it was published as she had corrected it. As for

"going behind her back," the publishing process simply went ahead as

planned-- she made an erroneous assumption that it would halt because her additional

demands weren't met, but it was published according to the original

agreement, which she had clearly authorized. You can't just try to rewrite the

agreement after all of the work has been done. She didn't understand that.

Martin

Judyth herself made a statement in 2008 ...

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

From: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>

Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 03:01:51 -0400

Local: Sat, May 24 2008 12:01 am

Subject: Statement by Judyth Baker

Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

I was sent an email about Jaap and his illegal claims, as well as his taking

a comment I made in the past as still applicable to the present, regarding

the book that was stolen from me by Dutch thieves, my own illness at that

time following their having stolen everything I owned, and the book's being

later published (with my cooperation, but before I agreed that it was ready)

by Livingstone and Shackelford's group.

I feel that Livingstone and Shackelford did not allow me sufficient

access to the final product, and we argued about its being ready to go to

press, but Livingstone and Shasckelford did not wish to delay, seeing that

the Dutch thieves had put out a stolen version of the book. Thus we had a

parting of the ways over the matter. Since then, I have tried to see it from

Shackelford's viewpoint, and we are in contact, as I regard him as a

tireless defender of Lee Oswald, and that is more important than my hurt

feelings.

I wish to stress, however, that it is the mind of Jaap ('Fam')

Holtzappfel, who called himself the 'reincarnation of Lee Harvey Oswald' and

thereby assumed I 'fell in love' with him -- the loan that resulted in money

being deposited not in my account but in Holtzapffel's, without my having

any control over that money, and the Dutch thieves who stole my book in

Holland ---that has created all the present trouble. I feel that had I not

gone through those experiences with Jaap, who deceived me on several fronts,

I would not have been so hard to deal with when Livingstone and Shackelford

wanted the book published before I felt it should be. I was -- and I

remain-- defensive about the book and wanted the final 'say' on it. I

wanted a print-out, a galley, to proof. That did not occur, so I did not

authorize its publication. However, the intentions of Livingstone and

Shacklford were in the interests of getting out the truth.

They knew the book had been published illegally online by the thieves

and wanted to put out the correct version as fast as possible.

As time has passed, I find it far easier to forgive Livingstone and

Shackelford, for there is no comparison between the sly Jaap and the sly

thieves and the good intentions of researchers Livingstone and Shackelford.

I take umbrage with Japp Holtzappfel, who needs psychiatric help, and is in

fact receiving psychiatric help, that he has named Livingstone and

Shackelford at all, thus deflecting attention from his own illegal and

harrassing actions.

The contract Jaap offered me, in Dutch, contained provisions he did not

tell me about until later, such as repayment within 6 months, when I told

him iIcouldn't pay anything until the book was published. I needed a loan

to cover a utility bill (the Museum was charged ahead of time for the entire

year of 2004, and I was uprepared for that! Utility bills are high in

Holland.). I trusted Jaap, to my detriment, and that made it hard to trust

others. pleased Then blackmail attempts came from the Dutch thieves, trying

to force me to sign over film rights, or they'd publish my book online. I

had already promised film rights elsewhere and refused to bow to them.

I stand for the exoneration of the innocent Lee Harvey Oswald and will do

so to the day I die. Jaap knows how he deceived me. He should not be

mentioned in the same breath with good researchers such as Livingstone and

Shackelford.

Judyth Vary Baker

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Dean Hagerman]

Judyth

I respect Harry Livingstone alot, in fact High Treason is in my top 5 books on the assassination and one of the first I ever read

I really would love to read your reply to these posts from Barb and Kevin (quoting Martin)

I think this is a perfect chance to watch Judyth go crazy trying to defend these absurd actions she took with Harry

[Michael Hogan]

Jim, thank you for apologizing. You've proven true to your word to me the other day:

When I think I may have made a mistake, I check it and, if so, I correct it!

I prepared this response before I read your last post. It might be a little testy, but I've decided to leave it as written.

Judyth Baker writes:

"Shackelford's treatment of me had nothing to do with his massive knowledge of the case. In addition, I did not

know Haslam was writing another book. It came as a complete surprise, or otherwise I would have warned

him about the unauthorized status of the book.

Because he kept asking questions, I knew that inaccuracies in the book of concern did not affect what Haslam

learned from me. I never told Haslam why I withdrew the book, because I did not want him to have any

prejudice against Mr. Shackelford.

My personal feelings were not as important as Shackelford's input to Haslam.

.....I hope this explains why I did not bring up why the book was withdrawn to Haslam. I don't think he ever knew

that Shackelford was involved in the matter. I don't know."

On page 316 of Dr Mary's Monkey, Ed Haslam writes:

"Judyth has been kind enough to corroborate (and correct) my version of her account."

If not for a book, what did Judyth Baker think she was corroborating and correcting?

This is a very odd report. At this point in time, Ed Haslam has interviewed

Judyth for around 1,000 hours and has interrogated her more extensively

than anyone else alive, so far as I am able to ascertain.

He has told me that he does not want to take on extensive discussion about Judyth

until her book, ME & LEE, has appeared, no doubt to have a basic reference

work to which interested parties can be directed.

To recap: Ed Haslam was writing a book wherein Judyth Baker was going to play a major role: his witness.

He was able to get her to corroborate and correct his version of her story without letting her in on it.

Haslam was putting his personal and professional neck of credibility on the line in support of Judyth Baker,

yet he kept his book secret ("a complete surprise") from her during the many hours they talked. Haslam

and Baker had been talking for a period lasting more than five years. Okay, seems plausible.

And Judyth Baker, during all these hours spent talking with Ed Haslam, (who was sympathetic, supportive

and empathetic to her and her cause) decided not to tell Haslam about the shortcomings contained in her book

for the reasons she has just given.

I'm sure her failure to level with Haslam on such an important matter did wonders for her credibility with him..

After all, he had referred his readers to her book in order to make up their minds whether or not to believe Judyth's story.

Whatever he thought, he was now boxed in. He has continued to say he believes Judyth Baker "as a person."

His endorsement of the Lee Harvey Oswald love story angle seems tepid, at best.

As Haslam writes: "From my perspective, I was particularly concerned that 60M could easily discredit her story as

a means of discrediting my story. Such were my initial thoughts."

Maybe he still harbors similar concerns today.

Maybe that is why Haslam, as Jim relates, "does not want to take on extensive discussion about Judyth until her book,

Me & Lee, has appeared, no doubt to have a basic reference work to which interested parties can be directed."

No doubt.

Jim, I would like to revisit my question about Haslam's account of meeting a Judy Vary Baker as detailed in his Chapter 13.

Why do you think Haslam (living in New Orlean during the middle of the Garrison investigation)

showed so little interest in meeting with someone that said she knew Lee Harvey Oswald?

This encounter is one of the biggest blockbusters in Dr Mary's Monkey. Haslam allows that "the 1972 incident

caused confusion and distrust among the 60M team. Their only evidence was my word and my memory."

I find it strange that Haslam makes no mention of trying to find his girlfriend at the time, or any of the people

that were at that party (including Baker's husband) to verify his story. Sixty Minutes certainly had the investigative

wherewithal to do that, it would seem. If such a witness would have be found, you might not be having to argue Judyth's case today.

I shake my head that Haslam doesn't even mention any attempts to find these witnesses.

As I'm sure you're aware, Haslam references his interview with Jim Marrs. It is available on YouTube and the part about his

1972 encounter with a Judyth Vary Baker begins at the 42 minute mark. He talks of meeting Baker's husband (talked to him extensively)

and baby. He talks about being "suspicious of this party" to begin with. Warning light number two to Haslam was this lady's failure to

know of his father, who was well-known at Tulane. He had the impression that she might have been connected to the CIA,

because of her steadfast refusal to discuss details of her work. None of these details made his book.

Listen to his account for yourself and tell me how convincing Haslam is concerning his refusal to talk to JVB at the party.

How convincing is his account of declining to meet her privately? Why did he not express the slightest regret in his decision?

I can't help it, I find his description of this seminally important event lacking in much detail. Haslam's reason

for not meeting with a woman that wanted to discuss the Garrison investigation and was a "good buddy" of Lee Harvey Owald

(Although Haslam used this term to Marrs, he chose not use it in his book) are just not convincing to me.

When asked by Jim Marrs to assess Judyth Baker's credibility, Haslam says that he was not concerned "with which finger

did Lee Oswald wear his wedding ring on?" He said he "tried to look at her as a person and did she make sense to him as a person?"

He thinks she is is the "genuine article."

There are other subtle differences in Haslam's accounts. This is one that perplexes me, and I would like your take:

As Haslam tells it to Marrs, when the documents from 60 Minutes arrived there was a phone number for Judyth Baker

and, after recognizing the name, he called her immediately, expecting her to be the same woman he met in 1972.

Haslam was "surprised" to find out this Judyth Baker did not live in New Orleans in 1972.

In Dr. Mary's Monkey, Haslam makes no mention of this phone call. In fact, in the book Haslam makes it clear

that he contacted Judyth Baker directly, "after the 60M debacle." He implies that by that time he had already figured out

they could not be the same woman.

Why does Haslam give two different accounts of how he first encountered the "real" Judyth Baker? What am I not seeing?

I am not implying anything about Ed Haslam, other than I don't understand some of his claims.

After this exchange, it is my intention to withdraw from this thread. What I think about the Judyth Baker story is of little significance

to anyone other than myself. I intend to read her book when it comes out.

Again Jim, I appreciate your apology.