Leaving All Forums: Eye Problems, etc. Judyth

[Pamela Brown]

Judyth's case looks like Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig's -both tell stories that bring them a lot of problems like threats, loss of income, health problems, people in the JFK research community helping her financially, etc. Judyth, I really hope you won't end up like him.

I hope you are mistaken Denis, and that Judyth will come out of this even stronger for all she has been through.

Her situation to me reminds me of Madeline Brown, who made outrageous statements about LBJ's involvement in the assassination as well as claiming him to be the father of her son. I can't imagine anyone more vulnerable than Madeline in terms of, not only the Texas oil community, but potentially suffering at the hands of researchers as well. However (perhaps because she was older and her statements were coming out before the ngs) Madeline seemed to be very much buffered by those within the community, and it seemed to me that she was always treated with great respect.

I would like to think that something similar could happen in Judyth's case.

Pamela

[Pamela Brown]

Apart from that, I agree fully with Nic, Richard and Dixie and in parts with Nancy, it is Judyth coming here, calling herself a witness

Really. I have yet to find anyone who refuses to acknowledge that Judyth is a witness.

and offeres to answer questions, yet, she always finds and excuse not to answer the most important ones, if asked. T

Are you simply repeating a misrepresentation, or are you serious? Have you considered prioritizing your 'unanswered' questions? I am unaware of what they are, for one. Then, what is your expertise, so that you would be able to recognize an answer were one given?

Martin still goes no further than calling it "good circumstancial evidence", so all I was trying to point out, is, that I rather want to see Judyth's proof than to take Martin's "good circumstancial evidence" for it. Why? Well Judyth said to me she can proof it, and I trusted her words, until I saw her state things, I knew to be wrong.

Well that sounds like you've been flailing around. Are you familiar with Madeline Brown? Was her evidence convincing to you or not?

I didn't start the fire Pamela, it was always burning ever since she realized that I am a rather smart rat, when it comes to truth, and I won't take a Y for an X.

Trusting 'instincts' is not all there should be with research. Are there any objective issues you want to define or not?

Obviously someone did jump the gun about declaring "good circumstancial evidence" as proof (beyond reasonable doubt), or someone found out that proof (beyond reasonable doubt) was only "good circumstancial evidence" if at all. I think it is obvious, that neither Judyth nor Martin can find anything that prooves it beyond reasonable doubt.Her avoidance of showing her proof or at least part of it tells me I might be pretty close to the truth.

Sounds like you make all the rules Uwe, and others have to fail or succeed based on what you think.

Pamela

[Denis Morissette]

Sorry! I could not knowingly give aid and comfort to a hoaxter or a criminal. 

Dixie

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I did not want to say it, but since you did, I won't!

[Pamela Brown]

Sorry! I could not knowingly give aid and comfort to a hoaxter or a criminal.

Surely you will be willing to document your statement? What makes you think Judyth is either?

Have you made a similar statement in regard to Madeleine Brown? If not, why not? Weren't you at NID one of the times she spoke?

Pamela

[Pamela Brown]

I did not want to say it, but since you did, I won't!

What is your thinking about Judyth Denis? I was hoping you were able to remain objective.

Pamela

[Pamela Brown]

Nancy said: Now Pam, if you think I am off the wall, I don't care.

I'm not sure I understand what your issues are regarding Judyth, so I'll try to summarize. You seemed to feel pressured by Judyth to go to NARA and get LHO's time cards. You didn't want others to know when you were going, but you didn't feel you had the freedom to choose when you went. If so, that is understandable. However, that's done with. You did get the cards.

You are thinking Judyth is responsible for knowing about the assassination beforehand and not reporting it. Judyth would not be the only one. Nobody is going to be prosecuted this late in the game. That is simply not realistic.

In addition, look at the statements of Madeleine Brown, who wrote "Texas in the Morning" and was a speaker at NID and was also in TMWKK. She not only knew what was going to happen ahead of time, she said she heard it from LBJ! Her claims were really outrageous. Her book has no photos of her with LBJ -- just one claiming to show his 'back' at a party.

Why is there one level of proof for Madeleine Brown and an entirely different one for Judyth Baker? And why can't all witnesses just be treated with respect?

Pamela

[Dave Weaver]

Apart from that, I agree fully with Nic, Richard and Dixie and in parts with Nancy, it is Judyth coming here, calling herself a witness

Really. I have yet to find anyone who refuses to acknowledge that Judyth is a witness.

and offeres to answer questions, yet, she always finds and excuse not to answer the most important ones, if asked. T

Are you simply repeating a misrepresentation, or are you serious? Have you considered prioritizing your 'unanswered' questions? I am unaware of what they are, for one. Then, what is your expertise, so that you would be able to recognize an answer were one given?

Martin still goes no further than calling it "good circumstancial evidence", so all I was trying to point out, is, that I rather want to see Judyth's proof than to take Martin's "good circumstancial evidence" for it. Why? Well Judyth said to me she can proof it, and I trusted her words, until I saw her state things, I knew to be wrong.

Well that sounds like you've been flailing around. Are you familiar with Madeline Brown? Was her evidence convincing to you or not?

I didn't start the fire Pamela, it was always burning ever since she realized that I am a rather smart rat, when it comes to truth, and I won't take a Y for an X.

Trusting 'instincts' is not all there should be with research. Are there any objective issues you want to define or not?

Obviously someone did jump the gun about declaring "good circumstancial evidence" as proof (beyond reasonable doubt), or someone found out that proof (beyond reasonable doubt) was only "good circumstancial evidence" if at all. I think it is obvious, that neither Judyth nor Martin can find anything that prooves it beyond reasonable doubt.Her avoidance of showing her proof or at least part of it tells me I might be pretty close to the truth.

Sounds like you make all the rules Uwe, and others have to fail or succeed based on what you think.

Pamela

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pamela,

first of all, don't use the "i'll cut the sentence in half" tactic.

So please read it again, and try to comprehend the meaning .

>Apart from that, I agree fully with Nic, Richard and Dixie and in parts with Nancy, it is Judyth coming here, calling herself a witness and offeres to answer questions, yet, she always finds and excuse not to answer the most important ones, if asked. <

She calls herself a (living) witness, am I lying here ?

If you think i do, you can read that up in some of her posts here.

I'll help you out : she's a witness (she says so) offering to answer questions on public forums, invites members to ask them, but is constantly avoiding answering the most importand ones. Does so since 1999.

> You wrote: Really. I have yet to find anyone who refuses to acknowledge that Judyth is a witness.<

Well, you may ask other's here on the forum, why they haven't asked her questions,

or what they think of her status, simple topic like "Judyth Baker: witness or hoaxter ? What is your opinion ? "

You didn't notice,or didn't you, that very few asked her anything here, or on lancerforum for example.

And what went down on Rich DellaRosa's forum, and what member's there think of her and her story, you have to ask there, maybe members here were or are also also member's there I was not a member when Judyth did her presentation of evidence there, so I can not answer it.

I know member's here and on lancerforum, who think she is telling storys about her loveaffair and the get casto project.

Their decission to stay silent may have left the impression, that only I, Nic,Richard

(could be one or two more that did post) think that Judyth has made this whole loveaffair and get castro thing up.

I have not received any mail of complaint or negative feedback in any post, apart from Judyth herself (posts) and you (posts).

Dawn only has objections in regard of the way I (she didn't address me directly, but I assume she ment me ) and maybe other's ask, but she said

herself, that she didn't follow the Judyth Baker story, so she doesn't realy know

were the real problem lies.

As to the rules Pamela, John makes them here, and I have not received any negative word from him yet in regard of my posts I did on Judyth Baker.

Anyone can think and state his or hers opinion, according to the rules,

so, why do you and Judyth have such problems with what I write,

it's just my opinion, some agree some may not.

At least I am open Pamela, I do not need to send out bulk mails, directing or influencing the opinion of my followers.

If my statements are so wrong, invaluable and meaningless, why don't you just ignore them ?

Or better, show everyone, that I am wrong, by presenting at least part of the evidence and proove that she realy is a witness.

Didn't she come here for that reason ??????????

As for Madelaine Brown, I have my opinion about her testimony,

but that is not the issues here.

Or does it require an answer or even a certain answer to be taken

serious by you ?

Well you don't take me serious regardless of what I would say,anyway.

As for how both Mrs. Brown (sadly deceased) and Mrs. Baker are or were treated on forums or the internet in general, well someone who comes

forward, may face the heat by (professional) sceptics and a lot of questioning

by researchers and persons interested in general.

Deciding to come forward testifying (regardless of the veracity aspect) may bring

hardships or not, it seems, that in the JFK case, there was more negative than positive fallout for the persons testifying.

The internet makes it harder for person's who come forward, that seems to be fact,

information and misinformation is spread fast and over wider area, a lot more persons to participate in the discussions and questions asked, but the person who does come forward has also the benefit, to get the facts out faster and showing the

evidence to a wider audience.

All I can say, it seems from what I was able to read and hear Mrs. Brown always reacted with style publicly, and from what I experienced personaly, and was able to read and hear, Mrs. Baker did not.

So, it seems at least, their reaction to criticism was different.

Now let me say this Pamela, you have your opinion, I have mine.

The two of us most probably will never agree until the book comes out,

and you say, well Uwe, I guess you were right.

You also seem to be a person who thinks to posses superior intellectual capabilities,

maybe you do, but you come across as a very small minded person, at least in my

regard, and I am sorry to say this.

Why do I think this, well, because you full well know, why I am thinking Judyth has

a problem with the word "truth", told you already long ago, but as you are looking down on me, ever since your "witness " has decided on which side I am,

with all your words you write, and all the objectivity you say you have, you can

not hide, that you are fearfull of asking yourself the 2 most importand questions,

in a way you should ask yourself:

1) Can Judyth proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that she had an affair with Lee ?

2) Can she proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that she did work on a get Castro

project ?

Ask yourself these questions based on what you have personaly seen in regard of proof from Judyth, take away the personal impression you have about Anna Lewis and any other interview you have seen, leave away everything that is only based on the words of Judyth and the feelings you have.

With the pure and uninfluenced, by personal impressions, evidence, can you say,

yes,when I look at the evidence this way, she can proof it beyond a reasonable doubt ?

Yes or not will be Ok, I only need this answer from you to be on record.

And i think Dawn maybe is able to understand better the problem I have with circumstancial evidence.

I think, although this is most probably not a criminal

case in regard of Judyth, in the future, the history of trials and verdicts all over the earth shows, there are many many cases, where circumstancial evidence was not

the proof the judges and/or Jury's thought it was.

So, if there is one case Dawn knows of, where the defendant was convicted

solely on the base of circumstancial evidence, and it later turned out, that

the defendant was innocent, my point for urging caution in regard of Judyth's

proof is valid and should be taken into account, when evaluating what she

calls proof.

Long post again folks, sorry for that.

For me, this was it Pamela, if you want to discuss further, mail me please,

no need to go on and on and on with it here.

I have also some things in mind in regard of the "Judyth Baker" or better said "witness support" fund,maybe we can find some common ground in that regard,

and leave the other things aside,I am not "totaly mean and evil" Pamela, maybe you will find out one day.

So as I suggested the fund here, I naturally did think about it since, and in Judyth's case, I like to point out, that it seems she need's some money rather fast.

So before there are endless discussions about how this fund will be set-up and handled, I suggest, to find enough persons fast, who are willing to give a

certain amount (depends on the number of persons willing to give) so that a "one time fast help" of maybe 1500 -2000$ will be achieved.

That will help Judyth for some weeks i think.

She can think then about what she needs per month in the future, until her book comes out, and you can set up a circle of permanent donators for that timeframe.

Last remark, english is not my native language as you know, so apart from the

error's,I can not always word the things the way I want.

This may make my posts sometimes look like I am not too smart, but

anyone able of the german language is invited to test me, it is not

that I don't have the words, it is just, i don't know them all in english.

"School's out forever" over 20 years for me .

Edited January 16, 2005 by Dave Weaver

[Denis Morissette]

Sorry! I could not knowingly give aid and comfort to a hoaxter or a criminal.

Surely you will be willing to document your statement? What makes you think Judyth is either?

Have you made a similar statement in regard to Madeleine Brown? If not, why not? Weren't you at NID one of the times she spoke?

Pamela

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited January 16, 2005 by Denis Morissette

[Denis Morissette]

I did not want to say it, but since you did, I won't!

What is your thinking about Judyth Denis? I was hoping you were able to remain objective.

Pamela

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not any less objective than you, Pamela. I am open to ideas. After reading some parts of what Reitzes wrote, Judyth's case was closed. Judyth is most probably under medication, at least I hope so. If she does not get the medical attention she requires, I bet she will stay the rest of her life in a mental institution or worse.

[Nancy Eldreth]

Denis,

This is a bit harsh don't you think?

I don't think Judyth needs medication of depression and or ect.

Nor do I think she needs to be admitted into any mental facility either.

I do think she has not shown what I know she could show and it I HOPE is in her book with better explainations than what we can give or do.

I just pray for something to open up soon and for me it would be less nerver racking.

I may actually be calmer./ I HOPE.

[Dawn Meredith]

Denis,

This is a bit harsh don't you think?

I don't think Judyth needs medication of depression and or ect. 

Nor do I think she needs to be admitted into any mental facility either.

I do think she has not shown what I know she could show and it I HOPE is in her book with better explainations than what we can give or do.

I just pray for something to open up soon and for me it would be less nerver racking.

I may actually be calmer./  I HOPE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

______________________________

What a bunch of bitter people. Pam you are great for just hanging in there. Your M. Brown analogy is an excellent one, I think. And she was given respect, but she also suffered greatly for her bravery in coming forward. I was fortunate to have met her in Dallas in 98 and have some great photos of her with another close researcher pal of mine, she was a classy lady to the end.

Of course Judyth is a witness. The naysayers are entitled to their opinion that she is a hoax, but we've got people on this forum also saying LHO acted alone, so opinions are just that.

Re the question to me on circumstantial evidence: I have seen many cases on circumstantial evidence go to a verdict. Direct evidence (where there is an eye witness for example) is often very rare. (People tend to commit crimes when no one can see them). Most criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence. The Scott Peterson case being just one recent example. Almost NO direct evidence, yet overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

As to how to set up a fund, we need an tax/or accountant type of person here, it would have to be somehow set up in a similar fashion to that of a tax exempt charity, foundation sort of thing. Of course for now a simple bank account in her name would suffice, with those of us who wish to contribute just sending in a check, or better yet, a direct deposit to said account. That way it could be all done online and Judyth's privacy could be maintained. Just a thought.

Dawn

And Nancy nice to see a post that is not attacking Judyth.

[Dave Weaver]

Denis,

This is a bit harsh don't you think?

I don't think Judyth needs medication of depression and or ect. 

Nor do I think she needs to be admitted into any mental facility either.

I do think she has not shown what I know she could show and it I HOPE is in her book with better explainations than what we can give or do.

I just pray for something to open up soon and for me it would be less nerver racking.

I may actually be calmer./  I HOPE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

______________________________

What a bunch of bitter people. Pam you are great for just hanging in there. Your M. Brown analogy is an excellent one, I think. And she was given respect, but she also suffered greatly for her bravery in coming forward. I was fortunate to have met her in Dallas in 98 and have some great photos of her with another close researcher pal of mine, she was a classy lady to the end.

Of course Judyth is a witness. The naysayers are entitled to their opinion that she is a hoax, but we've got people on this forum also saying LHO acted alone, so opinions are just that.

Re the question to me on circumstantial evidence: I have seen many cases on circumstantial evidence go to a verdict. Direct evidence (where there is an eye witness for example) is often very rare. (People tend to commit crimes when no one can see them). Most criminal cases are based on circumstantial evidence. The Scott Peterson case being just one recent example. Almost NO direct evidence, yet overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

As to how to set up a fund, we need an tax/or accountant type of person here, it would have to be somehow set up in a similar fashion to that of a tax exempt charity, foundation sort of thing. Of course for now a simple bank account in her name would suffice, with those of us who wish to contribute just sending in a check, or better yet, a direct deposit to said account. That way it could be all done online and Judyth's privacy could be maintained. Just a thought.

Dawn

And Nancy nice to see a post that is not attacking Judyth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dawn,

i am in no way bitter.

Have we ever spend a day together ?

Whereas the majority of vedicts based on circumstancial evidence may be

justified, there are those, and those are not rare exceptions, where it later

comes to light, that the the circumstancial evidence was either wrong interpreted,

planted,or one or more witnesses lied, for example.

I think you just forgot to aknowledge that, and therefore do not see

what problem I have, as long as there is only circumstancial evidence.

And the peterson case, as I said before, his girfriend sure broke him his neck in

regard of credibility and motive, that is my opinion.

He told her that his wife was dead, even before this was discovered, big mistake.

Did Judyth tell anyone before she told her sister in 1964 that she had an affair

with Lee ?

And did she tell her sister also in 1964, that she was involved in the secret cancer lab, did she tell anyone before the Haslam book was published , or even before

Ruby died ?

Yes, of course Judyth is a witness, she obviously worked at Reily's,and she may have also told her former husband, that she probably has seen Lee at Reily's.

In that regard, you can call her a witness to the existence of Lee, and how working

at Reily's was.

The rest has yet to be proven.

So your judgement probably is only based on your interpretation of what Judyth, Pam, Martin may have told you, or did you read the book and have seen and evaluated all of her evidence, including cross examination of her witnesses also?

Has any of her witnesses mentioned her affair before they had contact (again) with Judyth for example ?

How many co-workers where hired and fired the same day as Lee and Judyth ?

You must not overlook, that there is 35 years of knowledge about the case that work towards Judyth, and there are 35 years of person's having died and thus knowledge

has been lost, as there are most probably no papers in the archives at Reily's anymore, that can shed a light on the story, be it positive or negative for Judyth.

What books did she read, what films did she see during those years, what persons, including deceased researchers did she met.

A lot of questions Dawn, and isn't she a professional storyteller also, having written

fiction stories amongst other things.

A mind as sharp as a razorblade, yet having selective memory problems, due to 2 concussions.

Take everything into account, follow her posts on the internet, try to contact those

on the other side who witnessed her since 1999.

If you do all that, and with the professional and trained mind you have, you might be able to at least aknowledge the sceptisism some researchers,not including me, and

some who did follow her story as told by herself, like me, have.

What's it worth, well, we will see.

As I told Pamela, this is the lst thing I will write to you here also, in regard of Judyth. I hope I made in parts clear why I am sceptic.

Any further discussion about her, may be done via mail.

[Denis Morissette]

Denis,

This is a bit harsh don't you think?

I don't think Judyth needs medication of depression and or ect. 

Nor do I think she needs to be admitted into any mental facility either.

I do think she has not shown what I know she could show and it I HOPE is in her book with better explainations than what we can give or do.

I just pray for something to open up soon and for me it would be less nerver racking.

I may actually be calmer./  I HOPE.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am not harsh, Nancy. Reality is. I wish Judyth health and prosperity, but things don't look good for her.

[Ryan Crowe]

WOW I learned the same thing as always when it comes to Judyth Baker. questions that are brought forward never get answers , her VERY few supporters turn it into a soap opera and then when the going gets tough,....she leaves............Makes me want to run right out and buy that book

Stay tuned in a couple of months, Judyth will return, on "As The World Turns".

This thread needs to be closed, nothing productive has come from it, only unanswerd questions which ALWAYS happens in a Judyth thread.

[Denis Morissette]

WOW I learned the same thing as always when it comes to Judyth Baker. questions that are brought forward  never get answers , her VERY few supporters turn it into a soap opera and then when the going gets tough,....she leaves............Makes me want to run right out and buy that book

Stay tuned in a couple of months, Judyth will return, on "As The World Turns".

This thread needs to be closed, nothing productive has come from it, only unanswerd questions which ALWAYS happens in a Judyth thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I totally agree. I invite everybody to close Judyth's file. If you feel to read a good novel book, then buy her book, otherwise keep your money.