Re: Mary Ferrell denounces Judyth Baker

On 19 Jul 2008 20:43:40 -0400, "paul seaton"
<paulNOseatonSPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>
>"Martin Shackelford" <mshack4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:kIggk.6175$cn7.38@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Correpondence from Mary.
>
>Post it.
>
>Your word on these things has ceased to have any value.

It's the least he could do ... but watch his umbrage from your comment
.... despite him having posted today that do***ents Judyth
"inadvertently" got from Mary mentioning a name JUDYTH SAYS Mary
"admitted" to her was an "alias" she used in Ohio 50 yrs ago are on
the way to Marsh to post on his website...after Judyth, by Martin's
telling flat out lied to Mary about where she got the name.

Doesn't sound like it could possibly have anything to do with any
issue her, does it? So are Martin and Judyth just looking to "blacken"
Mary's reputation? Why? Oh wait ... they attack everyone who does not
believe Judyth's tale!

Sounds real classy, doesn't it. Why what WILL Pamela say!

Barb :-)


>
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonSPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:4880fac7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> "Martin Shackelford" <mshack4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>> news:QHWfk.16648$89.8039@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Howard Platzman has never attempted to or intimidated anyone.
>>>
>>> "If you truly believe Judy is telling the truth, **and I have been
given 
>>> every reason to think you do,** then Judy becomes your reward for a
life 
>>> devoted to truth. She is your crowning achievement and you are her
best 
>>> hope. I beg of you: figure a way to make yourself heard and understood
in 
>>> a way that leaves no doubt about the state of your mind or the
firmness 
>>> of your belief. " (my emphasis)
>>>
>>> Who gave Platzman "every reason to believe " Mary thought Judyth was 
>>> telling the truth , Martin ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>> "paul seaton" <paulNOseatonSPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>> news:487f7cdd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>> "Martin Shackelford" <mshack4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:q8Bfk.14989$mh5.1768@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>> Your description here undermines your earlier silly claim that
Judyth 
>>>>>> "intimidated"
>>>>>> or "frightened" Mary into retracting her alleged criticism. But,
then, 
>>>>>> no one who
>>>>>> knew Mary would find that nonsense credible in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> This, of course, from someone whose main claim to fame is his truly 
>>>>> vast experience of believing obvious nonsense. It was, of course, 
>>>>> Platzman whose attempted intimidation (shall we repost all that 
>>>>> Martin?) led to Mary F finally laying her cards on the table.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVEjfk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:qk6s7450cvo16entj5vh4k5dgdffelrrv7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>> On 16 Jul 2008 11:30:08 -0400, pjfk <pamelajfk1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Jul 15, 5:31 pm, William Yates <william_yates...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>> pjfk wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > On Jul 14, 1:44 pm, "paul seaton" 
>>>>>>>>> > <paulNOseatonS...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> "pjfk" <pamelaj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>news:d352b09f-9ac8-4a97-b7b2-9a2f691b8250@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>> >> On Jul 14, 12:01 am, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>> On Jul 13, 10:00 pm, pjfk <pamelaj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>> On Jul 12, 11:30 pm, Dave Reitzes <dreit...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> TOP POST
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> More and more evidence piles up that Martin has been
simply 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> making up
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> his bizarre fairy tales about an evil band of unnamed 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> conspirators
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> seeking
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> to manipulate and misrepresent the views of the late Mary 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Ferrell.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Oh, indeed there were people seeking to manipulate and 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> misrepresent
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> views of the late Mary Ferrell, but their names are known 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> quite well
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> us: Judyth Vary Baker, Howard Platzman, and Martin 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Shackelford.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> Dave
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> On Jul 12, 8:47?pm, Barb Junkkarinen 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> <barbREMOVE...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> And now, shall we relive all Martin's denials that Mary 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Ferrell ?did
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> NOT know what was in the attachment until Judyth and
friends 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> raided
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> her home with a tape recorder that "accidentally" turned 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> itself on
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> April 2002 and read it to her?
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Never mind that Paul's research on the whole preposterous
Mr 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Sneaky
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> thing showed that the attachment was done by Mary on her 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> computer
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> the course of several hours on December 12, 2001 ...
being 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> saved 8
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> times in the process over several hours ... and that he
then 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> posted
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> the nasty manipulative e-mail that Judyth sent to Mary in

>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> March 2002
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> ... making it clear that Mary certainly knew by then what

>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> was in the
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> attachment....and that Martin KNEW it because he was cc'd
on 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> it too.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Now here's John with e-mails (PLURAL!) both to and from
Mary 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> day AFTER the attachment was sent. And Martin was cc'd on

>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> the TWO
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Judyth!
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> So, wanna run that false pile of crap Paul described so
well 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> day by us again, Martin?
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Time for another trip or computer breakdown perhaps ...
or 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> continued evasion on the issue.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for posting all of this, John! You really missed a

>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> lot ...
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> abandoned the California thing long ago and went to
someone
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> hijacking
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Mary's computer right out from under her nose and having 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> substitute the nice e-mail attachment Mary meant to send
out 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> her
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> rather clear letter for the one where Mary denounces all 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Judyth. Paul was masterful in sorting this one out ...
right 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> down to
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> the times the do***ent was accesssed, the number of times
it 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> saved, etc. He did a lot of great work ... you should
read 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> through
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> all some time, actually quite entertaining.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Martin said over and over and over that Mary didn't know 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> there had
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> been a do***ent switch until April 2002 when Judyth and
two 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> buds
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> showed up and "accidentally" tape recorded what they
called 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> a denial
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> from Mary about the attachment ... the transcript of
which 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> was a
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> farce. After giving Martin chance after chance and hint 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> after hint
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> finally flat out asking Martin about an email from Judyth
to 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Mary
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> he was cc'd on a month before that ... in March, Paul
posted 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> e-mail which makes it explicitly clear what was in the 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> In reply, Martin posted a snipe at Debra (who wasn't the
one 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> who
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> provided the e-mail) ... then disappeared for well over a

>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> week.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Since returning from visiting family and a computer 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> breakdown, he
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> declined to comment on the denial crap he posted even
though 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> asked.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Now you post all of these which show not only Mary, BUT 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> MARTIN, knew
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> the very day after Mary sent her email and attachment out

>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> that there
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> was ZERO doubt that Mary knew exactly what was in that 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> [Aside to Martin: Next time you send out an e-mail about 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> being
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> among the " nastiest group of vilifiers in the JFK 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> community"
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> ?anyone
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> being "venomous" or about "chronic viciousness" being 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> "disgusting"
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> "buddies in slime" ... ?e-mail it to yourself instead of
TO 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> ME.]
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> And he has the gall to accuse me of misrepresenting
things 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> ... most
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> recently to Rob [who appeared and posted an explicit "no"

>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> further
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> comments in response to him]
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks again, John
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Barb :-).
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:43:24 GMT,
john.mcad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> (John
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> McAdams) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some e-mail traffic relevant to this:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <Quote on>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Return-Path: <maryf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> postmarq.mu.edu
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ?(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec
?7 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2001
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 06:47:59)
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ?with ESMTP id GOBD8500.V4B for
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <John.McAd...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>;
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ?Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:19:17 -0600
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Received: from mary-xp.cprompt.net [209.51.4.178] by 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> cprompt.net
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ESMTP
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?(SMTPD32-6.00) id A9889C8013A; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 16:19:52 -0600
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Message-Id: 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <5.1.0.14.2.20011213162046.01adf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> X-Sender: maryf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:25:13 -0600
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> To: 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
dlif...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
Joanmel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Mary Ferrell <maryf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Fwd: Mary, why did you post to the newsgroup?
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii";
format=flowed
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have never posted anything to a news group in my life.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Mary
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:55:48 EST
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: ElectLad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Mary, why did you post to the newsgroup?
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> To: <maryf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, <msh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cc: <electlad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> X-RCPT-TO: <maryf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mary, I would never do to you what you did to me.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can't believe you would post such a long letter,
filled 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> with so
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> errors, and sign your name to it.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can't believe you called me 'dangerous.'
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I can't believe you think I am so weak I would do harm
to 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> myself. I
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> am
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> weak in that I trusted you, and YOU did harm to me.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I told the truth.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have been more cruel than all the others, because
you 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> said you
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> loved me.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ==j==
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <quote off>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Earlier Mary had sent this:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <Quote on>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Return-Path: <maryf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> postmarq.mu.edu
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ?(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec
?7 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2001
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 06:47:59)
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ?with ESMTP id GO93R800.052 for
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <John.McAd...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>;
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ?Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:59:32 -0600
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Received: from mary-xp.cprompt.net [209.51.4.178] by 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> cprompt.net
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ESMTP
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?(SMTPD32-6.00) id A1F9D9600CC; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 15:54:01 -0600
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Message-Id: 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <5.1.0.14.2.20011212154557.01b8e...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> X-Sender: maryf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:56:06 -0600
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> To: 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
dlif...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
parad...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Mary Ferrell <maryf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: Judyth Baker
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ?boundary="=====================_755792484==_"
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear friends,
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ?It is with great regret that I send the following
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> attachment.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I feel that the time has arrived to put an end to the 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Judyth Baker
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> part of my life. ?I hope all of you will understand why
I 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> am doing
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mary Ferrell
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Judyth.doc
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <Quote off>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, if I understand correctly, Team Judyth says that
Mary 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> sent out
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> statement that she *thought* was favorable to Judyth,
but 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mr.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sneaky
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> had changed it into something unfavorable.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> If so, how do they explain the tone of the e-mail that
Mary 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> sent.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> BTW, I trust they have abandoned their old claim that
the 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> e-mail
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> somehow diverted through California before it got to me.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The headers show it coming directly from Mary's ISP to
the
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marquette
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> mail server.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Finally the e-mail where Mary told me I could use the 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> statement as
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> wanted:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think I've posted this before, probably because
the 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> content
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> semi-personal. ?But Mary has now passed away, so no harm

>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> done.
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <quote on>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Return-Path: <maryf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> postmarq.mu.edu
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ?(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec
?7 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2001
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 06:47:59)
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ?with ESMTP id GO9C8V00.FCG for
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> <John.McAd...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>;
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? ? ? ? ?Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:02:55 -0600
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Received: from mary-xp.cprompt.net [209.51.4.178] by 
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> cprompt.net
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ESMTP
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?(SMTPD32-6.00) id ACFFF830132; Wed, 12 Dec 2001
>>>>>>>>> >> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >> read more »
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > That would be the amount of gossip I push.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you have actual proof that MF was pressured into writing that

>>>>>>>>> e-mail
>>>>>>>>> attachment? Cause so far, all I've seen is your prejudice
against 
>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>> of the ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> read more »
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well, it does help to have a background into the conflict that was
>>>>>>>>raging over Judyth at that time.  If you don't, perhaps that's
your
>>>>>>>>issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you did, you would realize that Lifton early on pitted himself
>>>>>>>>against Judyth.  Lifton had a book on LHO coming out. Remember
that?
>>>>>>>>He was being sup****ted by loans from guess who?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Lifton had a stake in having Judyth discredited and out of the way
so
>>>>>>>>he could get his Judyth-free (and Garrison-free) book published.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>An oh-so-helpful person connected with guess who? insinuated
herself
>>>>>>>>into Judyth's inner group with the agenda of sandbagging both her
and
>>>>>>>>Anna Lewis.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In the background, you have McAdams who has been taking emails and
a
>>>>>>>>draft of Judyth's book sent to him by someone in Judyth's inner
>>>>>>>>circle, and publi****ng them on his website in an attempt to
discredit
>>>>>>>>her.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you were to do some independent thinking you just might be able
to
>>>>>>>>discern that any 'statement' coming from guess who? would have
been
>>>>>>>>urged and insisted upon by those who had a stake in trying to
>>>>>>>>discredit Judyth.  And the names of those who did the pressuring 
>>>>>>>>would
>>>>>>>>be those to whom such a 'statement' was sent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, if those "names" were pressuring Mary to issue a statement,
just
>>>>>>> what good does it do for Mary to issue a statement preaching only
to
>>>>>>> her own choir?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You failed to answer the question .... you just gave more
assumption
>>>>>>> and speculation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps you need to step out from under your shroud of Judyth and
>>>>>>> think for yourself free of that mantle. Mary says she's had enough
of
>>>>>>> Judyth, did not believe her, and wanted nothing more to do with
her.
>>>>>>> This after how many months of Judyth being in her face trying to
woo
>>>>>>> and manipulate her.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mary made comments, in person, to others about Judyth when someone
>>>>>>> else brought Judyth up ... spontaneous utterances. And they were
not
>>>>>>> in Judyth's favor. I was one of those people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, as it turns out, the evening Mary told me, in person, she
>>>>>>> thought Judyth was nuts was the evening before Judyth and crew 
>>>>>>> visited
>>>>>>> Mary with the accidental tape recorder. It was Saturday evening, 
>>>>>>> April
>>>>>>> 6, 2002 as we were gathering in the lobby to head for a dinner
party.
>>>>>>> And I can assure you Mary was in fine form and had been for the
>>>>>>> previous few days as myself  and several others were with her
>>>>>>> (including Mary I think we were 16). Any idea that Judyth and crew
>>>>>>> were afraid Mary was being abused and the poor dear didn't even
have
>>>>>>> water is pure bunk. Mary was in fine form, happy as can be, and we

>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>> been together since Thursday evening ... all day Friday and all
day
>>>>>>> Saturday including  lunch and dinner ... and a party Saturday
night.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody spoke FOR Mary on anything.... and Mary spoke her own mind.

>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>> you know it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 
>