From: "sefirot" Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk Subject: Re: Histoy or Historical Fiction Approved: jmcadams@shell.core.com Return-Path: References: <4906ABCDDA8E1814.3CB318C0978FBBC6.973188D91BECBF0D@lp.airnews.net> <20011113164739.06945.00002282@mb-mg.aol.com> Lines: 46 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Sender: jmcadams@clark.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 161.58.8.11 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 161.58.8.11 Date: 13 Nov 2001 23:28:33 -0600 X-Trace: 13 Nov 2001 23:28:33 -0600, 161.58.8.11 Dear Martin, I have seen those letters. Judy wouldn't even have them if I had not sent them to her daughter years ago. She left those personal letters in Norway when she flew the coop. There is nothing in the letters between her and Bob that would give any type of evidence of which you are implying. Quite frankly, how in the heck are you going to present a love letter from Judy to "Lee" when she tore off the name. She wrote many love letters to Bob. Gosh, if I knew now what I knew then, the box would have never been sent, or her "glass". and if Bob knew she was going to sell the pups from the mutt as a new breed of dog, he would have never sent her the darn dog from Norway. If all this stuff was so important. why did she leave it behind for Bob to sort threw. ridiculous. and the only reason Bob said, well it might be likely she had an affair with someone, was because of some of the "weird thoughts" she would spout off a couple of times-like the Russell stuff, and another time wanting to go to a party at a UT professor's house who was kind of on the loose side of sexual morality. But he never suspected her of an affair. He is a scientist for pete's sake, he can't say he followed her around and saw everything she has ever done. "JLeyden900" wrote in message news:20011113164739.06945.00002282@mb-mg.aol.com... > >
Subject: Re: Histoy or Historical Fiction
> >From: Martin Shackelford 
> >Date: Tue, Nov 13, 2001 01:13 EST
> >Message-id:
> ><4906ABCDDA8E1814.3CB318C0978FBBC6.973188D91BECBF0D@lp.airnews.net>
> >
> >What Baker wrote at the time is a more reliable source than what he might
> >recall after 38 years, John. Why the sudden enthusiasm for late
> >recollections, the kind you and Posner routinely condemn unless you find
> >them convenient?
> >
> >Martin
> >
> >
>
> You should have done both -- read the letters for whatever they're worth
> and followed up with a personal interview of Bob Baker. You didn't.  You
> didn't even try to interview him. I don't know if that's malfeasance or
> nonfeasance. Either way, you don't look too good.
>
> JGL
>