15-03-2010, 03:27 AM
Good post. Pamela. Judyth has sent a response to Junkkarinen and you:
JUDYTH COMMENTS ON BARB AND PAMEL:
Barb has provided an excellent example of the fact that Pamela had an
objective attitude toward me, as a new witness, in 2000. She commented
that I did not seem to have anything new to present. Note Pamela said:
"Some of the statements attributed to Judyth seem to be almost silly; so
it is difficult to attach any value to them."
Pamela had only seen excerpts and crude misrepresentations of my words.
Note that she said "attributed to Judyth" rather than saying "Judyth said."
That critical ability to apply discernment, rather than blindly swallow alleged
quotes, caused her to correspond wit me through hundreds of emals over
the years. And yes, she asked for clarifications.
During that same time period of a decade, Barb J. never asked a single
question of me. Her 'research" never included a single interview. She
has had ten years to do so. So much for Barb J's "objectivity."
Pamela and Monk were among the very the first people to speak up in my
defense when attacks aganst my character were first raised on this forum.
I find it ironic that Pamela's objectivity in 2000 has been pointed out to you
by Barb.
Ten years on, Pamela, far better informed than Barb of who I really am,
knows how complex the matter is, and how easily my statements might be
misrepresented, largely through oversimplification and misquotes.
Edward T. Haslam spoke before COPA and stated that he thought he knew
who I was and the 'whole story' through literally hundreds of hours of research
and face-to-face interviews. But even he admitted he had some misunderstandings
after all of that, until he read my (authorized) book and accompanying private notes.
He also took extraordinary pains to clarify issues and inspect the smallest technical details.
In fact, I consider Haslam's research abilities to be phenomenal. I can even state that he's
been mean to me--sometimes heartless and even ruthless--all for the sake of vetting the
witness. He took that responsibility serously.
You do not want this man delving into your life if you have done anything wrong. He will
find your electric bill from 1970 that didn't get paid.
Thank you, Edward T. Haslam, though you put me through the wringer.
And thank you, Pamela, and Monk.
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
From: pame...@primenet.com (pamela mcelwain-brown)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:24:59 GMT
Local: Thurs, Nov 2 2000 7:24 pm
Subject: Re: Judyth and Jack Ruby
David,
It seems as though you have no alternative but to invest a considerable
amount of time and energy attempting to objectively verify the statements
of this person. Coming from my research on the Weldon "Man from the
Rouge", I can sympathize, in that when even a part of the research
community is hyped about a *new witness* that momentum can have a tendency
to move more quickly than actual facts might warrant.
As I follow these threads, a bit belatedly, I must ask the question --
what difference does it make? If Judyth had continued to maintain her
anonymity, what would we not know about LHO that we do *know* now? It
seems that she provides LHO-Ruby connections, but that has been done by
other less new witnesses, such as Beverly Oliver, so that is not *new*
information. In addition, some of the statements attributed to Judyth
seem to be almost silly; so it is difficult to attach any value to them.
It had been my thinking that once a *witness* had at least a name, a job
description, a voice, and was willing to communicate with the research
community (things the MFTR was unable to do) that vetting such a witness
in terms of their relevance to the assassination would be a relatively
simple thing.
Not so, I am discovering.
Pamela
[quote name='Pamela McElwain-Brown' post='186748' date='Mar 14 2010, 12:15 AM'][quote name='Kathy Beckett' post='186729' date='Mar 13 2010, 09:01 AM']
Hasn't she been speaking? We have pages and pages of it.
[/quote]
How disdainful that sounds, Kathy.
Let me try again. How many words has Judyth been allowed to speak in an open forum, without 'researchers' who embrace and kowtow to every other witness, documented or not and yet speak libelously against Judyth, refusing to allow those who are interested to weigh and evaluate Judyth's statements on their own. They also consider themselves to be at the same level as a witness, having no perspective to the fact that a researcher can only operate with second-hand information from which they can develop an hypothesis. Trying to libel a documented witness simply convolutes the process of getting information from them.
How many witnesses have you worked with?
[/quote]
JUDYTH COMMENTS ON BARB AND PAMEL:
Barb has provided an excellent example of the fact that Pamela had an
objective attitude toward me, as a new witness, in 2000. She commented
that I did not seem to have anything new to present. Note Pamela said:
"Some of the statements attributed to Judyth seem to be almost silly; so
it is difficult to attach any value to them."
Pamela had only seen excerpts and crude misrepresentations of my words.
Note that she said "attributed to Judyth" rather than saying "Judyth said."
That critical ability to apply discernment, rather than blindly swallow alleged
quotes, caused her to correspond wit me through hundreds of emals over
the years. And yes, she asked for clarifications.
During that same time period of a decade, Barb J. never asked a single
question of me. Her 'research" never included a single interview. She
has had ten years to do so. So much for Barb J's "objectivity."
Pamela and Monk were among the very the first people to speak up in my
defense when attacks aganst my character were first raised on this forum.
I find it ironic that Pamela's objectivity in 2000 has been pointed out to you
by Barb.
Ten years on, Pamela, far better informed than Barb of who I really am,
knows how complex the matter is, and how easily my statements might be
misrepresented, largely through oversimplification and misquotes.
Edward T. Haslam spoke before COPA and stated that he thought he knew
who I was and the 'whole story' through literally hundreds of hours of research
and face-to-face interviews. But even he admitted he had some misunderstandings
after all of that, until he read my (authorized) book and accompanying private notes.
He also took extraordinary pains to clarify issues and inspect the smallest technical details.
In fact, I consider Haslam's research abilities to be phenomenal. I can even state that he's
been mean to me--sometimes heartless and even ruthless--all for the sake of vetting the
witness. He took that responsibility serously.
You do not want this man delving into your life if you have done anything wrong. He will
find your electric bill from 1970 that didn't get paid.
Thank you, Edward T. Haslam, though you put me through the wringer.
And thank you, Pamela, and Monk.
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
From: pame...@primenet.com (pamela mcelwain-brown)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 03:24:59 GMT
Local: Thurs, Nov 2 2000 7:24 pm
Subject: Re: Judyth and Jack Ruby
David,
It seems as though you have no alternative but to invest a considerable
amount of time and energy attempting to objectively verify the statements
of this person. Coming from my research on the Weldon "Man from the
Rouge", I can sympathize, in that when even a part of the research
community is hyped about a *new witness* that momentum can have a tendency
to move more quickly than actual facts might warrant.
As I follow these threads, a bit belatedly, I must ask the question --
what difference does it make? If Judyth had continued to maintain her
anonymity, what would we not know about LHO that we do *know* now? It
seems that she provides LHO-Ruby connections, but that has been done by
other less new witnesses, such as Beverly Oliver, so that is not *new*
information. In addition, some of the statements attributed to Judyth
seem to be almost silly; so it is difficult to attach any value to them.
It had been my thinking that once a *witness* had at least a name, a job
description, a voice, and was willing to communicate with the research
community (things the MFTR was unable to do) that vetting such a witness
in terms of their relevance to the assassination would be a relatively
simple thing.
Not so, I am discovering.
Pamela
[quote name='Pamela McElwain-Brown' post='186748' date='Mar 14 2010, 12:15 AM'][quote name='Kathy Beckett' post='186729' date='Mar 13 2010, 09:01 AM']
Quote:And while the campaign continues, they consistently refuse to answer one simple question -- namely, why can't this one documented witness be allowed to speak in an open forum?
Hasn't she been speaking? We have pages and pages of it.
[/quote]
How disdainful that sounds, Kathy.
Let me try again. How many words has Judyth been allowed to speak in an open forum, without 'researchers' who embrace and kowtow to every other witness, documented or not and yet speak libelously against Judyth, refusing to allow those who are interested to weigh and evaluate Judyth's statements on their own. They also consider themselves to be at the same level as a witness, having no perspective to the fact that a researcher can only operate with second-hand information from which they can develop an hypothesis. Trying to libel a documented witness simply convolutes the process of getting information from them.
How many witnesses have you worked with?
[/quote]