Post by firstname.lastname@example.org
Me: Judyth and Lee worked at Reilly Coffee at the same time.
McAdams: There is no evidence that they ever met.
Me: Actually, Judyth says they met at the Post Office.
McAdams: Really? Well anyone could meet there.
Me: Hmmm...you may be right. She could have a witness to their meeting
at the Post Office.
McAdams: You know very well there is no such witness.
Me: Well, then, how do we know they met?
McAdams: They didn't.
Me: Judyth is not using her stated credentials -- namely, that she and
Lee worked at Reilly at the same time -- as her means of introduction.
Nor has she produced a witness from Reilly to show that anyone saw them
together during the few weeks they both worked there. Therefore, It looks
as though Judyth may have hoist herself with her own petard, as she is not
using the one piece of evidence that put her in proximity with Lee.
That didn't happen because *you* didn't want it to happen.
You loudly objected to any expression of skepticism toward Judyth's
Without spending all night digging up her old posts, here is how Barb
described Pamela's actions:
You have NOT been sitting on any sidelines. ROTFL. You have refused to
engage in reasoned discussion on the evidence of her case and any
findings, but you have been right smack in the middle of the playing
field attacking the characters and research of those who have bothered
to discuss and research her claims, always chiding, misrepresenting
and scolding researchers who dared to research your *friend* .... one
that you even gave money to, which is not in keeping with the farcical
Hope your "process" involves some actual evidence. We've had 10 years
of your musings.
And now you piously lecture people on the debate that "could have
When, at the time, you tried to stifle any debate.