Jump to content
The Education Forum

John McAdams and Judyth Baker


Judyth Baker

Recommended Posts

I would just like to see more or any debunking material on Anna Lewis and her interview statements besides John McAdams.

If Anna Lewis falsely made up her story with her claims of seeing Oswald and JVB together in the way she describes and this can be verified with more non-biased weight than John McAdams, then it would be another logical and embarrassingly exposing reason to dismiss Baker's story.

Was anyone of research note able to corner Anna Lewis after her interview and quiz her on her claims in that interview?

Did Anna Lewis ever comment again on her interview story afterwards and in so doing either stick to her interview claims, or disclaim them?

McAdams constantly and mostly conjurs up subjective points and views of contradictions in conspiracy witness's claims that he then presents as evidence of their lying or exaggerating. He does this so much and so selectively that you just scoff at his takes with as much disdain as others do with JVB's tales.

McAdams also mentions Guy Banister's long time secretary Delphine Roberts and her testimony ( JVB claims the same ) that Oswald did indeed have a small office in the building housing her boss's doings.  That she saw Oswald there and even talking to Banister.

In McAdam's typical style he once again simply dismisses Roberts and her Oswald claim as just another lie, motivated by some bad or emotionally unbalanced character reason such as desperately seeking attention or some delusion that maybe she could possibly make some easy bucks off of her years later explosive claims.

McAdams just lumps anyone and everyone who says anything about Oswald in NO that suggests something more than the Warren Commission take into his ridiculously weak they're-all-liars folder. 

McAdams in the mix of JVB debunkers makes me pause in dismissing JVB's tale entirely.

I just want to know with more credibility than not that Anna Lewis's interview claims about personally witnessing Oswald and Baker together were either paid off lies, or perhaps true. 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 249
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 5/27/2017 at 0:12 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Do you think that Judyth Baker paid Anna Lewis to make the statements she did in her interview video?

I am trying to imagine all the possible motivation scenarios regards Anna Lewis and her recollections concerning actually seeing Judyth Baker and Oswald together several times ( as boyfriend and girlfriend ) and even sitting ( her and her husband ) with Oswald and Baker in a coffee shop together.

Is Anna Lewis making all this up?  And if so...why?  

She acknowledges Oswald's and Baker's close personal friendship, but also clearly says in her interview that she personally disliked Judyth Baker and described her as "stuck up" and other unpleasant character traits that seem to echo what so many in the JFK community say about her.

That is an odd contradiction, but maybe not. Perhaps Anna Lewis was coached to say something derogatory about Baker to make her story seem more "balanced" and thus believable to those who might feel that this gives her story more credibility?

If however, Anna Lewis is telling the truth in that interview, about what she claims she personally witnessed regards Baker's and Oswald's close relationship, isn't it a little more difficult to dismiss Baker's story entirely?

And what is known about Anna Lewis's deceased husband's recollection of an Oswald-Baker relationship?

Since coming onto the JFK assassination research scene, Judyth Baker can't seem to help herself in so many ways regards turning people off to her personality and her veracity. She often appears to be just as her detractors describe and it is easy to understand why so many dislike her personally.

But, looking back on and reading about Baker's documented history as a highly achieving star student and being recognized with awards and a scholarship to a renown college, one sees a super motivated, focused, driven, assertive, confident and willfully aggressive young woman who had to have those traits to achieve as much as she did in her academic endeavors.

I believe that people who are born with these aggressive alpha, control freak traits ( like Baker) must have this to obsessively see through their required work and realize their higher than average goals.  

Bill Gates was like this when young and such an asshole when he began his rise to the top he was extremely disliked. He was described as ruthless, self-centered, controlling and unfeeling of others, you name it.  I think I read once that he was so difficult like this as child that his parents had him go to therapy to see what could be done about his behavior.

I tend to accept Baker as this difficult because she is one of these high achieving personality trait people who so often grate others to the point of extreme dislike.

I even think people like Baker may be more prone to mental illness at some point in their lives. Their super high strung obsessiveness can make for a fragile emotional state under the weight of their own obsessions. Maybe she suffers from Asperger's syndrome?

I can't dismiss Baker completely. She was in NO at the same time as Oswald. She worked at Reilly's at the same time. She mentioned some details about Oswald that I don't think have ever been described before. Did Oswald wear "flip'flop" type shoes at any point in his life in NO?  I know, that little anecdote from Baker means little. And as far as retaining solid material evidence from 40 to 50 years previous, how many of us have ever kept anything from our young twenties lives when we traveled around a few times and tried out living in some areas temporarily?

And I could see someone like Oswald falling for someone like Baker.  Baker was smart and talkative and Oswald could have serious conversations with her. She wasn't unattractive.  She was inspired and energetic.

I could see Oswald craving this kind of interaction with another woman versus his financially stressful, constantly arguing, stunted conversation deteriorating relationship with Marina.

I don't believe everything Judyth Baker claims about her time in NO and with Oswald  ( and earning money from them has clearly been a factor )  but I just can't blow her whole story off as a complete lie and fantasy.  

  

I spoke with Anna Lewis around 2004 when I was involved with Judyth's team.  Her situation was quite unusual, imo.  For one thing, Judyth found Anna and then Judyth interviewed her.  This was a terrible mistake as there was no way to know what, if anything, Anna actually remembered, as opposed to what Judyth wanted Anna to remember.  

Also, in 1999, when Judyth came roaring onto the research scene (before my time with her) she scheduled a trip to NOLA to share all of her information with 'trusted researchers' and interview Anna Lewis.  Martin Shakleford and the writer fellow (not recalling his name right now) were a part of it.  

By the time I spoke with Anna she was pretty much in hiding.  She said she had been threatened.  

My impression of Anna was that she was doing her best.  As a result of this mess, however, I cannot say for sure whether she was able to add to Judyth's story or not. 

***6.8.17 - I am removing all references to Debra Conway that were originally in this post, as I have been informed that I am wrong, and that the correct information will be forthcoming. 

**6.12.17 -- I have received corrected information from Debra Conway regarding her involvement with Judyth and the trip to NOLA in 1999, and her interview with Anna Lewis.  Lo-and-behold, it looks like just about everything Judyth told me about that trip was either entirely untrue or severely slanted in her favor.  Needless to say, I am starting over here.  In addition, Anna Lewis was sent the original tape of her interview, but she refused to receive it.  This fact tallies with the panic that I sensed with Anna Lewis when I spoke with her.  For whatever reason, it seems Anna wanted to have nothing more to do with publicity of any kind. 

 

 

Edited by Pamela Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms. Brown.

Thank you for responding to my 2 postings just before yours.

I just read most of your link entries.

I agree with most of your JFK event findings and views and appreciate your years of dogged research which clearly have consumed so much time, effort and personal expense. What a huge commitment.

I also can so understand and empathize with your personal emotion connection to JFK and his tragic murder and how this motivated you to spend so much of your life searching for the "real  truth" in this regards.

Just wanted to preface any comments and views I might post here with a sincere statement of respect for your work.

I must run right now to take care of daily business, so I will have to respond later on to what you stated in your JVB/Anna Lewis post.

JB

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Ms. Brown.

Thank you for responding to my 2 postings just before yours.

I just read most of your link entries.

I agree with most of your JFK event findings and views and appreciate your years of dogged research which clearly have consumed so much time, effort and personal expense. What a huge commitment.

I also can so understand and empathize with your personal emotion connection to JFK and his tragic murder and how this motivated you to spend so much of your life searching for the "real  truth" in this regards.

Just wanted to preface any comments and views I might post here with a sincere statement of respect for your work.

I must run right now to take care of daily business, so I will have to respond later on to what you stated in your JVB/Anna Lewis post.

JB

 

 

Thanks, Joe.  I have taken a beating for being a part of Judyth's entourage for seven years, doing my best to be fair (and unfortunately at times going overboard in that direction) so I am now really comfortable with criticism of any kind.  It doesn't matter to me what you think as long as you think for yourself, and it looks like you are doing that.  

I went on an expedition to "find Judyth".  I used an historical process (though I am sure that didn't show up in my posts) and came to the conclusion that she positioned herself deliberately as a counterfeit Marina  (in order to detract attention from the fact that Marina recanted her WC testimony in the early 90's and now believes LHO was innocent).  But I also have been tough on Marina and have a blog on her as well (Marina Enigma http://marinaenigma.blogspot.com/), so I would like to think I am treating them similarly.  There are so many lapses in Marina's accounts that could have been accounted for by Judyth's being involved with Lee (especially in her Clay Shaw trial testimony) that I felt I had to keep an open mind on Judyth.  

I still can't say for sure what kind of relationship they might have had, if they did have one.  Her story about the bioweapon, though, is pure baloney imo, though the odd coincidences are really intriguing.  Judyth said she told her sister Debbee soon after the assassination about her affair with LHO, but she never mentioned telling anyone about the bioweapon, so I tend to think that is something she and Haslam may have cooked up.  (That is another mystery).  

But if you can keep an open mind you can learn a lot about NOLA in 1963 by researching around Judyth's claims.   Just don't swallow anything whole!

Edited by Pamela Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pamela

I respect your opinion of Judyth and the opinions of others who don't believe her account.

However my opinion defers from yours. The No. 1 reason I believe Judyth is speaking the truth is evidence found in Warren Commission Exhibit  18, Oswald's address book.

In the book is a sketch of Judyth's apartment upside down. She said Oswald told her it would be difficult for anyone reading his diary to recognize Judyth's apartment if it was drawn upside down. He said that one must expect that his address book would be read by someone so he tried to disguise her apartment.

Anyway, the sketch shows her apartment and where the key to the apartment was hidden and where her papers and documents were hidden. Oswald wanted to know where she would hide all her documents incase anything happened to her and`he needed to retrieve them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, George Sawtelle said:

Pamela

I respect your opinion of Judyth and the opinions of others who don't believe her account.

However my opinion defers from yours. The No. 1 reason I believe Judyth is speaking the truth is evidence found in Warren Commission Exhibit  18, Oswald's address book.

In the book is a sketch of Judyth's apartment upside down. She said Oswald told her it would be difficult for anyone reading his diary to recognize Judyth's apartment if it was drawn upside down. He said that one must expect that his address book would be read by someone so he tried to disguise her apartment.

Anyway, the sketch shows her apartment and where the key to the apartment was hidden and where her papers and documents were hidden. Oswald wanted to know where she would hide all her documents incase anything happened to her and`he needed to retrieve them.

I don't believe nor disbelieve her.  I have tried to find her, in a sense, to find out what is really going on.  I think I have.  I could be wrong. 

I do not recall hearing about WC Exhibit 18, so this is new to me.  I can say, right away, that one think Judyth loves to do is take an actual piece of documentation and twist it to make it about her.  I don't know if that is what is happening here or not.  Here is a link to the exhibit:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_18.pdf

Can you tell me which page you are referencing?  Also, where did she speak of this, and what apartment is she talking about? Is there an objective diagram of this apartment?  (Just checking.) :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pamela

The link shows the`sketch, pg 39. It's difficult to understand the sketch Oswald did  not provide notes. But on pg 292 of her book, "Me and Lee", she explains the sketch.

I'm not sure where the apartment is located. It was the` last apartment she had before leaving for Florida. Her landlady was`named Suzie.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pamela Brown, among others, was one of faker Judy Baker's acolytes? For seven years? Who knew? I'll just never understand why there are so many gullible people in this case.  I mean, I read Lifton's Best Evidence back when it first came out and I was - GASP - 16 years old at the time.  After I read it, I was like, Wow! Now, over 30 years later, there's no way it happened like that and I've found that many money-making authors will latch on to a sentence fragment in the testimony and - PRESTO - they have a new "angle" on the case.  This case is much, much simpler than many people like to believe.

And yet, older people - not 16 year-olds - continue to fall for Harvey and Lee, the faking of the Zapruder film, and all the other silly stories. But to think a serious researcher will fall for a woman's creative writings when we never heard from Baker until 30 years - yes, that's right 30 years - after the assassination and support her loony stories for seven years is mind-boggling.

But I digress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while my tendency has been not to pile on. Now Pam has this unbendable mindset that Donald Trump is now an innocent victim of this same dark, evil conspiracy, and that any doubt is not worthy of a civil discussion. (Even leaving aside any discussions of legalities.) In view of all of his words and actions and broken promises.It is beyond me, why anybody would believe anything he says. Pam, I hope it takes you less than 7 years to admit you've been fooled again.

There are real things to fear, other than a pro military-intelligence  "deep state" coup (that can only benefit from Trump's increase in military spending), like the gutting of everything else..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

M. Walton

When you frame Baker's summer of 1963 NO/Oswald love affair story as nothing more than creative fiction writing, I can't wholeheartedly disagree with you.

But I just can't wholeheartedly dismiss JVB's tale either.

I understand why so many hugely dislike Baker personally. I believe most of the accounts of her in this light are true.

And so many who dislike her on this level enthusiastically want to see her exposed as a shameless, money grubbing, lying, overbearing fraud.

However, when I go over and over JVB's Oswald and her in NO account and claims and her own personal history before she arrived there, I must confess that if her stories are even half made up fiction It's all still a compelling read IMO.

JVB was there. She did work at Reilly's at the same time, hired the same day and left within a day or two of Oswald.  And since JVB didn't drive and took buses to her job, wouldn't it make sense that because Oswald also took buses and to the very same employment location on the same daily basis with the same work hours schedule and their getting off the bus there at the very same time and walking into the same complex that they couldn't help but have met at some point?

She mentions certain details about Oswald and his manner that ring true.

Her recollection about Oswald telling her about getting physical with Marina during arguments and her stated personal response to him about this behavior, if not true, is a very creatively clever side story.

JVB's take on Oschner are intriguing to me because I don't see where she could have come up with such a specifically dark take on him just by reading someone else's writings of him...and especially if this take on Oschner hadn't been expressed before in a published way? I may be wrong about this however.

And you have Anna Lewis and her published video interview where she claims she and her husband actually sat with Oswald and Baker in NO in a coffee shop during the right time frame and that Baker and Oswald were a couple. How much credibility does one give Anna Lewis? I'm not sure. But she is a real and still living person who was in NO during this specific time and working as a waitress in an affordable coffee shop which is where low income Oswald would go if he wanted to do so.

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As most you know I've had my run ins with Ms Baker.

I wrote a piece which Jim D edited and put up asking some basic questions of the evidence offered.

It's important to understand how much support she got going back to her college days when George Smathers helped her out, then on to two CIA cover jobs while waiting to work in Cancer research...  Faked documents for income had been provided her in the past to cover for the true source of her allowances and support.

Regarding Anna Lewis, she says twice in her "JVB coached interview" that Oswald is in New Orleans between Jan and April 1962.

During those months Oswald is in Minsk.  So why wouldn't JVB correct her after making the mistake the first time? or was there really an Oswald in New Orleans in '62?

2) via Fetzer, Baker offers a W-2 from the IRS as proof she worked at Reilly and therefor knew Harvey.

Problem #1 - this is "Copy B" to be filed with the IRS, not Copy C which is kept by the taxpayer.  Why would she have the copy she filed with the IRS?

Problem #2 - the 1963 Withholding Tax forms look nothing like this one, copy B or C

 

 

 

Problem #3 - when JVB mistakenly claimed it to be a STATE form, we see it is not...

https://statick2k-5f2f.kxcdn.com/images/pdf/JudythBaker-DJ.pdf   is the piece we did... 

we talk of Edwin McGehee, Clinton, and why her story is so hard to reconcile.

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe JVB did not file her taxes that year, since she obviously didn't owe the IRS anything. Maybe that is why she still had the copy "B?"

I didn't file when I was young and only making a few hundred dollars a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

And yet, older people - not 16 year-olds - continue to fall for Harvey and Lee, the faking of the Zapruder film, and all the other silly stories. But to think a serious researcher will fall for a woman's creative writings when we never heard from Baker until 30 years - yes, that's right 30 years - after the assassination and support her loony stories for seven years is mind-boggling.

But I digress

Sir, you remain a mystery.

Do you hear your argument?  Because you cannot wrap your mind around the concepts and the arguments which support them, IOW your mind is obviously boggled by these presentations... you find the only conclusion to your liking instead of learning about the subject and respecting the directions of others is to criticize with demeaning adjectives and snide little remarks...

"Older people" take the time to do the work necessary to speak with some authority on a topic.  Your only argument is "why would they?" which in itself not an argument at all.  So the fall back must be the subject at had is stupid and silly (look up COINTELPRO Mike, this is a classic tactic for those on the wrong side of a debate to change to topic)..    

What do you do to prepare to have a serious discussion Mike?  Do you read the work itself or only the para-phrased criticisms of others?
Do you look at the sources or just trust your instincts - you know better cause you can feel it? 

Whether a person waits 5 minutes or 30 years is of no consequence...  You must never experience fear of a machine so much larger than you your insignificant crushing would be of no consequence... many of us know better.  We all deal in our own way...

time does not degrade an argument, logic and authenticity does.

So please Mike, is it too much to ask you bring one, the other, or both instead of this repeated whining about your inability to comprehend others time well spent according to them?  I truly do not need you telling me what is or isn't of interest to me...

and I doubt anyone else does either...

:up  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 10:33 AM, Joe Bauer said:

Maybe JVB did not file her taxes that year, since she obviously didn't owe the IRS anything. Maybe that is why she still had the copy "B?"

I didn't file when I was young and only making a few hundred dollars a year.

Interesting thought Joe, yet she provided this herself.  To prove she worked at Reilly coffee in 1963 with Oswald..
No one dug this up, this was proudly offered.  and it's obviously not "normal".  

Besides, it's filled out. The IRS would have to send her back her original tax return with original COPY B for her to have it...  they don't do that.

In 1963, as in 1959...  a few hundred dollars a year was enough to live on.  Oswald made $1000 in '59 as a marine.

Below that are some calcs from when Marina applied for Social Security and they added up Oswald's life work.. suffice to say there are alot of problems with tax returns in this case

Besides, this is only one straw on this camel's back... many, many more

 

 

 

 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe said,

I understand why so many hugely dislike Baker personally. I believe most of the accounts of her in this light are true.

And so many who dislike her on this level enthusiastically want to see her exposed as a shameless, money grubbing, lying, overbearing fraud.

The vitriol that you're referring to is because in many ways the credence of the JFK conspiracy movement, if you will, is only as good as it's weakest claims.So those who are exploiting this  for financial advantage have to be vigilantly renounced.and repudiated.

I personally never accepted Baker, but probably like you, the most interesting account supporting at least Baker's knowing LHO was the story of Anna Lewis. I saw her as  a simple woman without guile, who at least was backing up a rather innocuous part of Baker's story. It lost some credibility when I heard Baker in the background. I'm not sure why you still brought her up Joe, because the only thing of any value I've seen from the re emergence of this thread is that Pam told you she believes she was coached.Which also makes sense  in that a simple person without guile, could also be easily manipulated, as apparently she was. So she's answered that for you, in least her belief. As to Baker revealing the rumor that LHO beat his wife, as well about everything else she said was available to any Cter' in any number of books at the time..

I think they could well have known each other. And OK, It would be a bit interesting to talk to anybody who once had a dialog with LHO. But when they start exploiting it for material gain. lt does cast a pall over everything they say.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...