John McAdams and Judyth Baker

[William Kelly]

JVB does mentionJack S. Martin and she says David Lewis and his girlfriend double dated withher and Oswald on occasion, Lewis is another Bannister investigator who claims to have crossed paths with Oswald and JudythV. Baker in New Orleans. Like Baker, Lewis wrote a book about his interactions with Oswald and like JVB's book Me & Lee, I couldn't find onething in there that I didn't known already.

Bill, you have your Lewis-es confused. David Franklin Lewis Jr. was an associate of Martin and Banister. He never claimed to have double-dated with Oswald (and his widow only made the claim after Baker contacted her.)

Ronald LeVore Lewis (no relation) claimed to have been Oswald's best friend in New Orleans, and he wrote about it in a book called Flashback. His story is untrue.

Thanks for straightening me out there Roy, I was busy trying to keep all my Jack Martins straight.

I thought that if the David Lewis wrote the book I read he would have mentioned the double-dating and visiting Marchello's joint.

Do you know where the name 500 Club comes from? Is it the address maybe?

Skinny D'Amato had a 500 Club in Atlantic City that was connected too.

Then there's the Carousel Club - Ruby's Joint in Dallas and the one Bobby Baker had in Maryland I think.

BK

[Glenn Viklund]

About this JVB trip to Canada.

I wonder who financed this thing, Trine Day would obviously be part of it. But they're just the commercial side of things. I strongly doubt they organized this thing.

Could it be that James Fetzer is the "dark force" behind this charade? What do you say, Mr. Fetzer?

Why do you speak when you know nothing about it? I was there, and Kris Millegan has been a friend for years. TrineDay had moral support from some people in Toronto, like Conspiracy Culture bookstore and from Jesse Ventura, who would have driven up (refuses to fly while he's suing TSA), but had to be unexpectedly in southern New Mexico. So Kris did all the work and TrineDay paid for it.

I'll vouch for Judyth's credibility up against the "experts" like you any day.

Well, good for you. You've spent a week [in the same room?] with Judyth. You know, that's admirable. I don't think I'd endure five minutes with her. I was invited, to put it mildly, a couple of years ago, but I turned her down.

However, spending time with Judyth does not cut it, not one little bit. I'm no "JFK expert researcher". But I did find the relevant documentation to show that she was not telling the truth about her "political asylum". She had been granted no such thing, which is what she'd told the world for a couple of years. Nowadays she's telling everyone she was in the "asylum process", but she's still very silent indeed about telling anyone why she was rejected - twice. And why she never brought forward the evidence she said that she had.

As a lawyer yourself, I suggest you find this documentation to make your own conclusions about those Migration Court decisions. You just might find it an interesting read.

[in addition, I find it a bit disturbing that you, as a lawyer yourself, are questioning my credibility, of which you know absolutely nothing. In fact, that's very disturbing.]

Does it matter? Well, if that information is added to the mountain of evidence from ten years of research, it certainly fits very well into the larger picture about Judyth Baker's character.

She's not the type I would buy a used car from.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Linda Minor]

About this JVB trip to Canada.

I wonder who financed this thing, Trine Day would obviously be part of it. But they're just the commercial side of things. I strongly doubt they organized this thing.

Could it be that James Fetzer is the "dark force" behind this charade? What do you say, Mr. Fetzer?

Why do you speak when you know nothing about it? I was there, and Kris Millegan has been a friend for years. TrineDay had moral support from some people in Toronto, like Conspiracy Culture bookstore and from Jesse Ventura, who would have driven up (refuses to fly while he's suing TSA), but had to be unexpectedly in southern New Mexico. So Kris did all the work and TrineDay paid for it.

I'll vouch for Judyth's credibility up against the "experts" like you any day.

Well, good for you. You've spent a week [in the same room?] with Judyth. You know, that's admirable. I don't think I'd endure five minutes with her. I was invited, to put it mildly, a couple of years ago, but I turned her down.

However, spending time with Judyth does not cut it, not one little bit. I'm no "JFK expert researcher". But I did find the relevant documentation to show that she was not telling the truth about her "political asylum". She had been granted no such thing, which is what she'd told the world for a couple of years. Nowadays she's telling everyone she was in the "asylum process", but she's still very silent indeed about telling anyone why she was rejected - twice. And why she never brought forward the evidence she said that she had.

As a lawyer yourself, I suggest you find this documentation to make your own conclusions about those Migration Court decisions. You just might find it an interesting read.

[in addition, I find it a bit disturbing that you, as a lawyer yourself, are questioning my credibility, of which you know absolutely nothing. In fact, that's very disturbing.]

Does it matter? Well, if that information is added to the mountain of evidence from ten years of research, it certainly fits very well into the larger picture about Judyth Baker's character.

She's not the type I would buy a used car from.

I did not 'question' your credibility. If I had to choose between what you say and what Judyth says, as a juror not as a lawyer, I choose her story instead of yours. I have read what you have to say. In fact, Judyth told me how you or someone like you tried to track her down to her place of exile. Whether that fits within your definition of legal exile or not is unimportant. I have talked to her family, and they confirm that the threats she endured and "accidents" suffered were real. They were there; you were not. And as for debunked, I have to agree with you.

de·bunk/diˈbəNGk/

Verb:

• Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
• Reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), esp. by ridicule: "comedy takes delight in debunking heroes".

Attempts have been made over and over to reduce her reputation, to deflate it by ridicule. But the myth is that she was not where she said she was. The book has been out for a year now. Prove that anything she said in the book is untrue. You can't do that, so you attack her. You were invited to meet her, and you declined. That says a great deal about how much you value finding truth. She was a witness you failed to meet. You made it your job to undermine all she has said and done. Your actions speak for themselves.

[Stephen Roy]

Stephen:

How do you know the Ron Lewis story is false?

I thought Stone said that Marina recalled the guy.

I guess I fired off the post without wording it more carefully. I should have said that I have enough reservations about the story that I can't accept it as genuine, based on my study of the book and a few conversations with Lewis in 1993. He was very short on detail and seemed unwilling to discuss anything I might use to verify any aspect of his story. Sorry for overstating it.

I can't explain why Marina said she recalled him. I could only guess that he might have talked her into believing that he was the person from some fuzzy memory. He did say that he felt very timid about going into the encounter with her.

[Stephen Roy]

There is no credible evidence that Baker knew Ferrie.

For that matter, there is no credible evidence that Sherman worked with Ferrie.

Judyth's testimony is credible evidence. Credibility is determined by the person who hears the testimony. Eye-witness testimony has always been admissible in any court of law. Hear her testimony at

George Freund's show on ThatChannel.com

Then judge for yourself.

Hi, Linda:

I've seen your name around the internet, and it appears that you think a lot of Baker, so I'm not sure if anything I say will change that.

I've looked at the Baker case for a long time, and I have many Ferrie-related reasons for doubt, and many non-Ferrie reasons for doubt. I don't think Baker's assertions can stand alone, and we certainly can't use Baker to corroborate Baker. Her story, by the way, is not testimony (under oath, cross-examined). I've never seen any credible evidence that she knew Ferrie.

[Linda Minor]

There is no credible evidence that Baker knew Ferrie.

For that matter, there is no credible evidence that Sherman worked with Ferrie.

Judyth's testimony is credible evidence. Credibility is determined by the person who hears the testimony. Eye-witness testimony has always been admissible in any court of law. Hear her testimony at

George Freund's show on ThatChannel.com

Then judge for yourself.

Hi, Linda:

I've seen your name around the internet, and it appears that you think a lot of Baker, so I'm not sure if anything I say will change that.

I've looked at the Baker case for a long time, and I have many Ferrie-related reasons for doubt, and many non-Ferrie reasons for doubt. I don't think Baker's assertions can stand alone, and we certainly can't use Baker to corroborate Baker. Her story, by the way, is not testimony (under oath, cross-examined). I've never seen any credible evidence that she knew Ferrie.

And if you had, you wouldn't admit it. As I said, the book has been out a year. That should be plenty of time to prove that something she said in the book is not true. Something besides your word against hers. What on earth is a "Ferrie-related reason"?

[Stephen Roy]

I've never seen any credible evidence that she knew Ferrie.

And if you had, you wouldn't admit it. As I said, the book has been out a year. That should be plenty of time to prove that something she said in the book is not true. Something besides your word against hers. What on earth is a "Ferrie-related reason"?

I wouldn't admit it? What an unfair thing to say.

Since the book has come out, I've found many problems with it (and posted about a few) and others have found other problems. It is not accurate to say that it hasn't received criticism and analysis. In my case, the world doesn't revolve around trying to prove something about Baker's book.

A Ferrie-related reason is a matter involving Ferrie, a topic with which I have special experience.

[Glenn Viklund]

About this JVB trip to Canada.

I wonder who financed this thing, Trine Day would obviously be part of it. But they're just the commercial side of things. I strongly doubt they organized this thing.

Could it be that James Fetzer is the "dark force" behind this charade? What do you say, Mr. Fetzer?

Why do you speak when you know nothing about it? I was there, and Kris Millegan has been a friend for years. TrineDay had moral support from some people in Toronto, like Conspiracy Culture bookstore and from Jesse Ventura, who would have driven up (refuses to fly while he's suing TSA), but had to be unexpectedly in southern New Mexico. So Kris did all the work and TrineDay paid for it.

I'll vouch for Judyth's credibility up against the "experts" like you any day.

Well, good for you. You've spent a week [in the same room?] with Judyth. You know, that's admirable. I don't think I'd endure five minutes with her. I was invited, to put it mildly, a couple of years ago, but I turned her down.

However, spending time with Judyth does not cut it, not one little bit. I'm no "JFK expert researcher". But I did find the relevant documentation to show that she was not telling the truth about her "political asylum". She had been granted no such thing, which is what she'd told the world for a couple of years. Nowadays she's telling everyone she was in the "asylum process", but she's still very silent indeed about telling anyone why she was rejected - twice. And why she never brought forward the evidence she said that she had.

As a lawyer yourself, I suggest you find this documentation to make your own conclusions about those Migration Court decisions. You just might find it an interesting read.

[in addition, I find it a bit disturbing that you, as a lawyer yourself, are questioning my credibility, of which you know absolutely nothing. In fact, that's very disturbing.]

Does it matter? Well, if that information is added to the mountain of evidence from ten years of research, it certainly fits very well into the larger picture about Judyth Baker's character.

She's not the type I would buy a used car from.

I did not 'question' your credibility. If I had to choose between what you say and what Judyth says, as a juror not as a lawyer, I choose her story instead of yours. I have read what you have to say. In fact, Judyth told me how you or someone like you tried to track her down to her place of exile. Whether that fits within your definition of legal exile or not is unimportant. I have talked to her family, and they confirm that the threats she endured and "accidents" suffered were real. They were there; you were not. And as for debunked, I have to agree with you.

de·bunk/diˈbəNGk/

Verb:

• Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
• Reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), esp. by ridicule: "comedy takes delight in debunking heroes".

Attempts have been made over and over to reduce her reputation, to deflate it by ridicule. But the myth is that she was not where she said she was. The book has been out for a year now. Prove that anything she said in the book is untrue. You can't do that, so you attack her. You were invited to meet her, and you declined. That says a great deal about how much you value finding truth. She was a witness you failed to meet. You made it your job to undermine all she has said and done. Your actions speak for themselves.

"Track her down"? This is what she told you? And you think that's what happened? It's amazing how people around her seems to, completely without using one little bit of critical thinking, swallow whatever Baker says.

Let me tell you what really happened.

First, as far as "someone like me", I have no idea who that might be. Second, Baker was not hiding from anyone. Today she says that's what she was doing, because that fits better in with this "chase of her" and the rest of that fantastic story.

She was doing interviews for a local newspaper in Dalarna (mid-Sweden), as well as a TV interview. When one of her supporters hinted that she could be in Sweden, I found that interesting, did a Google search and it took me about two minutes to find out her whereabouts.

So you see, Linda. There was no tracking her down going on. She basically asked to be found, as she no doubt was looking for the limelight and got bored, Sweden can be pretty miserable in the late autumn, you know. And I'm sure these interviews cheered her up a bit. She got to be someone again and got away for a few hours from that boring asylum process with all the limitations such a thing requires.

Let me ask the juror Linda Minor this:

If, as she claims, there had been some sort of chase of her through Europe, and if, as she claims, these forces were somehow connected to the US government - what is then the likelyhood that Baker would give interviews in local newspapers and TV-stations where she reveals her whereabouts?

Do you find this behavior perfectly believable, coherent and logical? Is that what the juror Linda Minor would vote for?

Edited October 26, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Linda Minor]

Let me also ask the juror Linda Minor this:

If, as she claims, there had been some sort of chase of her through Europe, and if, as she claims, these forces were somehow connected to the US government - what is then the likelyhood that Baker would give interviews in local newspapers and TV-stations where she reveals her whereabouts?

Do you find this behavior perfectly believable, coherent and logical? Is that what the juror Linda Minor would vote for?

Actually, it does sound like something Judyth would do. She is believable but not necessarily coherent and logical, viewed from my perception. I take her as she is. People have multiple motivations for their behavior. She loved Lee Oswald and wants the truth about him known. At the same time she wants to stay alive and be safe. She also has a family she loves and misses. Given those motives, how does one plan to act logically and coherently when judged by others?

Let's visualize a scene in court, listening to Judyth Vary Baker giving testimony about events in New Orleans in 1963. As a witness, she tells what she saw and heard with her own eyes and ears. What Lee told her would be hearsay unless it fits within an exception to the hearsay rule. Her presence in New Orleans--and her working at Reilly Coffee Company at the very same time Oswald is documented to have been there--is admissible. Lee's time cards, approved with the initials 'JB,' would be admitted. Many other documents discovered by researchers following details Judyth remembered could also be brought into the record.

What could you say in rebuttal that would be admissible? Opinions are not admissible without proving credentials as an expert. Unless you were there, you can offer nothing except documents that contradict her own story. If you have such eye-witness testimony or documentary evidence, bring it forth. Otherwise, your opinions have no value and would not be heard by our court.

In a perfect world, Judyth would be allowed to tell what she witnessed, and people would be allowed to listen to the story she tells and judge for themselves. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a nation in which some of its leaders and their delegates took it upon themselves to murder a president elected by the will of the people under the Constitution. That act takes away the notion that our government is a Constitutional Republic. That may not bother some people, but it makes me very angry. I want to know how those people in power got away with it. I want to restore the republic. Most of the witnesses were also killed before they could tell what they observed. Judyth is one exception. Whether you believe her story of how she has survived is not really relevant to what she has to say. It's a mere distraction.

What I cannot understand is your interest in "debunking" her. Why would you spend your own funds on documents about her asylum?

It's true people find her personality abrasive. She does talk endlessly. She is highly emotional about certain subjects. But what exactly is it about her that motivates you to continue being interested?

Anyone who feels capable of hearing her story and acting as juror without either your or my influence can watch the interview on you tube now.

Conspiracy Cafe 2011-10o-20 - Judyth Vary Baker, author of Lee and Me

(Part 2)

As a followup to the interview, I would urge people interested in the issue of public health and cancer-causing viruses to read another book called The Virus and the Vaccine: The True Story of a Cancer-Causing Monkey Virus, Contaminated Polio Vaccine, and the Millions of Americans Exposed

Baby boomers who only know Jonas Salk and his virus-fighting colleagues as heroes will be disturbed at how some of them downplayed concerns about a monkey virus called SV40 that was present in the polio vaccine. The links between SV40 and human cancer took a long time to define, and breakthroughs in molecular biology made the job more realistic in later decades. Nevertheless, Bookchin and Schumacher argue that a biased scientific bureaucracy in combination with a desperate public and money-hungry pharmaceutical companies fostered the use of a vaccine that may have increased cancer risk. "The vast majority of baby boomers--almost all of whom received polio vaccine in the late 1950s and early 1960s--have potentially been exposed to the virus," they write. But baby boomers aren't the only ones at risk. The authors reveal that Lederle Laboratories continued to produce potentially contaminated oral polio vaccines well into the 1990s. Although the authors point fingers of blame at some specific targets, they carefully balance their accusations with reminders that public demands for cures must be balanced with careful assessment of new medical treatments.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Linda Minor

[Glenn Viklund]

Actually, it does sound like something Judyth would do. She is believable but not necessarily coherent and logical, viewed from my perception. I take her as she is. People have multiple motivations for their behavior. She loved Lee Oswald and wants the truth about him known. At the same time she wants to stay alive and be safe. She also has a family she loves and misses. Given those motives, how does one plan to act logically and coherently when judged by others?

All I would ask is that people be allowed to listen to the story she tells and judge for themselves. What I cannot understand is your interest in "debunking" her. Why would you spend your own funds on documents about her asylum?

It's true people find her personality abrasive. She does talk endlessly. She is highly emotional about certain subjects. But what exactly is it about her that motivates you to continue being interested?

Anyone who feels capable of hearing her story and acting as juror without either your or my influence can watch the interview on you tube now.

The simple answer is this:

Her story is a hoax, and she should not in the slightest little way be connected to Oswald or the JFK assassination. She has inserted herself into these events completely without foundation.

I'm frankly amazed that anyone who has done any research about this, believes in her story. (Well, the latest version of it..).

My personal experiences confirmed that you cannot trust what she says. Barb Junkkarinen and many others have done excellent research into several areas of her story, and found errors and inconsistencies that have no other explanation than being lies.

You either have the credentials you claim or you don't. You either are the woman in a photo or you are not. You either talked about Cancun or you didn't. You either have been granted asylum or you have not.

Just to mention a few examples. None of these are a question of memory. There's one logical explanation, and I would hope that you as well as I, can see what that is. There's also a very distinctive pattern in her behavior about her story. As soon as inconsistencies and errors have been pointed out, she has immediately changed her story. This has happened over and over again for ten years. Many of her original claims are not there anymore. New ones are there instead. Others have changed so that they are hardly recognizable today. She said she had "lots of evidence" to corroborate her story. And even though some of it "was eaten by a dog", to this day, nothing has ever appeared. Not even in front of two Migration Courts did she bring the evidence she said that she had. Despite the obvious importance about it. There has, in short, been a pay-as-you-go approach to her story that boarders the farsical.

As for time and money. My efforts regarding JVB have been miniscule, both in time and money. The documents I obtained took a number of phone calls and perhaps a day to get hold of. Nothing exceptional or expensive about it at all.

But her behavior vs me certainly convinced me about her character, had I ever had any doubts:

- She said those documents were confidential. They were not and are not. Fetzer still has Utube videos out where this is claimed. Wrong.

- She said her lawyers told her this. Not a chance they did. They're experts.

- She conducted an Internet search about me and came up with all kinds of ridiculous accusations.

- She said I was a government agent. I'm not.

- She said I was a translator who stole these documents. I'm not and I did not.

And I could go on.

This is not how anyone honest behaves. Period. She's a hoax.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Glenn Viklund]

Sorry, duplicate.

Edited October 26, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Lee's time cards, approved with the initials 'JB,' would be admitted. Many other documents discovered by researchers following details Judyth remembered could also be brought into the record.

Linda, can you please provide a link to any time card bearing the initials "JB" as you reference above?

To my knowledge, and I did study the cards and was involved in a thread discussing them 2 or 3 years ago, there is NO Oswald time card that bears the initials "JB." His time cards bear various initials ... expected practice in companies where cards were often looked over, hours tallied by hand, and initialed. A few of Oswald's time cards bear what looks like a rather unique "J." Where do you see a "JB" on any card?

What could you say in rebuttal that would be admissible? Opinions are not admissible without proving credentials as an expert. Unless you were there, you can offer nothing except documents that contradict her own story. If you have such eye-witness testimony or documentary evidence, bring it forth. Otherwise, your opinions have no value and would not be heard by our court.

Researchers have produced many documents that are in direct conflict with claims Judyth has made. Most, but not necessarily all, have been posted both here and on other forums over the last few years. These include, for example, correspondence from Roswell Park Cancer Institute that Judyth did not complete the program there "as she was dismissed" ... annual reports from the National Science Foundation (NSF), from whom Judyth claims to have received scholarships and grant monies, show no such monies given to her or any project she claims to have been involved in ... a letter from the American Cancer Association saying that after thoroughly researching my query, they find NO Judy Vary in their records as ever having received scholarships, funds or equipment from them (this is aside from the $250 science fair prize she received from the local Florida chapter while in high school)... and 3 way documentation concerning her claim that an evening Russian class was started for her at Manatee Junior College, not the least of which is the school class catalog that lists an evening Russian class already in place.

Those items would be admissible in your ... or any ... court.

Judyth has been telling her story for over a decade now. On the internet, in reams of e-mails to many, many people, in radio and video interviews, in assorted manuscripts and in two published books. She has hardly been stifled by anyone. The claims of any emerging witness require verification .... that should not only be expected, it should be welcomed by all whose interest is in the accuracy of our history and the integrity of any research efforts that may stem from reports of an emerging witness.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Linda Minor]

The simple answer is this:

Her story is a hoax, and she should not in the slightest little way be connected to Oswald or the JFK assassination. She has inserted herself into these events completely without foundation.

I'm frankly amazed that anyone who has done any research about this, believes in her story. (Well, the latest version of it..).

My personal experiences confirmed that you cannot trust what she says. Barb Junkkarinen and many others have done excellent research into several areas of her story, and found errors and inconsistencies that have no other explanation than being lies.

You either have the credentials you claim or you don't. You either are the woman in a photo or you are not. You either talked about Cancun or you didn't. You either have been granted asylum or you have not.

Just to mention a few examples. None of these are a question of memory. There's one logical explanation, and I would hope that you as well as I, can see what that is. There's also a very distinctive pattern in her behavior about her story. As soon as inconsistencies and errors have been pointed out, she has immediately changed her story. This has happened over and over again for ten years. Many of her original claims are not there anymore. New ones are there instead. Others have changed so that they are hardly recognizable today. She said she had "lots of evidence" to corroborate her story. And even though some of it "was eaten by a dog", to this day, nothing has ever appeared. Not even in front of two Migration Courts did she bring the evidence she said that she had. Despite the obvious importance about it. There has, in short, been a pay-as-you-go approach to her story that boarders the farsical.

As for time and money. My efforts regarding JVB have been miniscule, both in time and money. The documents I obtained took a number of phone calls and perhaps a day to get hold of. Nothing exceptional or expensive about it at all.

But her behavior vs me certainly convinced me about her character, had I ever had any doubts:

- She said those documents were confidential. They were not and are not. Fetzer still has Utube videos out where this is claimed. Wrong.

- She said her lawyers told her this. Not a chance they did. They're experts.

- She conducted an Internet search about me and came up with all kinds of ridiculous accusations.

- She said I was a government agent. I'm not.

- She said I was a translator who stole these documents. I'm not and I did not.

And I could go on.

This is not how anyone honest behaves. Period. She's a hoax.

Obviously, you chose not to listen to her two-hour interview. You and Barb can rant and rave all you like about the past debunking nonsense. But you can't deal with the content.

My memory pales against Judyth's. I mispoke. The initial on the time cards was merely "J" instead of "JB," and the time cards are shown at pages 588 and 589 of both the hard and soft cover of the book.

My thanks go to all of you who have responded with so much objectivity and professionalism.

[Peter Fokes]

Lee's time cards, approved with the initials 'JB,' would be admitted. Many other documents discovered by researchers following details Judyth remembered could also be brought into the record.

Linda, can you please provide a link to any time card bearing the initials "JB" as you reference above?

To my knowledge, and I did study the cards and was involved in a thread discussing them 2 or 3 years ago, there is NO Oswald time card that bears the initials "JB." His time cards bear various initials ... expected practice in companies where cards were often looked over, hours tallied by hand, and initialed. A few of Oswald's time cards bear what looks like a rather unique "J." Where do you see a "JB" on any card?

What could you say in rebuttal that would be admissible? Opinions are not admissible without proving credentials as an expert. Unless you were there, you can offer nothing except documents that contradict her own story. If you have such eye-witness testimony or documentary evidence, bring it forth. Otherwise, your opinions have no value and would not be heard by our court.

Researchers have produced many documents that are in direct conflict with claims Judyth has made. Most, but not necessarily all, have been posted both here and on other forums over the last few years. These include, for example, correspondence from Roswell Park Cancer Institute that Judyth did not complete the program there "as she was dismissed" ... annual reports from the National Science Foundation (NSF), from whom Judyth claims to have received scholarships and grant monies, show no such monies given to her or any project she claims to have been involved in ... a letter from the American Cancer Association saying that after thoroughly researching my query, they find NO Judy Vary in their records as ever having received scholarships, funds or equipment from them (this is aside from the $250 science fair prize she received from the local Florida chapter while in high school)... and 3 way documentation concerning her claim that an evening Russian class was started for her at Manatee Junior College, not the least of which is the school class catalog that lists an evening Russian class already in place.

Those items would be admissible in your ... or any ... court.

Judyth has been telling her story for over a decade now. On the internet, in reams of e-mails to many, many people, in radio and video interviews, in assorted manuscripts and in two published books. She has hardly been stifled by anyone. The claims of any emerging witness require verification .... that should not only be expected, it should be welcomed by all whose interest is in the accuracy of our history and the integrity of any research efforts that may stem from reports of an emerging witness.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Is this the same Linda Minor who runs a blog called "Quixotic Joist: I'm forever chasing windmills"?

If so, Ms. Minor is surely engaged in her favourite pastime ("chasing windmills") if she persists in thinking folks offering rational criticisms of Judyth's story are not capable "jurors."

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Obviously, you chose not to listen to her two-hour interview. You and Barb can rant and rave all you like about the past debunking nonsense. But you can't deal with the content.

My memory pales against Judyth's. I mispoke. The initial on the time cards was merely "J" instead of "JB," and the time cards are shown at pages 588 and 589 of both the hard and soft cover of the book.

My thanks go to all of you who have responded with so much objectivity and professionalism.

Claim verification efforts and the documented facts they yield are not a "rant and rave." And researching claims and reporting the findings is not "nonsense."

Despite some who try to make it seem so, this is not personal about Judyth. Not for me, nor for others I know interested in verifying her claims. I have no personal or emotional stake or attachment to Judyth or her story. Clearly, in my opinion, some do.

I merely wanted to know if the claims were credible and undertook a totally objective approach, and in a professional manner. Some claims can be confirmed or denied, and with documentation to support that finding. Judyth is another person with claims about the assassination. Such claims must stand or fall on verification, not on faith or some religious-like fervor. Judyth chose to put herself and her story into this research arena, and continues to make that choice. If her story is verifiable, it is of major importance in our quest for the truth; if it is not, it is a train wreck for research and researchers. A few minor discordant notes will never change what must be the focus: whether or not she is an actual witness, and a credible one. As many documented facts as can be found will help each person to make their own decision about whether or not her story overall is reliable.

Thank you for correcting your error about the initials on the time cards. The time cards, which carry other initials other than or in addition to some that carry a "J" are in the volumes, here is a link to them on the Mary Ferrell site:

LHO timecards

Some of the cards on these pages are quite faint .... one, in particular, doesn't show the markings on the bottom of the card. There are clearer copies I have seen ... perhaps in Oswald's 201 file. If someone else knows where those clearer copoies can be found, perhaps they will post that link.

Barb :-)

Edited October 26, 2011 by Barb Junkkarinen