Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Dean Hagerman]

To make this post, you have no comprehension whatsoever of what has been going on here. Unbelievable!

This will go down as the greatest mistake in the history of your research on JFK.

I know I said Im no longer going to post in this thread, but look what Judyth has done Jim!

How in the world could you say something like this about David?

Please Jim you can back Judyth all you want, but please dont destroy any friendships over Judyth

Im not looking for a mean spirited reply from you like you gave me last time Jim, because you know that I have and still will back you up on ANY of you're assassination theories Jim except with Judyth, her story is fake, just like James Files.

I hope you read my post with understanding instead of anger because im always on you're side, I just dont agree with whats going on in this thread

Dean

Well I tried Jim

I hope you can look back after you find out that Judyth is a fake and at least see that I tried to tell you

And the reason that you dont think I comprehend this thread is because we are looking at this thread from different angles

I have read every post, and none of them come even a little close to making me change my mind about Judyth

[Michael Hogan]

Jack,

....... Please do us both the favor and listen to Ed Haslam's

interview with me, which only runs an hour. It will be broadcast Friday

with Jesse Ventura the first hour and Ed the second on "The Real Deal",

revereradio.net, from 5-7 PM/CT. But you can also catch my interview

with Ed Haslam at http://religionandmorality.net/Podcasts/Haslam/ I

urge you to listen, Jack. It provides the background to Judyth and Lee.

Three years ago I attended a meeting of the South Florida Research Group in Tampa

and had the opportunity to meet Ed Haslam. He gave a talk on his new book, Dr Mary's Monkey.

I remember sitting next to Gerry Hemming's brother, listening to his occasional mutterings

as Haslam talked. Haslam struck me as an intelligent, affable, honest and reasonable man.

I wanted to believe him. And for much of what he said, I did. Other things he said seemed to

lack any type of proof or corroboration.

During the Q & A session I specifically asked him about the credibility of Judyth Baker and her story.

He allowed as how he had spent many hours talking with her and that he found her believable.

I remember at the time thinking that his answer was a general one, contained no specifics, and was

vaguely unsatisfying. Particularly because he had introduced her as such an important part of his updated book.

When I got back home, I looked at my copy of Dr Mary's Monkey, which Ed Haslam had kindly inscribed,

and reread the appendix which contained Judyth's story. According to Haslam, it was corroborated and corrected by Judyth.

Although Haslam offers his comments and reasons for believing her, it is according to him "a basic outline of her story."

Haslam writes:

"I empathize with Judyth as a person. She has paid a terrible price for what she did in the 1960s,

and for what she says today. I hope you will read her story for yourself, if you are able to obtain it,

and make your own decisions about her story."

The above statement is footnoted thusly:

"Judyth's book entitled Lee Harvey Oswald was released in June of 2006. It was published

by Trafford Press and could be ordered on their Web site. After about two weeks, it was suddenly

withdrawn without explanation. I do not know why and will leave that for others to explain and to discuss.

I was given my copy by Judyth Vary Baker. Used copies may be available from time to time. Check the internet."

I did. I bought and read Baker's two volume story. My question now is this:

Since Haslam's book came out a year after Baker's, how could he not know that Judyth considered her book

to be an unauthorized one, replete with explainable mistakes?

As most members know, Haslam also claims to have met another (different) Judyth Vary Baker in October, 1972.

He realized the significance of her name when contacted by 60 minutes concerning the Judyth Vary Baker story

they were working on. They were contacting Haslam because he had written about David Ferrie in his first book.

Haslam admitted that his account of this episode (1972 meeting of a JVB) "caused confusion and distrust among the 60M team."

Most Forum members are also familiar with the following:

In Dr Mary's Monkey, Haslam recounts the story in the briefest fashion. In the presence of his girlfriend and

some of her fellow graduate students in the school cafeteria, Haslam got into an argument with a Latin American

grad student. What started out as a discussion about Jim Garrison's investigation and David Ferrie's underground medical laboratory

reached flash-point when Haslam made a comment about Dr Ochsner's statement that 'sex could cause cancer.'

After this incident, according to Haslam, his girlfriend's fellow graduate students had stopped speaking to her.

She told him he would have to "make up your mind whether you are going to be the recognized expert on the

Garrison investigation, or whether you want to be my boyfriend."

For Haslam the choice was easy, and he agreed not to discuss Garrison around her friends.

Paradoxically enough, Haslam's 'performance in the cafeteria' had gotten them invited to a party.

Haslam could accompany his girl friend if he promised to "control himself."

They went to the party. The hostess told Haslam's girl friend that she had been a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald

and invited Haslam to discuss the Garrison investigation with her. Upon hearing this, Haslam immediately asked

his girlfriend if they could leave (!) and she agreed. Haslam's description in his book of this event is about as

brief as my account of it.

Two weeks later, this hostess of the party, Judyth Vary Baker, invites Haslam and his girlfriend to her home for dinner, just the three of them.

This is an opportunity for Haslam, a man vitally interested in the local Garrison investigation, to meet someone that knew Lee Harvey Oswald!

How could he refuse such a chance, or at the very least try to persuade his girfriend go? After all, none of her other fellow graduate students would be there.

Haslam explains this in two sentences:

"I reminded Barbara that this woman had said she had been a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald,

and that I did not want to go to any dinner with her. Barbara declined the invitation."

That's it. The reader is left wanting for more. To me it's barely believable, given the fact that Haslam describes it so briefly

and mattter-of-factly.

I can't say Haslam's story didn't happen. I wasn't there. But I am disappointed in the way Haslam describes

the whole encounter,given that it was New Orleans at the height of the Garrison investigation and Haslam

had an acute interest in same. If the story is true, Haslam doesn't give the reader much to go on about his refusal

to meet a certain JVB and in the process, find out what she knew about Oswald.

[Glenn Viklund]

Mr Hogan,

Thank you for sharing this with us. This all happened in Bradenton, FL?

GV

[Pamela Brown]

Life is finite.

Should even a minute be wasted on this lady, and her fictions?

Tough to think that this criticism of 'fiction' comes from one whose thesis in BE is by far the most creative interpretation of existing information on what happened to the body of JFK after the assassination out there. One might think that Lifton considers himself a specialist on believing in far-out theories and doesn't want anyone else intruding on what he considers to be his territory?

Edited April 9, 2010 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Pamela Brown]

Jim Fetzer said to Lifton:

This will

go down as the greatest mistake in the history of your research on JFK.

Lifton has positioned himself to block research on Judyth and on the Garrison investigation. Perhaps there is a common denominator between the two.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO HORGAN AND WILL INVITE JUDYTH TO ADD MORE

This is a very odd report. At this point in time, Ed Haslam has interviewed

Judyth for around 1,000 hours and has interrogated her more extensively

than anyone else alive, so far as I am able to ascertain. Michael appears

to want to launch a "preemptive attack" on Ed before the interview to be

broadcast this evening. I can assure you, no one is going to conclude that

he is being either "vague" or "general" or "evasive" after hearing it. He has

told me that he does not want to take on extensive discussion about Judyth

until her book, ME & LEE, has appeared, no doubt to have a basic reference

work to which interested parties can be directed. I will invite Judyth to take

a look at this. Meanwhile, everyone should listen to Ed Haslam this evening.

P.S. The book is copyright 2007. Ed has had extensive interaction with her

in the meanwhile. I will also invite him to comment, but I think Michael is

far off-base. Still, it is higher in quality than most of the trash attacks that

have been posted on this thread. For that, at least, I am most appreciative.

Jack,

....... Please do us both the favor and listen to Ed Haslam's

interview with me, which only runs an hour. It will be broadcast Friday

with Jesse Ventura the first hour and Ed the second on "The Real Deal",

revereradio.net, from 5-7 PM/CT. But you can also catch my interview

with Ed Haslam at http://religionandmorality.net/Podcasts/Haslam/ I

urge you to listen, Jack. It provides the background to Judyth and Lee.

Three years ago I attended a meeting of the South Florida Research Group in Tampa

and had the opportunity to meet Ed Haslam. He gave a talk on his new book, Dr Mary's Monkey.

I remember sitting next to Gerry Hemming's brother, listening to his occasional mutterings

as Haslam talked. Haslam struck me as an intelligent, affable, honest and reasonable man.

I wanted to believe him. And for much of what he said, I did. Other things he said seemed to

lack any type of proof or corroboration.

During the Q & A session I specifically asked him about the credibility of Judyth Baker and her story.

He allowed as how he had spent many hours talking with her and that he found her believable.

I remember at the time thinking that his answer was a general one, contained no specifics, and was

vaguely unsatisfying. Particularly because he had introduced her as such an important part of his updated book.

When I got back home, I looked at my copy of Dr Mary's Monkey, which Ed Haslam had kindly inscribed,

and reread the appendix which contained Judyth's story. According to Haslam, it was corroborated and corrected by Judyth.

Although Haslam offers his comments and reasons for believing her, it is according to him "a basic outline of her story."

Haslam writes:

"I empathize with Judyth as a person. She has paid a terrible price for what she did in the 1960s,

and for what she says today. I hope you will read her story for yourself, if you are able to obtain it,

and make your own decisions about her story."

The above statement is footnoted thusly:

"Judyth's book entitled Lee Harvey Oswald was released in June of 2006. It was published

by Trafford Press and could be ordered on their Web site. After about two weeks, it was suddenly

withdrawn without explanation. I do not know why and will leave that for others to explain and to discuss.

I was given my copy by Judyth Vary Baker. Used copies may be available from time to time. Check the internet."

I did. I bought and read Baker's two volume story. My question now is this:

Since Haslam's book came out a year after Baker's, how could he not know that Judyth considered her book

to be an unauthorized one, replete with explainable mistakes?

As most members know, Haslam also claims to have met another (different) Judyth Vary Baker in October, 1972.

He realized the significance of her name when contacted by 60 minutes concerning the Judyth Vary Baker story

they were working on. They were contacting Haslam because he had written about David Ferrie in his first book.

Haslam admitted that his account of this episode (1972 meeting of a JVB) "caused confusion and distrust among the 60M team."

Most Forum members are also familiar with the following:

In Dr Mary's Monkey, Haslam recounts the story in the briefest fashion. In the presence of his girlfriend and

some of her fellow graduate students in the school cafeteria, Haslam got into an argument with a Latin American

grad student. What started out as a discussion about Jim Garrison's investigation and David Ferrie's underground medical laboratory

reached flash-point when Haslam made a comment about Dr Ochsner's statement that 'sex could cause cancer.'

After this incident, according to Haslam, his girlfriend's fellow graduate students had stopped speaking to her.

She told him he would have to "make up your mind whether you are going to be the recognized expert on the

Garrison investigation, or whether you want to be my boyfriend."

For Haslam the choice was easy, and he agreed not to discuss Garrison around her friends.

Paradoxically enough, Haslam's 'performance in the cafeteria' had gotten them invited to a party.

Haslam could accompany his girl friend if he promised to "control himself."

They went to the party. The hostess told Haslam's girl friend that she had been a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald

and invited Haslam to discuss the Garrison investigation with her. Upon hearing this, Haslam immediately asked

his girlfriend if they could leave (!) and she agreed. Haslam's description in his book of this event is about as

brief as my account of it.

Two weeks later, this hostess of the party, Judyth Vary Baker, invites Haslam and his girlfriend to her home for dinner, just the three of them.

This is an opportunity for Haslam, a man vitally interested in the local Garrison investigation, to meet someone that knew Lee Harvey Oswald!

How could he refuse such a chance, or at the very least try to persuade his girfriend go? After all, none of her other fellow graduate students would be there.

Haslam explains this in two sentences:

"I reminded Barbara that this woman had said she had been a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald,

and that I did not want to go to any dinner with her. Barbara declined the invitation."

That's it. The reader is left wanting for more. To me it's barely believable, given the fact that Haslam describes it so briefly

and mattter-of-factly.

I can't say Haslam's story didn't happen. I wasn't there. But I am disappointed in the way Haslam describes

the whole encounter,given that it was New Orleans at the height of the Garrison investigation and Haslam

had an acute interest in same. If the story is true, Haslam doesn't give the reader much to go on about his refusal

to meet a certain JVB and in the process, find out what she knew about Oswald.

Edited April 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Michael Hogan]

JIM REPLIES TO HORGAN AND WILL INVITE JUDYTH TO ADD MORE

This is a very odd report. At this point in time, Ed Haslam has interviewed

Judyth for around 1,000 hours and has interrogated her more extensively

than anyone else alive, so far as I am able to ascertain. Michael appears

to want to launch a "preemptive attack" on Ed before the interview to be

broadcast this evening. I can assure you, no one is going to conclude that

he is being either "vague" or "general" or "evasive" after hearing it. He has

told me that he does not want to take on extensive discussion about Judyth

until her book, ME & LEE, has appeared, no doubt to have a basic reference

work to which interested parties can be directed. I will invite Judyth to take

a look at this. Meanwhile, everyone should listen to Ed Haslam this evening.

The beauty of the written word in a format like the Education Forum is that readers

can make their own judgments about whether a writer is correct or not.

My post did not attack Ed Haslam. Nor was it preemptive of anything.

Fetzer's assignment of motive is ridiculous.

It is clear I was giving a personal impression of an answer Haslam gave,

not attacking him. For Fetzer to insinuate anything else....

Nor did I use the word "evasive" in refererence to Ed Haslam, as Fetzer implies.

His reply is a personal diatribe, directed at me and doesn't attempt to address

the one basic and reasonable question I asked in my post.

Fetzer tries to win arguments by intimidation, rather than employing the logical

process that he professes to be so fond of and considers himself so good at.

Invariably, if someone posts something that Fetzer does not approve of,

he steers the discussion into a personal and desultory one..

I tried hard to make my account of Ed Haslam as non-combative as possible. I referred to Haslam as

"an intelligent, affable, honest and reasonable man." I anticipated that Fetzer would give an ill-reasoned

and vitriolic response. Unfortunately I was right.

In Fetzer's language, I am attacking Haslam. Absurd.

The belated half-a____ P.S. added by him changes nothing.

He could have at least spelled my name right in his edit.

[Mike Williams]

You're welcome Barb. I mean by blitz to back you up. Not sit on the sideline. But you're obviously not a victim type and the support is obviously there. OK, well he can consider stopping digging at some point, I suppose.

He might also consider trying to interpret his diggings a bit more accurately in the future as well. However I for one will not hold my breath. Fetzer does not seem long on common sense when it comes to interpreting anything.

Barb darlin you have the patience of a saint and the tenacity of a bull dog you go get em!

My best to you both!

Mike

Hi Mike,

Aren't you a sweet thang! Patience is not always my forte' ... but no one could argue against my having a bit of a stubborn streak, especially when principles are involved.

Bests to you too!

Barb :-)

Our principles define us Barb! Bully for you!

I can not believe I just read Fetzer tell someone they were maintaining an "ignorant" state of mind. Wooooo boy that is rich.

I wonder why he did not use that line on Bill O'Reily. I suspect he would have been made to look more of a fool, if that is at all possible.

Best to you too Barb!

Mike

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO MICHAEL HOGAN (FOR THE SECOND TIME)

It's hard for me to place any other interpretation upon what Michael Hogan

posted than that it was intended to create a negative impression before the

interview with Ed Haslam, which has now been broadcast (first, before the

hour with Jesse Ventura, instead of second, as I had intended). The sound

quality with Ed was far superior to the sound quality with Jesse, which may

have motivated a change in their order. My wife listed to parts of the Jesse

hour and said that I hardly gave him a chance to talk! Of that, I am guilty!

On the other hand, I gave Ed lots of time to talk. When I read this latest

post, I picked up my copy and noticed that, while Michael said that he had

reread the appendix, "Judyth's Story", but apparently he ignored Chapter

13, The Witness, which he does not mention. I question the competence

of someone who claims to have read a book but forgets the key chapter in

relation to Judyth. It discusses "60 Minutes" enthusiasm for featuring her

on one of its programs, where it spend more time and money on her than

on any other prospective feature. So Michael might want to reread it, too.

As for the rest, there is an old English word that applies here, "Piffle!" Why

he even bothered to write this is beyond me. I gave my take about what

he had to say and he has given his. As much as it fascinates me to read

about Hogan's "anticipations", there are bigger fish to fry. I have put up a

new blog about Ed Haslam and Judyth, which includes the chapter about

"The Witness" from his earlier book, MARY, FERRIE & THE MONKEY VIRUS.

If anyone is interested in the history of the relationship between Judyth and

Lee, they might want to read it. If not, that's fine, too. The blog is here:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html

JIM REPLIES TO HORGAN AND WILL INVITE JUDYTH TO ADD MORE

This is a very odd report. At this point in time, Ed Haslam has interviewed

Judyth for around 1,000 hours and has interrogated her more extensively

than anyone else alive, so far as I am able to ascertain. Michael appears

to want to launch a "preemptive attack" on Ed before the interview to be

broadcast this evening. I can assure you, no one is going to conclude that

he is being either "vague" or "general" or "evasive" after hearing it. He has

told me that he does not want to take on extensive discussion about Judyth

until her book, ME & LEE, has appeared, no doubt to have a basic reference

work to which interested parties can be directed. I will invite Judyth to take

a look at this. Meanwhile, everyone should listen to Ed Haslam this evening.

The beauty of the written word in a format like the Education Forum is that readers

can make their own judgments about whether a writer is correct or not.

My post did not attack Ed Haslam. Nor was it preemptive of anything.

Fetzer's assignment of motive is ridiculous.

It is clear I was giving a personal impression of an answer Haslam gave,

not attacking him. For Fetzer to insinuate anything else....

Nor did I use the word "evasive" in refererence to Ed Haslam, as Fetzer implies.

His reply is a personal diatribe, directed at me and doesn't attempt to address

the one basic and reasonable question I asked in my post.

Fetzer tries to win arguments by intimidation, rather than employing the logical

process that he professes to be so fond of and considers himself so good at.

Invariably, if someone posts something that Fetzer does not approve of,

he steers the discussion into a personal and desultory one..

I tried hard to make my account of Ed Haslam as non-combative as possible.

I referred to Haslam as "an intelligent, affable, honest and reasonable man."

I anticipated that Fetzer would give an ill-reasoned and vitriolic response.

Unfortunately I was right.

In Fetzer's language, I am attacking Haslam. Absurd.

The belated half-a____ P.S. added by him changes nothing.

He could have at least spelled my name right in his edit.

Edited April 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Jim Fetzer said to Lifton:

This will

go down as the greatest mistake in the history of your research on JFK.

Lifton has positioned himself to block research on Judyth and on the Garrison investigation. Perhaps there is a common denominator between the two.

Pamela,

Please explain just how, exactly, a person who expresses an opinion or provides documentation for an issue "blocks" research. You say it often, so surely you can explain to us how that works.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

[Michael Hogan]

When I read this latest post, I picked up my copy and noticed that, while Michael

said that he had reread the appendix, "Judyth's Story", but apparently he ignored Chapter

13, The Witness, which he does not mention. I question the competence

of someone who claims to have read a book but forgets the key chapter in

relation to Judyth. (emphasis mine) It discusses "60 Minutes" enthusiasm for featuring her

on one of its programs, where it spend more time and money on her than

on any other prospective feature. So Michael might want to reread it, too.

More than half my post dealt with the JVB Haslam said he encountered in 1972.

I quoted Haslam directly from Chapter 13. I describe Haslam's story as he wrote it.

All from Chapter 13. What's wrong with you, Jim?

Why do you think Haslam (living in New Orlean during the middle of the Garrison investigation)

showed so little interest in meeting with someone that said she knew Lee Harvey Oswald?

Why do you think Haslam made no mention of Baker's book being unauthorized by her,

when his book came out a year after hers did?

Your avoidance of those two elementary issues shows that, contrary to your words much

earlier in this thread, you have no interest in a fair discussion on the subject of JVB.

You'd rather deflect posts by questioning motives or insulting the intelligence of the poster.

You're not really in an advantageous position to question other people's competence

when it comes to this subject. You didn't make one reply of substance in regard to my

original post. Not one.

You can rectify that by giving your take on my two questions above. You might want to

read Chapter 13 before answering.

Why don't you address your false and misleading use of the term "evasive?"

I can answer for you. When you are wrong, you prefer insults over facts. You prefer insinuations

and innuendo about others' competence over substance. You love to give advice and seldom take any.

You are on the right side of many issues. It's a shame. You could do so much better.

[Peter Fokes]

Over the last few weeks only Barb Junkkarinen has had the patience to virtually single-handedly take apart the evermore complex posturing of JudythFetzer. Unable to reply with sensible arguments, Fetzer (true to form) starts trolling the Internet. Intent on finding something with which to slime Barb, Fetzer starts looking into Barb's employment. He comes up with the totally wrong fact that Barb worked for ROTC in Arizona while she lived in Oregon. Only much later does our hero tumble to the fact that Barb's son.... not Barb... was in ROTC. And then the final idiocy.. HE BLAMES BARB FOR HIS GUTTERBALL MISTAKE!

You just can't play fair... can you, Professor?!

Josiah Thompson

The whole thread is turning into a soap opera. Sad.

I've been reading posts on the Judyth topic for years as co-moderator of alt.assassination.jfk.

This thread is just another "episode" in the ongoing saga. I suppose it is a more interesting topic if one is a participant (and a sharpshooter with the facts such as Barb) and actively doing some legwork to ferret out the facts. As a longtime lurker -- but an attentive one through the posting bouts involving Shackleford, Barb J, Pamela and a host of others -- I have yet to be the least impressed by Judyth's tale. At least The Young and The Restless moves forward in its plot development and thus tries to prolong the viewer's devotion to the characters. This soap opera, on the other hand, is replete with slightly altered replays and subject to re-colorization.

The Guiding Light is over.

The last episode of As The World Turns will air in September 2010.

I see no hope for a final episode in the Judyth opera even if all ladies of whatever dimension in time or space gather in some infinite field of dreams and SING for hours!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIVfbylUU-M

60 minutes? No go. Time eternal? I am beginning to wonder!

Cheers

Peter Fokes,

Toronto

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO A REASONABLE QUESTION FROM MICHAEL HOGAN

NOTE: Judyth apparently caught something that I had missed, namely: what she takes

to have been a "very reasonable question" concerning the book published by Harrison

Livingstone. It completely slipped by me, so I am pleased to be able to publish Judyth's

response and extend an apology to Michael for my utter failure to recognize the question.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

About the very reasonable question that has been broached, concerning the book, published by

Harrison Livingstone behind my back, which was an unauhorized edition due to many flaws and

problems, and why Ed Haslam could mention that my book was withdrawn without knowing that

it was an unauthorized book:

Here is how that happened:

I sent the press release out about the book at the end of July, 2006 to book publishers and some

press members, but did not want Martin Shackelford to be attacked by John McAdams and his crew:

Shackelford is a good researcher who has consistently defended me, and has for his efforts been

mercilessly vilified on McAdams' newsgroup.

So I didn't speak to researchers about why I forced Trafford to stop the printing of my book as

published by Harrison Livingstone. McAdams' clones were saying I got it printed myself at Kinko's.

That's their style.

It should be noted that Livingsone would not have personally published this book unless he thought

it was important. However, we argued over his editing job and the fact that I was not allowed to see

the final galleys: Livingsone is known to be a difficult man to work with.

Haslam heard about the book. I told him I stopped publication of the book, but I had been sent some

copies by Shackelford. I then sent him a copy. But I encountered a dilemma when it came to talking

about the book's problems to Haslam.

Shackelford and Livingstone wanted the true text to get into print as quickly as possible because some

thieves stole an unedited version of a book Dr. Platzman wrote, based on my emails. A lot was missing,

and some errors. Now it was in the hands of thieves. (They would end up sending it to people such as

McAdams, who now quote from this flawed version.)

Speed was more important to them than a good editing job, in my opinion. (Trine Day, this time, is doing

a good job.) In the end, Livingstone simply took it.

Martin preferred to support his old friend, to make a long story short.

I did not want to interfere, however, in any interviewng processes going on between Haslam and Shackelford.

Shackelford's treatment of me had nothing to do with his massive knowledge of the case. In addition, I did not

know Haslam was writing another book. It came as a complete surprise, or otherwise I would have warned

him about the unauthorized status of the book.

Because he kept asking questions, I knew that inaccuracies in the book of concern did not affect what Haslam

learned from me. I never told Haslam why I withdrew the book, because I did not want him to have any

prejudice against Mr. Shackelford.

My personal feelings were not as important as Shackelford's input to Haslam.

Shackelford is a fine researcher, whose knowledge of me and my history was largely accurate.

Shackelford occasionally had some odd misunderstandings: once he wrote that I had not been a Catholic. He

had never examined my early life, as Haslam did.

He was concerned only with the story of Oswald and me. Each researcher has his or her own style.

I hope this explains why I did not bring up why the book was withdrawn to Haslam. I don't think he ever knew

that Shackelford was involved in the matter. I don't know.

JVB

When I read this latest post, I picked up my copy and noticed that, while Michael

said that he had reread the appendix, "Judyth's Story", but apparently he ignored Chapter

13, The Witness, which he does not mention. I question the competence

of someone who claims to have read a book but forgets the key chapter in

relation to Judyth. (emphasis mine) It discusses "60 Minutes" enthusiasm for featuring her

on one of its programs, where it spend more time and money on her than

on any other prospective feature. So Michael might want to reread it, too.

More than half my post dealt with the JVB Haslam said he encountered in 1972.

I quoted Haslam directly from Chapter 13. I describe Haslam's story as he wrote it.

All from Chapter 13. What's wrong with you, Jim?

Why do you think Haslam (living in New Orlean during the middle of the Garrison investigation)

showed so little interest in meeting with someone that said she knew Lee Harvey Oswald?

Why do you think Haslam made no mention of Baker's book being unauthorized by her,

when his book came out a year after hers did?

Your avoidance of those two elementary issues shows that, contrary to your words much

earlier in this thread, you have no interest in a fair discussion on the subject of JVB.

You'd rather deflect posts by questioning motives or insulting the intelligence of the poster.

You're not really in an advantageous position to question other people's competence

when it comes to this subject. You didn't make one reply of substance in regard to my

original post. Not one.

You can rectify that by giving your take on my two questions above. You might want to

read Chapter 13 before answering.

Why don't you address your false and misleading use of the term "evasive?"

I can answer for you. When you are wrong, you prefer insults over facts. You prefer insinuations

and innuendo about others' competence over substance. You love to give advice and seldom take any.

You are on the right side of many issues. It's a shame. You could do so much better.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO DAVID LIFTON AND TO THE BLIZZARD OF POSTS

NOTE: David Lifton and I have had some rather heated exchanges about Judyth and the recording

he made of his conversation with her. I have asked him to send me a cassette copy, which would

enable me to listen to it to determine for myself whether it has been edited and whether or not it is

reasonable to suppose that he could have discerned some difference in the pronunciation of "Kan

Kun" as opposed to "Cancun", which I submit is virtually impossible. At that point in time, I doubt

that David was aware that there was a Kankun as opposed to a Cancun, which, for me, undermines

his credibility in this exchange. In fact, I no longer regard any of his views about Judyth as credible.

Judyth, it becomes clear, has been there before and detects patterns to the attacks occurring here.

Lifton referred to me as Judyth's "manager", but that is not my role. I am facilitating her posting.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Dear Jim--I regret more than you will ever know any ruptures of friendships...In my own family, I

have precious children who no longer speak to me over this. It is a burden that is almost unbearable.

History and what happens to a country that is almost overwhelmed by an oligarchy running things after

a violent Coup upon a sitting President, and active in front of and behind the scenes--these facts are

more important than our feelings.

We must ever keep before us that if Oswald had been a 'lone nut'--this man surrounded by people in

almost every photograph of him ever taken outside of official photos--we must keep before us that

this 'lone nut'--had he alone killed the president--would not have generated any "national security"

excuses for why so many files have been hidden, lost, destroyed, altered and redacted. The power

of the cabal is evident when one inspects the overwhelming evidence tha Oswald is innocent, versus

the money, power and low standards (they lie all the time) of the media and the supporters of the

Warren Commission.

We have killed so many people and wrecked our country and its dreams, led by these vicious people

and their fawning, well-paid servants.

As I think you can see, neither person who posted on this page seems to have read the thread carefully.

They congratulate Barb about her showing that some enclosures with a letter from Kennedy's personal

assistant (not a secretary)--the same man who was in charge, along with Shriver, of arranging Kennedy's

funeral--from the White House--were not described accurately. What Barb does not understand is that

items were enclosed that were not on the list. It was quite a lengthy list, by the way. I received a large

package from the White House--not just a regular envelope. Barb assumes that the list of enclosures

was complete. I assure you it was not.

For example, I have a photograph of President Kennedy that was enclosed, and it is not on the list.

Ralph Dungan was a special assistant. Despite what Barb has written, he did not crank out boilerplate

letters to JFK fans, as she implies, though I have been told tha Dungan himself did write letters to

ordinary individuals when the President read certain letters and asked him to respond for him. I thus

believe the President may have personally read my letter, though of course I cannot prove it. So I

was very pleased to hear from Ralph Dungan.

Below is a list showing that receiving a Dungan letter was not receiving a boilerplate mass-produced

response, as Barb J tried to say:

1. DUNGAN WRITES TO NEHRU, PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA, IN REPLY TO NEHRU'S LETTER TO PRESIDENT KENNEDY:

RALPH A. DUNGAN THE WHITE HOUSE Subject: Reply to Prime Minister Nehru's letter of February 20 to the President.

2. Dungan, as Kennedy's special advisor on Latin American affairs, write JFK memos about cover operations. Note this:

"Memo, Ralph A. Dungan to President Kennedy, “Covert Operations in Cuba... "

3. Dungan arranged positions in Kennedy's government:

"...After the election, Ralph Dungan asked [Peterson] what position she wanted. Because of her interest in working

women...Peterson chose the Women's Bureau. Peterson's appointment had the support of virtually every member of

the Women's Bureau coalition."[Esther Peterson]

4. Judith Stein: wrote two letters to Kennedy and then got a reply from Dungan, at about the same time I wrote my

letter to Kennedy:

"Another political event occurred early in February, 1963. I received at that time from Special White House Aide Ralph

Dungan a letter of appreciation of my earlier two letters to the President, indicating that my comments had been

incorporated into his State of the Union address for that year. Dungan's letter to me is reproduced herein..." Stein

says she was injected with drugs to give her cancer (Mae Brussell Archives).

5. Ralph Dungan, of course, had his own secretaries; he was not a drudge writing letters for JFK to fans: "Gerri

Whittington, a secretary to aide Ralph Dungan..."

6. An example of Dungan's advisory position with Kennedy:

"The President's Special Assistant Ralph A. Dungan feared that the Alliance was returning to the Eisenhower emphasis

on monetary stabilization, which provided the proper climate for private investment and economic growth and included

tolerating military dictatorships. Dungan suggested that a reversion to Eisenhower's policy meant the United States

"might as well kiss the Alliance(and the hemisphere(good-bye." (47)

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/frus/summari...II_1961-63.html

Below is an interesing compilation of letters a friend of Kennedy received. Once the President wrote to him personally,

and twice, Ralph Dungan wrote:

Archive is that of Mr. Henry Borntraeger of Latrobe Pennsylvania.

1) Mr. Borntraeger received a White House letter dated August 14, 1961 from Ralph Dungan, special assistant to

the President, that reads: “Thank you, in the President’s behalf, for your message…in support of bills to create a

U. S. Disarmament Agency.”

2) On August 19, Borntraeger responded in a letter to the President....

3) A White House letter dated September 5, 1961, was the response: : "Dear Mr. Borntraeger: I was pleased to receive

your letter and to learn of the support you are giving my Disarmament Agency proposal. It is gratifying to know that my

old friends are supporting me and your kind words are very much appreciated. With every good wish, Sincerely, (signed)

John Kennedy

On September 20th, Borntraeger sent another telegram: “Delighted to learn that the House has passed your proposal to

create…Disarmament Agency…in search of a just and lasting peace…for realistic solutions to the arms race and international

anarchy.”

4) On September 29th, he received a White House letter from Ralph Dungan, that reads: “The President asked me to

thank you for the message you sent to him prior to his address to the United Nations..." ...included is a copy of the

President’s speech given to the United Nations on September 25, 1961.

Borntraeger responds in a seven-page typed letter to the President, outlining some peace initiatives that might be put

into place while constructing a “Peace Race.” In fine condition. COA John Reznikoff/PSA/DNA and R&R COA.

(This collection of 2 Dungan letters and one JFK letter sold at auction for $4,145.00)

7. Later, Dungan tesified before the Church Committee on US intelligence activities in Chile:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r...rchV7_0014a.htm

8. In order to reach the President, Dungan might be approached:

(Lee White, former civil rights adviser to JFK and LBJ) stated: "...And I had a contact in the White House and I just

thought that the president was - President Kennedy was going too slow and I'd always tell him, Ralph - his name was

Ralph Dungan - Ralph, tell the president this, tell the president. Finally, he said, you know this stuff, I don't know this

stuff, write him a memo, I'll give it to him.

Barb reported that Ralph Dungan wrote a boilerplate letter in response to my letter to JFK, as he must have done for

oodles of others, which is not true. In addition, Barb did not analyze or address the aspects of the letter from Walter

Reed. She concentrated on my interpretation of MEDE-ZOE as a "special file" (which my mentor, Col. Doyle, said it

was) when she says she learned it was an "address" on the letter, over which she makes great hoopla, while ignoring

the contents of the letter itself, which addresses advanced research considerations, free chemicals, offers of mentoring,

etc.

Barb says she is "checking facts". But is Barb neutral--"Just the facts, ma'am"? (She far from neutral.)

Barb recently wrote the remark below, that my friend Allan just sent to me from New York:

Wrote Barb:

Oh, Judyth has been chattering like crazy thru Fetzer on the Ed Forum.

He's her new lackey. And yes, it all is convenient timing for her new

book ... which has once again been postponed ... this time, no new

date given, and refunds available ...

Barb :-)

[NOTE: No one who knows me would ever make such an insinuation. I have always been my own man, and if I

did not believe in Judyth, I would not be expending the time and effort involved here. I think Barb is projecting.]

(P.S. from JVB: The book has been delayed as the Trine Day book, A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, about US biowarfare in

France, has been selling so well that printing schedules had to change. DR. MARY'S MONKEY and A TERRIBLE MISTAKE

will prepare readers for Me & Lee. The book is in line for printing.)

Someone named "Karin" wrote to Barb and John McAdams, frustrated because they twisted her questions around:

"What "research assistant" job are you talking about? John, If you'll

simply review the thread, my original question related to her getting a

job as a research assistant in chemistry after she returned to Florida.

("Karin" says she sent me an email which did not get answered. She can send emails to Dr. Fetzer, or to Pamela,

and I will reply to them! But whoever "Karin" is, she tried to actually reason with McAdams and Barb at McAdams'

newsgroup, where Dave Reitzes chimed in that I was a mental case. Here's what Karin wrote:

McA: "Your not assuming that she got such a job in New Orleans, are you?"

Again John, if you'll review the original thread, I was quite clearly

referencing the job that she got working as a research assistant AFTER she

returned to Florida. Sheesh.

McA: "I'm not aware that Barb was wrong."

Again John, the reason for that is that you didn't even bother to REVIEW THE DARN THREAD.

Barb had asked: "How do you know she got a job as a research assistant? Oooo, oooo, call

on me .... I know the answer to that question! 'cuz Judyth tells us so."

That was a wrong assumption on Barb's part, John. I was relying on pay stubs from her work, as I clearly stated in

the thread.

McA: "Please provide some proof that Judyth was ever a "research assistant" in New Orleans."

YET AGAIN, John, it would help if you even glanced at the original thread. I said nothing about her being a research

assistant in New Orleans. I referred to her working in Florida.

McA: "I'm afraid things you think are "well established" are "well established only in the minds of people who take

Judyth's word."

For the last time, it would help if you had actually read the thread. To recap: I had asked a simple question about

how this "college dropout" with no prospects in life would have managed to acquire employment working as a research

assistant upon her return to Florida.

Rather than straightforwardly addressing the question, Barb chose to state that I ONLY knew that Judyth had acquired

such a job because Judyth herself told me so.

Again, that was a WRONG assumption. Then, after I proceeded to inform Barb that her assumption was wrong because

the evidence of it came in the form of PAY STUBS (physical evidence, NOT Judyth's word), Barb chose to suddenly

concede that there is "no doubt that Judyth worked at PenChem."

Hence my question about why she wasted my time asking about things that are well established--not to mention avoiding

the actual original question!

I am still very eager to learn about all of those "devilish details" which show that she did NOT actually acquire a job working

as a research assistant in Florida! And I still can't wait!

Karin

Thank you, Karin, whoever you are. (No, I am not karin, as these people suggested--I keep people between myself and

them for good reason--they always sent viruses to my computer!)

I (JVB) now add these remarks:

That newsgroup, Karin and Allan and all, also faulted me by telling supportive researchers I never wrote President

Kennedy---that I made it up. You know, the you believe that because "Judyth says so" argument. Then Tony Marsh

went to the Archives and found my letter.

But they won't give any credit for long....Recently, a McAdams-clone asked Barb if it was 'she' who found the letter,

though he well knew it was Marsh.

I haven't read anything over there for some time, as I rely on others to send me information to keep my computer

safe, but the above poss from McAdams show that they have no interest in telling people such as Karin the truth.

Barb picked on my making an error about when I said I was told to write President Kennedy, when I was told to

write to the President, and yes, I finally did write the letter...Eisenhower being a lame duck, I didn't get around

to it until later. Yes, I forgot 'the right name' when I said I was asked to write to President Kennedy.

But in fact, I'd been asked to write "the president" and Col, Doyle, my high school physics and science seminar teacher,

asked if I had done so. He reminded me that I had been asked to write, differing my services to my country and said

this would help me get more help in obtaining materials and support for my work. The Peace Corps was forming at that

time, and youth were being encouraged to get involved with their country. I was once such young person. I was told such

a letter would place me on a list of those who would get more favors regarding scholarships and research opportunities.

That's what he said, and I reported what he said. Make of it what you will.

I received numerous letters and materials in 1960-61 with tons of enclosures. Surely the letter proves I was patriotic.

I wrote to my President. Barb was alive back then, I presume. Did she write to JFK? How about David Lifton? Did he

ever write JFK? How many of my critics wrote to Kennedy? One? None? I cared deeply about my country--more than

they did, possibly.

It seems that the people who truly care about what I have to say, who are intelligent enough to have read what has

been posted here--intelligent enough to see that I am trying to place information of importance before their eyes--

I will not be distracted by propaganda.

I urge them to follow us to the blogs being set up, where we can post information for all who have a genuine interest in

the life of Lee Harvey Oswald between April 26, 1963 and November 21, 1963, where I have information concerning him

due to our relationship during that time period.

The blogs won't get buried or trivialized as the thread does here--and people such as Karin will not have to put up with

half-baked facts and ridicule form the likes of Barb and McAdams. She will be treated with respect (that goes both ways--

abusive comments will be erased).

I have tried to present information about Lee H. Oswald here, but keep getting attacked on such matters as mouse

urine! I had to take time to defend why I was inspecting mouse urine under a microscope for a pseudo-scientist. She

now understands that mouse urine can be used to detect cancer, which she did not understand before, and mocked,

until I showed her the research in the field going back into the 1930's.

But this simply buries what we are trying to present to those who care about the identity of Lee H. Oswald and

his activities, and why he was murdered along with Kennedy.

I have explained how David Lifton misconstrued my statements--and that tape had better be intact, when sent to Dr.

Fetzer--because I took full notes on what I said and sent them to Shackelford and Platzman at once.

Of interest to me was how much time Mr. Lifton spent trying to get information about my book and about "60 Minutes",

rather than asking more than a couple of specific questions, in his one and only interview, which he variously described

as two hours long and as short as a half-hour long. I have documented how long the interview was.

Lifton promised to keep everything I said to him confidential--a promise he broke in six months. He promised to help

Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing. Thus, this is a man I do not trust. In addition,

he just praised Barb J, whose efforts on this thread revealed bias and prejudice. Further, I had just exposed her inability

to "fact check"--yet he praised her work. That was unconscionable, as Dr. Fetzer pointed out.

I invite everyone who cares about the truth to visit judythbaker.blogspot.com which has finally been unblocked on google

(yes, it was blocked, for weeks). The rest of you can keep on going around in circles, as has been done for decades. You

will not find the answer at The Education Forum. You are being distracted and derailed, whenever you move close to the

truth, a pattern I have seen now for a decade.

JVB

Barb,

You get a small gold star for doing all this work.

Same goes for Anthony Marsh, for actually digging up this obscure letter at the JFK Library.

When are people going to catch on and stop wasting time on this lady?

Life is finite.

Should even a minute be wasted on this lady, and her fictions?

DSL

Edited April 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Michael, My apologies for misspelling your name and for not realizing you

were quoting from the very chapter I though you had overlooked. You are

right for taking me to task for those mistakes of mine and I apologize to you.

JIM REPLIES TO MICHAEL HOGAN (FOR THE SECOND TIME)

It's hard for me to place any other interpretation upon what Michael Hogan

posted than that it was intended to create a negative impression before the

interview with Ed Haslam, which has now been broadcast (first, before the

hour with Jesse Ventura, instead of second, as I had intended). The sound

quality with Ed was far superior to the sound quality with Jesse, which may

have motivated a change in their order. My wife listed to parts of the Jesse

hour and said that I hardly gave him a chance to talk! Of that, I am guilty!

On the other hand, I gave Ed lots of time to talk. When I read this latest

post, I picked up my copy and noticed that, while Michael said that he had

reread the appendix, "Judyth's Story", but apparently he ignored Chapter

13, The Witness, which he does not mention. I question the competence

of someone who claims to have read a book but forgets the key chapter in

relation to Judyth. It discusses "60 Minutes" enthusiasm for featuring her

on one of its programs, where it spend more time and money on her than

on any other prospective feature. So Michael might want to reread it, too.

As for the rest, there is an old English word that applies here, "Piffle!" Why

he even bothered to write this is beyond me. I gave my take about what

he had to say and he has given his. As much as it fascinates me to read

about Hogan's "anticipations", there are bigger fish to fry. I have put up a

new blog about Ed Haslam and Judyth, which includes the chapter about

"The Witness" from his earlier book, MARY, FERRIE & THE MONKEY VIRUS.

If anyone is interested in the history of the relationship between Judyth and

Lee, they might want to read it. If not, that's fine, too. The blog is here:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html

JIM REPLIES TO HORGAN AND WILL INVITE JUDYTH TO ADD MORE

This is a very odd report. At this point in time, Ed Haslam has interviewed

Judyth for around 1,000 hours and has interrogated her more extensively

than anyone else alive, so far as I am able to ascertain. Michael appears

to want to launch a "preemptive attack" on Ed before the interview to be

broadcast this evening. I can assure you, no one is going to conclude that

he is being either "vague" or "general" or "evasive" after hearing it. He has

told me that he does not want to take on extensive discussion about Judyth

until her book, ME & LEE, has appeared, no doubt to have a basic reference

work to which interested parties can be directed. I will invite Judyth to take

a look at this. Meanwhile, everyone should listen to Ed Haslam this evening.

The beauty of the written word in a format like the Education Forum is that readers

can make their own judgments about whether a writer is correct or not.

My post did not attack Ed Haslam. Nor was it preemptive of anything.

Fetzer's assignment of motive is ridiculous.

It is clear I was giving a personal impression of an answer Haslam gave,

not attacking him. For Fetzer to insinuate anything else....

Nor did I use the word "evasive" in refererence to Ed Haslam, as Fetzer implies.

His reply is a personal diatribe, directed at me and doesn't attempt to address

the one basic and reasonable question I asked in my post.

Fetzer tries to win arguments by intimidation, rather than employing the logical

process that he professes to be so fond of and considers himself so good at.

Invariably, if someone posts something that Fetzer does not approve of,

he steers the discussion into a personal and desultory one..

I tried hard to make my account of Ed Haslam as non-combative as possible.

I referred to Haslam as "an intelligent, affable, honest and reasonable man."

I anticipated that Fetzer would give an ill-reasoned and vitriolic response.

Unfortunately I was right.

In Fetzer's language, I am attacking Haslam. Absurd.

The belated half-a____ P.S. added by him changes nothing.

He could have at least spelled my name right in his edit.