John McAdams and Judyth Baker

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Did it ever occur to folks that Judyth Vary Baker might be both TELLING THE TRUTH and LYING at the same time? About different things.

Meaning this: that Judy was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald's mistress in New Orleans in summer 1963, that she knew him at the Reilly coffee shop, that indeed she was working on cancer research and trying to grow a fast acting cancer to kill Castro.

While at the same, Judy might be lying about certain details of her relationship with Oswald in order to 1) get folks (JFK researchers in particular) to believe her story by including in a bunch of JFK research characters and places and 2) lying to protect Oswald because of an emotional attachment to him; that Oswald was not "innocent" but probably involved in the JFK assassination as a CIA operative.

I am just throwing this theory out there. I do believe Judyth Vary Baker's account of being the summer 1963 mistress to US intelligence agent Oswald. However, I think she might be lying about some or a lot of things. Telling the truth sometimes and lying other times are not unheard of with people. For example I have a really hard time believing that Oswald would mention the name Billie Sol Estes or David Atlee Phillips to Judy Baker. In Phillips case, Oswald would have talked about a Maurice Bishop ...

[Glenn Viklund]

Did it ever occur to folks that Judyth Vary Baker might be both TELLING THE TRUTH and LYING at the same time? About different things.

Meaning this: that Judy was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald's mistress in New Orleans in summer 1963, that she knew him at the Reilly coffee shop, that indeed she was working on cancer research and trying to grow a fast acting cancer to kill Castro.

While at the same, Judy might be lying about certain details of her relationship with Oswald in order to 1) get folks (JFK researchers in particular) to believe her story by including in a bunch of JFK research characters and places and 2) lying to protect Oswald because of an emotional attachment to him; that Oswald was not "innocent" but probably involved in the JFK assassination as a CIA operative.

I am just throwing this theory out there. I do believe Judyth Vary Baker's account of being the summer 1963 mistress to US intelligence agent Oswald. However, I think she might be lying about some or a lot of things. Telling the truth sometimes and lying other times are not unheard of with people. For example I have a really hard time believing that Oswald would mention the name Billie Sol Estes or David Atlee Phillips to Judy Baker. In Phillips case, Oswald would have talked about a Maurice Bishop ...

Sort of like half-pregnant, you mean?

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Did it ever occur to folks that Judyth Vary Baker might be both TELLING THE TRUTH and LYING at the same time? About different things.

Meaning this: that Judy was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald's mistress in New Orleans in summer 1963, that she knew him at the Reilly coffee shop, that indeed she was working on cancer research and trying to grow a fast acting cancer to kill Castro.

While at the same, Judy might be lying about certain details of her relationship with Oswald in order to 1) get folks (JFK researchers in particular) to believe her story by including in a bunch of JFK research characters and places and 2) lying to protect Oswald because of an emotional attachment to him; that Oswald was not "innocent" but probably involved in the JFK assassination as a CIA operative.

I am just throwing this theory out there. I do believe Judyth Vary Baker's account of being the summer 1963 mistress to US intelligence agent Oswald. However, I think she might be lying about some or a lot of things. Telling the truth sometimes and lying other times are not unheard of with people. For example I have a really hard time believing that Oswald would mention the name Billie Sol Estes or David Atlee Phillips to Judy Baker. In Phillips case, Oswald would have talked about a Maurice Bishop ...

Sort of like half-pregnant, you mean?

No, sort of like reality: people both lie and tell the truth. The trick is to figure out why they are lying and what is the lies and what are the truths. For example, Marina Oswald was very vulnerable in 1963-64 and told a whopping amount of lies that tended to incriminate Lee Harvey Oswald. 40-50 years out of the pressure cooker and the net of US intelligence, Marina Oswald tells a completely different story. Knowing the context and why Marina was lying in 1963-64 is critically important.

So what do you think about Oswald's name supposedly appearing in Mary Sherman's address book? That would tell support the accounts of what Judy Baker and author Ed Haslam have told.

The bottom line is I currently believe Judyth Baker's general account about being Oswald's summer 1963 mistress in New Orleans. I am willing to change, though. There are 2 careful researchers who believe her accounts: Ed Tatro and Martin Schackleford. Those are 2 guys who kick the tires on cars before they buy them.

Edited October 30, 2011 by Robert Morrow

[William Kelly]

Did it ever occur to folks that Judyth Vary Baker might be both TELLING THE TRUTH and LYING at the same time? About different things.

Meaning this: that Judy was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald's mistress in New Orleans in summer 1963, that she knew him at the Reilly coffee shop, that indeed she was working on cancer research and trying to grow a fast acting cancer to kill Castro.

While at the same, Judy might be lying about certain details of her relationship with Oswald in order to 1) get folks (JFK researchers in particular) to believe her story by including in a bunch of JFK research characters and places and 2) lying to protect Oswald because of an emotional attachment to him; that Oswald was not "innocent" but probably involved in the JFK assassination as a CIA operative.

I am just throwing this theory out there. I do believe Judyth Vary Baker's account of being the summer 1963 mistress to US intelligence agent Oswald. However, I think she might be lying about some or a lot of things. Telling the truth sometimes and lying other times are not unheard of with people. For example I have a really hard time believing that Oswald would mention the name Billie Sol Estes or David Atlee Phillips to Judy Baker. In Phillips case, Oswald would have talked about a Maurice Bishop ...

Sort of like half-pregnant, you mean?

No, sort of like reality: people both lie and tell the truth. The trick is to figure out why they are lying and what is the lies and what are the truths. For example, Marina Oswald was very vulnerable in 1963-64 and told a whopping amount of lies that tended to incriminate Lee Harvey Oswald. 40-50 years out of the pressure cooker and the net of US intelligence, Marina Oswald tells a completely different story. Knowing the context and why Marina was lying in 1963-64 is critically important.

So what do you think about Oswald's name supposedly appearing in Mary Sherman's address book? That would tell support the accounts of what Judy Baker and author Ed Haslam have told.

The bottom line is I currently believe Judyth Baker's general account about being Oswald's summer 1963 mistress in New Orleans. I am willing to change, though. There are 2 careful researchers who believe her accounts: Ed Tatro and Martin Schackleford. Those are 2 guys who kick the tires on cars before they buy them.

How is Oswald's name in Mary Sherman's address book?

Please explain.

Thanks,

BK

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Responding to William Kelly: there is the *possibility* and it is absolutely BLOCKBUSTER that Lee Harvey Oswald's name appears in Mary Sherman's address book. There is a name of exactly 6 letters that has been blacked out by the government - and which the government will still not release.

I think those letters spell: OSWALD. And if that is true, it would tend to support the accounts of Ed Haslam and Judyth Vary Baker as to what was occurring in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.

I posted this earlier on Education Forum and was basically greeted with the sound of crickets. There are a lot of people who post here who don't believe Judy Baker. I for the most part do!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17898

Press Release - June 30, 2011

Contact: Author Ed Haslam or Kris Millegan at Trine Day (800) 556-2012

Or C. Brylski (504) 897-6110

FBI denies request for information about murdered New Orleans doctor

The murdered doctor was Mary Sherman, MD, a bone cancer specialist who worked at Ochsner Clinic. The memo in question was from the FBI Director, dated 7-31-1964, just 10 days after Dr. Sherman’s body was found slashed and burned in her fashionable St. Charles Avenue apartment. NOPD homicide detectives confiscated her address book from her apartment and went through it looking for friends and associates. When they did, they found a name that set off their alarms so loudly that they immediately contacted the FBI to tell them about it, says Edward Haslam, author of DR. MARY’S MONKEY, a controversial book which examines Dr. Sherman’s murder in detail, with interesting outcomes about the nation’s polio vaccine program and a bizarre link to those connected to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

“In the same breath, they requested the FBI help the NOPD with their investigation of Dr. Sherman’s murder, so the request was forwarded to FBI Headquarters in Washington for approval. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover responded promptly. Calling Sherman’s death to be a ‘local murder,’ Hoover told his FBI agents ‘no active investigation is to be conducted’ and warned them that such actions might put the agency in ‘an embarrassing position’,” said Haslam.

So whose name did the NOPD find in Mary Sherman’s address book?

“That’s what we want to FBI to tell us,” Haslam says “At the moment, the name is still redacted (or blacked out) so we don’t know for sure”.

Haslam found the curious redaction in Hoover’s response.

“It was in a note on page two, but it was placed highly within that note, like a main fact, immediately following the description of the stab wounds and burns to Sherman’s body. And whoever’s name it is, they were so well-known that it was not necessary to include their first name,” he says.

The note actually reads: “XXXXXX’s name was found in her address book.”

Having already located two witnesses who reported seeing Lee Harvey Oswald in Mary Sherman’s apartment building in the summer of 1963, Haslam asked the logical question: Could it be Oswald’s? Examining the length of the redacted name closely, Haslam noted that it appeared to have six letters plus an apostrophe-s, just like Oswald’s.

“Could this be the clue we’ve been looking for?” he wondered. Haslam’s book and a followup book by Judyth Vary Baker called “Me and Lee” posits that Oswald was actually helping local doctors find a cancer-causing virus which could be used to infect Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro.

In April 2011, Haslam filed a Freedom of Information Act request asking the FBI to unveil that one word from Hoover’s 1964 memo. In June, the FBI responded by sending a second copy of the memo back to Haslam with the same words freshly redacted. The old memo was redacted with a black marker; the new copy was redacted with white boxes, but the word in question was still redacted. The reasons for the redaction cited by the FBI were “personal privacy.”

“At least we now know this memo is real. The FBI acknowledged it. And I am appealing the FBI’s decision through their channels. And if that does not work, I will write the President. What else can you do?” Haslam says.

But Haslam wonders if there is not a bigger question: Did the Director of the FBI deliberately cover-up a lead into the activities of Lee Harvey Oswald while the Warren Commission was still in New Orleans investigating JFK’s assassination? Haslam said, “Un-redacting this one word would help answer that question, one way or another.”

After writing DR. MARY’S MONKEY, Ed Haslam assisted in editing ME & LEE, the memoir of Judyth Vary Baker, who was one of the witnesses who saw Lee Oswald in Dr. Mary Sherman’s apartment. Both DR. MARY’S MONKEY and ME & LEE are available in New Orleans bookstores and on the Internet, or by calling 1-800-556-2012.

Related links: http://doctormarysmonkey.com/index.htm

http://www.prweb.com...rweb8243198.htm

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Who has the address book itself? If the FBI did not take the address book, then NOPD should still have it in evidence as the case remains unsolved.

Barb :-)

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Who has the address book itself? If the FBI did not take the address book, then NOPD should still have it in evidence as the case remains unsolved.

Barb :-)

I don't know. Ed Haslam might know. Good question.

[Glenn Viklund]

Did it ever occur to folks that Judyth Vary Baker might be both TELLING THE TRUTH and LYING at the same time? About different things.

Meaning this: that Judy was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald's mistress in New Orleans in summer 1963, that she knew him at the Reilly coffee shop, that indeed she was working on cancer research and trying to grow a fast acting cancer to kill Castro.

While at the same, Judy might be lying about certain details of her relationship with Oswald in order to 1) get folks (JFK researchers in particular) to believe her story by including in a bunch of JFK research characters and places and 2) lying to protect Oswald because of an emotional attachment to him; that Oswald was not "innocent" but probably involved in the JFK assassination as a CIA operative.

I am just throwing this theory out there. I do believe Judyth Vary Baker's account of being the summer 1963 mistress to US intelligence agent Oswald. However, I think she might be lying about some or a lot of things. Telling the truth sometimes and lying other times are not unheard of with people. For example I have a really hard time believing that Oswald would mention the name Billie Sol Estes or David Atlee Phillips to Judy Baker. In Phillips case, Oswald would have talked about a Maurice Bishop ...

Sort of like half-pregnant, you mean?

No, sort of like reality: people both lie and tell the truth. The trick is to figure out why they are lying and what is the lies and what are the truths. For example, Marina Oswald was very vulnerable in 1963-64 and told a whopping amount of lies that tended to incriminate Lee Harvey Oswald. 40-50 years out of the pressure cooker and the net of US intelligence, Marina Oswald tells a completely different story. Knowing the context and why Marina was lying in 1963-64 is critically important.

So what do you think about Oswald's name supposedly appearing in Mary Sherman's address book? That would tell support the accounts of what Judy Baker and author Ed Haslam have told.

The bottom line is I currently believe Judyth Baker's general account about being Oswald's summer 1963 mistress in New Orleans. I am willing to change, though. There are 2 careful researchers who believe her accounts: Ed Tatro and Martin Schackleford. Those are 2 guys who kick the tires on cars before they buy them.

First, Shackelford didn't kick a single tire when it comes to her asylum business. That much I know for sure, he got seriously suckered by Baker on that one - he made the fatal mistake of taking Baker's sayso for granted.

Here's a quote from Judyth Baker, page one of this thread:

"Mr. Lifton spoke to me in a single telephone conversation lasting about an hour and a half. He illegally taped that conversation. He soon broke his promise to keep our conversation confidential, perhaps because the biography of Lee Oswald he had been working on for over ten years was hopelessly inaccurate, since he missed our love affair altogether, even though I have witnesses and considerable supporting evidence (much is circumstantial evidence, but it´s good, nevertheless, because I have so much of it). Lifton seems to have decided to discredit me rather than go to the trouble of rewriting his book. Debra Conway helped him write a portion of this book and admits to the friendship and influence of David Lifton. Conway shared materials with Lifton that she promised to keep confidential "to the grave." Lifton, knowing nothing about my actually interesting and exciting life, proposed that I made up everything because I was simply a bored housewife with nothing else to do who decided to insert herself into history. As if I saved all the evidence I have all these years all by accident! "

So, do you think she ever got around to produce this evidence?

The answer is, no she did not. She told the Migration Courts in Sweden the exact same thing; but never produced anything of what she told them she had. They didn't get to see it and neither has anyone else over the years.

Could it be that there is no evidence?

Of course there is no evidence. On this subject I am in complete agreement with David Lifton, she has inserted herself into this story without foundation.

So no, I don't believe half of it is true. I believe, on very solid grounds, that she is making up the entirety of this story.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Jeffrey Reilley]

Bumped.

 

Bumped because I now sense a theme on these boards that has been fairly constant for the past decade. Finger pointing and hostility are much more important to some people than actually coming up with the truth.

I lurk on here and read a lot in hopes of furthering my understanding of past events. I have found that the past few months, what happened in this thread happens to almost all the threads. People with some serious agendas resort to childish tactics in an attempt to get people to believe their version of true history. 

Sincerely,

Jeff. A guy who wants to read things without having to rifle through all the bickering.

 

P.S.- This is probably the hardest thread to read on these boards. 

[Michael Clark]

9 minutes ago, Jeffrey Reilley said:

Bumped.

 

Bumped because I now sense a theme on these boards that has been fairly constant for the past decade. Finger pointing and hostility are much more important to some people than actually coming up with the truth.

I lurk on here and read a lot in hopes of furthering my understanding of past events. I have found that the past few months, what happened in this thread happens to almost all the threads. People with some serious agendas resort to childish tactics in an attempt to get people to believe their version of true history. 

Sincerely,

Jeff. A guy who wants to read things without having to rifle through all the bickering.

 

P.S.- This is probably the hardest thread to read on these boards. 

 

I'll plead guilty to debating the debtor, at times, instead of the data, or facts. Among others, I see Larry Hancock as master of sticking to the facts in a debate. I will pay more attention to his debates.

Cheers, 

Michael

[Michael Walton]

To reply to this thread by bumping it, what should really be bumped are the very first two posts from way back.  The reason being as much as I think John McAdams is a complete and mean asshole (look on Kennedys and King for his story) he's right.  I think Judy Baker is a fraud and did not know Lee Oswald. No one knew about this woman until 30 years after the assassination. Her story is one of those attention-seeking types, just like Bev Oliver and "I was the babuska lady."

Now if I sound mean here I'm just aggravated as xxxx about people claiming to be involved in this case when they're really doing it for attention, cash, or both.

[Pamela Brown]

My sincere yet just a tad sarcastic and of course hugely ironic thank you to Judyth...

I guess I have to give Judyth a thank-you after all -- oh, not for the dirty tricks, the sandbagging, the hidden agenda, the attempt to destroy my credibility -- wait!  was that the only reason she begged me to become part of her 'team' to begin with? -- but for outlining a far deeper cover-up of the assassination of JFK that anything I could have possibly imagined.  In fact, were it not for the duplicity and utter historical depravity of Judyth and her story, I might have uncovered this phenomenon and have been unable to believe that it might be true!  Suffice it to say, I am using the key concept that I have uncovered in one of my upcoming books on the JFK assassination -- no, not the limo book -- that will follow more traditional concepts -- but the book In Broad Daylight that has haunted me since my first trip to Dallas in 1997.

Basically, what does this concept consist of?  Let me give you a preview.  First of all, however, I must say that I will be putting forth an hypothesis, which I will then demonstrate.  That does not mean that I am trying to force anyone to 'believe' anything.  Instead, I hope to persuade you that my position has merit.

My hypothesis starts with the axiom that Judyth's only significance in the JFK research community is that of a counterfeit Marina. Her entire intent, right from the start, was to overshadow and replace Marina.  We are supposed to stop thinking about Marina.  In fact, we are to forget Marine even existed. 

Why is this?  Let me tell you.

What happened to Marina during the 1980's?  Can we recall? 

Let's think….hmmm….

Marina recanted.

Marina, who had once been convinced (by what she had been shown) that Lee Oswald was guilty, had now read the 27 volumes of WCR Hearings and Exhibits, and she decided he was innocent.

Oh yeah <yawn> you may say…we already know that.  No big deal. 

Well, if you were in charge of the cover-up, and the WCR was the mainstay of the cover-up, wouldn't having your star witness recant be a big deal?  And yes -- you would have to cover that up!

So in slithers Judyth to divide the research community and make waves wherever she goes, turning everyone's preconceived concepts upside down…

And the rest, as we say, is history -- or, in this case, pseudo-history…

Thank you, Judyth!  Perhaps I've found you after all! :-)

http://findingjudyth.blogspot.com/2017/05/who-knew-0.html

[Paul Brancato]

Jeff - try again explaining why you bumped this thread. Surely you don't consider it a prime example of finger pointing and hostility. What you have here is a fraud - Baker - and various posters figuring that out, most especially Pamela, who saw it from the inside. What are you doing here? Furthering some meaningful debate? Or hoping to sow discord? 

[Pamela Brown]

7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jeff - try again explaining why you bumped this thread. Surely you don't consider it a prime example of finger pointing and hostility. What you have here is a fraud - Baker - and various posters figuring that out, most especially Pamela, who saw it from the inside. What are you doing here? Furthering some meaningful debate? Or hoping to sow discord? 

Well, I just added a post to the thread, as I didn't want to start a new one, so I guess I 'bumped' it too. McAdams treated me horribly, refusing to acknowledge that I neither 'believed' nor 'disbelieved' Judyth because I was using an historical process.  I learned the hard way that he is a big part of the ongoing cover-up. 

I also posted this on McAdams' aaj board.  Here is his initial response: 

Pamela incessantly hectored people saying we were *not* allowed to 
come to any negative conclusions about Judyth's credibility until she 
(Pamela) had completed her "process." 

Who the hell did she think she was to tell people whether they could 
reach a conclusion or not? 

And Pamela was *really slow* to finally conclude that Judyth was a 
fraud. 

.John 

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/MkBaXvIHABo

 

Edited May 27, 2017 by Pamela Brown

[Joe Bauer]

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 probably 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 reportedly was like this when young and during his rise to the top and extremely disliked. He has been 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 a child that his parents had to arrange counseling therapy to see what could be done about his behavior.

I tend to consider Baker as difficult like this because she appears to be one of these high strung, controlling personality trait people who so often grate others to the point of extreme dislike.

However, I can't dismiss J.V, Baker and her story 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.  

  

Edited June 4, 2017 by Joe Bauer