Jump to content


Spartacus

Harvey and Lee


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Lee Forman

Lee Forman

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 30 April 2004 - 07:14 PM

This started out as a post reply to Antti, but evolved, so I decided to rephrase it and create a separate post.


There are a myriad of issues surrounding this individual, including whether or not he had a lookalike double, whether he was in fact the same man who had emigrated to the the U.S.S.R. and returned, why he was reported to have been in multiple places at multiple times over multiple longterm periods in his life, etc.

I'm currently reading "Harvey and Lee" by John Armstrong. Jack White has also done considerable work on the photographs of "Lee Harvey Oswald" and contributed to the effort, as did a large number of other researchers including Jim Marrs, Rich DellaRosa, Nigel Turner, etc]. The premise of the book is that "Lee Harvey Oswald" may have been a coded identity created by the CIA for the cover of 2 specific people; one who went by the name Harvey, and another who went by Lee.

Some info:

http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/

The theory is sound, if you consider the existence of other operations such as this one within the Intelligence communities, with the use of twin brothers, and lookalikes, in addition to eye-witness accounts AND documentation [that is to say, the documentation that wasn't sealed]. This concept goes a long way towards resolving many of the conflicts concerning LHO being in 2 places at the same time, his seemingly native ability to speak fluent Russian, etc.

As noted by several people that met him, and also introduced in the Oliver Stone film, the LHO that was caught in the Texas Theatre spoke incredibly good English [Stone has him speaking with an accent] as if he was carefully choosing his words, almost alluding to Oswalds speaking English as a second language. If he was raised in New York and New Orleans, and lived for a time in Texas, I would have imagined a different accent from what I have heard in his radio stint and news broadcasts.

John's theory goes a bit like this: "Harvey" spoke Russian, may have been the decent of a Hungarian Immigrant, was softspoken in manner and was the Patsy who was captured and executed. "Lee" was more of an athletic build, a hard drinker and was most likely taller? "Lee" would have been the marine, "Harvey" would have been the emigree to Moscow. Witnesses attest that their knowledge of this 'individual' differed, as some who knew him said he preferred to be called "Harvey" while the other would have started a fistfight if you were to have used this middle name.

"Lee" was also introduced as "Leon," registered as OH Lee in his boarding house, and I believe there were other variants.

Marina said once, and I found it an interesting quote, paraphrased "I was married to 2 men, one who was the father to my children, and the other that assassinated the President of the US." What the hell is that supposed to mean? And if she has the authority to release the IRS records currently under wraps for her ex-husband, why won't she? How difficult is this? I could draft the letter and include a stamped, pre-addessed envelope.

Another interesting line of questioning regards differences in height, temperament, ideology, stature, etc. Were there 2 individuals operating with the code name Lee Harvey Oswald, and if so, how closely did they work with one another? If so, how closely did they resemble one another?

A few more points/questions:

Who did Bernard J. Haire witness being led out the back of the Texas Theatre in handcuffs during LHOs arrest?

Why did testimony differ in descriptions of LHO on his bus ride? Is it possible that the 2 men were on the bus together, and that one was recognized by his former landlady?

Did Alek J. Hiddell have a Social Security number?

Lee Harvey Oswald was witnessed by T.F. White at 2:00pm, 11/22/63 - which is impossible, as he was incarcerated at that time. White got a license plate of the '61 Red Falcon which was tracked as belonging to a '57 Plymouth which was registered to Carl Mather - a good friend of JD Tippit [it would be great to know if this plate matched the car in the photo of General Walker's driveway]. Was this "Lee?"

Did any Texas Book employees note Oswald leaving the building on one or more occasions to hit the Jiffy store at 310 S. Industrial to buy beer and pico brittle candy? That's a good 7 minute walk in one direction. 8:30am and again at 9:00am.

The Lee Harvey Oswald photographed in Mexico City at the embassy [in November?] of 1963 is another interesting item worth noting. The guy looks nothing like him - potentially increasing the number of people using this identity to 3 [or even 4 based on Bannister's Jeep deal].

John, I'd love to put this question of the 2 Oswalds to Judith Baker - what do you think?

#2 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,097 posts

Posted 01 May 2004 - 11:14 AM

This started out as a post reply to Antti, but evolved, so I decided to rephrase it and create a separate post.

There are a myriad of issues surrounding this individual, including whether or not he had a lookalike double, whether he was in fact the same man who had emigrated to the the U.S.S.R. and returned, why he was reported to have been in multiple places at multiple times over multiple longterm periods in his life, etc.

I'm currently reading "Harvey and Lee" by John Armstrong.  Jack White has also done considerable work on the photographs of "Lee Harvey Oswald" and contributed to the effort, as did a large number of other researchers including Jim Marrs, Rich DellaRosa, Nigel Turner, etc]. The premise of the book is that "Lee Harvey Oswald" may have been a coded identity created by the CIA for the cover of 2 specific people; one who went by the name Harvey, and another who went by Lee.

John, I'd love to put this question of the 2 Oswalds to Judith Baker - what do you think?

There were definitely two Oswalds in the weeks leading up to the assassination. However, I believe the situation is less complex than the one put forward by John Armstrong.

There is considerable evidence to suggest that a couple of months before the assassination conspirators intended to set-up Oswald as the patsy for the crime (see for example Larry Hancock’s excellent Someone Would Have Talked being discussed elsewhere on the forum).

http://educationforu...p?showtopic=693

This was a crucial aspect of the plot as it was vitally important to link the assassination with Fidel Castro and Cuba. To do this they had to have someone impersonate Oswald. It was this man who went to Mexico City in an attempt to link Oswald with Cuba and the Soviet Union. It was probably also the same man who tried to kill General Walker.

When Hoover phoned LBJ on 23rd November he was fully convinced that Oswald was part of a Soviet-Cuban plot. Despite the fact that Hoover had evidence for this point of view, LBJ would have nothing to do with the idea. He ordered Hoover to make sure it was the work of a lone gunman. Hoover reluctantly went along with this and wrote the report that was eventually to become the Warren Report.
The conspirators refused to give up. In January 1964, John Martino and Nathaniel Weyl published stories claiming that that Oswald had been in Cuba beforehand and that he had been in contact with Cuban intelligence and Castro himself. Their story described Castro's motivation as revenge for continuing attempts on Castro's life by the United States government. Jack Anderson and Michael Eddowes also played a role in this attempt to link Castro with the assassination. Eddowes even went as far to claim that the Oswald killed by Ruby was a Soviet agent impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald.

To test his theory, Eddowes brought a suit in Texas to exhume Oswald's body. This was originally refused but after gaining the support of Lee Harvey Oswald’s family, the exhumation took place on 4th October, 1981. The body was taken to the Baylor Medical Center. Identification was made primarily using dental records. At a news conference held later the following statement was issued: “The findings of the team are as follows: We independently and as a team have concluded beyond any doubt, and I mean beyond any doubt, that the individual buried under the name of Lee Harvey Oswald in Rose Hill Cemetery is in fact Lee Harvey Oswald.”
The reason behind setting up Oswald was to give the United States the opportunity to invade Cuba. LBJ refused to go along with this plan. He claimed because it would lead to a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The real reason was that he had to make sure that there was not a real investigation into the assassination. If that had happened, the investigators would have discovered evidence of another plot to kill Kennedy. The one that was being organized by LBJ’s backers in Texas. LBJ knew the safest way he could deal with this situation was to convince the nation the assassination had been carried out by a “lone nut”. He placated the far-right with the invasion of another communist country, Vietnam. It did not please the Cuban exiles involved in the original plot but it did satisfy the Military-Industrial Complex (see Dwight Eisenhower’s last speech before leaving office).

Judyth Baker is a member of this forum. I will ask her to respond to your posting.

http://coursesa.matr...nts/indust.html
http://www.spartacus.../JFKmartino.htm
http://www.spartacus....uk/JFKweyl.htm
http://www.spartacus.../JFKeddowes.htm
http://www.spartacus...SAjohnsonLB.htm

#3 Judyth Baker

Judyth Baker

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 85 posts

Posted 01 May 2004 - 11:08 PM

Regarding whether or not there were `TWO` Oswalds, there are several points to keep in mind. I´ll begin with the most obvious:

(1) There were impersonations going on.

answer: There is no doubt of this.

(2) Was Lee Oswald aware of these impersonations?

answer: yes. When it is understood that at least some of these impersonations occurred with Lee´s knowledge, we must then ask why the impersonations occurred at all.

And here is where we get into trouble. Armstrong assumes Lee and ´Harvey´ was a project that lasted for years. This is not strictly true. I DO know ONE person who was making a ´project´ of HIMSELF for years: Lee. He wished to be a spy ever since he lived in New York. There will be details in my book that will make this more underrstandable and Lee´s activities in New York explained more fully than they are now.

He had strong reasons for distancing himself as much as he could, without offending his uncle, from the New Orleans-Dallas Mafia. I personally observed Lee having to cooperate with his uncle in New Orleans out of a sense of devotion for his uncle. But Lee covered his tracks when running errands for Dutz. I was present on two occasions when he ran such errands, which were money transfers.

My time is severely limited now due to work on the book, but I assure you, many questions will be answered therein. Meanwhile, I will bring up these several additional facts, which should help explain the problem of dual identities more clearly:

1) You have to have two Marguerite Oswalds who NEVER tell. WHERE is the OTHER Marguerite all these years, by the way?

2) You have to have Robert Oswald cooperating, because he has photos of both´ Lee and ´Harvey.´ He is still alive. We know he and Marina Oswald had a short affair only weeks after his brother was shot by Jack Ruby. RIGHT AFTER THAT, he began to be very cooperative about saying his brother was guilty, and even coming up with new evidence. He affirmed that the cruddy Imperial Reflex camera he 'found' in the Paine's garage, and which a detective then conveniently said he 'forgot'to include it with all the other cameras, was 'found'after his brief affair with Marina was discovered. I think he was in a bind so his wife and kids would not find out. That is the camera that made the backyard photos. It is a cheap, clumsy camera. Lee, however, wanted to be a photographer. He had some fine lenses, a Minox, a stereoscope photo maker, a timer, chemicals, everything. WHY would he 'give' Robert Oswald the camera just before going to Russia, when he did not SEE Robert Oswald before going to Russia - and then take the camera back years later when he had good cameras of his own? As usual, the incriminating camera was 'found' in the Paine's possession.

Robert´s stuck to his story ever since, that the evidence says Lee was guilty. This is an intelligent man who, I repeat, had a wife and little children when he committed his indiscretion, which was kept secret for years. Several researchers know the truth, however. It is also in the recent book, Mrs. Paine´s Garage, a book sympathetic to Ruth Paine. Robert never said there were two Lee Oswalds, but on the other hand, he was compromised.

3) Marina Oswald´s statements are shockingly inconsistent. For example, she admitted taking 'one´backyard photo. Then she was shown another, and basically said, oh, I must have taken two. Then a third was discovered. Oh, I must have taken three. This woman, with a little baby and toddler, alone in this country, was not quite the helpless lady you all think she was. She could understand English much better than she pretended, according to what Lee told me. Adele Edisen talked to her in April by phone in English, for example. Or so Edisen reported. Just as Lee did not speak much Russian in Russia, so with Marina in the United States. It was safer that way. At any rate, Marina knew what was being said around her, IMHO. She is an unreliable witness. It WAS true that she had married ´two´Lee Oswalds. One was a devoted dad and did love Marina. But the other side of Lee was the ´other´Lee, who kept secrets, who had a lover, who was doing things of which she at least pretended to be unaware. To make more of this is to do an Armstrong strong-arm of the facts.

4) John Pic was Lee´s half brother. He was working at a the United States government-run hospital in Texas when Kennedy was assassinated. He stayed out of things as much as possible. He had not seen his brother Lee for years, so far as I am aware. I have photos of myself that I would not believe were me - those of us who have had frequent photos taken know you can obtain a wide range of looks and will discard those you do not like, and you may make copies of those you do. The photo of Lee at age 13 or so at the Bronx Zoo is fuzzy. There's a Russian photo showing Lee as he once described himself to me - his face all swollen up form an ear infection that drove him into the hospital. There, he had his adenoids removed, and some tonsil material. Armstrong and Jack White and Rich DellaRosa would have you believe that tonsils removed at age six and a half in Lee Oswald's throat were gone forever. Well, y grandfather Whiting had HIS removed at an early age, but when he was in the army in France, he had to have them removed again. They had grown back. Researcher Peter Whitmey wrote me an email testifying that he, too, had his tonsils removed twice. He, too, had had a mastoid operation at an early age. MAGIC TONSILS? NOPE. THEY JUST SOMETIMES DO NOT REMOVE ALL THE MATERIAL AND THE TONSIL REGENERATES.

Back to John Pic: What were Pic´s responses to other photos? We would have to know which ones he was presented. We would also have to find out when he had last seen Lee in the flesh. Does Armstrong tell you that? Look again.

5)When I brought up such matters to Mr. DellaRosa´s newsgroup jfkresearch, such as about Lee´s 'missing' tooth, etc., this is not what Mr. DellaRosa wanted to learn - or anybody else. Just as I am forbidden to post on Lancer, similarly, Mr. DellaRosa erased everything I´d written and even refused to archive them, saying my statements were not worth archiving. This despite the fact that jokes and cartoons, even, were archived! He has attacked me ever since. He believes there are two Oswalds as if it were a religion. I will send copies of his statements to anyone who doubts his response.

Here is what I mentioned that contradicted their theory:

1) Lee´s tooth was loosened, and later, knocked out, in two different incidents. But during its loosened stage Lee was afraid he was going to lose the tooth. He got information. He was advised to save the tooth in MILK if it fell out, and to get to a dentist ASAP. We know he went to a dentist because his Aunt Lillian paid the bill. Look it up on the internet. He went to a dentist and it was REimplanted. The tooth was saved. What teenager would not try to save his front tooth? Evidence that the tooth was re-rooted not quite in its original position might be posited: this same tooth in Lee´s dental records, as the exhumation proved, was TOOTH NUMBER NINE...described as ´ROTATED.´ That is Lee´s left front tooth, right if you are looking at him. Rotation means it is not straight as the other one, it is not on a flat plane. When it was knocked out, reseating the tooth in the damaged bone may have caused it to set into the bone in a slightly different, rotated position. Details about these 'Two Lee's"and the truth - which is plain and simple - are in my book. Consider, to go on:

2) school records: Lee told me how his mother had some of his school records faked after returning from New York because he played so much hookey his mother was afraid he would be kept back a year, which would have humiliated her and the family. Through her friends in the mafia, it was easy to get some extra records out there in case New York authorities tried to pass on info that Lee should be held back a year. No, DellaRosa and others did not want to hear such a logical and possible explanation, that a non-existent 'Lee'could be held back if New York sent damning records and wanted a reply - while the 'real'Lee went on to have good attendance for one of the few years in his entire education, having promised his mother and uncle Dutz he'd actually attend school regularly and not bring on so many gray hairs to his mother.

But this will not do for the Two Oswald people. They want to insist that two Lee´s attended and were remembered, even though we are talking about personality and height discrepancies constantly. If these two were supposed to be 'copies' of each other, why the big difference in height, personality, etc? Why didn't the government indeed choose identical twins, as before?

Some of those photos don;t loomk like 'either' "Lee." However, photo enhancement shows that in some cases ears have apparently beer deliberately obscured, while in other cases 'Lee'and "Harvey' have the same ears and same eyebrows. Did one of them pluck his eyebrows? Check it out. Also, did they both have the same highly unusual eye color, which was neither gray nor blue? Most interesting of all, where is the second set of fingerprints? And why is it that almost all documents examined for handwriting show 'Harvey's handwriting. Didn't 'Lee' write anything? See if you can find anything 'Lee' actually wrote.

I TAUGHT SCHOOL FOR SEVEN YEARS IN SW LOUISIANA, close to New Orleans. Every semester I had at least one kid that looked like Lee, and every semester I noticed a Lee or an Oswald had registered in the freshman class. Lee is a very common name in southern Louisiana. And Oswald an old and respected German name in the area. Lee´s very facial characteristics were common in that area because of so much inbreeding that had gone on in the Cajun-French community from which Marguerite Clavier, Lee´s mother, had come. Hence you have a lot of lookalike photos out there as well.

I have a degree in cultural anthropology, from the University of Houston, which leads to the next consideration:

3) Lee´s so-called accent - and lack of it. Lee was made fun of in New York for his accent and stove mightily to rid himself of it. I was born a Yankee, and Lee corrected me for pronouncing 'New Orlins' as 'New Orleeens.' When he spoke on radio, he deliberately said New Orleeens, because he wanted me to hear the program (I had missed the very short previous one). I was able to prove I heard it because I repeated how he injected - deliberately - the name of New Orleans into the broadcast the way I used to pronounce it before he corrected me..

Furthermore, you will hear him say AX instead of ´ask,´in the same broadcast - a favorite way to pronounce that word in that area. I have taken graduate courses in my doctoral program in English at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Cajun country, and took several advanced linguistic courses, including one in Cajun dialects. I assure you Lee Oswald´s seeming to speak English as a second language simply reflects the fact that he was raised in a part of the country where Cajun French mingled with Spanish, basic English, and real French, etc., to create an ´English´that indeeds sounds as if it were acquired as a second language to scholars unaware of the linguistic features of the area, and of Lee's own particular background. Lee managed to eradicate a great deal of his ´accent´ - but not all. And his spelling of such words as honorable as ´honourable´merely reflects his reading Huxley, Orwell, Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells, and many other British writers, who influenced him greatly. Since he was dyslexic, he could not discern between Brit and American spellings very well.

Finally, Lee said that ´Hidell´was a ´project name.´ It was used by others as well as by himself. ID cards with that name were found on at least one other individual. Lee also created fake records for himself. On his Mexican Tourist application, for example, he put `Catholic´even though he was all but an atheist and was raised as a Lutheran. He did that because I was a Catholic, and he wanted a document ´proving´ he was also Catholic so we could marry in Mexico.

IMPORTANT: Understand at this time Castro was kicking Catholics OUT of Cuba. It was the worst thing possible to put on a document in Mexico while seeking a transit visa to Cuba, that one was a Catholic! But that´s what Lee did. Note Lee also left Mexico City after the shelf life of the bioweapon expired, even though his tourist visa had not yet expired. Also note that Lee received his transit visa to GO INTO Cuba in mid-October, but IGNORED IT. If he had wanted so desperately to get into Cuba for the sake of Cuba itself, why didn´t he ever mention this again? Why NOTHING about Cuba anymore? Why ignore the precious and much-desired transit visa, his ticket to the Workers' Paradise? It was all a sham, folks. He was ordered to act Pro-Castro. He quit as quickly as he could.

Remember, in the 'official' hatchet job book called Marina and Lee it says Marina thought when he left for Mexico-Cuba that she WOULD NEVER SEE HIM AGAIN. Had the couriering been successful, Lee and I would have met, quickly divorced and married in Mexico, and then hidden ourselves away. Instead, he was ordered back to Dallas and we had to revise our plans. He never lived with Marina after that, just visited on weekends. On his first day back in Dallas, he stayed at the YMCA and didn't even see Marina until the next day. She was not his first priority. His dead-end temporary job left him no good reason why not to take that transit visa and go to Cuba. But he did not do so. WHY? He made a commitment to try to save JFK, and of course this was one of the reasons he had to be shut up at all costs ASAP when Ruby shot him down.

Lee Oswald helped stir up a demonstration against Adlai Stevenson, risking his own neck to try to help JFK. How? A demonstration against Stevenson hopefully would provide more protection for KENNEDY when he was due to arrive a month later. Lee participated almost at once in that demonstration after returning from Mexico City, at risk to himself.

There is much more. I do have documents for what I´m saying. Remember, if there were two Lee Oswald´s, you would also have different fingerprints along the way. Lee´s fingerprints match all the way. He WAS five eleven (almost) in his Marine boots, so that is what he put down. He exaggerated a shorter height and poundage for himself on civilian records to diminish matches between the ´defector ´and `Lee the ordinary citizen.´ He even faked Marina´s height and weight at one point. The more faked records Lee created, such as saying he really lived at 4907 instead of 4905 Magazine Street, the more easily he could start a new life.

I hope this provides some illumination. I knew Lee intimately. He was a good man. I considered him a great man. By the way, David Lifton, who does not like me, is on record saying, as Marina herself has said, that for some strange reason, Lee never hit Marina again once they moved to New Orleans. As a matter of fact, Lee had confessed to me that he had beaten Marina (she would not like it if I said why). I am the other woman, and you will not hear good about me from Marina, but these things happened many years ago, and I do not blame her now, except for the secrets I KNOW she is keeping, though I do know her life would be wretched if she revealed those secrets. I will not do so, except in private. Lee stopped hitting Marina because I told him if I ever heard he laid a hand on her again, I would not see him anymore. He made the promise and kept it.

Sincerely,

Judyth Vary Baker

I thank you for your attention to these matters. The truth is simpler than all those twisted fictions out there about Lee. With patience and time, I believe the real Lee Oswald will emerge from the shadows of character assassination that have covered him from being understood for so long. I have long outlived Lee. I have done this because it was the right thing to do. It doesn't matter what happens to me because I've lived a wonderful life, have had five great children, and now, this last task.

Sincerely, JVB

#4 Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*

Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 May 2004 - 12:31 PM

An assembly of Lee pictures:

http://www.jfkmurder....com/oswald.htm

#5 Lee Forman

Lee Forman

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 03 May 2004 - 09:02 PM

Thank you Judyth!

Very edifying and interesting. I'm fan of William of Occam, one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything - so your version provided me with some additional insight. If Lee and Marguerite purposely falsified documents in the past, this would add to the overall confusion.

I'm still inclined to believe that the other individual using Lee's identify, at least in the weeks preceding the assassination, must have had a strong resemblance to him.

I'd like very much to know when your book is slated for publishing? Will it contain any photographic material? Can you give us any ideas as to whether it will contain any specific documentation? I am very intrigued by your accounting - it was the Nigel Turner special in which you made your appearance on A&E that drew fire from Ford, Carter and Ladybird, which prompted my continued interest in the 'open case.'

I have a bevy of questions that I'd also like to ask you [was Lee waiting for a phone call in the 2nd floor lunch room, and from whom, did he ever mention Tippit, did he ever mention either HL Hunt or John Hurt, how long did he know Jack Ruby, and how was this association initiated, etc], however you may already be answering a number of them in your book.

Thanks again for your response.

Kind regards,


Lee Forman

#6 Bernice Moore

Bernice Moore

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,939 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted 03 May 2004 - 10:36 PM

Pertaining to Robert:

[QUOTE]We know he and Marina Oswald had a short affair only weeks after his brother was shot by Jack Ruby.

Judyth: Regarding the above ..would you please provide the
documentation for such a statement....
Thankyou..

#7 Judyth Baker

Judyth Baker

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 85 posts

Posted 05 May 2004 - 11:22 AM

From Judyth Vary Baker:

First of all, concerning my book: I was trained as a scientist. I would not speak out without evidence. Several researchers have been overwhelmed by how much I have. I was not in the position to gain access to important documents, but I did manage to save enough to prove who I was and our affair. Not that there are photos of Lee and me together, none of that. We were both married and we knew we were in a clandestine operation. But nevertheless, the book is replete with evidence, the relevance of which an intelligent person can see. I saved many documents, reminders of the past, a variety of notes, newspaper articles, and letters. I would not speak out without a clean, logical way to demonstrate that I was presenting the truth. While the book is written in a style that will bring alive the milieu, it will also present useful evidence. You can count on it.

Regarding the source of the information about the affair between Marina Oswald and Robert, Lee's brother, researcher Mary Ferrell (recently died) told me, in the presence of researcher Debbee Reynolds, that Marina had an affair with Robert only weeks after the assassination.
Recently another source, from Ruth Paine biographer Thomas Mallon, revealed the same information through an article in The New Yorker, which is not a yellow journalism magazine by any means. He also mentioned that he confirmed the matter with Priscilla Johnson McMillan, the writer of the hatchet job on Lee called Marina and Lee. See below:

(quote on)"Ruth, understanding that Robert had been swept into the assassination disaster as accidentally as she had been, has always forgiven his dislike of her and Michael, which no doubt helped to shape Marina's more complicated estrangement. "Not knowing who we were," Ruth says, "the safe thing was to stay clear and probably to advise her to stay clear." Certainly, Marina's complaint about Ruth's supposed enjoyment of the limelight mimics Robert's own. But the influence of Lee's brother was stronger than Ruth ever knew. In the period just after the assassination, Marina had a brief affair with Robert Oswald. Their involvement may have provided the chance for revenge against a brother and a husband; surely it made the growing distance between Marina and Ruth even less bridgeable. Marina was now subject to both Robert's viewpoint and her own shame; the two conditions conspired to lock out her old friend.

Priscilla Johnson McMillan, whose "Marina and Lee" (1977) remains the most authoritative study of the Oswalds' marriage, heard about the affair between Marina and Robert from Marina herself but left it out of her book. Yet the affair (confirmed by my conversation with another source once close to Marina) is relevant to any understanding of the estrangement between her and Ruth, and when McMillan revealed it to me, last year, it was with the thought that finally knowing about it "might lighten Ruth's load a little bit." (end quote)

source: Marina and Ruth
The Assassin's Wife and the Quaker Woman Who Took Her In
By Thomas Mallon
[Originally published in The New Yorker, and reprinted by permission of Thomas Mallon. Excerpted from the book Mrs. Paine's Garage, Pantheon Press, a division of Random House]

I won't make statements like that, that I can't back up. Regards, Judyth
please forgive any typos! thanks.

#8 Judyth Baker

Judyth Baker

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 85 posts

Posted 05 May 2004 - 11:25 AM

The URL of the above is:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garage.htm
JVB

#9 Bernice Moore

Bernice Moore

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,939 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted 06 May 2004 - 05:35 AM

From Bernice Moore:

I hope I have this straight.... Marina told Priscilla, Priscilla confirmed this to Thomas Mallon, which also was confirmed by an unknown source, and Mary (who died, God love her) told you in front of Debbee.....

Now, that is not documentation, and has nothing to do with the J.F.K Research of the Assassination.. to me that is gossip,and there is no place for such nor the smearing of anyone's name when it cannot be documented..IMO.... this is only hearsay...a nd what would it have to do with your book?.... surely it is not mentioned.??

I have noticed that you have mentioned Marina in a couple of your posts, and as she is not present to respond to these charges, I think the less said about hearsay the better..

Also, I would hope you would not use this to rectify the fact, as you state, that you had an affair with her husband. If Robert and Marina did have such, her husband was dead, at the time... and this is also highly unlikely with all the S.S.and F.B.I, constantly around... and you did say this was within a short time of the assassination... and they had her under lock and key.....

As far as "Mrs.Paines Garage" is concerned, it is garbage IMO. It is a very one sided account of Ruth Paines experiences, both Marina and Robert refused to have anything to do with this book.The author points out it is not a conspiracy book, but then confronts anyone who does not take the official view... We are trekkies, buffs, or "pseudo researchers"..... He does make make clear when he is referring to previous published material.... he gives the impression he interviewed people, he did not... He also makes many assumptions, about L.H.O he has him guilty.. that you would refer to any proof of any said statement from such a one sided bio with no analysis, I find extremely contradictory.... after all you say L.H.O is not guilty....and as for myself, LHO did not kill anyone that day..IMO.... but not for any of the reasons that you state, IMO he was not accordinging to the evidence and documentation. Mallon knows nothing about the assassination, this is the type of book that deceives the public, the majority of whom were not alive at the time and are ignorant of history, and therefore will not recognize the deception..

Mallon sites six persons including Ruth Paine, her former husband Michael.. Priscilla Johnson McMillan and John McAdams for his sources.. McAdams does not take into consideration any contradictory evidence.. he is a "lone nut" govermant defender..

Priscilla is interesting, it was she who interviewed L.H.O. in the Soviet Union, upon
his defection?? it was she who was chosen to accompany Stalin's daughter Sevetlana, when she defected to the U.S., and it was "she" who was chosen to stay with Marina during those terrible days in the aftermath of the assassination and the death of her husband..(C.I.A. connections...)..

Ruth Paine even helps convict L.H.O.. after death, by attesting to the fact that a undated, unsigned note, in L.H.O's handwriting admitting to the shooting of Gen. Walker, is real..

Ruth Paine tried to please everyone around her: Marina and Lee, the Dallas Police, the F.B.I., and the W.C. but in the end Marina snubbed Ruth Paine.. hinting at a very personal reason.. also the ties to DeMohrenschildt who introduced them to the Oswalds... her husband Michael had great ties to Bell Aircraft and the Defense Dept..... and the very first call to the authorities that day after the shots were fired, was from an employee at Bell Helecopter who suggested that " Oswald did it"..

I wouldn't believe anything anyone has to say in "Mrs.Paines Garage" ... and yet as crowded as it was, the rug was so convieniently obvious, to her, and yet no gun was ever seen.... in any "Messy Garage".

Perhaps your documentation may be compelling, I do not know..... but as for your story so far, no.... that could tell me you are not a disinformationist but it does not mean that you are free from embellishment... there is no reference to such in Weisberg, "L.H.O in New Orleans", nor the Garrison Investigations... so far... I cannot agree with your conclusions, your story may not be important but your documentation may definetely be, time will tell when your book is released....

Thank you for your time..

#10 Judyth Baker

Judyth Baker

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 85 posts

Posted 06 May 2004 - 11:43 AM

Dear Madam:

I do not know who you are, and I do appreciate your comments. It seems you are a friend of Marina Oswald, and certainly you have a right to speak out in her behalf. However, I also have a right to defend my statement that we believe Marina to have had a brief affair with Robert Oswald.

You declare that I am merely repeating hearsay and demand 'documentation.' You called Mallon's book 'trash,' which is a very subjective statement. Conmcerning Mallon, a short biography says:

Thomas Mallon is the author of three previous novels, Henry and Clara, Aurora 7 and Arts and Sciences, as well as four works of nonfiction, among them Stolen Words and A Book of One's Own. He was until recently the literary editor of Gentlemen's Quarterly and he frequently contributes to The New York Times Book Review and The Washington Post Book World. He lives in New York City.

Mallon, in other words, is a respected author of repute. He states that he was told by an un-named source about the affair and that McMillan confirmed this. It seems to me that McMillan would have objected to this had it not been true. McMillan spent many months with Marina Oswald while obtaining information for her book Marina and Lee.

You label Mallon's sources also as 'hearsay.' Let's see: he cites two people who told him this information.

As for me, I cite Mary Ferrell, but have a witness -- Debbee Reynolds -- as to Ferrell's statement. Ferrell knew Marina oswald personally for twenty years until a split occurred and Marina became friends with the LaFontaines. By the way, I also know much, much more about Marina that I am keeping to myself. I am not interested in hurting anyone's reputation. besides, marina today is not the woman of forty years ago. We all change. If you know her as well as you seem to, you know what she has been through, and I am not about to talk about that. I would indeed consider that gossip.

WHAT would you consider adequate decumentation for an affair between Robert Oswald and Marina N. Oswald? A statement that they both signed? Photographs of an intimate nature? Here we have Ferrell, McMillan and an un-named source quoted by a respected writer, Thomas Mallon -- and in fact, that is corroboration.

Marina was not under lock and key when she was riding to and from Lee's grave with Robert Oswald. We could go into more details but I refrain from doing so.

It is easy to proclaim that what I said was 'hearsay.'Under your definition, most court convictions relying on witness testimony would be thrown out. We're talking about people who relate they were told this information by Marina Oswald herself.

I detect some hostility toward me in your somewhat angry post. I do hope you will not allow your feelings for Marina today get in the way of the historical record. As to my motives for bringing up this matter? The truth, madam, must be known. It should not be covered up. Do you think I enjoy exposing my affair with Lee Oswald, as the mother of five childsren, and as the former wife of a very decent man who does not deserve to suffer because of the events of 1963?

I am certainly not doing this to make my life easier. I had a job before I spoke out. Now i cannot get hhired as a teacher. I had health. After five times in the hospital after two 'accidents'where I was even told ahead of time that one of them was going to occur that same day, break-ins into my home -- and, not least of all-- having to endure over and over again the emotional attacks of people who think I am lying or trying in some way to get attention, I assure you that the last thing I ever wished to do was to speak out. Wasn;t thirty-eight years long enough to keep my mouth shut? I know you wish I had never said a word. Would that have been the right thing to do?

I know nothing about you as a person, and I am exposed to your scorn and anger by speaking out, but I have chosen to do what is right before it is too late. I do hope you will forgive me for having to do so. It is important that the facts get out there. Let others decide if Mallon's work is total trash. I would appreciate your providing documentation to prove this.

There will never be documentation of the kind you seem to demand to prove what happened between Marina Oswald and Lee's brother if you reject the testimonies of those who spoke with Marina on the subject. In fact, before Mallo9n's book emerged, I would not have mentioned the matter, since there was only ONE voice --Ferrell's -- involved. Since McMillan, according to Mallon, has reported the same matter, that is corroboration. If McMillan denies the report, it would then be necessary for Mallon to reveal his other source. It takes two sources for corroboration. Those two sources are Ferrell and McMillian-via-Mallon.

From sad experience, I do realize that my reply will not impress you one bit. But for the sake of the truth, reply I do. I do hope that all discourse in this forum will be civil and that no one will descend to name calling or innuendoes. The TRUTH must come before personal feelings. Else, believe me, I would not be speaking out, not one word. It's too painful.

Sincerely,

Judyth Vary Baker

[please forgive any typos...I have vision problems. JVB

#11 Bernice Moore

Bernice Moore

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,939 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted 07 May 2004 - 04:17 AM

Judyth:

To my knowledge, according to the law..if such a statement is to be proven against Robert & Marina..
then signed affidavits must be obtained, if not then it
remains hearsay..
If at some future date,these statements are challenged legally
this is what would be required..

Marina was under close scrutiny by the FBI & SS till Feb
64 after her WC testimony was completed..much on the web,
pertaining to such....

Thomas Mallon's previous works, nor his stats qualify him
on a book about the Assassination. He has not done his
homework as they say.. He presents no evidence
in such,yet he convicts LHO of the murder of the President.

It is anyone's right to critique any book,as I stated in my
opinion, it is "garbage"..in and out.IMO.

I find your statements in regard to his book, I shall admit
frustrating,on one hand you believe that LHO is innocent,as
I do...and have been posting such for the past five years or
so..on the web ,on the other hand you seem to rely on Mallon's
information in a book in which he condemns Lee as the lone assassin..?.

Do not Presume: Quote

"Hostility,anger,scorn"..??
"I know you wish I had never said a word." Why not..??
"From sad experience, I do realize that my reply will not
impress you one bit.".. Oh,but it does..
"It seems you are a friend of Marina Oswald, and certainly you have
a right to speak out in her behalf."

I have the right to speak out in anyones behalf. Whether related, or
known or not, when I believe they are being unfairly spoken about
and not present to defend themselves...


I asked a question.." What was your documentation for the
hearsay of an affair between Robert & Marina Oswald?".
And whatever has being a scientist to do with such.?..I
cannot fathom.
What was related on your part in a reply, was a she said, he said
statement..

You have made many statements on the Forum. Do you not expect questions pertaining to such?. Nor other peoples opinions about what you relate.?
People in the JFK arena, are hard task masters..No one is out to get you
as you seem to think on this Forum...but you must expect those differences of
opinions, and questions..you must be prepared to reply and provide some
reference to evidence of such..No one in this world complies to anything
with a blindness..if what you say stands up to the scrutiny it will receive,
then it will be accepted..if not .....it will not..

No one can find out the truth, unless they continue to question...

That's correct, the truth should be known about the Assassination,
not yours,not mine, not what we think..nor what we would like it to
be,but the evidential,documentation of the murder, the positive proof in otherwards...because IMO until such time
the Goverment will not,relent and all shall not be obtained, or rather, whatever is left. If anything.....

Keep in mind there is much gossip and hearsay about you in regards to your own statements on the Web. Many years of such..I disregard it as
I disregard this reference to Robert & Marina, until proven..
If such does not pertain to the Assassination of the President,
but to the personal lives of any of those involved, then
IMO,it should be,whatever it is,taken as it is,a gossipy opinion.

And last but not least, none of this as I have stated in anyway in these posts relates to the solving of this crime..we are here for research not relaying
of personal stories....that have nothing to do with such...IMO..to which
do not forget I am entitled to..

Whether I believe you or not, is not important..I have no animosity towards you... right now,after these posts I do not know what to think of you....
as I said, I await your book,and the evidence presented in such..I am hoping it
does contain, much more valuable information than I have seen presented before now..

Thanks for your time..

#12 Judyth Baker

Judyth Baker

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 85 posts

Posted 07 May 2004 - 06:16 PM

Judyth:



DEAR BERNICE: PLEASE FORGIVE THE CAPS. IT IS ONLY TO MAKE MY REPLY EASIER TO FIN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I WILL TRY TO REPLY TO THEM BELOW ==============LIKE THIS==========JUDYTH
To my knowledge, according to the law..if such a statement is to be proven against Robert & Marina..
then signed affidavits must be obtained, if not then it
remains hearsay..
If at some future date,these statements are challenged legally
this is what would be required..

========DEAR BERNICE: WE HAVE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO THE RECORD BY THE FBI AND OTHERS THAT WERE NEVER SIGNED AFFIDAVITS. SOMETIMES COMMENTS ARE MADE "A RELIABLE SOURCE REPORTED(SUCH AND SUCH)"-- AND SUCH ARE USED ALL THE TIME IN CITING THIS OR THAT FACT. INTERVIEWS SUCH AS MADE BY ANTHONY SUMMERS, TAPE RECORDINGS OF STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES, ALL THESE ARE OTHER MEANS BESIDES SIGNED AFFIDAVITS. A SIGNED AFFIDAVIT THAT THESE DEEDS WERE REVEALED TO ME COULD BE OBTAINED. IT IS NOT MY INTENTION TO HARM ANYONE. IT IS MY IONTENTION TO REVEAL WHAT I WAS TOLD BY A PERSON WHO INTIMATELY KNEW MARINA OSWALD FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING HER VULNERABILITY AND HELPLESSNESS AFTER LEE'S DEATH. =================
Marina was under close scrutiny by the FBI & SS till Feb
64 after her WC testimony was completed..much on the web,
pertaining to such....

=================LOOK INTO JANUARY AND FEBRAURY 1964 MORE CLOSELY. LOOK THEN INTO HER HISTORY WITH HER BUSINESS MANAGER. THERE IS NEW INFORMATION. TELL ME WHERE SHE WAS IN MID-JANUARY, 1964. WHY DID MARINA FIRE HER BUSINESS MANAGER?===================

Thomas Mallon's previous works, nor his stats qualify him
on a book about the Assassination. He has not done his
homework as they say.. He presents no evidence
in such,yet he convicts LHO of the murder of the President.

==============WERE WE TALKING ABOUT HIS ABILITY TO WRITE AN ASSASSINATION BOOK? NO. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HIS BEING TOLD SOMETHING ABOUT MARINA OSWALD BY AN UN-NAMED SOURCE, WHICH INFORMATION WAS VERIFIED BY PATRICIA MCMILLAN, WHO WAS A CONFIDANTE OF MARINA OSWALD FOR YEARS. I SAID NOTHING ABOUT HIS QUALIFICATIONS FOR WRITING AN ASASSINATION BOOK. I DID IMPLY HE WAS QUALIFIED AS A RESPECTED AUTHOR OF NON-FICTION TO ACCURATELY REPEAT WHAT HE WAS TOLD. ================


It is anyone's right to critique any book,as I stated in my
opinion, it is "garbage"..in and out.IMO.

======OF COURSE IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION ABOUT HIS BOOK. I DO NOT LIKE THE BOOK, EITHER. BUT THE MAN WOULD NOT RISK A LAWSUIT AND MAKE UP SUCH A STORY. IT'S FAR TOO IMPORTANT. THERE HAS BEEN NO OUTCRY FROM MARINA. NO THREATS OF LAWSUITS. WHY? YES, SHE HAS SHOWN REMARKABLE GOOD SENSE AND RESTRAINT. THESE THINGS HAPPENED MANY YEARS AGO. I RESPECT MARINA OSWALD AND NO, THIS INCIDENT IS NOT A HIGHLIGHT OF MY BOOK.=============

I find your statements in regard to his book, I shall admit
frustrating,on one hand you believe that LHO is innocent,as
I do...and have been posting such for the past five years or
so..on the web ,on the other hand you seem to rely on Mallon's
information in a book in which he condemns Lee as the lone assassin..?.

=======NO, THESE STATEMENTS ARE NOT IN REGARD TO THE BOOK. THEY ARE IN REGARD TO A PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT HAPPENS TO BE INSERTED IN THE BOOK THAT I BELIEVE IS TRUE BECAUSE I ALSO LEARNED OF IT FROM A TRUSTED RESEARCHER WHO WAS A PERSONAL FRIEND OF MARINA OSWALD FOR TWENTY YEARS. MARY FERRELL DESTROYED A LETTER FROM MARINA OSWALD IN MY VERY PRESENCE, SAYING THE LETTER WOULD EMBARRASS MARINA IF IT GOT INTO THE WRONG HANDS (I OBSERVED FERRELL DESTROY HUNDREDS OF FILES, AS SHE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF SELLING HER COLLECTION FOR 1.3 MILLION DOLLARS TO A BOSTON-BASED PURCHASER).
I POINTED OUT TO YOU A PIECE OF INFORMATION IN THE BOOK ABOUT MARINA OSWALD THAT HAS THE CAST OF TRUTH BECAUSE IT WAS CORROBORATED BY MARINA OSWALD'S OWN OFFICIAL BIOGRAPHER, AND BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME TO SUPPLY ANOTHER SOURCE TO BACK UP MY OWN PERSONAL INFORMATION. I ALSO SAID M. WAS A RESPECTED AUTHOR. I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE BOOK ITSELF. THAT WAS NEVER THE POINT.==================================

Do not Presume: Quote

"Hostility,anger,scorn"..??

=======I FELT YOUR REMARKS WERE SUBJECTIVE FROM YOUR CHOICE OF WORDS.=========================

"I know you wish I had never said a word." Why not..??
"From sad experience, I do realize that my reply will not
impress you one bit.".. Oh,but it does..
"It seems you are a friend of Marina Oswald, and certainly you have
a right to speak out in her behalf."

I have the right to speak out in anyones behalf. Whether related, or
known or not, when I believe they are being unfairly spoken about
and not present to defend themselves...

=======DO YOU BELIEVE MARINA OSWALD DOES NOT HAVE A COMPUTER? THAT SHE KNOWS NOTHING OF THESE THINGS? WE HAVE TRIED MANY TIMES TO CONTACT HER. SHE REFUSED TO SPEAK TO ME. I CAN'T HELP IT. ONE OF HER DAUGHTERS CONTACTED ME. THEY ALL KNOW I DESIRE VERY MUCH TO HELP PROVE LEE'S INNOCENCE, AND IF WE COULD WORK TOGETHER, IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER. BUT YES, I AM THE OTHER WOMAN. LEE TOLD ME THINGS. SHE KNOWS HOW SHE BEHAVED TOWARD LEE. OF COURSE I HEARD HIS SIDE ONLY. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE. IT IS NOT MY FAULT THAT SHE HAS REFUSED TO SPEAK TO ME OR TO ANY OF THE SEVERAL PERSONS REPRESENTING ME WHO HAVE CALLED HER, WRITTEN, ETC. INCLUDING DEBBEE REYNOLDS, MARTIN SHACKELFORD, WIM DANKBAAR, AND OTHERS. EVEN JIMMY FERRELL TRIED TO BRING UP THE SUBJECT TO MEET ME. SHE DECLINED. OR AT LEAST, THAT IS WHAT JIMMY TOLD ME. =====================


I asked a question.." What was your documentation for the
hearsay of an affair between Robert & Marina Oswald?".
And whatever has being a scientist to do with such.?..I
cannot fathom.

======EXCUSE ME, BERNICE, BUT WHEN ONE HAS BEEN TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST, AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN AND REVIEWED AND READ MANY PAPERS, GENERALLY THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF THEY MAKE A STATEMENT, THERE HAD BETTER BE BACK-UP. SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAY NOT REALIZE THIS RESPONSIBILITY. I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR BACK-UP FOR MY STATEMENTS SERIOUSLY. MY HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MEANS THAT I AM PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE OF PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION. I DO CONSIDER MY CITATION OF m'S STATEMENTS, AND HIS STATEMENT THAT MCMILLAN CORROBORATES IT, AS AN ADEQUATE CITATION BACKING UP MY OWN STATEMENT. HOWEVER, IF YOU WISH, I WILL ASK DEBBEE REYNOLDS TO MAKE OUT A SIGNED AFFIDAVIT AS TO THE MATTER.==============================================

What was related on your part in a reply, was a she said, he said
statement..

=========NO, I BACKED IT UP WITH A STATEMENT FROM THOMAS MALLON, WHO OFFERED A CORROBORATING SOURCE. IT HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED. IF I HAVE THIS STRAIGHT, YOU ARE SAYING THAT EVERYTHING PEOPLE SAY AS WITNESSES IS NOT TO BE BELIEVED. FOR EXAMPLE, MARY FERRELL TELLING ME IN THE PRESENCE OF ANOTHER PERSON WHAT SHE WAS TOLD BY MARINA OSWALD, WAS WORTHLESS? OR MCMILLAN'S BEING TOLD THE SAME THING, DOES NOT COUNT?HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO HEAR THE SAME THING FROM MARINA'S LIPS BEFORE YOU WILL ACCEPT THAT EITHER SHE TOLD THE TRUTH OR LIED TO ALL THESE PEOPLE, OR THAT BY SOME INCREDIBLE CHANCE OF FATE, WE ALL MADE UP THE SAME STORY INDEPENDENTLY, AND WE ARE ALL LYING?===============================

You have made many statements on the Forum. Do you not expect questions pertaining to such?.


======WHY DO YOU WRITE THIS STATEMENT? I TRY TO ANSWER COURTEOUSLY AND FULLY. HOWEVER, MY TIME IS VERY LIMITED, AND I WON'T BE RESPONDING TO THIS THREAD AGAIN. I HAVE ABOUT 60 EMAILS A DAY TO ALSO ANSWER. I HAVE SOMETIMES RECEIVED 150 EMAILS IN ONE DAY.==============


Nor other peoples opinions about what you relate.?


=======DO YOU NOT NOTE A BIT OF HOSTILITY IN THIS STATEMENT? THIS IS WHAT I WAS PICKING UP BEFORE. I WOULD NOT BE HERE IF I DID NOT CARE. I RESPECT EVERYONE'S OPINIONS. IT IS GOOD WHEN THEY HAVE THE FACTS. THE TRUTH.============================

People in the JFK arena, are hard task masters..No one is out to get you
as you seem to think on this Forum...

========THERE YOU GO, AGAIN. NO, I DO NOT SEEM TO THINK THAT ANYBODY IS OUT TO 'GET' ME. WHY WOULD I THINK THAT? BUT PEOPLE DO GET UPSET IF I SAY THINGS THAT UPSET THEIR APPLE CART.
I CAN'T HELP THAT. I HAVE, HOWEVER, NO DESIRE TO BATTLE PEOPLE ON FORUMS AND NEWSGROUPS. I AM NOT STRONG ENOUGH. MY EYES ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I DO WHAT I CAN AND HOPE IT IS ENOUGH.===============

but you must expect those differences of
opinions, and questions..

==== QUESTIONS AND OPINIONS ARE FINE. =========


you must be prepared to reply and provide some
reference to evidence of such..


=====BUT I WAS PREPARED. I HAVE PROVIDED YOU 'SOME REFERENCE.'
HAVE I NOT?
I HAVE CITED MY REYNOLDS AS MY OWN WITNESS. I THEN ADDED MALLON , WHO CITES AN UN-NAMED SOURCE, AS WELL AS PATRICIA JOHNSON MCMILLAN AS A DIRECT WITNESS. SO YES, I WAS PREPARED TO REPLY AND TO PROVIDE 'SOME REFERENCE TO EVIDENCE OF SUCH.'
YOUR STATEMENT, REPEATED ABOVE, SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT I DID NOT DO SO. BUT I DID. AND SIMILARLY, I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SUPPLY CORROBORATION FOR ALL SUCH IMPORTANT STATEMENTS IN MY BOOK. HOWEVER, AS A DIRECT WITNESS MYSELF TO LEÉ'S ACTIVITIES, FOR SOME MATTERS I HAD TO MAKE STATEMENTS THAT NO ONE ELSE WITNESSED, SUCH AS THAT WE HAD A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP.
EVEN THEN, I HAVE BEEN CAREFUL TO PROVIDE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN ABUNDANCE.=======================================



No one in this world complies to anything
with a blindness..i


======I HAVE NO IDEA, I'M SORRY, WHAT THIS MEANS================

f what you say stands up to the scrutiny it will receive,
then it will be accepted..if not .....it will not..


=====MY DEAR, THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF SCRUTINY, WITH QUALIFIERS: INADEQUATE, ADEQUATE, BIASED, UNBIASED.
THOSE WHO RECEIVE THE INFORMATION AND GIVE IT UNBIASED, ADEQUATE SCRUTINY CONSTITUTE ONLY ONE OF FOUR POSSIBLE CHOICES:
ADEQUATE SCRUTINY, UNBIASED OPINION....ADEQUATE SCRUTINY, BIASED OPINION...INADEQUATE SCRUTINY,UNBIASED OPINION...INADEQUATE SCRUTINY, BIASED OPINION.
MY CHANCE OF ACCEPTANCE DEPEND ON THE HONESTY, INTELLIGENCE AND LACK OF BIAS OF THOSE WHO SCRUTINIZE.
TRADITIONALLY, I HAVE LITTLE CHANCE OF ESCAPING INADEQUATE SCRUTINY-BIASED OPINION, AS MY EXPERIENCES ON THE INTERNET HAVE SADLY PROVEN. TWO CAMPS HAVE EMERGED: MY SUPPORTERS, MOST OF WHOM HAVE VISITED ME, AND SEEN ALL THE EVIDENCE. MY DETRACTORS, ALMOST ALL OF WHOM HAVE NEVER MET ME AND HAVE SEEN LITTLE OR NO ORIGINAL EVIDENCE -- ESPECIALLY IN CONTEXT. ONE GROUP, FINALLY HAVING TO ADMIT I WAS HIRED THE SAME DAY AS LEE AT REILY, THAT I WAS A CANCER RESEARCHER, AND OTHER BASIC POINTS, HAS DESCENDED TO NAME-CALLING, LIES, AND CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. THEY MAKE FUN OF WHAT STOOD THE TEST OF SCRUTINY.. OR ADD A LITTLE WORD THAT CHANGES THE MEANING OF EVERYTHING. I HAVE COUNTED OVER A HUNDRED CHANGES IN A HUGE ÉSSAY'WRITTEN ABOUT ME. WHEN I SENT CORRECTIONS, THEY WERE IGNORED. IN FACT, THE AUTHOR OF THE 'ESSAY' HAS DECIDED TO ADD A SILLY FACTOID THAT I BELIEVE THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKED! EVEN WHEN I HAVE PROTESTED THAT IT WAS ONE OF MANY POSSIBLE TOPICS GIVEN AS AN ENGLISH WRITING ASSIGNMENT. STUDENTS ASKED ME MY OPINION, I REFUSED TO GIVE IT SO THEY WOULD NOT HAVE A BIASED OPINION. THIS IS REPORTED AS I 'BELIEVE'THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKED. WHY IS THIS BROUGHT UP? TO TRY TO 'PROVE'I'M A NUT.
GEESH!
AND WHAT A SHAME! PEOPLE READING THAT ESSAY WILL BELIEVE I'M AS FLAKY AS THEY COME. NO MANNER OF PROTESTS MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE TO THE AUTHOR OF THAT 'ESSAY,' THOUGH. I HAVE PEOPLE ATTACKING ME ALL THE TIME, CITING THAT MASSIVE 'ESSAY.' IT'S SHAMELESS OF THE FELLOW, WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ACADEMICIAN. =========================



No one can find out the truth, unless they continue to question...

=======AND THERE COMES A TIME TO DECIDE TO ACCEPT OR REJECT, WHEN THE EVIDENCE REACHES A CERTAIN CRITICAL MASS.
I HAVE EVIDENCE. IT WILL N-E-V-E-R BE 'ENOUGH' FOR THOSE WHO ARE BIASED. FURTHER, I HAVE FILLED IN --AND HAVE MUCH MORE TO SHOW IN THAT MATTER---MANY BLANKS IN LEE;S HISTORY.
THE TRUTH IS MUCH SIMPLER THAN THE MESS OUT THERE. IT WILL BE SO CLEAR IN THE BOOK. AS ONE KNOWS, THE TRUTH IS RATHER ELEGANT, COMPARED TO LIES. OCCAM'S RAZOR...======================

That's correct, the truth should be known about the Assassination,
not yours,not mine, not what we think..nor what we would like it to
be,

=======IT IS NOT 'MY' TRUTH. IT IS NOT 'YOUR' TRUTH. IT IS T-H-E TRUTH. I WILL NOT DEVIATE FROM THAT.================================


but the evidential,documentation of the murder, the positive proof in otherwards...because IMO until such time
the Goverment will not,relent and all shall not be obtained, or rather, whatever is left. If anything.....



======YES, MUCH HAS BEEN DESTROYED. WHY, IF THE CASE IS A SIMPLE ONE, AN OPEN-AND-CLOSED CASE, ON POOR LEE OSWALD? BUT I SAVED MUCH FROM 1963. IT WILL BE ENOUGH FOR ANYONE WHO PERFORMS AN ADEQUATE AND UNBIASED SCRUTINY OF THE PRESENTED FACTS AND CONSIDERATIONS.=============

Keep in mind there is much gossip and hearsay about you in regards to your own statements on the Web.

========WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY HERE? KEEP IT IN MIND FOR WHAT PURPOSE? TO MAKE ME FEEL BAD? SHOULD CHANGE MY STORY TO AVOID GOSSIP ABOUT ME? I WILL NOT. THANK GOD, THEY ARE TALKING. THAT MEANS THAT INTELLIGENT, THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE MIGHT ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AGAIN AND, MAYBE THIS TIME, WITHOUT BIAS.
I STAY OUT OF IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. I HAVE TURNED DOWN MANY INTERVIEWS, ETC. I HATE, HATE, HAVING TO TALK AT ALL.
THIS IS A LABOR OF LOVE. AND BECAUSE IT IS LEE'S TURN. I HAVE LIVED MY LIFE. WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME, THE TRUTH HAD TO COME OUT.
THINK OF HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE LAIN DOWN ON THEIR DEATHBEDS AND DECIDED TO TAKE THEIR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ALL OF THIS WITH THEM. I CONSIDERED DOING IT, TOO.
IT HAS COST ME MY JOB, TYHE RESPECT OF MANY, TROUBLE AND EMBARRASSMENT TO MY FAMILY. I HAVE LOST MY RETIREMENT, LOST ALL MY SAVINGS, AND CONSTANTLY HAVE TO DEFEND MYSELF. IMAGINE, IF ONLY I HAD SAID--BECAUSE I HAVE ADEQUATE EVIDENCE WE HAD AN AFFAIR--JUST THINK, ALL I HAD TO DO WAS SAY 'LEE WAS THE KILLER'-- AND I WOULD HAVE BEEN WINED, AND DINED, AND THE DARLING OF THE MEDIA.
BUT INSTEAD, I HAVE TOLD THE TRUTH, AND SUFFER FOR IT.
MY ONLY HOPE IS THAT ENOUGH PEOPLE WILL READ THIS AND REALIZE THE SACRIFICES I AND MY FAMILY HAVE MADE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY. IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
I LIVED A LIFE WHERE WAS NEVER ARRESTED, DO NOT SMOKE, DRINK, AND RAISED FIVE WONDERFUL CHILDREN. I'VE WORKED HARD IN MY LIFE. I WAS A COUNSELOR FIVE YEARS. I WAS A TEACHER SEVENTEEN YEARS. NOW I CAN'T GET A JOB.
HOW ABOUT YOU? WHAT HAVE YOU GIVEN UP FOR THE SAKE OF THE TRUTH?
THERE ARE MANY, MANY PEOPLE I HAVE HAD TO RESPOND TO. AGAIN, I LOVED LEE. AND I CAN'T GO TO MY GRAVE LEAVING THESE LIES OUT THERE ABOUT HIM IN HISTORY. I MADE A COMMITMENT.
ORIGINALLY, I WAS GOING TO TAKE THIS TO THE GRAVE AND HAVE THE BOOK COME OUT POSTHUMOUSLY. IN FACT, THE FIRST BOOK I WROTE WAS FILLED WITH JUNK. I WAS AFRAID OF GETTING SUED. I WAS AFRAID THE MANUSCRIPT WOULD BE STOLEN AND PUT FALSEHOODS IN IT THAT I WAS GOING TO CLEAN UP WHEN IT WENT TO GALLEYS. BUT LATER, I BECAME ANGRY WHEN IN FACT THE MANUSCRIPT WAS STOLEN. THEN I LOST MY FEAR: THE REWRITTEN BOOK HAS EVERYTHING, NO HOLDS BARRED, AND I NO LONGER CARE IF ANYBODY SUES ME. I HAVE DONE WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHEN I LIE DOWN AT NIGHT, MY CONSCIENCE IS CLEAR. LEE WAS AN INNOCENT MAN. PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER IT LONG AFTER THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT FALLS TO DUST. MY LOVE FOR HIM WAS STRONGER THAN ALL THEIR HATE.
==================================


Many years of such..I disregard it as
I disregard this reference to Robert & Marina, until proven..

====== HOW MANY WITNESSES WOULD BE NECESSARY BEFORE YOU WOULD ACCEPT THIS AS POSSIBLY TRUE? WOULD ALL OF US BE LYING? ===========================================


If such does not pertain to the Assassination of the President,
but to the personal lives of any of those involved, then
IMO,it should be,whatever it is,taken as it is,a gossipy opinion.

======IMMEDIATELY AFTER IT WAS MADE KNOWN TO CERTAIN PERSONS THAT ROBERT OSWALD AND MARINA WERE COMPROMISED, NEW EVIDENCE WAS 'FOUND' BY ROBERT OSWALD, CONVENIENTLY IN MRS. PAINE'S GARAGE-- THE CAMERA THAT MADE THE BACKYARD PHOTOS. THAT WAS A LOUSY CAMERA. LEE WAS A GOOD PHOTOGRAPHER AND WOULD NEVER HAVE OWNED SUCH A PIECE OF JUNK IN 1963. IT IS WHERE THE BACKYARD PHOTOS CAME FROM. WHY DIDN'T LEE USE ONE OF HIS NICE CAMERAS FOR THOSE DAMNING PHOTOS? IS IT POSSIBLE THE POLICE MISSED THIS CAMERA? THEY SAY THEY PURPOSELY LEFT IT BEHIND -- NOT IN NOVEMBER, 1963, BUT AT THE TIME ROBERT 'FOUND'THE CAMERA. A POLICE OFFICER WROTE HE DECIDED NOT TO TAKE IT ALONG WITH THE OTHER CAMERAS--AFTER THE CAMERA WAS SO CONVENIENTLY FOUND. MY, MY, HOW THOUGHTFUL TO PROVIDE THE FACT THAT THE POLICEMAN DECIDED NOT TO TAKE THIS CAMERA ALONG WITH THE OTHERS TO THE POLCIE STATION, DECIDING UNILATERALLY THAT HE NEED NOT DO SO, WHEN EVEN LEE'S SOCKS AND FLIP=FLOPS WERE SENT TO THE FBI.
SO THE PROVENANCE OF THE BACKYARD PHOTOS BEING TAKEN BY A CAMERA BELONGING TO LEE IS BASED ON ROBERT OSWALD'S FINDING IT DURING THIS SAME TIME PERIOD. WHAT IS ROBERT OSWALD DOING IN RUTH PAINE'S GARAGE, BY THE WAY? HMMMM.....THERE'S MUCH MORE. ================================================

And last but not least, none of this as I have stated in anyway in these posts relates to the solving of this crime..we are here for research not relaying
of personal stories....t

=======I AM SORRY, YOU NEED TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ROBERT OSWALD'S ACTIONS AND BEHAVIOR AFTER THIS EVENT. SEE ABOVE. THERE IS MUCH MORE. IT IS RELEVANT. YOU HAVE STATED IT IS NOT BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW THE OTHER INFORMATION INVOLVED. IT IS THIS KIND OF JUDGMENTAL ATTITTUDE THAT CUTS OFF THE TRUTH. I'M SORRY, I AM NOT TRYING TO ATTACK YOU PERSONALLY. I'M SIMPLY STATING THAT YOU DECIDED THIS INFORMATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ASSASSINATION, WHILE I SEE THE EVENT AS A WAY TO BLACKMAIL ROBERT OSWALD INTO SAYING FOREVER AFTER THAT LEE DID IT.
BEFORE THIS, ROBERT SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE. AND THERE IS, AS I SAID, MUCH MORE. I DEPLORE THE FACT THAT YOU BELIEVE I AM MERELY SPREADING GOSSIP. I WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A THING. THE MATTER CONCERNS CONSIDERATIONS OF ROBERT OSWALD AS A RELIABLE WITNESS, OR ONE WHO HAS BEEN COMPROMISED. HE SAID LEE GAVE HIM THE CAMERA BEFORE LEE WENT TO RUSSIA, AND THEN ASKED FOR IT BACK AT THANKSGIVING, 1962. LO AND BEHOLD, HE 'FINDS' IT IN THE PAINE GARAGE IN JANUARY JUST AFTER THE SHORT AFFAIR THAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT BY SEVERAL PERSONS, WHICH YOU CONSIDER MERE GOSSIP. YET ROBERT'S SUDDENLY FAR MORE COOPERATIVE.
AND HE IS ROOTING AROUND IN THE PAINE'S GARAGE. JUST WHEN PEOPLE ARE GETTING ALL UPSET ABOUT WHERE WAS THE CAMERA. HOW COOPERATIVE OF HIM.===============================


hat have nothing to do with such...IMO..to which
do not forget I am entitled to..

=====AND I AM ENTITLED, I THINK, TO YOUR NOT ASSUMING I AM SIMPLY REPEATING A PIECE OF GOSSIP. I AM NOT A MALICIOUS PERSON. IT GIVES ME NO PLEASURE TO SPEAK OF THESE THINGS. THERE ARE MANY OTHER THINGS THAT I COULD SAY, FROM WHICH I REFRAIN.=======================

Whether I believe you or not, is not important..


=====GOODNESS GRACIOUS! OF COURSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE PEOPLE BELIEVE ME. EVERY SINGLE PERSON MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE. ON NOVEMBER 22, EVERYBODY THOUGHT LEE DID IT, OR NEARLY EVERYBODY. TODAY, ONE BY ONE, PEOPLE HAVE LEARNED MORE AND MORE OF THE TRUTH.
DO YOU THINK I THINK YOU ARE NOT IMPORTANT? WHY IN THE WORLD AM I TAKING TIME TO WRITE THIS? I AM IN CHRONIC PAIN, BERNICE, AND HAVE EYE PROBLEMS. ALL FROM TWO SO-CALLED 'ACCIDENTS' IN DALLAS.
YOU AND EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ARE IMPORTANT. I HAVE CHOSEN TO WRITE, IF NECESSARY, ONE BY ONE, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE IN BEING PERSONAL. I BELIEVE THIS WILL PROVE I AM SINCERE.
THIS IS FREE. I DO NOT ASK MONEY, I TURN DOWN INTERVIEWS WHERE MONEY HAS BEEN OFFERED. I DID THE DOCUMENTARY FOR FREE.
I DO NOT ASK ANYTHING EXCEPT TO BE GIVEN SOME RESPECT AND TO LOOK AT WHAT IS OFFERED IN AN UNBIASED MANNER. 'GOSSIP' WAS NEVER THE INTENTION. TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT ROBERT OSWALD COULD BE BLACKMAILED IS MY PURPOSE.
THIS HAS DIRECT BEARING ON THE ASSASSINATION EVIDENCE VIA THE IMPERIAL REFLEX CAMERA. LEE LOVED PHOTOGRAPHY AND HAD SOPHISTICATED EQUIPMENT. I SAW ALL HIS EQUIPMENT. HE SUPPOSEDLY HAD MARINA TAKE THE BACKYARD PHOTOS, BUT OH, LOOK CAREFULLY AT HER TESTIMONY REGARDING THAT. AND WHY WOULD HE CHOOSE A LOUSY CAMERA FOR THIS WHEN HE'D TAKEN FINE PHOTOS, AS GEORGE DEMOHRENSCHILDT REPORTED, PHOTOS GOOD ENOUGH TO LOOK PROFESSIONAL, WHICH HE FRAMED AND HAD ON HIS LIVINGROOM WALLS? AND LEE ALSO HAD AN ALBUM OF HIS BEST PHOTOS. SO WHY WOULD HE ASK FOR THE CRUDDY IMPERIAL REFLECT CAMERA TO BE GIVEN BACK TO HIM --- SO HE COULD HAVE BAD PHOTOS MADE OF HIM WITH LIGHT SEEPING IN AROUND THE EDGES WITH IT, WHEN HE HAD SEVERAL OTHER VERY NICE CAMERAS? AND SPECIAL LENSES, A TIMER, STEREOSCOPIC EQUIPMENT, ETC? AS I SAID, THERE IS MUCH MORE.===============================

I have no animosity towards you... right now,after these posts I do not know what to think of you....


=====WELL, WE HAVEN'T MET. PEOPLE WHO MEET ME USUALLY LIKE ME. I HAVE A NUMBER OF LONGTIME FRIENDS. I LIKE PEOPLE A LOT AND HAVE NO ANGER AT THOSE WHO ASK QUESTIONS. MY ANGER IS DIRECTED AT ONLY THOSE WHO LIE ABOUT ME AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE FACTS, AND THEN DISTORT THOSE FACTS OR REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEM.
ONE PERSON SAID I WAS BORN IN BRADENTON, FLORIDA. DID HE EVEN ASK ME? HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT ACCURACY. THE REST OF THE 36 INTERNET PAGES HE WROTE ABOUT ME WERE JUST AS 'INACCURATE.' OVER A HUNDRED ERRORS! AND HE WOULDN'T FIX ANY OF THEM BUT ONE-- THAT I WENT TO SCHOOL IN BRADENTON. HE HAD I WENT TO SCHOOL IN CLEARWATER. HECK, THAT WAS ALMOST THE FIRST SENTENCE, AND IT WAS WRONG. IT GOT WORSE FROM THERE. THIS SITE COMES UP AS NUMBER ONE. MANY PEOPLE WRITE AND FIGHT WITH ME TO 'PROVE' THAT WHAT THE SITE IS, IS NOT TRUE. ==================

as I said, I await your book,and the evidence presented in such..I am hoping it
does contain, much more valuable information than I have seen presented before now..

=====EXCUSE ME, BUT WE HAVE SPOKEN ONLY ABOUT ONE THING--MARINA AND ROBERT OSWALD. NOTHING ELSE.
BUT OF COURSE, IF YOU FIND STATEMENTS IN MY BOOK THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE, ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE STATEMENTS OF OTHER WITNESSES? THERE WILL BE MANY, MANY INCIDENTS IN THE BOOK. I WILL REPEAT THEM AS A LIVING WITNESS. MANY WILL HAVE SUBSTANTIAL CORROBORATION. MANY WILL NOT, BECAUSE SOME IS NEW MATERIAL.
YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT ACCEPT THE WITNESS OF MYSELF, MY STATEMENT OF A CORROBORATING WITNESS, PLUS THE WITNESS OF THOMAS MALLON WHO ALSO HAD CORROBORATION FROM TWO PEOPLE FOR HIS STATEMENTS. YOU WANT MORE. THAT'S MORE THAN A COURT OF LAW WOULD REQUIRE.
YOU SEEK AFFIDAVITS. THIS IS MORE THAN THE FBI REQUIRED WHEN THEY INTERVIEWED WITNESSES AND INFORMANTS AND TOOK THEM FOR FACT. SO I HAVE NOT PRESENTED ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SUBSTANTIATE MY OWN STATEMENT OF WHAT I HEARD FROM MARY FERRELL'S LIPS? I WILL LET THE READER DECIDE IF I HAVE PRESENTED ENOUGH CORROBORATION. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MALLON, A SOURCE HE DOES NOT NAME, MCMILLAN, PLUS MY OWN PERSONAL WITNESS --THAT'S FIVE OF US-- SHOULD BE ENOUGH. ARE WE, I REPEAT, ALL LYING?======================================


Thanks for your time..

====AND I DO NOT HAVE TIME OR STRENGTH TO GO ON WITH THIS. I HOPE MY RESPINSE HAS BEEN ADEQUATE AND UNBIASED! BEST REGARDS,

JUDYTH VARY BAKER
PLEASE FORGIVE TYPOS....EYE PROBLEMS. JVB

Edited by Judyth Baker, 07 May 2004 - 07:38 PM.


#13 Judyth Baker

Judyth Baker

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 85 posts

Posted 07 May 2004 - 06:24 PM

ADEQUATE SCRUTINY
UNBIASED OPINION

----------------------------
ADEQUATE SCRUTINY
BIASED OPINION

INADEQUATE SCRUTINY
UNBIASED OPINION

INADEQUATE SCRUTINY
BIASED OPINION

OF COURSE THE FIRST CHOICE IS IDEAL, AND IS SURPRISINGLY RARE. JUDYTH

Edited by Judyth Baker, 07 May 2004 - 06:28 PM.


#14 Bernice Moore

Bernice Moore

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,939 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Canada

Posted 08 May 2004 - 03:29 AM

Judyth: YOU SAID....
"AND I DO NOT HAVE TIME OR STRENGTH TO GO ON WITH THIS. I HOPE MY RESPINSE HAS BEEN ADEQUATE AND UNBIASED! BEST REGARDS,

JUDYTH VARY BAKER"

...............
BUT JUDYTH YOU CAME BACK AGAIN ALREADY......lol...Must have been the Java..
One More Dig In Before You Receive Your Reply.... :) It's was over and done with
according to your words, you change the rules, in mid stream... ;) My Goodness...Girlie, do make up your mind.......I am according to your words,
over and gone..I stand by mine... :blink:



DEAR BERNICE: PLEASE FORGIVE THE CAPS. IT IS ONLY TO MAKE MY REPLY EASIER TO FIN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I WILL TRY TO REPLY TO THEM BELOW ==============LIKE THIS==========JUDYTH
To my knowledge, according to the law..if such a statement is to be proven against Robert & Marina..
then signed affidavits must be obtained, if not then it
remains hearsay..
If at some future date,these statements are challenged legally
this is what would be required..

========DEAR BERNICE: WE HAVE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO THE RECORD BY THE FBI AND OTHERS THAT WERE NEVER SIGNED AFFIDAVITS. SOMETIMES COMMENTS ARE MADE "A RELIABLE SOURCE REPORTED(SUCH AND SUCH)"-- AND SUCH ARE USED ALL THE TIME IN CITING THIS OR THAT FACT. INTERVIEWS SUCH AS MADE BY ANTHONY SUMMERS, TAPE RECORDINGS OF STATEMENTS MADE BY WITNESSES, ALL THESE ARE OTHER MEANS BESIDES SIGNED AFFIDAVITS. A SIGNED AFFIDAVIT THAT THESE DEEDS WERE REVEALED TO ME COULD BE OBTAINED. .
............
JUDYTH:..
.....................................
R..1......BUT THE ASSASSINATION HAS NOT BEEN TO COURT AS YET??

.....................................

IT IS NOT MY INTENTION TO HARM ANYONE. IT IS MY IONTENTION TO REVEAL WHAT I WAS TOLD BY A PERSON WHO INTIMATELY KNEW MARINA OSWALD FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING HER VULNERABILITY AND HELPLESSNESS AFTER LEE'S DEATH. =================
..............................................
R:.2.....BUT YOU DID..AND DO...BY REPEATING SUCH..
PROMOTE YOURSELF BUT DO NOT DEMOTE ANOTHER..

SOME INTIMATE WHO KNEW HER...SOME FRIEND..

NOW SHE IS VULNERABLE AND HELPLESS THAT'S NOT THE
IMPRESSION I GOT...

..................................................
Marina was under close scrutiny by the FBI & SS till Feb
64 after her WC testimony was completed..much on the web,
pertaining to such....

=================LOOK INTO JANUARY AND FEBRAURY 1964 MORE CLOSELY. LOOK THEN INTO HER HISTORY WITH HER BUSINESS MANAGER. THERE IS NEW INFORMATION. TELL ME WHERE SHE WAS IN MID-JANUARY, 1964. WHY DID MARINA FIRE HER BUSINESS MANAGER?===================

.......................................
R:.3...IF YOU HAVE SUCH, PRESENT AND CONTRIBUTE THE INFORMATION FOR ALL........I'M SURE ALL ARE VERY INTERESTED....THANKYOU.....

......................................


Thomas Mallon's previous works, nor his stats qualify him
on a book about the Assassination. He has not done his
homework as they say.. He presents no evidence
in such,yet he convicts LHO of the murder of the President.

==============WERE WE TALKING ABOUT HIS ABILITY TO WRITE AN ASSASSINATION BOOK? NO. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HIS BEING TOLD SOMETHING ABOUT MARINA OSWALD BY AN UN-NAMED SOURCE, WHICH INFORMATION WAS VERIFIED BY PATRICIA MCMILLAN, WHO WAS A CONFIDANTE OF MARINA OSWALD FOR YEARS. I SAID NOTHING ABOUT HIS QUALIFICATIONS FOR WRITING AN ASASSINATION BOOK. I DID IMPLY HE WAS QUALIFIED AS A RESPECTED AUTHOR OF NON-FICTION TO ACCURATELY REPEAT WHAT HE WAS TOLD. ================

R..4..YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS...YOU SPOKE OF HIS PREVIOUS WORKS ,AND STATS..YOU PRESENTED ALL...AND INFORMATION THAT
WAS PRESENTED IN SUCH BOOK...YOU CANNOT NOW TWIST WHAT
YOU SAID, INTO WHAT YOU WANT IT TO BE.??.
THIS IS NO RESEARCH ASSASSINATION BOOK..IMO..TO BE REFERRING TO..NEWBIES..WILL READ
SUCH, AND PERHAPS BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT L.H.O.AND BEING
GUILTY OF THE ASSASSINATION....

AND YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT GOSSIP.....IMO..SO FAR..

................................


It is anyone's right to critique any book,as I stated in my
opinion, it is "garbage"..in and out.IMO.

======OF COURSE IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION ABOUT HIS BOOK. I DO NOT LIKE THE BOOK, EITHER. BUT THE MAN WOULD NOT RISK A LAWSUIT AND MAKE UP SUCH A STORY. IT'S FAR TOO IMPORTANT. THERE HAS BEEN NO OUTCRY FROM MARINA. NO THREATS OF LAWSUITS. WHY? YES, SHE HAS SHOWN REMARKABLE GOOD SENSE AND RESTRAINT. THESE THINGS HAPPENED MANY YEARS AGO. I RESPECT MARINA OSWALD AND NO, THIS INCIDENT IS NOT A HIGHLIGHT OF MY BOOK.=============

..................................

R::5.. MANY OTHERS HAVE RISKED LAWSUITS....STILL ARE..

PERHAPS MARINA SHALL, ONE DAY....

I WOULD HOPE IT'S NOT IN YOUR BOOK....UNLESS IT IS
SWORN TO..

..................................
I find your statements in regard to his book, I shall admit
frustrating,on one hand you believe that LHO is innocent,as
I do...and have been posting such for the past five years or
so..on the web ,on the other hand you seem to rely on Mallon's
information in a book in which he condemns Lee as the lone assassin..?.

=======NO, THESE STATEMENTS ARE NOT IN REGARD TO THE BOOK. THEY ARE IN REGARD TO A PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT HAPPENS TO BE INSERTED IN THE BOOK THAT I BELIEVE IS TRUE BECAUSE I ALSO LEARNED OF IT FROM A TRUSTED RESEARCHER WHO WAS A PERSONAL FRIEND OF MARINA OSWALD FOR TWENTY YEARS. MARY FERRELL DESTROYED A LETTER FROM MARINA OSWALD IN MY VERY PRESENCE, SAYING THE LETTER WOULD EMBARRASS MARINA IF IT GOT INTO THE WRONG HANDS (I OBSERVED FERRELL DESTROY HUNDREDS OF FILES, AS SHE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF SELLING HER COLLECTION FOR 1.3 MILLION DOLLARS TO A BOSTON-BASED PURCHASER).
I POINTED OUT TO YOU A PIECE OF INFORMATION IN THE BOOK ABOUT MARINA OSWALD THAT HAS THE CAST OF TRUTH BECAUSE IT WAS CORROBORATED BY MARINA OSWALD'S OWN OFFICIAL BIOGRAPHER, AND BECAUSE YOU ASKED ME TO SUPPLY ANOTHER SOURCE TO BACK UP MY OWN PERSONAL INFORMATION. I ALSO SAID M. WAS A RESPECTED AUTHOR. I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE BOOK ITSELF. THAT WAS NEVER THE POINT.==================================


R::6... YOU MENTIONED THE BOOK....FRUSTRATING..YOU USED IT
FOR YOUR OWN PURPOSE..

GOOD FOR MARY..DESTROYING THE PERSONAL LETTER..
BRAVO...AS TO THE REST, SOME FRIENDS..

...................



Do not Presume: Quote

"Hostility,anger,scorn"..??

=======I FELT YOUR REMARKS WERE SUBJECTIVE FROM YOUR CHOICE OF WORDS.=========================

...............................

R:..7...YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE......

......................


"I know you wish I had never said a word." Why not..??
"From sad experience, I do realize that my reply will not
impress you one bit.".. Oh,but it does..
"It seems you are a friend of Marina Oswald, and certainly you have
a right to speak out in her behalf."

I have the right to speak out in anyones behalf. Whether related, or
known or not, when I believe they are being unfairly spoken about
and not present to defend themselves...

=======DO YOU BELIEVE MARINA OSWALD DOES NOT HAVE A COMPUTER? THAT SHE KNOWS NOTHING OF THESE THINGS? WE HAVE TRIED MANY TIMES TO CONTACT HER. SHE REFUSED TO SPEAK TO ME. I CAN'T HELP IT. ONE OF HER DAUGHTERS CONTACTED ME. THEY ALL KNOW I DESIRE VERY MUCH TO HELP PROVE LEE'S INNOCENCE, AND IF WE COULD WORK TOGETHER, IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER. BUT YES, I AM THE OTHER WOMAN. LEE TOLD ME THINGS. SHE KNOWS HOW SHE BEHAVED TOWARD LEE. OF COURSE I HEARD HIS SIDE ONLY. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE. IT IS NOT MY FAULT THAT SHE HAS REFUSED TO SPEAK TO ME OR TO ANY OF THE SEVERAL PERSONS REPRESENTING ME WHO HAVE CALLED HER, WRITTEN, ETC. INCLUDING DEBBEE REYNOLDS, MARTIN SHACKELFORD, WIM DANKBAAR, AND OTHERS. EVEN JIMMY FERRELL TRIED TO BRING UP THE SUBJECT TO MEET ME. SHE DECLINED. OR AT LEAST, THAT IS WHAT JIMMY TOLD ME. =====================


R::.8...DOES SHE??

IT IS HER CHOICE, TO SPEAK TO WHOMEVER SHE FEELS
COMFORTABLE WITH...

YERY FEW BELIEVE IN L.H.Os...GUILT......THOSE FEW ARE MORE
THAN LIKELY BEING PAID TO...IN SOME WAY...WE NEED TO KNOW
ABOUT THE WHO, AND WHY ..THE COVERUP...

SHE STATED IN NOV.03..WHEN APPROACHED..ABOUT THE
40th..SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT..THERE WAS NOTHING MORE
TO SAY.....THOSE IN EFFECT WERE HER THOUGHTS THAT DAY..
IT IS HER PEROGATIVE..NO ONE ELSES...STILL IS..WONDER HOW
MANY PEOPLE THERE HAVE BEEN OVER THE YEARS...THINK ABOUT
IT.?? SEVERAL PEOPLE TIMES...A ZILLION...

...............................



I asked a question.." What was your documentation for the
hearsay of an affair between Robert & Marina Oswald?".
And whatever has being a scientist to do with such.?..I
cannot fathom.

======EXCUSE ME, BERNICE, BUT WHEN ONE HAS BEEN TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST, AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN AND REVIEWED AND READ MANY PAPERS, GENERALLY THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF THEY MAKE A STATEMENT, THERE HAD BETTER BE BACK-UP. SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAY NOT REALIZE THIS RESPONSIBILITY. I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR BACK-UP FOR MY STATEMENTS SERIOUSLY. MY HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MEANS THAT I AM PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE OF PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION. I DO CONSIDER MY CITATION OF m'S STATEMENTS, AND HIS STATEMENT THAT MCMILLAN CORROBORATES IT, AS AN ADEQUATE CITATION BACKING UP MY OWN STATEMENT. HOWEVER, IF YOU WISH, I WILL ASK DEBBEE REYNOLDS TO MAKE OUT A SIGNED AFFIDAVIT AS TO THE MATTER.==============================================


R::9....SCIENTISTS....THAT'S RIGHT EVIDENCE ....BACK UP....

GO RIGHT AHEAD...ASK....PLEASE DO..

.................................

What was related on your part in a reply, was a she said, he said
statement..

=========NO, I BACKED IT UP WITH A STATEMENT FROM THOMAS MALLON, WHO OFFERED A CORROBORATING SOURCE. IT HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED. IF I HAVE THIS STRAIGHT, YOU ARE SAYING THAT EVERYTHING PEOPLE SAY AS WITNESSES IS NOT TO BE BELIEVED. FOR EXAMPLE, MARY FERRELL TELLING ME IN THE PRESENCE OF ANOTHER PERSON WHAT SHE WAS TOLD BY MARINA OSWALD, WAS WORTHLESS? OR MCMILLAN'S BEING TOLD THE SAME THING, DOES NOT COUNT?HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE TO HEAR THE SAME THING FROM MARINA'S LIPS BEFORE YOU WILL ACCEPT THAT EITHER SHE TOLD THE TRUTH OR LIED TO ALL THESE PEOPLE, OR THAT BY SOME INCREDIBLE CHANCE OF FATE, WE ALL MADE UP THE SAME STORY INDEPENDENTLY, AND WE ARE ALL LYING?===============================

R::10...LORD HELP US IF WE HAVE RO RELY ON MALLON FOR
CORROBORATION IN THE ASSASSINATION..IMO

THERES THAT BOOK AGAIN..WONDER HOW MANY COPIES HAVE WE
HAVE SOLD IN THE PAST FEW DAYS...INSTEAD OF A GOOD BOOK.?

THERE YOU GO AGAIN LYING ?? YOUR WORD NOT MINE...

SO FAR..JUST PASSING ON .ALL HAVE PASSED ON...SHE SAID HE
SAID..

..................................


You have made many statements on the Forum. Do you not expect questions pertaining to such?.


======WHY DO YOU WRITE THIS STATEMENT? I TRY TO ANSWER COURTEOUSLY AND FULLY. HOWEVER, MY TIME IS VERY LIMITED, AND I WON'T BE RESPONDING TO THIS THREAD AGAIN. I HAVE ABOUT 60 EMAILS A DAY TO ALSO ANSWER. I HAVE SOMETIMES RECEIVED 150 EMAILS IN ONE DAY.==============

......................

R:.11...YOU MAY REPLY, YOU DO NOT ANSWER..IMO

YES, WE ARE ALL BUSY....AS WELL..

THANKYOU, FOR NOT RESPONDING AGAIN..

......................



Nor other peoples opinions about what you relate.?


=======DO YOU NOT NOTE A BIT OF HOSTILITY IN THIS STATEMENT? THIS IS WHAT I WAS PICKING UP BEFORE. I WOULD NOT BE HERE IF I DID NOT CARE. I RESPECT EVERYONE'S OPINIONS. IT IS GOOD WHEN THEY HAVE THE FACTS. THE TRUTH.============================

R:12..: HOSTILITY...THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN..?

HARD QUESTIONS,
SOMETIMES ARE CALLED THAT..PEOPLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO
ASK THEM, OF THE PERSON MAKING SUCH..WITHOUT
BEING ACCUSED OF ANY SUCH WORD...OR OTHERS THAT YOU
HAVE USED...

NO YOU DO NOT RESPECT OTHERS OPINIONS...IMO..IF THEY DO NOT
AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY..SO FAR..

FRUSTRATION...MUCH...

I AM PERHAPS PICKING UP A STEREOTYPE..THE TRUTH AS TO YOUR
INSSERTION...INTO AN EVENT..THE TRUTH ???
I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY PROOF OF YOUR TRUTH AFTER ALL THESE
YEARS, AND I DO NOT SPEAK OF A PAY RECEIPT OR SOME SUCH..
YES, I AWAIT THE BOOK...AS MANY OTHERS...

...................................


People in the JFK arena, are hard task masters..No one is out to get you
as you seem to think on this Forum...

========THERE YOU GO, AGAIN. NO, I DO NOT SEEM TO THINK THAT ANYBODY IS OUT TO 'GET' ME. WHY WOULD I THINK THAT? BUT PEOPLE DO GET UPSET IF I SAY THINGS THAT UPSET THEIR APPLE CART.
I CAN'T HELP THAT. I HAVE, HOWEVER, NO DESIRE TO BATTLE PEOPLE ON FORUMS AND NEWSGROUPS. I AM NOT STRONG ENOUGH. MY EYES ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I DO WHAT I CAN AND HOPE IT IS ENOUGH.===============

R::13... THERE YOU GO AGAIN..DENY, DENY.....READ THE ALTS AND YOUR THOUSANDS OF POSTS ON ALL..AND READ BELOW..IN YOUR REPLY TO
NO.17..

OOPS, I SEEM TO HAVE UPSET YOUR APPLE CART.....

LIKE...NO ONE DESIRES TO DO A BROO HAW..

NO ONE IS STRONG ENOUGH...AND ALL HAVE MANY PROBLEMS,
NOT JUST YOU..

WE, ALL TRY TO DO WHAT WE CAN, IN THIS RESEARCH WORLD
IT IS ALLOWED NOT TO AGREE............


but you must expect those differences of
opinions, and questions..

==== QUESTIONS AND OPINIONS ARE FINE. =========

R:14.. THAT'S WHAT I ASKED, ONE QUESTION..THIS IS THE
RESULT...

........................



you must be prepared to reply and provide some
reference to evidence of such..


=====BUT I WAS PREPARED. I HAVE PROVIDED YOU 'SOME REFERENCE.'
HAVE I NOT?
I HAVE CITED MY REYNOLDS AS MY OWN WITNESS. I THEN ADDED MALLON , WHO CITES AN UN-NAMED SOURCE, AS WELL AS PATRICIA JOHNSON MCMILLAN AS A DIRECT WITNESS. SO YES, I WAS PREPARED TO REPLY AND TO PROVIDE 'SOME REFERENCE TO EVIDENCE OF SUCH.'
YOUR STATEMENT, REPEATED ABOVE, SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT I DID NOT DO SO. BUT I DID. AND SIMILARLY, I HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SUPPLY CORROBORATION FOR ALL SUCH IMPORTANT STATEMENTS IN MY BOOK. HOWEVER, AS A DIRECT WITNESS MYSELF TO LEÉ'S ACTIVITIES, FOR SOME MATTERS I HAD TO MAKE STATEMENTS THAT NO ONE ELSE WITNESSED, SUCH AS THAT WE HAD A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP.
EVEN THEN, I HAVE BEEN CAREFUL TO PROVIDE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN ABUNDANCE.=======================================

R: 15.. REFERENCE...THOMAS MALLON'S GARBAGE BOOK..IMO...
ABOUT GOSSIP..AND HE SAID SHE SAID EVIDENCE??

I AWAIT YOUR BACKED UP EVIDENCE IN YOUR BOOK...

............


No one in this world complies to anything
with a blindness..i


======I HAVE NO IDEA, I'M SORRY, WHAT THIS MEANS================

R::16.. NO ONE BELIEVES ANYTHING COMPLETELY IN THE
ASSASSINATION WORLD, ANY LONGER WITHOUT
PROOF, EVIDENCE....YOUR THE SCIENTIST..

...........................


if what you say stands up to the scrutiny it will receive,
then it will be accepted..if not .....it will not..


=====MY DEAR, THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF SCRUTINY, WITH QUALIFIERS: INADEQUATE, ADEQUATE, BIASED, UNBIASED.
THOSE WHO RECEIVE THE INFORMATION AND GIVE IT UNBIASED, ADEQUATE SCRUTINY CONSTITUTE ONLY ONE OF FOUR POSSIBLE CHOICES:
ADEQUATE SCRUTINY, UNBIASED OPINION....ADEQUATE SCRUTINY, BIASED OPINION...INADEQUATE SCRUTINY,UNBIASED OPINION...INADEQUATE SCRUTINY, BIASED OPINION.
MY CHANCE OF ACCEPTANCE DEPEND ON THE HONESTY, INTELLIGENCE AND LACK OF BIAS OF THOSE WHO SCRUTINIZE.
TRADITIONALLY, I HAVE LITTLE CHANCE OF ESCAPING INADEQUATE SCRUTINY-BIASED OPINION, AS MY EXPERIENCES ON THE INTERNET HAVE SADLY PROVEN. TWO CAMPS HAVE EMERGED: MY SUPPORTERS, MOST OF WHOM HAVE VISITED ME, AND SEEN ALL THE EVIDENCE. MY DETRACTORS, ALMOST ALL OF WHOM HAVE NEVER MET ME AND HAVE SEEN LITTLE OR NO ORIGINAL EVIDENCE -- ESPECIALLY IN CONTEXT. ONE GROUP, FINALLY HAVING TO ADMIT I WAS HIRED THE SAME DAY AS LEE AT REILY, THAT I WAS A CANCER RESEARCHER, AND OTHER BASIC POINTS, HAS DESCENDED TO NAME-CALLING, LIES, AND CHARACTER ASSASSINATION. THEY MAKE FUN OF WHAT STOOD THE TEST OF SCRUTINY.. OR ADD A LITTLE WORD THAT CHANGES THE MEANING OF EVERYTHING. I HAVE COUNTED OVER A HUNDRED CHANGES IN A HUGE ÉSSAY'WRITTEN ABOUT ME. WHEN I SENT CORRECTIONS, THEY WERE IGNORED. IN FACT, THE AUTHOR OF THE 'ESSAY' HAS DECIDED TO ADD A SILLY FACTOID THAT I BELIEVE THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKED! EVEN WHEN I HAVE PROTESTED THAT IT WAS ONE OF MANY POSSIBLE TOPICS GIVEN AS AN ENGLISH WRITING ASSIGNMENT. STUDENTS ASKED ME MY OPINION, I REFUSED TO GIVE IT SO THEY WOULD NOT HAVE A BIASED OPINION. THIS IS REPORTED AS I 'BELIEVE'THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKED. WHY IS THIS BROUGHT UP? TO TRY TO 'PROVE'I'M A NUT.
GEESH!
AND WHAT A SHAME! PEOPLE READING THAT ESSAY WILL BELIEVE I'M AS FLAKY AS THEY COME. NO MANNER OF PROTESTS MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE TO THE AUTHOR OF THAT 'ESSAY,' THOUGH. I HAVE PEOPLE ATTACKING ME ALL THE TIME, CITING THAT MASSIVE 'ESSAY.' IT'S SHAMELESS OF THE FELLOW, WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ACADEMICIAN. =========================

R:.17..I WISH TO SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY...AS THEY ARE..AS THEY
WERE...NOTHING I THINK IS IN STONE....I SEARCH FOR THE TRUTH
WITHIN THE ASSASSINATION..
NOT JUST IN PEOPLES OPINIONS, BUT IN THEIR FACTUAL PROOF AND
EVIDENCE WITHIN SUCH..HOPEFULLY TO SEE THE SOLUTION TO
SUCH A TRAGIC EVENT..THAT CHANGED ALL OUR HISTORYS...
I CHANGE NOR ADD ANYTHING...

.............................


No one can find out the truth, unless they continue to question...

=======AND THERE COMES A TIME TO DECIDE TO ACCEPT OR REJECT, WHEN THE EVIDENCE REACHES A CERTAIN CRITICAL MASS.
I HAVE EVIDENCE. IT WILL N-E-V-E-R BE 'ENOUGH' FOR THOSE WHO ARE BIASED. FURTHER, I HAVE FILLED IN --AND HAVE MUCH MORE TO SHOW IN THAT MATTER---MANY BLANKS IN LEE;S HISTORY.
THE TRUTH IS MUCH SIMPLER THAN THE MESS OUT THERE. IT WILL BE SO CLEAR IN THE BOOK. AS ONE KNOWS, THE TRUTH IS RATHER ELEGANT, COMPARED TO LIES. OCCAM'S RAZOR...======================

R..18..THERE SHALL BE A TIME TO ACCEPT, WHEN ALL THE TRUTH HAS
BEEN FOUND...ALL THE SECRETS REVEALED..
IF ANYONE ADDS TO THE TRUTH, THEN THEY SUBTRACT FROM IT..
.................

That's correct, the truth should be known about the Assassination,
not yours,not mine, not what we think..nor what we would like it to
be,

=======IT IS NOT 'MY' TRUTH. IT IS NOT 'YOUR' TRUTH. IT IS T-H-E TRUTH. I WILL NOT DEVIATE FROM THAT.================================

R::19..YOUR BOOK IS YOUR TRUTH...AND THEREFORE YOUR RESPONSIBILITY..ALONE..
YOU HAVE WRITTEN IT, NO ONE ELSE....

...............................

but the evidential,documentation of the murder, the positive proof in otherwards...because IMO until such time
the Goverment will not,relent and all shall not be obtained, or rather, whatever is left. If anything.....



======YES, MUCH HAS BEEN DESTROYED. WHY, IF THE CASE IS A SIMPLE ONE, AN OPEN-AND-CLOSED CASE, ON POOR LEE OSWALD? BUT I SAVED MUCH FROM 1963. IT WILL BE ENOUGH FOR ANYONE WHO PERFORMS AN ADEQUATE AND UNBIASED SCRUTINY OF THE PRESENTED FACTS AND CONSIDERATIONS.=============

R:: 19...THEY PROTECT THEIR BUTTS.

I AWAIT THE BOOK..

...............

Keep in mind there is much gossip and hearsay about you in regards to your own statements on the Web.

========WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY HERE? KEEP IT IN MIND FOR WHAT PURPOSE? TO MAKE ME FEEL BAD? SHOULD CHANGE MY STORY TO AVOID GOSSIP ABOUT ME? I WILL NOT. THANK GOD, THEY ARE TALKING. THAT MEANS THAT INTELLIGENT, THOUGHTFUL PEOPLE MIGHT ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE AGAIN AND, MAYBE THIS TIME, WITHOUT BIAS.
I STAY OUT OF IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. I HAVE TURNED DOWN MANY INTERVIEWS, ETC. I HATE, HATE, HAVING TO TALK AT ALL.
THIS IS A LABOR OF LOVE. AND BECAUSE IT IS LEE'S TURN. I HAVE LIVED MY LIFE. WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME, THE TRUTH HAD TO COME OUT.
THINK OF HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE LAIN DOWN ON THEIR DEATHBEDS AND DECIDED TO TAKE THEIR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ALL OF THIS WITH THEM. I CONSIDERED DOING IT, TOO.
IT HAS COST ME MY JOB, TYHE RESPECT OF MANY, TROUBLE AND EMBARRASSMENT TO MY FAMILY. I HAVE LOST MY RETIREMENT, LOST ALL MY SAVINGS, AND CONSTANTLY HAVE TO DEFEND MYSELF. IMAGINE, IF ONLY I HAD SAID--BECAUSE I HAVE ADEQUATE EVIDENCE WE HAD AN AFFAIR--JUST THINK, ALL I HAD TO DO WAS SAY 'LEE WAS THE KILLER'-- AND I WOULD HAVE BEEN WINED, AND DINED, AND THE DARLING OF THE MEDIA.
BUT INSTEAD, I HAVE TOLD THE TRUTH, AND SUFFER FOR IT.
MY ONLY HOPE IS THAT ENOUGH PEOPLE WILL READ THIS AND REALIZE THE SACRIFICES I AND MY FAMILY HAVE MADE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY. IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
I LIVED A LIFE WHERE WAS NEVER ARRESTED, DO NOT SMOKE, DRINK, AND RAISED FIVE WONDERFUL CHILDREN. I'VE WORKED HARD IN MY LIFE. I WAS A COUNSELOR FIVE YEARS. I WAS A TEACHER SEVENTEEN YEARS. NOW I CAN'T GET A JOB.
HOW ABOUT YOU? WHAT HAVE YOU GIVEN UP FOR THE SAKE OF THE TRUTH?
THERE ARE MANY, MANY PEOPLE I HAVE HAD TO RESPOND TO. AGAIN, I LOVED LEE. AND I CAN'T GO TO MY GRAVE LEAVING THESE LIES OUT THERE ABOUT HIM IN HISTORY. I MADE A COMMITMENT.
ORIGINALLY, I WAS GOING TO TAKE THIS TO THE GRAVE AND HAVE THE BOOK COME OUT POSTHUMOUSLY. IN FACT, THE FIRST BOOK I WROTE WAS FILLED WITH JUNK. I WAS AFRAID OF GETTING SUED. I WAS AFRAID THE MANUSCRIPT WOULD BE STOLEN AND PUT FALSEHOODS IN IT THAT I WAS GOING TO CLEAN UP WHEN IT WENT TO GALLEYS. BUT LATER, I BECAME ANGRY WHEN IN FACT THE MANUSCRIPT WAS STOLEN. THEN I LOST MY FEAR: THE REWRITTEN BOOK HAS EVERYTHING, NO HOLDS BARRED, AND I NO LONGER CARE IF ANYBODY SUES ME. I HAVE DONE WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHEN I LIE DOWN AT NIGHT, MY CONSCIENCE IS CLEAR. LEE WAS AN INNOCENT MAN. PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER IT LONG AFTER THE WARREN COMMISSION REPORT FALLS TO DUST. MY LOVE FOR HIM WAS STRONGER THAN ALL THEIR HATE.
==================================

R::20...BUT IT IS CORRECT TO PERHAPS MAKE OTHERS FEEL BAD..
BY REPEATING THIS GOSSIP..IMO.THAT HAS AS YET NOT BEEN
PROVEN......AND BRINGING SUCH ONTO
A PUBLIC FORUM...??...YOU OF ALL PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW
A BETTER WAY...

I HAVE READ MANY TIMES WHAT YOU HAVE HAD
TO SAY...


80% LAST POLL..DO NOT BELIEVE L.H.O.WAS GUILTY...

WHO BELIEVES THE GOVERNMENT OWNED. IN SOME CASES
CONTROLLED IN ALL.....RUN MEDIA..??

IT IS THE "WHO WAS BEHIND IT" WE HAVE MOVED ONTO..

......................................

Many years of such..I disregard it as
I disregard this reference to Robert & Marina, until proven..

====== HOW MANY WITNESSES WOULD BE NECESSARY BEFORE YOU WOULD ACCEPT THIS AS POSSIBLY TRUE? WOULD ALL OF US BE LYING? ===========================================

R::21:: SO FAR GOSSIP, AGAIN IN MY OPINION........AND WHAT HAS
THIS STATEMENT, ABOUT ROBERT & MARINA...
POSSIBLEY TO DO WITH PROVING L.H.O.
INNOCENT.?..
WE KNOW HE WAS INNOCENT.....NO ONE HERE HAS SAID
ANTHING TO THE CONTRARE ??
HE WAS DEAD WHEN SOME PEOPLE SAY IT
HAPPENED...IF THIS DID OCCUR,.IF IT CAN BE VERIFIED..THEN
PERHAPS..
IT SHALL BE ONE MORE PIECE...NOT IN PROVING
HIM INNOCENT..AS HE IS..
.BUT IN PROVING THE COVERUP...THAT IS WHERE WE ARE AT..


..............................

If such does not pertain to the Assassination of the President,
but to the personal lives of any of those involved, then
IMO,it should be,whatever it is,taken as it is,a gossipy opinion.

======IMMEDIATELY AFTER IT WAS MADE KNOWN TO CERTAIN PERSONS THAT ROBERT OSWALD AND MARINA WERE COMPROMISED, NEW EVIDENCE WAS 'FOUND' BY ROBERT OSWALD, CONVENIENTLY IN MRS. PAINE'S GARAGE-- THE CAMERA THAT MADE THE BACKYARD PHOTOS. THAT WAS A LOUSY CAMERA. LEE WAS A GOOD PHOTOGRAPHER AND WOULD NEVER HAVE OWNED SUCH A PIECE OF JUNK IN 1963. IT IS WHERE THE BACKYARD PHOTOS CAME FROM. WHY DIDN'T LEE USE ONE OF HIS NICE CAMERAS FOR THOSE DAMNING PHOTOS? IS IT POSSIBLE THE POLICE MISSED THIS CAMERA? THEY SAY THEY PURPOSELY LEFT IT BEHIND -- NOT IN NOVEMBER, 1963, BUT AT THE TIME ROBERT 'FOUND'THE CAMERA. A POLICE OFFICER WROTE HE DECIDED NOT TO TAKE IT ALONG WITH THE OTHER CAMERAS--AFTER THE CAMERA WAS SO CONVENIENTLY FOUND. MY, MY, HOW THOUGHTFUL TO PROVIDE THE FACT THAT THE POLICEMAN DECIDED NOT TO TAKE THIS CAMERA ALONG WITH THE OTHERS TO THE POLCIE STATION, DECIDING UNILATERALLY THAT HE NEED NOT DO SO, WHEN EVEN LEE'S SOCKS AND FLIP=FLOPS WERE SENT TO THE FBI.
SO THE PROVENANCE OF THE BACKYARD PHOTOS BEING TAKEN BY A CAMERA BELONGING TO LEE IS BASED ON ROBERT OSWALD'S FINDING IT DURING THIS SAME TIME PERIOD. WHAT IS ROBERT OSWALD DOING IN RUTH PAINE'S GARAGE, BY THE WAY? HMMMM.....THERE'S MUCH MORE. ================================================


R:: 22..WHO MADE IT KNOWN IMMEDIATELY AFTER THAT ROBERT AND
MARINA WERE COMPROMISED..??..I KNOW IN THE BOOK..sheesh.

MUCH EVIDENCE WAS ADDED AFTER THE FACT..

I ALWAYS HAD HOPED ROBERT WAS THERE IN THE GARAGE TO
CLEAN IT UP....I WILL READ THE BOOK...TO FIND OUT WHAT NO
ONE ELSE HAS BROUGHT FORWARD, YOU BETCHA...

........................



And last but not least, none of this as I have stated in anyway in these posts relates to the solving of this crime..we are here for research not relaying
of personal stories....t

=======I AM SORRY, YOU NEED TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ROBERT OSWALD'S ACTIONS AND BEHAVIOR AFTER THIS EVENT. SEE ABOVE. THERE IS MUCH MORE. IT IS RELEVANT. YOU HAVE STATED IT IS NOT BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW THE OTHER INFORMATION INVOLVED. IT IS THIS KIND OF JUDGMENTAL ATTITTUDE THAT CUTS OFF THE TRUTH. I'M SORRY, I AM NOT TRYING TO ATTACK YOU PERSONALLY. I'M SIMPLY STATING THAT YOU DECIDED THIS INFORMATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ASSASSINATION, WHILE I SEE THE EVENT AS A WAY TO BLACKMAIL ROBERT OSWALD INTO SAYING FOREVER AFTER THAT LEE DID IT.
BEFORE THIS, ROBERT SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE. AND THERE IS, AS I SAID, MUCH MORE. I DEPLORE THE FACT THAT YOU BELIEVE I AM MERELY SPREADING GOSSIP. I WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A THING. THE MATTER CONCERNS CONSIDERATIONS OF ROBERT OSWALD AS A RELIABLE WITNESS, OR ONE WHO HAS BEEN COMPROMISED. HE SAID LEE GAVE HIM THE CAMERA BEFORE LEE WENT TO RUSSIA, AND THEN ASKED FOR IT BACK AT THANKSGIVING, 1962. LO AND BEHOLD, HE 'FINDS' IT IN THE PAINE GARAGE IN JANUARY JUST AFTER THE SHORT AFFAIR THAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT BY SEVERAL PERSONS, WHICH YOU CONSIDER MERE GOSSIP. YET ROBERT'S SUDDENLY FAR MORE COOPERATIVE.
AND HE IS ROOTING AROUND IN THE PAINE'S GARAGE. JUST WHEN PEOPLE ARE GETTING ALL UPSET ABOUT WHERE WAS THE CAMERA. HOW COOPERATIVE OF HIM.===============================

R::23..WHY DO YOU THINK I ASKED THE QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE..?
AS IT RELATES TO ROBERT..I ASKED FOR DOCUMENTATION AND OR
EVIDENCE OF YOUR STATEMENT..?..PEOPLE ARE VERY AWARE IT IS
IN MALLON'S BOOK...THIS IS NOT NEW INFORMATION...BUT IF JUST
GOSSIP IMO THEN FORGET IT......IF IT CAN
BE PRESENTED AS PROOF..BUT IT MUST BE PROVEN...THEN IT
COULD RELATE TO THE UNCOVERING
OF ONE MORE STONE IN THE COVERUP...NOT HIS INNOCENCE.
HE'S NOT GUILTY.....80% ALSO THINK SO....

BUT THE COVERUP....
MUCH RESEARCH IS BEING CONDUCTED ON ROBERT..
...YOU NEED TO LEARN MORE, ABOUT
WHAT IS NEW...

....................


hat have nothing to do with such...IMO..to which
do not forget I am entitled to..

=====AND I AM ENTITLED, I THINK, TO YOUR NOT ASSUMING I AM SIMPLY REPEATING A PIECE OF GOSSIP. I AM NOT A MALICIOUS PERSON. IT GIVES ME NO PLEASURE TO SPEAK OF THESE THINGS. THERE ARE MANY OTHER THINGS THAT I COULD SAY, FROM WHICH I REFRAIN.=======================

R:: 24..SO FAR IT IS EXACTLY THAT GOSSIP..IMO...

WHERE IS THE PROOF....WE CANNOT GO ON WHAT PEOPLE SAY.
IT SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK..IT HAS BEEN TRIED BEFORE MANY
TIMES, IT DOESN'T WORK, FOR THE SERIOUS RESEARCHERS
OUT THERE..TANGIBLE...UNLESS IT IS ,THEN IT SIMPLY BECOMES
A CASE WHERE IT SHALL BE DENIED......THEN IT IS
SIMPLY ONES PERSONS WORD AGAINST ANOTHER..AND
DISGARDED..
..................

Whether I believe you or not, is not important..


=====GOODNESS GRACIOUS! OF COURSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE PEOPLE BELIEVE ME. EVERY SINGLE PERSON MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE. ON NOVEMBER 22, EVERYBODY THOUGHT LEE DID IT, OR NEARLY EVERYBODY. TODAY, ONE BY ONE, PEOPLE HAVE LEARNED MORE AND MORE OF THE TRUTH.
DO YOU THINK I THINK YOU ARE NOT IMPORTANT? WHY IN THE WORLD AM I TAKING TIME TO WRITE THIS? I AM IN CHRONIC PAIN, BERNICE, AND HAVE EYE PROBLEMS. ALL FROM TWO SO-CALLED 'ACCIDENTS' IN DALLAS.
YOU AND EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING ARE IMPORTANT. I HAVE CHOSEN TO WRITE, IF NECESSARY, ONE BY ONE, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE IN BEING PERSONAL. I BELIEVE THIS WILL PROVE I AM SINCERE.
THIS IS FREE. I DO NOT ASK MONEY, I TURN DOWN INTERVIEWS WHERE MONEY HAS BEEN OFFERED. I DID THE DOCUMENTARY FOR FREE.
I DO NOT ASK ANYTHING EXCEPT TO BE GIVEN SOME RESPECT AND TO LOOK AT WHAT IS OFFERED IN AN UNBIASED MANNER. 'GOSSIP' WAS NEVER THE INTENTION. TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT ROBERT OSWALD COULD BE BLACKMAILED IS MY PURPOSE.
THIS HAS DIRECT BEARING ON THE ASSASSINATION EVIDENCE VIA THE IMPERIAL REFLEX CAMERA. LEE LOVED PHOTOGRAPHY AND HAD SOPHISTICATED EQUIPMENT. I SAW ALL HIS EQUIPMENT. HE SUPPOSEDLY HAD MARINA TAKE THE BACKYARD PHOTOS, BUT OH, LOOK CAREFULLY AT HER TESTIMONY REGARDING THAT. AND WHY WOULD HE CHOOSE A LOUSY CAMERA FOR THIS WHEN HE'D TAKEN FINE PHOTOS, AS GEORGE DEMOHRENSCHILDT REPORTED, PHOTOS GOOD ENOUGH TO LOOK PROFESSIONAL, WHICH HE FRAMED AND HAD ON HIS LIVINGROOM WALLS? AND LEE ALSO HAD AN ALBUM OF HIS BEST PHOTOS. SO WHY WOULD HE ASK FOR THE CRUDDY IMPERIAL REFLECT CAMERA TO BE GIVEN BACK TO HIM --- SO HE COULD HAVE BAD PHOTOS MADE OF HIM WITH LIGHT SEEPING IN AROUND THE EDGES WITH IT, WHEN HE HAD SEVERAL OTHER VERY NICE CAMERAS? AND SPECIAL LENSES, A TIMER, STEREOSCOPIC EQUIPMENT, ETC? AS I SAID, THERE IS MUCH MORE.===============================

R:25...WE ARE ALL IN PAIN..

IMPORTANT ME SAYS , I NEED A FRESH CUPPA.

IF IT IS JUST TALK, IT IS GOSSIP..IMO...sheesh.

WE NEED PROOF SOMETHING TO WORK WITH...

WE KNOW ABOUT THE CAMERA THE PHOTOS AND ALL..WE
KNOW THE STORY... THE BOOKS..WE KNOW WHAT IS OUT
THERE NOW...NONE OF THAT IS NEW..WE HAVE READ IT ALL
BEFORE..AS IT NOW STANDS...
........................

I have no animosity towards you... right now,after these posts I do not know what to think of you....


=====WELL, WE HAVEN'T MET. PEOPLE WHO MEET ME USUALLY LIKE ME. I HAVE A NUMBER OF LONGTIME FRIENDS. I LIKE PEOPLE A LOT AND HAVE NO ANGER AT THOSE WHO ASK QUESTIONS. MY ANGER IS DIRECTED AT ONLY THOSE WHO LIE ABOUT ME AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE FACTS, AND THEN DISTORT THOSE FACTS OR REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEM.
ONE PERSON SAID I WAS BORN IN BRADENTON, FLORIDA. DID HE EVEN ASK ME? HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT ACCURACY. THE REST OF THE 36 INTERNET PAGES HE WROTE ABOUT ME WERE JUST AS 'INACCURATE.' OVER A HUNDRED ERRORS! AND HE WOULDN'T FIX ANY OF THEM BUT ONE-- THAT I WENT TO SCHOOL IN BRADENTON. HE HAD I WENT TO SCHOOL IN CLEARWATER. HECK, THAT WAS ALMOST THE FIRST SENTENCE, AND IT WAS WRONG. IT GOT WORSE FROM THERE. THIS SITE COMES UP AS NUMBER ONE. MANY PEOPLE WRITE AND FIGHT WITH ME TO 'PROVE' THAT WHAT THE SITE IS, IS NOT TRUE. ==================

R::26..NO WE HAVEN'T MET...WHEN I MEET PEOPLE I SCARE THEM..lol..

SOME PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE LYING, FOR ONE REASON OR
ANOTHER DO NOT EVEN REALISE THEY ARE....SOME DO...

...................


as I said, I await your book,and the evidence presented in such..I am hoping it
does contain, much more valuable information than I have seen presented before now..

=====EXCUSE ME, BUT WE HAVE SPOKEN ONLY ABOUT ONE THING--MARINA AND ROBERT OSWALD. NOTHING ELSE.
BUT OF COURSE, IF YOU FIND STATEMENTS IN MY BOOK THAT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE, ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE STATEMENTS OF OTHER WITNESSES? THERE WILL BE MANY, MANY INCIDENTS IN THE BOOK. I WILL REPEAT THEM AS A LIVING WITNESS. MANY WILL HAVE SUBSTANTIAL CORROBORATION. MANY WILL NOT, BECAUSE SOME IS NEW MATERIAL.
YOU APPARENTLY DO NOT ACCEPT THE WITNESS OF MYSELF, MY STATEMENT OF A CORROBORATING WITNESS, PLUS THE WITNESS OF THOMAS MALLON WHO ALSO HAD CORROBORATION FROM TWO PEOPLE FOR HIS STATEMENTS. YOU WANT MORE. THAT'S MORE THAN A COURT OF LAW WOULD REQUIRE.
YOU SEEK AFFIDAVITS. THIS IS MORE THAN THE FBI REQUIRED WHEN THEY INTERVIEWED WITNESSES AND INFORMANTS AND TOOK THEM FOR FACT. SO I HAVE NOT PRESENTED ENOUGH INFORMATION TO SUBSTANTIATE MY OWN STATEMENT OF WHAT I HEARD FROM MARY FERRELL'S LIPS? I WILL LET THE READER DECIDE IF I HAVE PRESENTED ENOUGH CORROBORATION. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT MALLON, A SOURCE HE DOES NOT NAME, MCMILLAN, PLUS MY OWN PERSONAL WITNESS --THAT'S FIVE OF US-- SHOULD BE ENOUGH. ARE WE, I REPEAT, ALL LYING?======================================

R::27..WELL EXCUSE ME... I HAVE BEEN READING YOUR POSTS YEARS
NOW...AS I HAVE SAID............ I DO NOT BUY THE STORY......TOO
MANY CHANGES OVER TIME...........
AS I SAID I AWAIT..YOUR BOOK AND THE EVIDENCE AND
DOCUMENTION ..I AM INTERESTED IN
THE VALUE OF SAID INFORMATION
I WILL DECIDE AFTER I READ ALL....THAT'S MY PEROGATIVE AND
ANYONE ELSES WHO DOES SUCH...AND CHECK IT OUT..AS FAR AS
AS POSSIBLE, I SHALL GIVE IT AS GOOD A CHANCE AS ANY
OTHER I READ...THERE IS NOT A PERFECT BOOK IN THIS
FIELD...IMO..WE GET SOMETHING OUT OF EVERY BOOK
WE STUDY..

DO NOT TRY TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH...AS TO WHAT I AM
SAYING....DON'T GO THERE..

YOU THINK ALL THE WITNESSES TOLD THE TRUTH...??..TO THE
F.B.I...HA....IT WAS THEIR TRUTH..THEY CHANGED STATEMENTS,
THE W.C CHANGED TESTIMONIES....AND SOME WITNESSES
WHO KNEW MUCH MORE NEVER TOLD THE TRUTH, IN THE
FIRST PLACE..

LYING...THERE YOU GO AGAIN...I ASK A QUESTION, AND YOU KEEP
REFERRING TO THAT WORD...hmmmm





Thanks for your time..

====AND I DO NOT HAVE TIME OR STRENGTH TO GO ON WITH THIS. I HOPE MY RESPINSE HAS BEEN ADEQUATE AND UNBIASED! BEST REGARDS,

JUDYTH VARY BAKER
PLEASE FORGIVE TYPOS....EYE PROBLEMS. JVB

R:: 28..THANK GOD...THE END..I EVEN LOST THE NUMBERING TO MY REPLIES A
WAYS BACK....lol..
AND HAVE HAD FIVE CUPPAS...".I DO NOT HAVE TIME OR STRENGTH TO
GO ON WITH THIS".. I AGREE..SO BE IT..FRUSTRATION WILL DO THAT TO
YOU..I AM ALSO VERY BUSY, BUT RESPECT YOUR REPLIES AND
OPINIONS..
I DO THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSES..AS YOU DID ME...AND
REGARDS ALSO...

SORRY JOHN, FOR ALL THE SPACE TAKEN UP..
I DO APPRECIATE, YOUR PATIENCE...AND KINDNESS...THANKYOU..
BYE JUDYTH....BEEN INTERESTING.....

THANKS, TO ALL FOR YOUR TIME...B.. ;)

#15 Judyth Baker

Judyth Baker

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 85 posts

Posted 08 May 2004 - 12:31 PM

Dear John, and all who might have read the above:

1) I really do get worn out trying to argue with people as in the bove.

2)

(i) This lady does NOT accept the word of a researcher who knew, intimately, Marina Oswald, concerning her affair with Robert: Mary Ferrell. I reported what Ferrell told me, in the presence of a corroborating witness.

(ii) she does not accept the word of Thomas Mallon, as he reported it, also with a corroborating witness, Patricia Johnson McMillan, and an un-named source. When I offer that the only alternative, then, is that she is saying that we are all lying, she makes it seem that I am name calling. I am not.


(3) She says I have changed my story. What she has read are twisted versions of my story which I tried to correct. When I tried to correct these twisted versions, yes, I was accused of changing my story. Did she offer examples of my changed story? No. She made an accusation I take very seriously.

(4) She has had the opportunity, for years, to contact me. The email address was in plain view for three years. I never heard from her.

(5) Marina Oswald has chosen not to respond to all my attempts to contact her. That is not my fault.

(6) When my book comes out, will Bernice see 'no' evidence in it, either? Since she does not accept my word concerning Marina's affair, she does not accept Mallon's, she does not accept McMillan's support of Mallon, she does not accept Reynold's support of me, she apparently rejects witness testimony. Since in many cases I will only be able to offer the testimonies of witnesses to back up what I say in the book, will she reject those as inadequate? I have living witnesses to back up what I say. If she rejects their word, what is one to do?

(7) I NEVER recommended that people read Mallon's book. I cited Mallon. The lady insinuates that I have done a disservice in mentioning Mallon's book to unwary readers. She asked me for support of my statement. I gave it. Then she attacked me for mentioning this book. Was I only allowed to cite from books that this lady likes?

(7) AM I merely gossiping? The lady said my statement had nothing to do with the assassination. Is that true? The matter is important: was Robert Oswald compromised? The camera was found immediately after the affair came to light, according to Mary Ferrell. Since two people can corroborate what Mary said, I felt it was important to ask ourselves if Robert Oswald was compromised.
Is THAT how he came to 'find' the Imperial Reflex camera? WHY wasn't the camera placed with all the other camera equipment, etc. found on November 22-23? The corruption of the Dallas police in changing testimonies, not keeping track of chains of possession of evidence, and in 'losing'--- and then conveniently 'finding' --- evidence stinks to high heaven.

The exchange above is very typical of what happened in the newsgroup. No matter what I might have offered as proof, it was never enough.

Thank you for the opportuunity to speak here. I hope others will weigh in with their opinions about whether or not I had a good reason to bring up this matter and also if it was reasonable for me to say that Robert Oswald and Marina had a brief affair. BTW, nobody has ever argued with Mary Ferrell's information about Marina Oswald. She was an expert on Marina. As for me, I knew where she worked, everything, but did not impose myself on her when I lived in Dallas. I asked to see her: she refused. I did what I could to try to contact her. She always turned me or my friends down. She is not the helpless woman being maligned as suggested above. She has had many opportunities to speak out.

Imagine how frightened I am -- and I am--to bring out the book and name names. For some people, there will NEVER be enough evidence. And in America, specious lawsuits are a plague. I do not look forward to getting the book published. It will mean only more misery. I will do it only because it is the right thing to do.

I apologize for this long post. I HAVE written again because she rejected a reasonable amount of evidence and also said I changed my story. That had to be addressed.

Ask yourself-- WHO, in the above exchange, offered REAL INFORMATION, such as on the camera? What did the other person offer? Nothing but opinions that she doesa not like what I said. She also said I changed my story -- an insult to my integrity. She offered no proof. She rejected my citation of Mallon -- why? She doesn't like his book. Well, that's not a good enough reason. Where is her objectivity? She offered opinions, not evidence. I'm very used to that from those who attack me. But readers here need to be made aware that the accusation I changed my story is not taken lightly by me. If she tries to back it up, I'll prove it's not true. ADDING DETAILS to a story, by the way, is not CHANGING it. For example, nobody asked me if Lee was right-handed or left handed before Robert groden wrote and asked me. So it wasn't in the two earlier versions of the book, either. Now I have added that information. That is not changing the story. That is adding information people want to know.


Thank you.

Judyth

Edited by John Simkin, 08 May 2004 - 01:31 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users