Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Baker

Members
  • Content Count

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Judyth Baker

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,208 profile views
  1. To all: I wish to thank everyone who has been so kind to me, and tto hose who have attacked me unfairly, well, I think they have shown their true colors. I have never minded answering reasonable questions. And nobody should take what I say without careful examination of the facts and what I have said (not what others SAY I said... there are corrupted materials out there, over which I have no control). I have given you the truth and stand by it. However, I am now in a situation where I do not have a computer that I can get access to easily, and for health reasons, I am not able to reach an internet cafe. I will have access only a very short time each day to somebody else's computer. Until my book comes out, I will have to confine my posts to just a few people and will not have an opportunity to read on this forum or on Wim Dankbaar's. Since I receive over fifty emails a day from new people, to whom I have tried to send personal responses, these, too, will sadly have to cease. I realize that there will be people such as Mr. Vernon who will continue to try to elicit responses from me, but between my eye problems and computer problems, I do not have time or ability any more to engage. Someday I may have my own computer again. The short time i will be able to spend using a friend's computer connection, I wish to communicate with my family, whom I miss very much, and with my dearest friends, who have supported me during this horrendous five years. I have learned a great deal and I regret that I have been unable to communicate as well as I had hoped who I am and the innocence of Lee Oswald. I pray for all of you in your efforts to find the truth. Remember to ask for quotations from researchers. Do not rely just on their statements. It isn't good enough to say "John Blank had no friends." There has to be the stated research behind it-- names, quotes, dates of interviews, sources. Do not take the word of someone making a blankey statement. "Jerry Cool said he knew that John Blank had no friends."(interview by Bill Will, June 7, 2004, Atalanta, Greece) It isn't good enough to just 'believe' what a researcher distills. Get the facts. I hope you ignore and do not give attention to those who use abusive terms. I care very much. I wish I could continue. My eyes, frankly, are just getting too bad to go on, compounded with lack of computer, and, foremost, I am at the end of my financial resources to improve the matter. I never thought I would lose job, home, car, health, etc. in just five years after speaking out. Any witnesses out there who had the good sense to keep quiet, I do understand. I no longer think they are cowardly. Perhaps they are wiser than I. I should have waited and had my book come out after my death. the book will be coming out this year. God bless you all. Best Regards, Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald. Jan 12, 2005 eof
  2. To all: Regarding Stephen quote about the training camp: I was not aware of Dave going out to any training camp personally, but I know he was involved later in a minor incident with a couple of the people who were out there. I am not saying this amounts to any overt anti-Castro acticity, as such, by Dave in July and August of 1963. I saw no indication that it was overt. Stephen Roy has written: "On the July 1963 camp(s), we really have only Delphine Roberts (not a bad source, but not a great one) and Tannenbaum's film recollection." Tanenbaum (one n, is it not?) stated unequivocally that he saw the film, that it came from Georgetown. The statements that come to mind were that many respondents were asked if Dave Ferrie RAN the camp. They were not asked if he were involved in any other way. One remarked that he couldn;t keep his mind on any one thing long enough to RUN a training camp. I make a distinction between running a camp and having ANY involvement whatsoever, and I hope that Mr. Roy will publish the quotations that are behind the statements he just made of the interviews that centered on whetrher or not Dave was running the camp. That is not what I claim or some others have claimed. I know that Dave was obviously aware of the camp's existence because I saw a portion of the training film. I previously stated to Stephen in an email sent to him and a number of others that I saw a portion of that same training film, as it was being spliced in Dave Ferrie's apartment. I cannot state that Dave Ferrie was at the training camp. I did not see him in the film. But he was handling this rather poorly lit or underexosed film. I remember telling Stephen that Dave had some porn films and a Donald Duck film called "Moving Day"(no sound, black and white) that I noticed as some stacked reels in his apartment. It seems to me that though Stephen has not remembered or did not wish to mention my additional voice in this matter, that even if it means he adds a qualifier to my name, as he has done in the case of Delphine Roberts, such as "alleges she has seen" that it would reveal the true situation concerning witnesses. The quotations to back up what Stephen has said should be given to members here so they can decide for themselves if Dave Ferrie, simply because he was described as not RUNNING the camp, was thereby disqualified from ever BEING at the camp. I do not know anything except that he had to have contact with some of those people because he did have access to the training film at its earliest stage of creation. Best Regards, Judyth Vary Baker
  3. I would like to add my welcome to Stephen Roy on this forum. There is no doubt that he has been called an expert on Dave Ferrie by many, and deservedly so. He will be able to supply much important information about Dave to this forum. I believe that a thread on Dave Ferrie where Stephen Roy offers information can be fruitful and useful to those interested in Ferrie. I would like to reiterate that I also knew Dave, and hope that someday Mr. Roy will want to add the materials I have offered him to his collection. My only objective is to bring forth into the light who is who, and that we have the right to know who the authors of the purveyors of information really are in this research community, and if they have an agenda, or can be trusted to offer the unvarnished truth. It is a fact that I was disappointed with Mr. Roy's handling of me as a witness, but I do recognize his expertise concerning the milieu of Dave Ferrie and believe he is well capable of presenting a great deal of information that nobody else has. I have seen him bring forth new information of value. Best Regards, Judyth Vary Baker
  4. DearDawn: I do believe what Nancy means is I will be blamed as a part of the conspiracy to kill JFK because they are3 trying to prove Lee did it, and since there is plenty of proof I was in contact with Lee, I am also guilty. She is trying to show concern, I believe. As for handling the time cards, I handled them at Reily's, not later. I only wanted the time cards because I knew I had written on them and this would prove I handled Lee's time cards. My initial "J" is on five of the cards, and my initial has been erased from at least one card. Matt Allison knew I wanted to get copies of the cards in 2001, and he knew when I was coming to the Archives. He checked out all the Reily stuff so I could not look at it, and he has been caught red0-handed by close questioning that this is true right on internet forum. I cannot tell nancy things because she turns right around and tells Mr. Vernon. So far, Mr. Vernon has gone around with HIS twisted version of my testimony, and most recently has gone to Mr. reily himself, reporting that after telling "Judyth's crazy story"it made Mr. Reily laugh. Mr. Reily will not be laughing after he gets off the phone. Reily is a wily, clever, tough fellow, a charming man, but pres. of Tulane for a long time, tried to take over Ochsner's Foundation with two others in the 1970's, and he actually told Vernon that Monaghan came from Oak Ridge, revealing something I could not prove before. Nancy wants me to do things her way NOW, even though I have told her the book is coming out this year. Nancy gives everything to Vernon, as you can see above. Vernon published yesterday my critique of Mr. Blackburst, with the header : JUDYTH VARY BAKER THE QUEEN OF TWIST. So why should I respond to Nancy, when she is so easily influenced by Mr. Vernon? Nancy sent me an email calling me a xxxx because she claimed I had not really moved from Holland because my email address is till from Holland. Uwe Ebolde (sp?) (he goes by the name of David Weaver here, although that is a fake name) she said told her that. Well, calling me a iar when in fact I am indeed living elsewhere, and all my closest friends know this, is just one example of the problem I have with Nancy. I did try to be her friend and would not be in this kind of toruble if I had not written to her and offered her friendshiup when people were picking on her over at Lancer, where she was ejected. I believe Nancy is intleligent but cannot express herself, possibly because of some dyslexia. But when she started calling me a xxxx and also tried to force me to do what she wanted, she went too far. I repeat, my book is coming out, and seocndly,l she gives all her information to Mr. vernon. And she gets the information wrong, too. She told mr. Vernon thgat I sent her an email saying I had been in a mental institution and had undergone torture with electrochocking, while they yelled at me. I could send you those emails where she says maybe she dreamed it, and then when she said I lied and really did say those things. Of course I never had any such thing happen to me. I told her I worked for a psychiatrist, Dr. James Stuart, who used electroshock on people and that I had witnessed some bad sessions. She seems to have believed from this that I underwent it myself! geesh! I corrected her, but by then she had added quotes, such as that they were yleling at me to forget Lee's name while shocking me... and of course Mr. Vernon put this all over the internet. Nancy does not mean to harm, but she has done a lot of harm. I wish her well. I feel similarly about Mr.; Blackburst,/Mr. Roy who is angry that his real name is now out in the open. But just as David Weaver is really Uwe Ebolde, and there are others playing these games, people's lives are at stake, their reputations, their futures. My life has been absolutely squished since speaking out. I had a good reputation. My name is on a monument in Stafford, Texas, for civic service. I founded a Humane Society. I was a chold abuse investigator. I earned the Elect Lady award for service to my fellowman in the Mormon Church. I raised five lovely children, all good citizens. Three of the four I raised as a single parent. I do not drink or smoke. Money is not important to me and I worked counmseling the homeless and the poor for five years. I volunteered working with the blind for nine years. I helped train guide dogs for the blind and began trying to create a smaller dog breed that could be used as guide dogs for children and the elderly that could live in smaller quarters, such as an apartment. I taught school for seventeen years. I really did think, since I did not even have a parking ticket and had many friends, and had been a newspaper reporter for seven years, that I was safe, that my job was safe, that my reputation was strong enough to take a few attacks. I did not realize that porn pictures would be put out there--Vernon called attention to one--- that I would be called a con artist for trying to create a new dog breed, that an Fbi employee would complain and I would lose my job teaching and then find nobody would hire me again.... I did not know I would have to defend myself againsyt some of the silliest things on the internet. I am weary and worn and have lost my home, my job, my car, most of my belongings, and because of harrassment, I live in different foreign countries for over two years now. I miss America. My children. My grandchildren. But I received a serious death threat and at age 62 I live in a very private place. Wherever I go, I do make friends, but without my internet frtiends I would feel extremely isolated. I spoke out to defend an innocent man. I am speaking the truth. I am committed to the bitter end and realize that I will not probably see any reward fopr this in my lifetime. But I am doing what is right and only ask that people think this out. Why in God's name would I do this, when I had everything I could ever want, and now have lost so much? I sell my paintings for $2000 each. I was happy. But know what? I would have that occasional nightmare, seeing Lee shot before my eyes. I would realize that I had let him down. In the end, I believe my rationnal voice and my steady and sure presentation of the facts will, in the end, prevail. Those who have obstrcuted this case for forty years do not want a new witness emerging. I am grateful for the emails I get that help keep me going. One other thing -- no more nightmares. A clear conscience. That is worth a great deal to me. sorry about typos...eye problems Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald
  5. To all: I have been told that David Blackburst (Stephen Roy) has posted on this Forum, but I cannot seem to find the post. I read his post over at alt.conspiracy, where Mr. Bob Vernon published it, and now reproduce that post here, with my commenhts. Before going any further, I would like to say that I regret having made Mr. Roy feel uncomfortable about telling people about his other name. I didn't do it to be mean to Mr. Roy. I apologize for making Mr. Roy feel that in some way I have made things harder for him. My intention was to make things easier for many others. Since Mr. Roy has said he has even used both his names at the same time at the Lancer Conference, I do not wholly understand why he is upset with me for mentioning his fake name now. He also said he would be publishing his book under his real name, so again, I do not understand why he is upset with me at revealing his true name to you here. I brought out Mr. Roy's real name on this forum because I believe that we must be frank and open with each other if we are to work in harmony together and in trust. Mr. Blackburst, below, wrote that he believed we were friends. I concur. BUT -- Mr. Roy NEVER told me his real name all the years we were "friends." I had to discover by accident that he was Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy was at the 2000 Lancer Conference, for example, but Mr. Blackburst, my friend, apparently did not attend, for he was cc'd about my concerns and did not mention that he was a panelist there. Mr. Roy did not bring up my name at the Conference, whereas my friend, Mr. Blackburst, had he attended the Conference, would surely have done so, for he knew how important it was to me to tell people that I believed Lee Oswald was an innocent man. Mr. Blackburst, my friend, had he attended the conference, would have asked me if I wanted to have my name mentioned. In fact, he already knew that I would have preferred it, because it was new information for those who came to the conference, and they had the right to know that a new witness was presenting. After all, I had already been known to Mr. Blackburst, my friend, for a year by then. And I had communicated in private emails that I was even thinking of attending the conference myself. I was dissuaded from doing so by my friends. When I told Debra Conway I suspected that she instructed the panel on which Mr. Roy sat not to mention my name, Mr. Roy wrote back to Lancer and said he had not been so instructed. My friend, Mr. Blackburst, would have comforted me at this time and perhaps given me advice on how to handle the situation. But only Mr. Roy was involved at Lancer.... Even as late as December, 2004, my friend, Mr. Blackburst, never told me in private what went on. Sadly, I had to learn from the post of Mr. Roy, today, what my friend, Mr. Blackburst, really was thinking at the Conference. This is just the kind of thing that has to stop. We must be frank and open. We must not play the old games. We can continue to go in circles, or we can be upfront and honest. I thought my friend, Mr. Blackburst, was treating me fairly. Mr. Roy, who never admitted to being my friend or to even knowing me, did not. ==========================More below========== For those who wish to read any more (I do not, but feel I must continue)....My comments are interspersed with Mr. Roy's =====like this==== I would also like to say that I have never experienced any problem with Mr. Roy personally, except that I feel he was not entirely candid with me, as I have indicated above, and I shall also note below. I did indeed feel we shared a friendship until I realized that he was not treating me entirely aboveboard. If I have been in error concerning this, I will certainly be happy to apologize. But please come with me to Mr. Roy's post. There are always two sides to every story. Best Regards, Judyth Vary Baker ====comments below===== ================================================== Stephen Roy Today, 05:00 PM Post #51 ================================================= > New Member > Group: Members > Posts: 2 > Joined: 7-January 05 > Member No.: 2230 > A big thank you to John Simkin for allowing me to pop in here an > clairify a few points. I have been in touch with Judyth Vary Baker since > about 1999, and we have had a on-again/off-again private correspondence. > For some reason, Baker chose to go public with it in this forum over the > past week. ======= ====================================== No, Stephen, I have not gone public with your correspondence, which is voluminous. I have mentioned only a very small part of the matter, as also have you. I have not posted your emails except as it touched upon using a false name on forums concerned with the JFK assassination, while using your real name elsewhere. You also used your real name at Lancer, so still I cannot understand why you are so upset that I have told people that these two people happen to be the same person. ----============more below====================== >ROY/BLACKBURST: I came onto the internet in the mid-90s under a variant of my given > name, and I engaged in discussion on some JFK newsgroups. One day while I > was at work, a scraggly 40-ish man came to my door and said something to > my wife about me "perpetuating the coverup." She excused herself, called > me and the police, but the man walked away. My wife insisted and I agreed > to adopt a "screen name", something a bit more anonymous. I tried several > possibilities but AOL said they were already in use. AOL allows up to 10 > characters, so I tried a TV term, "blackburst" (the signal to which all > video devices are synchronized in a TV studio), and AOL accepted it. I > became known as a David Ferrie specialist in the JFK groups. When people > would ask my first name, I arbitrarily chose "Dave" (after Ferrie). ===================================== This is all fine and good, except that you, Stephen, are not just 'anybody.'You have been declared THE expert on David W. Ferrie. YOU have been the one who is, in fact, quoted everywhere. But the name people quoted as THE authority was NOT the name that you recently said would be listed as author of the book on Dave Ferrie. So, how would anyone not in your inner circle know this? You said you were my friend, but you never told me, for example, that you were really Mr. Roy. We're talking about five years. I am sorry if your wife was frightened, and I can understand your decision to use the false name. However, since you used your real name at the Lancer Conference, I believed, and I think quite reasonably, that you were no longer afraid to use your real name, since you had come forth and presented yourself in person using your real name. Meanwhile, we have identity problems -- a number of people use multiple names and support their statements by writing to themselves and praising themselves...just one example of how false names create the illusion of many behind one, when that is not the case. And we have credibility problems, where sometimes one's word comes against another's. In my case, if I say something that the "Ferrie expert" says doesn't jive with Ferrie, who is going to believe me? The "Ferrie expert"must be truthful. If he is believed blindly, he must have earned that trust. -- I felt it imperative to begin to identify those who have used false names. My special concern with you, Stephen, remains that you are not just anybody. YOU are THE expert on Dave Ferrie. As such, everyone needs to know that you use two names in the research community--Blackburst and Roy. =========================more below ============ ROY/BLACKBURST: I explained publicly on a number of occasions that Blackburst was a > pseudonym, and why I chose it. I also explained this by email to several > people. Eventually, I did share research with a few folks, which > necessitated using my real name, but in a spirit of privacy. ========================-================== In other words, Stephen, you have been posting information on the Internet publicly under a fake name, but sharing research with a few people privately using your real name. We have had a lot of that going on in the research community. ===================more below=================== >ROY/BLACKBURST In late 1999 or early 2000, I was contacted by Baker and her > associates and we had numerous exchanges. I had a clear impresson that > Baker wanted to keep these exchanges private at that time. I also wanted > to remain on her bulk email list so that I could get the details of her > account. ================================================ This is not quite correct, Stephen. I did not contact you. Dr. Howard Platzman did, and after awhile, I received copies of your emails ABOUT me. I finally wrote to you because I did not like being talked ABOUT when I felt it would be better if we could speak to each other directly. I began to cc you on a large list on contacts after that. ================more below======================== >ROY/BLACKBURST In the summer of 2000 I signed on to the JFKLancer Forum, but the > rules required that I use my real name. I never used "Blackburst" on my > few posts on that forum. ============================================= But Stephen, how would anybody know that MR ROY and MR BLACKBURST were one and the same on the forum? How did they know that if they asked you questions about Dave Ferrie that YOU would be able to answer them, whereas hardly anyone else in the world could do that? But they had no idea you were that same expert, Mr. Blackburst. ==================more below======================== Debra Conway invited me to speak at the Lancer > NID2000 conference, and the topic of my 30-minute talk was agreed upon as > "Ferrie: Man and Myth." Although I considered speaking as Blackburst, > Debra convinced me to use my real name. Of perhaps 100 or so topics I > could have mentioned about Ferrie, I chose about 10. When I arrived in > Dallas, I was given a name tag with my own name, and I wrote "Blackburst" > underneath it. I made no secret of my identity. I spoke to numerous > attendees wearing this tag, including Steve Tyler, Joe Biles, Mary > Ferrell, Peter Dale Scott and many others. The tag can be seen in the > video of my talk. ================================================ Then why in the name of heaven are you upset at me for revealing your name and also mentuoning your wife's fright, etc? However, I had a unique experience, and so did many others who did not attend the Conference> Mr. Blackburst never said he attended this Conference. As I agonized about what was going on, Mr. Blackburst never indicated to me that Mr. Roy was going there, would be there, and would return, and have all sorts of information. Mr. Blackburst, my friend, never shared a single moment of that Conference with his friend, Judyth Baker. ===================more below==================== > It has been erroneously suggested that I was asked not to mention > Baker, but this is not true. I had not included Baker as part of my > limited talk time, but I do recall some email just prior to the > conference, in which she considered going to the event. ================================================= Yes, you certainly should have recalled it, Mr. Roy, because Mr. Blackburst, my friend, knew how upset I was at being told I should not go to this conference, when I wished so very much for people to know that I wished to speak out about the innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Blackburst knew I wanted peopel to know that a new witness was willing to speak out. I had just learned that Debra Conway had not told me about this panel. I complained to Mr. Blackburst and others later that I was very disappointed that Debra did not tell me about this panel. My friend, Mr. Blackburst, had no information about the Conference to share with his friend, Judyth Baker. He knew no more than the rest of us who had not attended. Or so we all thought. ======================more below=============== In the Q & A > following my talk, a question arose about Edward Haslam's thesis in "Mary, > Ferrie and the Monkey Virus." I replied that I had reservations about the > paucity of evidence cited in the book, and the author's tendency to ask a > question on one page, then repeat it a few pages later as a fact. > Nevertheless, I added (paraphrase) that a new witness had emerged whose > account, if proven true, could change the way we look at Oswald's time in > New Orleans. One or two other panelists then briefly made reference to the > Baker matter. ================================================= Mr. Roy, you do not mention that the name "Baker" was never given out. I also must remind you that my friend Mr. Blackburst never told me he had these reservations about Mr. Haslam's research, which in fact helps support my testimony. Mr. Roy brought up reservations about Mr. Haslam that my friend, Mr. Blackburst, never told me about. ========================more below=========== > At the time, I thought I was doing what Baker wanted. ============================================= I have emails that provide ample evidence that this was not the case. On the other hand, Mr. Blackburst received those emails, not Mr. Roy. ======================more below================== Years later, > questions were raised about whether ot not the panel was muzzled. I saw no > such thing. And questions were raised about why nobody mentioned Baker. > While her account was not part of my formal presentation, I DID mention > her in the Q/A. ================================================== Years later, Mr. Roy told me what my friend Mr. Blackburst apparently did not know, for my friend did not tell me one word about any of this. ===============more below===================== > At various times over the years, Baker and her associates pointedly > asked me why I would not come out and support her account. I replied that > I thought we should all wait to see what evidence was presented in the > book. =============================================== I must admit that I said I hoped you would support me privately. I NEVER pointedly asked my friend Mr. Blackburst to "come out"and "support" me. I DID ask my friend Mr. Blackburst to CONFIRM certain points that we had discussed that showed I knew Dave Ferrie. I never asked that you do this publicly, and if I ever did, I would ask you to show me the emails, because I recall nothing of the kind. I have indeed asked for confirmation of certain points, but not in public. I am surprised that you have stated this. ====================more below=================== > A few years back, I thought about setting up a meeting. As it was > hard to get time off from work and home, I asked if I could do a one-day > turn around: Fly into Moisant, meet her at the airport for a few hours, > and fly home that night. Her emails at the time, which I saved, indicate > that she wanted to meet but did not have a vehicle available to travel > from her home to Moisant on my prospective date. I did not end up meeting > her, but I did give her my home phone number in the process ======================================= What Mr. Roy fails to mention here is that I was offered this opportunity in a very short window of time. I did offer to fly to HIM and called him to try to make an appointment. He never called me back. I wrote to him several times and asked him to call me. He failed to reply. Finally, he wrote an email saying I had refused to meet him. He graciously accepted a correction later and said we just couldn't get our schedules to mesh, but this was not true. I could not obtain his address, though I tried. Dr. Platzman also tried to get an address. I have support for these statements. By now, I was beginning to think maybe Mr. Blackburst wasn't really my friend, after all. ======================more below=============== > As noted, I was long troubled by some of the assertions in Haslam's > book, so I kept an eye out for anything to confirm or deny them. One > assertion made by others (but not specifically by Haslam) is that Ferrie > had many white mice and did medical research in his last apartment at 3330 > Louisiana Avenue Parkway. ============================================== Haslam of course indicated that this work was done nearby, and that included mice being housed nearby, not at Dave's. In fact, that was more or less the case. However, concerning mice, I'm not certain if he removed them on weekends. I know he removed them when he had two parties, telling me he didn't want anybody messing with his mice. Mice: my main bone of contention with Mr. Roy. =================more below=============== The documents I found suggested that he did have > such mice in 1957, six years and 3 living spaces perviously, but not in > 1963. As I interviewed people who knew Ferrie, I would ask about this, and > I was unable to find anyone who saw them in that period. This includes > several very close friends. Ferrie's landlord did not see mice or a lab > there. Pictures taken at at 1963 birthday party do not appear to show > them. Coroner's pictures from Ferrie's 1967 death do not show them. ================================================= I believe when the book comes out that everything Mr. Roy does not understand will become clear. However, in private I explained a lot of these matters, but then again, I explained them to my friend, Mr. Blackburst, and we are now talking to Mr. Roy. ========================more below============== > I communicated the above PRIVATELY to Baker and her associates. At > some point, I was asked in the newsgroups if there was any indication of > mice in that apartment at that time. I decided to give a carefully phrased > and honest answer that none of those I spoke with recalled them. This > apparently angered Baker. ============================================ Not angry. Surprised. And upset. What upset me is that Mr. Blackburst would not reveal the names of the friends, nor when he interviewed them, nor their quotations. The readers were supposed to take Mr. Blackburst's word for it. HE was the expert. But I was a living witness. I had also the statements of at least two other persons who saw mice in Dave's apartment that summer. But to Mr. Blackburst, neither I, nor my two witnesses, counted. But yet he said "all"Dave;s friends said otherwise. When I asked, he would not reveal ANY names of the people he said had a different opinion. Not all of them demanded secrecy. I know this because I was in contact with one of Dave's friends, who has since died. My friend, David Blackburst, would not give me the names of ANY of the people he had interviewed who declared there were no mice present. He would not give me any interview dates. He would not give me any quotations. But he was content to publish on the newsgroups that "everybody" he had interviewed, without exception, ALL said there were no mice, etc. And people accepted that on faith. Was I angry? No. I was frustrated. I was concerned. I was saddened that in five years of correspondence, Mr. Blackburst never gave me a single name or direct quote. I was very patient, too, when he published what he did. I did not contradict him. I asked him in private why he had said that. =======================more below================= > Baker also raised some question about "research technique", saying > that I was wrong to bring witnesses together. Let me clarify: In most > cases, I contacted them by "cold-calling", or cold email or snail mail. =================================== "In most cases"i s not good enough. ONE case of an investigator bringing witnesses together is ruinous. Imagine allowing two people who had murdered somebody being allowed to talk together before they were interviewed in jail. Similarly, in important matters such as Dave Ferrie's past, witnesses must be kept apart so their stories will not merge. Mr. Blackburst/Roy failed to do this, on more than one occasion, as he did admit to me. =====================more below=========== > The interviews would be either via telephone or one-on-one. On a few > occasions, I would meet someone I had only spoken with on the phone for > lunch or some such thing. In several cases, one Ferrie acquaintence would > introduce me to another, and so on. And on two occasions while I was in > New Orleans, a couple of acquaintences who ALREADY KNEW other Ferrie > friends would ask if they could join the friends and I for dinner. ============================================= It makes no difference if these people already knew each other. Important differences in testimony can emerge if they are interviewed separately and if they are not allowed to meet the investigator except in a research situation. Not only can researchers be conned by a group, any individual in a group who is dominated will then be afraid to offer a differing opinion later, for the investigator has not insulated himself or herself from known others. The investigator should never allow witnesses to know who has been interviewed and who has not. The events described by Mr. Blackburst are unfortunate and promote team agreement. =======================more below================ I did > NOT ever bring together people who did not already know each other. =============================================== Illustration: Michael and Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald already knew each other. Obviously, it was important that they were interviewed separately. It would be outrageous to have allowed them to mingle with each other prior to being interviewed. The fact that Mr. Roy cannot see what he has done, and how he said "I did not EVER bring together people who did not already know each other" proves that he DID bring them together, and that he does not understand how this contaminates witnesses, is most unfortunate. Just such practices have given the Kennedy assassination research community a non-professional patina. =======================more below========== > And she has asked why I do not name some of these people. The first > obvious reason is that some of these interviews were hard to get, and I > want exclusivity for future publication. ============================================ I only waited five years. How about even ONE name? Interestingly, I freely gave the names of my witnesses to my friend, Mr. Blackburst, in the interest of wishing to solve the case. I also freely offered additional evidence and access to my materials. =======================more below=============== Another factor is privacy. Some > were very reluctant to talk, and only did so on a pledge of privacy. ================================================ But not all of them felt that way. I know this for a fact, since I knew one of them myself. ========================more below================ One > is an elected official. Another is a community watch leader. Another is a > successful attorney. They don't want more publicity about "that Ferrie > thing." And still another factor: Ferrie was at least bisexual, and had > relationships with a few of these people, some as underage boys. One can > easily understand why I just "don't want to go there." ================================================== Of course, others did not feel that way. We are talking about NOT ONE quotation. Not ONE name. Not ONE interview date. Not ONE attempt to help me meet any of them. We are talking, then, about a blanket statement given to the newsgroups that "all" the people Mr. Blackburst interviewed "agreed" that there were "no mice" in Dave's apartment in 1963. The entire research community is expected to take Mr. Blackburst's statement as gospel, as the unvarnished truth, but we are allowed no names, no interview dates, and no quotations. And he knew this statement was in direct opposition to my onw. In addition, several times, my friend Mr. Blackburst said he would look up a quote for me. He never managed to locate a single one in five years. I have emails proving this. =========================more below================ > Then in recent months, there was a flap over a complicated story > involving Lee Harvey Oswald's tooth. Baker apparently incorporated into > her account some information I had either emailed or posted concerning the > date Ferrie first left the New Orleans Cadet Squadron of the Civil Air > Patrol. ============================================== Foolishly,as does the rest of the research community, I blindly believed what Mr. Blackburst published, and used his chronology to try to pin down when Lee's tooth was knocked out. Or loosened. Or whatever. Lee never gave me a date. Mr. Blackburst apologized that the information he had provided in an archive was incorrect. By then, I had Dave Reitzes on my case over it, because I said I had pinned down the date, thanks to Mr. Blackburst. ========================more below=============== At one time, I had fragmentary dates and reported them in that > way. ============================================= And he published those "fragmentary dates"for the use of the research community. After some thirty-odd years I couldn't remember Moisant from Lakefront. Lee talked about both sites. I took Mr. Blackburst's word for the dates when Dave Ferrie was at Moisant, or when he was not, or when he was at Lakefront, or when he was not. The dates were in some cases wrong. ==========================more below============== I subsequently located and spoke with some who had first-hand > knowledge of that event, and obtained news clippings which indicated that > a new commander was in place by January 1955. Baker then blamed the flap > on me, first privately, then publicly. ================================================== Yes, because the information that was inaccurate REMAINED up for everyone to use, and it was wrong. 'Last time I looked, it was STILL there, and STILL wrong. Bet it gets fixed now.... it doesn't matter, because what Lee told me about, as Mr. Blackburst is aware, occurred, he said, before Thanksgiving, if I recall correctly, which is November, not December. Mr. Blackburst in fact wrote an email to me saying it was posssible Lee and Dave Ferrie could have met in November 1954, which was my original estimated date. But I trusted the erroneous date supplied by Mr. Blackburst originally, and defended the date to Dave reitzes based on my trust of Blackbursts data.' I learned my lesson about blind trust in his data. When the erroneous date and other errors rermained unchanged in the archives for weeks to come, without Mr. Blackburst correcting them, I began to search for other inconsistencies in his reports. After I collected a few, with little trouble, I realized that people were blindly accepting everything Mr. Blackburst was writing, and I did not want anybody else to rely on incorrect data and then be skewered as I had been. As I looked deeper into the matter, I realized Mr. Roy had to be Mr. Blackburst. I could hardly believe that my supposed friend, Mr. Blackburst, had never told me a word about the convention that he had attended, and which had caused me so much concern. By 2004, my friend, Mr. Blackburst, had now published on the internet that "all"Dave's friends never saw any mice in his apartment when I had TWO witnesses, plus myself, who stated otherwise. BY expressing "all" David Blackburst excluded ME from the list of witnesses who claimed to have known Dave Ferrie. then he gave me the final blow, saying he was on the fence about me and would have to wait to see if I were credible or not. The many things I related about Dave, never printed untul years later or still not in print=-these counted for nothing with him. I have since had my information checked with another person who knew Dave Ferrie, and I gave him information I had not given Mr. Blackburst, mainly because Mr. Blackbuurst never interviewed me personally. This person KNOWS I knew Dave Ferrie and is willing to say so. Not Mr. Blackburst. And that was the end of allowing people to rely with blind faith on Mr. Blackburst. ======================more below========== > In a private email, I noted that she should be careful about > incorporating published materials about Ferrie into her account, because > 90% of those published materials are of questionable accuracy, and I noted > that I thought she was buying into things she was reading. She somehow > quoted this back to me in a private email as me saying her account was 90% > gleaned from published materials, which is not what I said. ==================================================== I do stand corrected in this matter. I was upset that Mr. Blackburst said I was "buying into things" I "was reading," he was saying that my memories of the friendship, or my testimony concerning Dave Ferrie, were being affected by the inaccurate accounts I was reading, and 90% of these were of questionable accuracy. He had now moved to the position of saying I was a contaminated witness.. It was now that I did become upset with Mr. Blackburst. He was acting as if evidence I had provided him in the past, proving I knew Dave, was worthless. He never presented a single word to the newsgroups and research community that I had provided him with proof that I did know Dave Ferrie. He kept that to himself and to a very small group. Despite what he has written here, I never demanded that he make his opinion public. I asked that he give it to selected people in private. ==============================see below============= I > Until recently, I considered Baker a friend. We had many pleasant > exchanges and I offered private support as best I could. ================================================= I will let the readers judge if Mr.Blackburst has treated me as a friend. I certainly treated him as one. ========================see below================ For some reason, > she has decided to take this into a public forum and violate several > confidences. She has quoted private emails. More important, she has given > out my real name and personal info against my stated desires. =============================================== If anyone doubts why I have brought these matters up-- and it is for the sake of openness in the research community, I suggest that he or she re-read this post. I do not want anyone to go through what I have gone through at the hands of "two" people who turned out to be the same person. ==========================more below============ I TOLD HER > several times that Blackburst was not my real name. I sent her a photo of > my family. I gave her my phone number, which would display my name on > callerID. Now she has let the toothpaste out of tube, and it can't be > pushed back in. I don't know what I've done to deserve this, but Baker > judgmentally emailed me that it was best for the research community, and I > would thank her someday. =================================================== Well, maybe Mr. Blackburst/Mr. Roy will not thank me, but I believe all of us should know with whom we are dealing. I DID NOT KNOW MR, ROY, ON THE PANEL, WAS MR., BLACKBURST, MY FRIEND. AND MR. BLACKBURST, MY FRIEND, LET ME AGONIZE OVER WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT LANCER, as I can prove from emails. Was Mr. Blackburst, then, acting in an ethical manner? I cannot express in words how miserable I am at having to write these words. Mr. Blackburst/Roy has given a lot of information to the research community. I do not know why he has investigated Mr. ferrie for at least the past twenty years, but he has, and that work must not be considered woirthless. However, under the circumstances, the testimony he has gathered cannot be considered untainted. And though I have always liked Mr. Blackburst, I have to confess that I do not like Mr. Roy very much at all. ===============================more below========== > She even indicated that she expects me to attack her. THIS is not an > attack, but a careful worded defense, which still leaves some things > private. I have no desire or reason to attack her. But the friendship, if > there was one, is over. ================================================= I knew there would be a price to pay. I take no pleasure in making Mr. Roy angry. I remember when I was a child abuse investigator. I began with a certain number of friends, but every week I made more enemies as I rescued battered children, neglected childreb, sexually abused children. In this case, I want to see honest men and women and honest interviewing and reliable methodology. I hate making enemies, darn it. Hate it! I like people. I like having friends. This makes Mr. Roy feel badly, it makes me feel badly, but I see no help for it. No more fake names, please. No more poor research techniques ruining witnesses. No more proclamations without quotations, dates and names backing up the proclamations. No more declaring one is an expert while using a fake name. No more, please, of all such behavior. =====================more below============ I have asked, if she included a particuar exchange > in her book, to delete it. I regret that she has come under bad influences > and has made some bad decisions. ================================================ Why in the world should information that Mr. Blackburst/Mr. Roy gave me about Dave Ferrie be deleted? What is Mr. Roy's point? Is this to punish me? Will this help the research community to understand the case better? Mr. Roy/Blackburst gave me written permission, and now I am somehow to stop the spread of this information wherever it is now located -- especially from my book --and remove it ---because he has changed his mind. Needless to say, considerable time has passed and the permission given was believed to be "real" permission. Was it not real? Mr.Roy gave his permission for this information to be revealed --- but now he wants it removed? Is this the kind of researcher we are asked to trust blindly and fully? There has to be responsibility taken for what we say and do. And once we give permission to use information, it is released, how can it be reeled back in? Imagine if I gave permission to one of you readers to use something I had told you, and a year later say no, now you cannot use it., But by then others have seen it and used it, because you freely gave it to others. Would I have a right to be angry at you then? In this case, Mr. Blackburst\/Roy already gave permission for the materials about Dave which he said I could use to be published. He acts as if I can somehow rip it out of the past, wher et has gone to others, and where it has been incorporated here and there in my writings, now that he has suddenly changed his mind. I leave it to the good sense of the readers here to decide if Mr. Roy is helping or hindering the truth by making this demand. ========================more below============ > (BTW, I had the "Coke Syndrome" with my computer, spilling a partial > can of Coke onto the keys. It works OK, but I have very sticky keys, > requiring me to keep going back to see if I have miskeyed. Apologies for > any typos!) ================================================== use pipe cleaners with lemon juice and try that! :- ) JVB ================================================
  6. Please remember that my book will be coming out this year. I want to thank people who have been sending me private emails. I see that some of this material is going to be useful to researchers and students. That makes it worth the effort. Meanwhile, back to the topic. This is the final article in the Dave Reitzes thread that I wish to present for the time being. Within this article, below, I attempt to distinguish among the main players in the assassination research community. °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° THE COMPOSITION OF THE 'RESEARCH COMMUNITY' , WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO MR. DAVY´S COMMENTS ABOUT MR. DAVE REITZES°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° We are discussinG Dave Reitzes' rhetoric and research methods, since he puiblishes a great deal on the Internet which affects those scholars and students who read it. The websites look professional, AND there are many citations, and Mr. reitzes seems to be presenting information correctly. But he does He? Mr. Reitzes is not known as a man who seeks to interview witnesses. He usually relies, as do most researchers in this case, on quotes from others. SECONDARY SOURCES: "48 Chromosome Knowledge" I am reminded how for many years people thought the human nucleus had 48 chromosomes --because the male chromosome XY type was shown in the first photo of the elicted chromosomal materials, ALONG with the female XX type. Everybody quoted it that way for some two decades, as I recall, until somebody noticed that the first quote stating humans had 48 chromosomes was wrong. Somebody should have asked the scientist who posted the photo how many chromosomes were in the typical human cell's nucleus. Nobody interviewed HIM. They relied on the photo that was published, they counted the chromosomes, and came up with 48. Personal interviews CAN often bring out the truth-- sometimes even if the person interviewed lies, for their statements might contrast with what they said previously. Now, I am talking about live interviews, depositions, audio and video tapes, and statements made in the presence of an additional witness who can vouch that the statement was not coerced and is accurately transcribed (even then transcribed statements are occasionally redacted). The quality of the interview of course rests on knowing the situation at the time of the interview. People tended to lie about Lee Oswald right after the assassination. The same people, years later, often moderated their statements or even said they had not been quoted correctly. orest Pena told The warren Commission nothing about the relationship between Warren DeBrueys and Lee Oswald. Later, several sources confirmed that Pena had been threatened. Eventually, Pena told everything, and his progress toward telling the truth is understandable and he is to be admired for finally telling the truth. Such a witness should not be discredited since there is proof that the witness was afraid to begin with. These matters must be taken into consideration. In the case of WILLIAM DAVY AND DAVE REITZES, an example of how failing to interview subjects can turn even Mr. Reitzes' "good" research awry is presented here (remember, I am not trying to say that Mr. Reitzes is a poor investigator. He digs into things. But I am trying to say that he is selective, and reports as it suits him to support his personal beliefs, often using rhetorical devices, and rarely conducting live interviews. That means he is not really a researcher. He is, instead, a spokesman.). William Davy realized that Mr. Reitzes had a propensity for making statements without getting interviews from living witnesses. A good example is what happened to me. Mr. Reitzes never spoke to me one moment 'live.' He never visited me. Mr. Davy wrote `Let Justice Be done`, which is filled with the results of many live witness interviews, and he is sensitive when Mr. Reitzes ´corrects´him based on " 48 chromosome" knowledge: Concerning Mr. Reitzes'methodology, Davy wrote this (among many other complaints, after Reitzes attacked his book): "Reitzes’ ...claims I "attempt to rehabilitate nutball witness Charles Spiesel (Davy 173-4)." In fact, I do no such thing. On the very pages Reitzes cites I list all of Spiesel’s wild, paranoid claims. I criticize his story as being too pat and describe his testimony as "lunatic." Is this Reitzes’ idea of rehabilitation? It was Judge Haggerty himself who thought Spiesel may have been dismissed too easily and I note that in the book. Reitzes then writes "Davy also presents a dubious new theory of his own when he attempts to link the mental hospital in Jackson, where Oswald allegedly was seeking a job, to the CIA’s infamous MK/ULTRA mind control experiments." No, this was recalled to us by Dr. Alfred Butterworth, one of the East Louisiana State Hospital’s physicians and corroborated by other hospital employees. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many of the Jackson hospital employees did you interview?` Of course I also report on secret goings-on at Jackson. In my book, I include the supporting statement of a living witness who himself was a subject of medical testing at Jackson almost at the same time of the experiences i recount at Jackson. Davy complains, justifiably, that he interviewed a witness to support his statement, knowing that Reitzes interviewed nobody, and that reitzes relies on secondary materials. Wrote Davy next: `But less commendable, according to Reitzes, is my "acceptance of Daniel Campbell’s assertions that Banister was a "bagman for the CIA" and "was running guns to Alpha 66 in Miami (There is no evidence to support either claim)." I guess Reitzes naively expects a CIA document to appear affirming something like that. While he’s waiting, he may be interested to know that this was confirmed by Dan Campbell’s brother, Allen as well as close Banister associate, Joe Newbrough. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many of Banister’s operatives did you interview?" In fact, Mr. Reitzes rarely interviews anyone, but will refute the claims of writers such as Davy who can back up their statements with live interviews, relying himself on secondary sources. So, we now point out that living witness statements are preferable to secondary sources, especially where the conditions of the interviews are known. Such statements can be lies. I have seen interviews by the FBI and Secret Service where the person being interviewed stated the interviews were not correctly reported. Therefore direct quotes should be part of the report of an interview. The direct quote must also be IN CONTEXT. If a person said in a live interview, `I have always believed Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy until I Mr. X told me his side of the story.` If this is reported as `I have always believed Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy...`then the ´live+´interview has been distorted. needless to say, I have seen my own quotes similarly distorted from their original context. All these factors must be taken into account. In the end, judging the quality of a researcher´s work includes these considerations: 1) live interviews reported in context whenever possible 2) quotations not taken out of context 3) balanced presentation where conflicts exist (cannot ignore important arguments `on the other side´) 4) willingness to post corrections when shown to be in error 5) avoidance of use of pejorative or prejudicial statements (I removed, for example, a statement made by Davy against Reitzes that was overly prejudiced against Reitzes, where the three dots are located in the quote). 6) the use of footnotes or end notes to back up statemenhts... and when checked, that these notes actually exist and are accurate (errors may happen, but they should not be chronic) ... and avoiding using ONESELF as the `source`of a statement (I was astonished to find one researcher quoting his earlier works over and over again as his ´source´of information) 7) if a ´researcher´ constantly publishes material only supporting one side of a theory, unless that person is a WITNESS, he or she is displaying an AGENDA. A witness has the right to seek supporting evidence, though every witness should know what is out there against him or her in matters of controversy such as the Kennedy assasssination, especailly since lying occurs (sadly, by officials, too). A researcher has to seek evidence for and against his or her thesis. If only one side is presented, the person is not a researcher. A witness can legitimately defend only his or her side, because that witness is speaking from experience. researchers must decide if what the witness says is true, distorted, or false. Honest researchers take care and time to do live interviews and to present both sides of the picture in witness testimony sitruations. Otherwise, they are said to have an AGENDA and are being SELECTIVE in presenting their evidence. °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° Final comment: There is so much evidence ---and there are so many conflicting statements in the Kennedy assassination materials---- that most people are overwhelmed. I´ve been more fortunate, because, as a witness, I know what Lee Oswald, for example, really was doing on certain days. I knew him as a living, breathing person. This helps me to quickly sort through conflicting stories. Therefore, I am also in a position to know who has been lying. It is a distressing position to be in, but one I take with humility and dedication. I also know whom to respect among present `researchers´in the JFK research community. And who should be rebuked for muddying the waters fore their own purposes. Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald
  7. RESPONSE FROM JUDYTH TO BERNICE: Well, Bernice, you have said the same elsewhere about me, and you are welcome to your opinion. ============================================== RETURNING TO THE THREAD ABOUT MR. REITZES' RHETORICAL DEVICES, ETC: Meanwhile, back to the matter of Dave Reitzes. This will be the last material I intend to publish in this thread. I will be happy to respond to persons who begin a different thread instead of derailing this one, as I have already said several times now. Tthread, I repeat, is dedicated to understanding how the rhetorical tactics of Mr. Reitzes might affect the opinions and understandings of scholars and students who come across his elaborate and very nice looking websites. In fact, his websites are full of a lot of important information. It is what he says about his information, and, sometimes, the highly selective nature of the information presented, that is of concern. It is to be understood that Mr. Reitzes is actually a SPOKESMAN, not a RESEARCHER. There are some facts in research that must not be forgotten. Some concern late witness testimony: 1) Earliest witness testimony is usually the most accurate EXCEPT IF IT WAS COERCED OR INFLUENCED. 2) If a witness radically changes his or her testimony many years later, care must be taken to determine WHY. 3) If the witness does not radically change his or her testimony, but much later adds new information, care must be taken to learn why the new information was not released earlier. Sometimes, one learns that it was, but selective reportage obscured the fact. Sometimes, a person simply forgot. Other times, the person wanted to wait until the other person died so that they would not have to worry about a lawsuit (this was my reason for waiting). 4) If the witness did not speak out for many years, and is a new witness, care must be taken to learn why the information was not released earlier, and why the new witness did not stand forth. In most cases, fear of not being believed, of losing one's job, of being accused of supporting an unpopular cause or position, of losing security or approval from employers, family members, and so on, influence the timing of the release of new information. Rarely, a person was never asked a certain question and/or refused to volunteer information unless confronted. Now, let's look at an example of late testimony, and how Mr. Reitzes treats it. The following is an example of late testimony that Mr. Reitzes stated he rejected. He also stated here that he rejects all late testimony: The exchange below concerns Dave Reitzes' attitude toward late information elicited from a credible witness, Lou Ivon, by a credible researcher, Bill Davy (whose writings and research, however, had been previously attacked by Dave Reitzes): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In 1995, Lou Ivon, an investigator for Garrison, told Davy that in February 1967 he had met with a frightened David Ferrie, who admitted doing contract work for the CIA and who knew Oswald and Shaw." REITZES: Even granting the hearsay is true, where's it say that Garrison got any leads from Ferrie? It doesn't. You expect everyone to just assume that's what is meant? [...] And had you ever bothered to interview Ivon yourself, slacker? No? Then appreciate the fact that Davy did your legwork for you. Davy's interview of anyone, nearly 3 decades after the event, is meaningless. It proves zilch, which is just one of the reasons I found the citation meaningless. I really don't care what Ivon says today about the case. Nor do I care what Peterson says Davy says Ivon says. What is pertinent is what Ivon and Garrison were saying back then about the case. Do you have anything along those lines?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reitzes says he will not accept information given so late: "Davy's interview of anyone, nearly 3 decades after the event, is meaningless." But in February, 2001, Mr. Reitzes has to explain why he was going to accept late testimony from Patricia Lambert, who supports his theories. Now he says something very interesting about Davy's new material from Ivon that he formerly rejected: "Regarding Patricia Lambert's "False Witness"...We can argue about the theme of her book, but until I see some reason to doubt the accuracy of the factual material, I will accept her citations of documents and interviews as accurate. So in this matter, I accept that Alcock said what she related that he said. Before you go comparing this to my feelings about Bill Davy's book, I did the same comparison with primary sources. Davy was likewise careful to present factual material substantially accurately, although I quibble with some of his interpretations. For the same reason, I am willing to accept that Lou Ivon did say the things Davy quotes him as saying." ================================================= A spokesman will say one thing and later say another as it suits him to promote his viewpoint. A researcher will present the facts and, if mistaken, will make a point of making a retraction that is not buried deep within another message somewhere. In just this one example (there are more) I have shown that Mr. Reitzes says he will not accept late testimony from Mr. Davy given him by Mr. Ivon, but later he WILL accept late testimony (that he agrees with) from Patricia Lambert, and oh, by the way, now he DOES accept the testimony of Ivon as reported by Davy. Students and scholars relying on Reitzes' former opinion would hardly be expected to have to search for his change of mind (a change of mind necessary to be able to accept new testimony from Patricia Lambert). Finally, (and perhaps we can now end this thread now on Mr. Reitzes'being a SPOKESMAN rather than a researcher), we should look at a theory that Mr. Reitzes presented on his website about the Clinton, LA witnesses who say they saw Lee Oswald, Dave Ferrie, and Clay Shaw together. The witnesses were very different from each other, composed of KKK members, for example, and CORE members (blacks who were trying to get blacks in Clinton to register to vote.). These were odd bedfellows, and they would not be expected to be in collusion about anything, since the KKK people were putting the CORE people in jail that same year. Now let's look at the argument Mr. Reitzes, in his attempts to discredit the Clinton witnesses, offers to explain why they might have been in conspiracy with each other. Researcher Robert Harris speaks to Mr. Reitzes about a theory Reitzes proposed to 'prove' the Clinton witnesses were lying: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "David, In your article, *impeaching clinton* you suggest that CORE members Corrie Collins and William Dunn conspired with the KKK to falsely place Oswald and his friends in Clinton La. In order to make them go along with their scheme, you suggest that the Klan threatened to connect Oswald to CORE, and that such a connection might destroy the organization." Mr. Reitzes replied: "You're making all this up, Bob. Nowhere do I say that Collins or Dunn conspired with the KKK, and nowhere do I say that they were threatened in the manner you suggest." HARRIS: ...Lets go directly to your article (some of this appeared in my original post, but David snipped it), and perhaps you will tell us what you *really* meant to say: >****************************************************** The question that keeps arising, however, is how the Ku Klux Klan could benefit from the claim that Lee Oswald merely stood in line at a CORE voter registration drive. Since Jim Garrison's death in 1992, a number of previously unknown documents have turned up amidst his private papers, and one such document may well be the "smoking gun" that answers that question. In a memorandum of January 22, 1968, Andrew Sciambra writes, "Mr. Palmer informed me that John Manchester has recently told him that right around the time the black Cadillac was in Clinton, he remembers seeing a boy who fit Oswald's description coming out of a CORE meeting in Clinton and when he left the CORE meeting, Manchester followed him and the car went in the direction of Jackson, Louisiana."(56) Recall how quickly the Fair Play for Cuba Committee folded -- in only a matter of weeks -- once it had been linked, however superficially, with the alleged assassin of President Kennedy. >****************************************************** David, your claim or implication, or whatever you wish to now call it, is patently absurd, which I presume you have known all along, and is the reason you are now denying you even said it. If the Klan really thought they could destroy CORE by connecting it with Oswald, they certainly would not have used that to blackmail the organization. They would have gone ahead and tried to publicize their claim." Mr. Reitzes then replied: "I agree with you, Mr. Harris. Of course, I don't make any such claim, so I'm not sure what your point is. My question remains: Why not deal with the facts, hmm?" HARRIS: "David, I have cited the actual words from your article. What other "facts" are at issue here?" Mr. Reitzes then dodges the question, saying: "Do you have any credible evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone or otherwise, was in East Feliciana Parish, Mr. Harris? If so, now would be a good time to present it. Lurkers, find out why Mr. Harris dwells solely upon the unverifiable issue of motive and refuses to discuss the documented facts that the Clinton story is a fraud." Mr. Harris then returns the reader to the matter in question: "Of course you didn't (make such a claim) David. So when can we expect you to correct your article by inserting some kind of statement which makes it clear, how idiotic it would be to believe such a thing? (When will you)...make it clear that there is not even a shred of evidence to support the notion that these men lied?? I have an even better idea, David. Just in case some other poor soul misunderstands you the way I did, why don't you put all these recent denials you are now posting, right into the article?! Why don't you make it crystal clear to your readers, how preposterous it would be for them to think that the Klan intimidated Collins and/or Dunn to make them perjure themselves? Are you going to do that David? Robert Harris ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A scholar or a student who goes to Dave Reitzes'website and reads about the Clinton Witnesses will find that Mr. Reitzes did not change his article, even though he admitted, here, that "I agree with you, Mr. Harris. Of course, I don't make any such claim..." I do not take pleasure in pointing out these problems with Mr. Reitzes'writings. My concern is that students and scholars will believe that his statements are that of a Researcher, when in fact, Mr. Reitzes places information in the light that best supports what he stands for as a Spokesman. How does one identity a Spokesman? Usually, it's hard, unkless one is a witness who knows the truth. Also, if one has been misquoted, or is a researcher who realizes, as Mr, Harris did, what is going on. Hence, to understand what is going on, distinctions must be made among the sets of people most active in the Kennedy Assassination information network: (1) Spokesmen -- such as Mr. Reitzes and Dr. John McAdams, who may present information in the same style as researchers, but guide students and readers, inevitably, to preconceived conclusions. A common characteristic, as shown above: will not retract or change misleading statements unless forced or shamed into doing so. May present hearsay as fact. May include judgmental terms such as "claims to be" and "wants us to believe" and "tries to convince..."etc. as if the reader has a different opinion which is now being challenged by an untruth. (2) Researchers, such as Peter Dale Scott, Harrison Livingstone, Edward Haslam, Jerry Rose, Greg Parker, James Olmstead, Martin Shackelford, and Clark Wilkins. Present facts. Attempt to present both sides of an argument fairly. When presenting theories, clearly indicate same. Try to obtain all possible material. Try not to select only material supporting the theories they present. Will retract and change statements when errors are discovered. (3) Information gatherers-- include such persons as Jerry P. Shinley, and Stephen Roy (AKA Blackburst) who provide important information to the research community and who function best when they present all, not a portion, of what is available to them. (4) Witnesses -- of every sort, honest and dishonest, important or obscure, whose statements are selected by members of the other groups according to their functions, and whose statements are sometimes gathered independently by reporters-- such as Marina Oswald Porter, Dave Ferrie, Robert Oswald, Al Maddox, Mrs. Garner, Lou Ivon, William Livesay, and myself. (5) reporters -- who hap (or are ordered) upon information, witnesses, researchers, and spokesmen, bringing out stories, and sometimes conclusions based on their interviews and records made available to them (unless they are, in secret, a Spokesman... note the recent scandal of government ads posing as "news"-- a prime example of the function of a "spokesman"posing as a "researcher"or, in that case, as a "reporter"). (6) Recruits: who will join any of the above groups according to their desire or premeditated function. they may or may not be ignorant. They may or may not be honest, independent, or real people. Recruits may turn into any of the above, but typically drop out after a short time. They often provide temporary support to a Spokesman. (7) NayDisJokers: Naysayers, Disrupters, and Jokers: Those who, in forums and newsgroups, and in chatrooms, etc. insert jokes, attacks, disrupt threads, derail arguments, and in other ways stop the arguments from progressing by deflecting to another subject. NayDisJokers generally support Spokemen. They may be recruits or they may simply want to support their favorite Spokesmen. Such persons rarely supply new facts. They can usually be identified as NayDisJokers because the thread or argument gets derailed or turns into a bunch of jokes. Siometimes personal attacks are used, and if the person being attacked does not respond, the NayDisJoker will say that they are avoiding the attacker and must, therefore have a reason for doing so. In fact, many very prodcutive research threads end with the comments of NayDisJokers, and the work is then lost. This is the last material I wish to publish at this time concerning Mr. Reitzes and his function as a Spokesman. My intention is not to harm him, but only to point out the inconsistencies, position, rhetorical devices, and agenda promulgated by Mr. Reitzes, particularly since he has misrepresented my statements and my testimony in what seems to be several attempts to seem to be presenting "research"-- though he has never interviewed me. I have presented this material not only to point out the problems Mr. Reitzes has in presenting himself as a researcher, but also to provide a guide and a warning to students and scholars in their search for the truth regarding the Kennedy Assasssination. An understanding of the above categories will help, I hope, to clear the smoke and fumes so that students and scholars might find their way through the disaster zone of disinformation and false leads to the true smoking guns. Anyone who wishes to talk to me about my status as witness is welcome to do so, as I have stated several times now, by starting a new thread. Demanding me to post evidence in this thread, especially when I have stated my book will soon be coming out (-- and these are very general and broad demands-- ) will not be answered. I consider them to be NayDisJoker interferences. Any particular question, such as some aspect of my relationship to Lee Oswald, I will be happy to answer and may also provide evidence for same, in a different thread. I repeat again that I have provided evidence in private to well known investigators who are satisfied with my status as a witness who intimately knew Lee Harvey Oswald. I wish to protect my own living witnesses, as well as some evidence we are still trying to find. Some of my living witnesses have already experienced intimidation and threats. In private, much is being accomplished. I wish to thank the many people who are sending me private emails of encouragement. God bless you all! Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald
  8. Dixie... I am sorry if I upset you. ==j==
  9. Well, Dixie, now you have written Nancy and she has mentioned it immediately. You wrote all of that about Lancer 2000 ---and at the bottom apologized, for it was Lancer 1999 that you were really talking about. I would appreciate your going back and editing your post to say 1999, and I hope, as you do so, to remove statements about my situqation. By the eway, I have emails from Mary offering me to stay in her suite with her in 2000. She was going to pay all my bills, including transportation. She wanted me to use a fake name. that is why I turned down her offer and rented a suite on my own nickel. I canceled it after realizing that people would not have time to make decnet/lengthed interviews. More on that is below, for it is important that a witness be interviewed properly. I do hope you will edit your post for the reasons I´ve stated. Thanks very much. I hope you will enjoy your correspondence with Nancy Eldreth. She demands things now, or else, even when repreatedly told that the book is coming out this year. She also will eventually show your emails to everybody, so be careful what you write. meanwhile, back to the topic. °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° INTERVIEWS AND RHETORIC BY RESEARCHERS, WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO MR. DAVY´S COMMENTS ABOUT MR. DAVE REITZES°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° We are discussinG Dave Reitzes' rhetoric and research methods, since he puiblishes a great deal on the Internet which affects those scholars and students who read it. The websites look professional, AND there are many citations, and Mr. reitzes seems to be presenting information correctly. But he does He? Mr. Reitzes is not known as a man who seeks to interview witnesses. He usually relies, as do most researchers in this case, on quotes from others. SECONDARY SOURCES: "48 Chromosome Knowledge" I am reminded how for many years people thought the human nucleus had 48 chromosomes --because the male chromosome XY type was shown in the first photo of the elicted chromosomal materials, ALONG with the female XX type. Everybody quoted it that way for some two decades, as I recall, until somebody noticed that the first quote stating humans had 48 chromosomes was wrong. Somebody should have asked the scientist who posted the photo how many chromosomes were in the typical human cell's nucleus. Nobody interviewed HIM. They relied on the photo that was published, they counted the chromosomes, and came up with 48. Personal interviews CAN often bring out the truth-- sometimes even if the person interviewed lies, for their statements might contrast with what they said previously. Now, I am talking about live interviews, depositions, audio and video tapes, and statements made in the presence of an additional witness who can vouch that the statement was not coerced and is accurately transcribed (even then transcribed statements are occasionally redacted). The quality of the interview of course rests on knowing the situation at the time of the interview. People tended to lie about Lee Oswald right after the assassination. The same people, years later, often moderated their statements or even said they had not been quoted correctly. orest Pena told The warren Commission nothing about the relationship between Warren DeBrueys and Lee Oswald. Later, several sources confirmed that Pena had been threatened. Eventually, Pena told everything, and his progress toward telling the truth is understandable and he is to be admired for finally telling the truth. Such a witness should not be discredited since there is proof that the witness was afraid to begin with. These matters must be taken into consideration. In the case of WILLIAM DAVY AND DAVE REITZES, an example of how failing to interview subjects can turn even Mr. Reitzes' "good" research awry is presented here (remember, I am not trying to say that Mr. Reitzes is a poor investigator. He digs into things. But I am trying to say that he is selective, and reports as it suits him to support his personal beliefs, often using rhetorical devices, and rarely conducting live interviews. That means he is not really a researcher. He is, instead, a spokesman.). William Davy realized that Mr. Reitzes had a propensity for making statements without getting interviews from living witnesses. A good example is what happened to me. Mr. Reitzes never spoke to me one moment 'live.' He never visited me. Mr. Davy wrote `Let Justice Be done`, which is filled with the results of many live witness interviews, and he is sensitive when Mr. Reitzes ´corrects´him based on " 48 chromosome" knowledge: Concerning Mr. Reitzes'methodology, Davy wrote this (among many other complaints, after Reitzes attacked his book): "Reitzes’ ...claims I "attempt to rehabilitate nutball witness Charles Spiesel (Davy 173-4)." In fact, I do no such thing. On the very pages Reitzes cites I list all of Spiesel’s wild, paranoid claims. I criticize his story as being too pat and describe his testimony as "lunatic." Is this Reitzes’ idea of rehabilitation? It was Judge Haggerty himself who thought Spiesel may have been dismissed too easily and I note that in the book. Reitzes then writes "Davy also presents a dubious new theory of his own when he attempts to link the mental hospital in Jackson, where Oswald allegedly was seeking a job, to the CIA’s infamous MK/ULTRA mind control experiments." No, this was recalled to us by Dr. Alfred Butterworth, one of the East Louisiana State Hospital’s physicians and corroborated by other hospital employees. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many of the Jackson hospital employees did you interview?` Of course I also report on secret goings-on at Jackson. In my book, I include the supporting statement of a living witness who himself was a subject of medical testing at Jackson almost at the same time of the experiences i recount at Jackson. Davy complains, justifiably, that he interviewed a witness to support his statement, knowing that Reitzes interviewed nobody, and that reitzes relies on secondary materials. Wrote Davy next: `But less commendable, according to Reitzes, is my "acceptance of Daniel Campbell’s assertions that Banister was a "bagman for the CIA" and "was running guns to Alpha 66 in Miami (There is no evidence to support either claim)." I guess Reitzes naively expects a CIA document to appear affirming something like that. While he’s waiting, he may be interested to know that this was confirmed by Dan Campbell’s brother, Allen as well as close Banister associate, Joe Newbrough. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many of Banister’s operatives did you interview?" In fact, Mr. Reitzes rarely interviews anyone, but will refute the claims of writers such as Davy who can back up their statements with live interviews, relying himself on secondary sources. So, we now point out that living witness statements are preferable to secondary sources, especially where the conditions of the interviews are known. Such statements can be lies. I have seen interviews by the FBI and Secret Service where the person being interviewed stated the interviews were not correctly reported. Therefore direct quotes should be part of the report of an interview. The direct quote must also be IN CONTEXT. If a person said in a live interview, `I have always believed Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy until I Mr. X told me his side of the story.` If this is reported as `I have always believed Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy...`then the ´live+´interview has been distorted. needless to say, I have seen my own quotes similarly distorted from their original context. All these factors must be taken into account. In the end, judging the quality of a researcher´s work includes these considerations: 1) live interviews reported in context whenever possible 2) quotations not taken out of context 3) balanced presentation where conflicts exist (cannot ignore important arguments `on the other side´) 4) willingness to post corrections when shown to be in error 5) avoidance of use of pejorative or prejudicial statements (I removed, for example, a statement made by Davy against Reitzes that was overly prejudiced against Reitzes, where the three dots are located in the quote). 6) the use of footnotes or end notes to back up statemenhts... and when checked, that these notes actually exist and are accurate (errors may happen, but they should not be chronic) ... and avoiding using ONESELF as the `source`of a statement (I was astonished to find one researcher quoting his earlier works over and over again as his ´source´of information) 7) if a ´researcher´ constantly publishes material only supporting one side of a theory, unless that person is a WITNESS, he or she is displaying an AGENDA. A witness has the right to seek supporting evidence, though every witness should know what is out there against him or her in matters of controversy such as the Kennedy assasssination, especailly since lying occurs (sadly, by officials, too). A researcher has to seek evidence for and against his or her thesis. If only one side is presented, the person is not a researcher. A witness can legitimately defend only his or her side, because that witness is speaking from experience. researchers must decide if what the witness says is true, distorted, or false. Honest researchers take care and time to do live interviews and to present both sides of the picture in witness testimony sitruations. Otherwise, they are said to have an AGENDA and are being SELECTIVE in presenting their evidence. °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° Final comment: There is so much evidence ---and there are so many conflicting statements in the Kennedy assassination materials---- that most people are overwhelmed. I´ve been more fortunate, because, as a witness, I know what Lee Oswald, for example, really was doing on certain days. I knew him as a living, breathing person. This helps me to quickly sort through conflicting stories. Therefore, I am also in a position to know who has been lying. It is a distressing position to be in, but one I take with humility and dedication. I also know whom to respect among present `researchers´in the JFK research community. And who should be rebuked for muddying the waters fore their own purposes. Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald
  10. ELDRETH WROTE>>>>Judyth you lied to me about your address and your email address. Uwe told me if you moved out of the country you will not be able to have the same address. YOU LIED TO ME. Uwe (David Weaver) hasn't told you the truth, if that's what he told you. I moved, but I pay for a server to keep my old Holland email address. I have my mail forwarded to me from my old address as a friend lives there now. I kept my Holland bank account but that doesn't mean I live there any more than my Dallas bank account means I live there. People have been getting my emails quite awhile describing the country I now live in, and that includes the weird food. I have had to eat a LOT of squash and pumpkin here. You call me a xxxx as easily as you blow your nose. Go ahead and believe what you like. My REAL friends know I am not lying when I said I moved. Find somebody else to accuse of lying. I am surprised John is allowing you to carry on like this. ==j==
  11. ELDRETH WROTE: IS to go to a private investigator with the information and as much proof as you could show him and turned this inside out yourself. YOU DID NOT EVER DO THAT. I went to Sixty Minutes, they hired private investigators, I have emails proving they did not walk away from the story. Enemies arose, they were blocked from higher up. I am still on good terms with Sixty Minutes, who also paid me for lost wages, I have the check copies, something they would never have done if I had been the slightest thought dishonest. They knew i was telling the truth. Don Hewitt said so on C-Span. Nigel Turner took 38 hours of film and condensed it into 44 minutes. He interviewed dozens of supporting witnesses. He interviewed me for two weeks, every day, all day. He ended up for the first time ever devoting an entire MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY to ONLY my story. Because he saw the evidence. He also understood why it should not be published. Do you know how many people's lives have been ruined over this? Mine has been, yet you demand what you do not understand, and over which blood has been shed. You have not gained my trust or you would have seen why it has to be protected, why the witnesses need protection. People were scared spitless to be seen as witnesses. One received a threat from the Mafia. any more ideas? You still have a job. I lost mine speaking out. An FBI employee complained and after 17 years of teaching, my teaching career was wrecked because now I am a 'notorious' character who 'had a love affair with an accused assasssin.' You still have a car. Mine was totalled in an 'accident' in Dallas that destroyed my health. A second 'ACCIDENT' ruined any chance of being healthy again. Two car in cidents. Two brain concussions. By the grace of God, I'm still alive. I had to sell my third car because I rec'd a death threat and left the country. Overseas, I wasn't harrassed, followed, pestered, hounded, but I am very lonely and miss my family. You have your daughter and family and a job. Be grateful and leave me alone. I have had to sell everything, just to pay rent in a foreign country. And at my age and now in poor health, I have to look on with amazement as you demand that you will not ait for the book coming out this year, but demand everything NOW. I know you have a car, a job, family nearby, you can walk well, you can see well, you do not have daily headaches and memory problems, and you have opportunities to go to the Archives that I never had. I had to leave the country after being harrassed and threatened and terribly miss my friends and children and grandchildren. I'm paying a price. Demand away, you'll get no more trust or answers from me. I have already placed everything in the hands of TRUSTED people. That is NOT you. It is not meant at this time for publication on the internet, so go ahead, carry on because I'm not doing as you want. David Weaver, John McAdams, Dave Reitzes, and Bob Vernon. Those are your friends, I hope they treat you well. You have not earned my trust, on the contrary, you handed over emails I wrote to you to Bob Vernon, and just recently, you sent out some more. God knows why. You are your own worst enemy. Judyth Vary Baker
  12. To anyone who accuses me of not having evidence: Besides the documents and materials proving my proximity to Lee Oswald, I have statements (made before witnesses) of several persons, not related to me, who say on film and on audiotape that they observed me and Lee together as lovers. I also have supporting statements from my sister, yes. These films and audiotapes in the hands of several honest researchers now. They have been released to be made available to researchers everywhere at no financial gain whatsoever to me. I gave them freely, just as I also gave up the deMohrenschildt tapes after selling one set to make enough money to send the tapes to be copied and then to send them out free to researchers everywhere, after they had been kept from the public by a selfish person for thirty years. As I said, I am working to get the truth out. My book will be out this year, with quotations from these living witnesses and supporting witnesses, as well. People can consult Martin Shackelford on how to obtain tapes and films of my witnesses. Best regards to all, Judyth Vary Baker
  13. Nancy, I feel sorry for you. I foolishly befriended you when everybody over at Lancer was picking on you. have often felt sorry for underdogs. I was a mental health counselor for years and was certified by the State of Florida, District VI, in 1988. I recognized that you had some serious problems and wanted to help you. I offered a friendly hand. But it was hopeless. You often misunderstood what you heard and read and believed things happened to you that were impossible. You've gotten worse this past year. Now you are trying to make people believe additional impossible things about me. For example, you told Bob Vernon that I sent you an email (which you conveniently could not find) that I said I had been placed in a mental hospital and had gone through electroshock and tortured to forget Lee Oswald's name. You gave Mr. Vernon some shocking details. You gave him some "quotations"even. I told you that I had worked for a psychiatrist, Dr. James Stuart of Hauser Clinic, and had WITNESSED electroshocks. I suppose I should not have used the word 'witnessed." That did NOT mean 'experienced them.' You have some problems and need help, nancy. I tried to help, and eventually, you resented that. You make up a lot of things. I do not wish to embarrass you any more than I have. Tonight you exploded with similar junk on other newsgroups. You want me to answer Mr. Vernon's questions. the man deserves nothing but to be ignored. I privately gave my answers to several others to prove I knew the answers to his questions. I don not respect Mr. Vernon enough to answer him. You posted tonight on another newsgroup that I lied to you. I could send people copies of your emails where you accused me of lying, and the emails to which you were responding to. They are ridiculous. You have problems understanding what you read, Nancy. I befriended you because everybody picked on you and I felt sorry for you. Do not force me to say more to defend myself. Please see a doctor. Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker
  14. To all: "David Weaver" calling me names and objecting that he can go ahead and use a fake name on this forum doesn't impress me. Let's get back to the subject thjat I hope will help scholars and students understand why rhetorical devices are being used by Warren Commission apologists to hide the truth about the Kennedy Assassination, and why their arguments are still being listened to after all this time. Basically, people need a coherent STORY that makes sense about the JFK assassination. The Warrren Commission materials do not, when examined closely, make much sense. For example, there is no real motive for the young father of two little girls he adored, who was only 24 and NOT the loneer OR the total failure he was puirported to be, who stated he admired Kennedy, to shoot the President. It doesn't make sense and I, as a living witness, remain to tell you it's simply not true. Therefore every possible means must be taken to discredit the living witness. This is done by reminding people that any "story"given by an eyewitness "must"be based on "evidence"or it cannot be believed. Of course we know that many people have gone to prison based on eyewitness testimony, where nothing but the testimony was involved. Witnesses rarely can produce "all"the evidence needed to back up their story. However, if a witness can prove proximity to Oswald, as I can, it is important to at least listen to the report. Then comes the rhetoric. A report by a witness is always a 'story"compared to the 'facts.' What people do not realize at times is that The Warren Commission has also presented 'a story"-- and the facts it uses to uphold its story have been discovered in many cases to be flawed. The Warren Commission apologists can attack a witness such as me as often as they please, but they, themselves are wide open to criticism for: (1) witholdng thousands of files still classified secret or, if released, filled with blacked out sections, often covgering the entire document. (2) sending Joannides to represent the CIA to the HSCA is an example of deliberately hampering even official government inquiries into the truth (3) a stubborn refusal to adjust to reality after the public has been made aware of a cover-up, even if the cover-up was for national security forty-some years ago -- it's time the truth came out. Most witnesses still alive try to keep low. I did. I knew what was ahead if I opened my mouth. I'm presently jobless and have lost all my possessions and even my health after four years of harrassment and character assassination. Living witnesses are a big pain to the Official Version. Rhetorical devices against witnesses are easy to use. "PROVE IT" is easy to say. Ten years from now a survivor of the Tsunami, living in Sweden, who has lost passports and all remnants of 'evidence" might mention his or her experiences and not be believed. People involved with major figures in the Kennedy assassination rarely kept incriminating evidence. Evcen today I am threatened with arrest by some people for 'failing to contact the authorities' when of course my interference would have increased the danger of the informants and only put off Kennedy's execution to another spot. I do not think that anybody who knew of Kennedy's assassination in advance ever told anybody, except for such lost souls as Rose Cherami-- who wasn't believed. I was twenty years old, living in Florida, under the watchful eye of Santo Trafficante, who would have stomped me out had I said a word. The only way to discredit a witness-- who after all provides a framework, a narrative-- is to destroy the reputation of the witness or to say he or she simply is mistaken. Conally was WRONG about not being shot at the same time as JFK. His wife was WRONG, too. End of story. Historian Michael Kurtz was WRONG reporting he was in the same room with Lee Oswald and former FBI chief Guy Banister, who were working together. Orest Pena was WRONG when he reported Lee oswald and FBI agent Warren Debrueys meeting and speaking togetheron several occasions. I am WRONG that I met Guy Banister and was introduced to him by Lee Oswald, even though two secretaries there reported a "Mrs. Oswald"who was "lovelÿ"had been introduced to them by Lee Oswald in the presence of Guy Banister. "Mrs. Oswald"-- Marina-- said she had never been there. "Mrs. Oswald"Lee's mother was not 'lovely.' When I stand forth and explain that this was me-- that I am the missing link -- I am "LYING." Where is the evidence that I'm lying? If this were all that I could say, it would be different. But I have proven Lee and I were hired by the same small sub company of a small company , ON THE SAME DAY, then transferred together one week later to the larger Reily organization, and that my last day of work was Aug. 9, the day Lee was arrested. I was terminated because a Reily employee saw me speaking to Lee just before his demonstration. I kept many records proving other contacts with Lee that a number of researchers have seen. Tellingly, Reitzes, Weaver, McAdams, and others who attack me have not seen these documents. Nor, with the exception of one person, have they ever met me more than a moment. BELOW, FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS, I PRESENT THE PROBLEM THAT FACES THOSE TRYING TO GET TO THE TRUTH AS IT IS SEEN BY AN ACADEMIC WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT RHETORIC IS JUST A TOOL. WITNESSES CAN BE BATTERED AND HARMED BY RHETORIC. I remain steadfast in my testimony, and as time passes and more repuutable and honest researchers contact me and investigate me, the dishonest attackers must rely more and more on name calling and invective. With patience and consistency, I will present not only the facts, but the true story, of Lee Harvey Oswald. People need to know the truth-- and the framework. I can give them that, and in my book-- which people have desperately tried to stop from getting published--the entire framework of facts and the true story-- will be presented. There will ALWAYS be rhetorical objections to my story. But the only objections that critics can make of me as a witness will be attempts to defame my character-- because there is no doubt, for those who have investigated me thoroughly, that I was Lee Oswald's lover. There will always be those who will deny it. But the logic and the way I can show how all the loose ends really come together will make sense. Documents can always be forged. But I, as a witness, cannot be duplicated. Nor can they intimidate me to change my story. Hence, the name calling, the rudeness, and the lack of evidence against me being what it is, the character assassination that must take its place. Below--for scholars and thoughtful readers-- a goopd analysis of rhetoric as used in the kennedy assassination chronicles. I hope this will help the more intelligent readers to assess the nature of the problem. Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald =================== reference material for students below======== from: Sophistic Synthesis in JFK Assassination Rhetoric Roger Gilles, Grand Valley State University 1994 Presented at CCCC San Diego, 1993 (ED 400 532) http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/higher_critic..._Synthesis.html WHAT WE "KNOW" ABOUT THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION Why are people still writing about the Kennedy assassination? We might reasonably assume that professional historians have by now sifted through the evidence and established beyond a reasonable doubt who killed Kennedy-and how and why. But this is not the case; indeed, as several historians have themselves pointed out, academic historians have been nearly silent on the Kennedy assassination (Kurtz, "Assassination" 1; Kurtz, Crime ix; Lesar 469; Wrone 332). One historian who has written extensively on the assassination, Michael L. Kurtz, has received little support from his peers. Critics-even those who share his belief in a conspiracy- question everything from his accuracy and his use of sources to the degree of his speculation and his overall conclusions. David R. Wrone, for example, points out that Kurtz relies too much on Warren Commission documents. According to Wrone, Kurtz "accepts many key documents with little question" (332). Wrone also accuses Kurtz of breaking "the cardinal rule of history never to speculate but to remain faithful to evidence even if it leaves perpetual blanks in the narrative" (333). These and other criticisms point to two key dilemmas facing all assassination researchers in their quest for "knowledge" about the case: they are attempting to construct a credible reality based on a vast yet clearly incomplete world of evidence, so any reconstruction that remains "faithful to evidence" will surely include unsatisfying "blanks" that may threaten the overall plausibility of the whole; and they are basing their reconstructions on official documents, eyewitness testimonies, and photographic records that have in one way or another been filtered through the government and questioned by one critic or another over the course of three decades, so virtually any "theory" that draws on some records while ignoring or discounting others stands subject to a wide range of questions and criticisms. The first dilemma may explain the lack of academic theorizing about the assassination. There are plenty of records about the assassination, but the amount of "admissable evidence" is open to debate. In academic terms, nothing in the twenty-six Warren Commission volumes and 360 cubic feet of related records or the twelve House volumes and 400 cubic feet of related records can be accepted uncritically. And because of well-publicized hints of government involvement in the assassination or in some kind of post-assassination cover-up, many critical readers find it difficult to accept any assassination records that have passed through government filters. Indeed, Wrone insists very plainly in The Journal of Southern History that even the most basic facts of the case remain elusive to those looking for legal or academic certainty: "No credible evidence connects any group or individual, including Oswald, to the murder" (333). Without a body of generally accepted evidence to draw upon, historians find it difficult to put together anything but a patchy picture indeed of the assassination. The second dilemma is equally silencing. Everyone involved in moving beyond the paucity of generally accepted evidence and theorizing about the Kennedy assassination must accept some data while discounting other data; this is necessarily the case, just as it is necessarily the case in all theorizing, all historicizing, all arguing. Yet academic reviewers criticize Kurtz for being selective about accepting and omitting certain evidence from the Warren Commission and House Select Committee investigations (Garrow 304; Lesar 469). Both inside and outside of academia, most theories about the assassination are met with charges of faulty selection of evidence. As I've mentioned, almost no evidence in the case can be viewed with any degree of certainty. Those who argue against a conspiracy select a certain subset of evidence and interpret it in a particular way; those who argue for a conspiracy select a different subset of evidence and interpret it in a particular way. Both sides are, in their way, dealing with "probable truth," but the probability of their truths is dependent on that very unscientific process of selection. Because every theorist is by necessity selecting only a very small subset of possible records on which to base his or her theory, every theorist is open to easy criticism: "Your theory merely matches the evidence you've deliberately chosen to consider. Now, if you consider this document...." The reasoning almost inevitably becomes circular. Not too surprisingly, the majority of conspiracy theories are in fact not positive theories at all-arguments drawing on specific records to build a full and coherent theory-but criticisms of the official theory put forth by the Warren Commission in 1964. Some of the major, best-selling conspiracy books-Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment, Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After the Fact, and Anthony Summers' Conspiracy, for example-are little more than critiques of the official version. The writers admit quite openly that there isn't enough evidence to put together any kind of positive theory; their argument is simply that the one positive theory put forth by the government is wrong. Most such conspiracists end their volumes by calling on the government to declassify the records and even to reopen the investigation so that an alternative theory might be constructed. When writers do put forth a positive theory-as Kurtz the historian does, as David Lifton does in Best Evidence, and as Jim Garrison does in On the Trail of the Assassins-critics on all sides leap to question and refute evidence and conclusions alike. Perhaps more historical research would overcome these problems. But to conduct primary research on leads suggested by the Warren Commission and subsequent investigations, including Jim Garrison's, is now next to impossible given the dwindling number of eyewitnesses, the continuing passage of time, and the continuing inaccessibility of certain records related to the assassination (as late as April 1992, 2% of the archived Warren Commission records and all 400 cubic feet of the archived House records remained classified [McReynolds 384, 387-88]; since then, a good number of selected records have been released, but literally millions of pages remain unavailable [Kurtz, Crime lvi]). Plenty of independent information-much of it wildly conflicting-has been uncovered by a variety of private researchers and public agencies in the thirty years since the assassination, but this has simply added to the vast database from which any theory must be constructed. In any event, taking on a project of these proportions would be, as James H. Lesar notes in connection to Kurtz's effort, a "gargantuan task" (469). These are serious, and silencing, dilemmas for researchers tied in general to what Kathleen E. Welch calls the Heritage School of rhetoric-and in particular to the Aristotelian, "logic-dominant" framework for valid argumentation as presented by rhetoricians in the Heritage School (Welch 53). Despite thirty years' time and an overwhelming amount of potential evidence in the case, academic historians still "know" nothing about who killed Kennedy. Their own logic, cautious and even admirable as it is, prevents them from drawing conclusions. As long as assassination theorists and critics subscribe to what Welch calls "exaggerated reason, hyperrationalism, and a procedural way of thinking that not only excludes emotion but in fact looks down on it" (37), no JFK assassination theory is likely to generate consensus. Ironically, Kurtz himself offers little hope that historians will ever agree, "even if all the evidence currently withheld by the government were released" ("Assassination" 19). This is why I am convinced that the Kennedy assassination must be treated as a rhetorical, rather than a historical, entity. If any public consensus is to be reached, it will be reached through rhetoric in all its guises, not merely through the Aristotelian version of Heritage School rhetoric. <snip> The fact that conspiracists seek to turn the Kennedy assassination into "story" by positioning it in terms of larger forces is at once the key to their rhetorical success and the main reason for their critical failure in a culture still dominated by an Aristotelian analytical lens. Early assassination accounts-the Warren Report, Jim Bishop's The Day Kennedy Was Shot, and Manchester's The Death of a President-all recount an essentially nonsensical assassination, a random event which disrupted the altogether different, Arthurian narrative of Kennedy's presidency. Then, as conspiracists such as Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, and Jim Garrison began to "make sense" of the assassination, media pundits and politicians attacked them for using evidence selectively, for speculating, for seeing more in the assassination than there actually was, and so on. It wasn't right to make sense, or story, where officially there was none. "Framing" the assassination was, to those subscribing to the official version of events, either delusional or irresponsible-certainly irrational, and irrationality is one quality a traditional Aristotelian worldview cannot accept. The criticisms have gone the other way, too. Conspiracists themselves seek to "explain away" the Warren Commission Report as a deliberate political attempt to manipulate the American public. In Rush to Judgment, conspiracist Mark Lane states flatly that "[t]he Commission's responsibility to maintain public confidence in the American institutions overshadowed its mandate to secure and report the facts" (368-69). At least two academic historians agree that the Warren Commission had such motives. Michael Kurtz states that "the evidence makes it clear that [the Commission's] primary purpose was to put an end to the rumors and speculations and to convince the American public that no conspiracy existed" ("Assassination" 4). Marcus Raskin claims that the Commission was primarily concerned with "using the language and structure of conservative authority to move the nation from dis-ease to ease about the events of the Kennedy assassination" (487). In general, conspiracists view the Commission's findings as protective of its own particular worldview. The theories--and criticisms--of conspiracists and nonconspiracists suggest the contrasting worldviews that guide their thinking. Conspiracists tend to offer up "structural" analyses of the assassination, suggesting in broad terms that history is the result of deliberate attempts by competing forces to gain or maintain control. Nonconspiracists tend to offer up "instrumental" analyses of the assassination that suggest that history is dominated by individuals-some acting with the force of legitimate power and some seizing power for brief, often terrifying, moments. At stake is more than just the factual "truth" about who killed John F. Kennedy. At stake is a larger, less fact-based cultural and even mythical "truth" about politics and government. Ultimately, then, perhaps the most successful assassination theories will be the ones that can not only argue for an Aristotelian "probable truth," but also appeal to or construct a larger cultural mythology that helps a majority of Americans understand the world they live in. This is the sort of rhetorical feat Susan Jarratt ascribes to sophists Protagoras and Gorgias, and indeed both Protagoras and Gorgias have suffered the kinds of criticisms that modern-day sophists Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone have received. Then as now, critics demanding Aristotelian or "rational" arguments are not pleased when they witness the popular success of sophistic forms of rhetoric. for the entire article, see the website indicated at top=======jvb====please fiorgive typos, I have eye problems
×
×
  • Create New...