Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
John Simkin

Edward T. Haslam: Dr. Mary’s Monkey

Recommended Posts

I have just finished reading Edward T. Haslam’s Dr. Mary’s Monkey. It is a book I highly recommend to all members of the forum. It is extremely well-written and is in the style of Gaeton Fonzi’s “The Last Investigation”. It contains a great deal of new information about the death of Dr. Mary Sherman and the possible links with the assassination of JFK. My only problem with the book is the final chapter where Ed recruits Judyth Vary Baker to support his theory about the links between Sherman, Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald. However, this should not be allowed to distract from the valuable research that Ed Haslam has carried out.

Ed is a member of the forum and I hope he will join us in discussing “Dr. Mary’s Monkey: How the Unsolved murder of a doctor, a secret laboratory in New Orleans and cancer-causing monkey viruses are linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, the JFK assassination and emerging global epidemics.”

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_b/026-...x=12&Go.y=8

post-7-1186396081_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have created a page on Ed Haslam:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhaslamE.htm

This includes passages from his book. This includes this very interesting section on Jim Garrison:

In March 1967 Garrison arrested New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy. At first Garrison called the assassination a crime organized by extremist elements of the anti-Castro community, and to prevent any misinterpretation, he specifically pointed out that his team had not found any evidence of involvement by the CIA itself. But in May 1967, all that changed.

Garrison upped the stakes by announcing on national television that Kennedy's death was a coup d'etat organized by elements inside the CIA, particularly in its Plans Division.' What followed was two years of heavy character assault on Garrison.

The heart of Garrison's case was that he had associated Clay Shaw with Lee Harvey Oswald during the summer of 1963. Garrison believed Shaw's contact with Oswald was part of a deliberate attempt to set up Oswald to take the blame for Kennedy's impending assassination. In particular, Garrison claimed that Shaw tried to help Oswald get a job at a mental hospital in Jackson, Louisiana, near the town of Clinton. According to Garrison, Shaw drove Oswald to Clinton so Oswald could register to vote in hopes of improving his chances of getting the job at the hospital.

As luck would have it, the Congress for Racial Equality was sponsoring a voter registration for black voters that day. When a black Cadillac drove into the center of the small Louisiana town, folks watched closely and curiously. Were these FBI agents? The press? Outside agitators? A young white man emerged from the back of the Cadillac and got in line to register. He made a memorable impression, since he was the only white person in the line and since he was not a resident of the area. Numerous eyewitnesses identified the person who got out of the Cadillac as Oswald, and, of course, the man had given his name to the registrar of voters as Lee Harvey Oswald.

The more difficult question: Who was driving the car? Witnesses said he looked like Clay Shaw, a white male in his fifties with wavy gray hair and a stern face. This described Shaw well enough, but it also described other people equally well. There was less difficulty identifying the other passenger in the car. His orange hair and painted-on eyebrows made seeing David Ferrie a truly unforgettable experience for anyone. Since it was already established that Ferrie knew Guy Banister and Oswald (all of whom were dead by '69), it was difficult for Garrison to prove that the man driving the car was actually Clay Shaw and not someone else, like Banister. Shaw, of course, claimed he never knew Oswald or Ferrie and had never been to Clinton. Garrison failed to prove the connection to the satisfaction of the jury. Shaw was acquitted.

Garrison counterattacked, claiming that Shaw had lied under oath and charged him with thirteen counts of perjury, confident that he would win the perjury conviction in the next trial. The federal government intervened, however, and dismissed the perjury charges; thus with the acquittal of Clay Shaw in 1969, Garrison was neutralized as a political force.

A decade later, the U.S. Congress's House Select Committee on Assassinations took a second look at the Clinton incident. On March 14, 1978, they took the testimony of Clinton town marshal John Manchester in Washington. Manchester said that he approached the black Cadillac from which Oswald had emerged that summer day in 1963 and, acting as the town's law enforcement officer, instructed the driver to identify himself and to produce his driver's license, The driver gave his name as "Clay Shaw from the International Trade Mart" and produced a driver's license which matched. For some reason, the HSCA took his testimony in "Executive Session" and kept this information secret from the American public for sixteen years.

We only know about it today because of documents released through the JFK Assassination Materials Act of 1992! With information of this magnitude continuing to come to light, it will be tomorrow's historians, and not yesterday's press, who will have to judge Jim Garrison and his assassination theory. To call him "discredited" is extremely premature, despite the numerous attempts to make him appear so. We may owe Garrison an apology before it's all over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just finished reading Edward T. Haslam’s Dr. Mary’s Monkey. It is a book I highly recommend to all members of the forum. It is extremely well-written and is in the style of Gaeton Fonzi’s “The Last Investigation”. It contains a great deal of new information about the death of Dr. Mary Sherman and the possible links with the assassination of JFK. My only problem with the book is the final chapter where Ed recruits Judyth Vary Baker to support his theory about the links between Sherman, Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald. However, this should not be allowed to distract from the valuable research that Ed Haslam has carried out.

These statements are puzzling. What do you mean by saying Ed "recruits" Judyth? Why do you feel it necessary to make these points?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just finished reading Edward T. Haslam’s Dr. Mary’s Monkey. It is a book I highly recommend to all members of the forum. It is extremely well-written and is in the style of Gaeton Fonzi’s “The Last Investigation”. It contains a great deal of new information about the death of Dr. Mary Sherman and the possible links with the assassination of JFK. My only problem with the book is the final chapter where Ed recruits Judyth Vary Baker to support his theory about the links between Sherman, Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald. However, this should not be allowed to distract from the valuable research that Ed Haslam has carried out.

These statements are puzzling. What do you mean by saying Ed "recruits" Judyth? Why do you feel it necessary to make these points?

On page 283 Ed Haslam reports that a fellow writer told him on the publication of Mary, Ferrie & the Monkey Virus in 1995: “You have everything except a witness”. This witness came forward in the form of Judyth Vary Baker in 2000. In his book, “Dr. Mary’s Monkey” Haslam attempts to use Baker’s story to support his own theory about the death of Mary Sherman.

There are two major problems with this. First of all, Baker could well have read Haslam’s first book, and therefore is only giving back what he has already written about the secret research project.

The second problem is that the story that Baker was pushing in 2000 does not support the theory put forward by Haslam in 2007. For example, this was the story that Baker was telling in 2000.

Baker was offered a summer medical internship with Dr. Sherman by Ochsner: she accepted, and came to New Orleans in April, 1963. There, she met Lee Harvey Oswald, who introduced her to Sherman's friend, David Ferrie. Judyth accidentally learned about the clandestine side of the project before Ochsner, who was out of town, was able to steer her to the legitimate side. She then became a willing participant in the project. At the same time, Oswald and Judyth began to fall in love. Neither had a happy marriage (Judyth was recently married to a man who promptly left her alone in New Orleans,and who in other ways neglected her). Oswald became linked to the project, partly to be close to Judyth.

According to Judyth Baker the research into the biological weapon was hidden by using two or more secret mini-labs which were set up when Ochsner's Clinic made a massive move into new facilities in March, 1963. Equipment, animals, etc. were 'misplaced' during the move, the second-largest in the history of New Orleans. The basic project was set up March 23, 1962, using conventional facilities, which then expanded out of the loop for its final phases.

Baker adds that Lee Harvey Oswald learned how to handle the materials safely and keep them alive. He volunteered to courier the materials to Mexico City, where a medical student, doctor or intern was scheduled to take the materials to Cuba. Oswald made frantic efforts to get the materials, which had a short shelf-life, into Cuba himself when his contacts failed to appear. The project, in fact, had been called off because of Hurricane Flora, which devastated Cuba at this time. Oswald was ordered to Dallas: his "desire to go to Cuba" was never mentioned again by him. His transit visa to go to Cuba was approved in mid-October, but by then, Oswald had no more need to go to Cuba: he never used the approved visa, which arrived too late to be of any use in saving the biological materials.

Judyth Baker claims that she and Lee Harvey Oswald planned to divorce and marry in Mexico after he had done all he could to help thwart the plans of an assassination ring, which he had volunteered to investigate. He believed he would have the help of the CIA to escape after providing information, but instead, due to his Pro-Castro activities in New Orleans, which had been under the handling of Guy Bannister (in order to identify Pro-Castroites in New Orleans), Oswald became the perfect patsy, even though he was on record as having admired John F. Kennedy.

According to Baker, Oswald volunteered to continue to penetrate the ring, even when he realized his life was in danger. Oswald could only speculate on who organized the conspiracy. He was aware that Mafia, Texas oil moguls, and conservative racists put up money to finance an assassination ring that seemed to include a wide variety of planners and participants. He was kept from learning the identities of the leaders, but expressed opinions that Carlos Marcello (godfather of New Orleans and Dallas) and his Mafia friends in Chicago and Miami, along with anti-Castroites and elements of the Secret Service and CIA, were well able to assassinate Kennedy, if those at the highest levels in government cooperated to allow the assassination to take place for their benefit. Oswald told Judyth he would do what he could to try to get the mission aborted, and that he had others who were going to help him to abort the assassination.

After the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald, Judyth Baker received a phone-call from David Ferrie warning her that she would be killed if she told anyone about her knowledge of these events.

However, Haslam argues in "Dr. Mary's Monkey" that he believes that Sherman was involved in carrying out secret research into developing a vaccine to prevent an epidemic of soft-tissue cancers caused by polio vaccine contaminated with SV-40. This work included using a linear particle accelerator located in the Infectious Disease Laboratory at the Public Health Service Hospital in New Orleans. Haslam argues that Sherman had an accident while using the linear particle accelerator. This explains why her body was so badly burnt. In an attempt to cover-up her secret research, Sherman was stabbed in the heart and then moved under cover of darkness to her apartment. A small fire was then started in an attempt to explain the burns on her body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes and no. The bulk of the testimony was taken April 6-8, 1964, but a few people were questioned on July 21. And the Commission was not there, just counsels Liebeler and Jenner.

Stephen, you are probably the world's leading expert on David Ferrie. What do you make of Ed Haslam's claim posted here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3205

The link leads to a thread, and I'm not sure which of Haslam's statements you reference. Can you quote a specific one here?

Nevertheless, let me make a generalized statement: I have read only the first edition of Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus, and the online portions of Dr. Mary's Monkey. I am a real stick in the mud when it comes to evidence. As intriguing as Haslam's theories are, he actually offers very little checkable evidence, if you read closely. In his original edition, he seemed to speculate a lot; a few pages later, the speculation would become fact; and he would then pile "fact" upon "fact" to create the impression of something sinister.

They key to his main thesis is that Ferrie had a working relationship with Dr. Mary Sherman, but he presents no evidence that the two were acquainted in his first edition. He merely speuclates that they had common interests and quotes Garrison (who could often be wrong) as a source on the relationship. Whatever one may think of Ferrie's surviving friends and acquaintences, I find it hard to believe that they would all be lying about the following: I have asked those I've interviewed if they knew of Ferrie working with a woman doctor, or a woman named Mary Sherman, or if they recognize her pictures, and none have any recollection of her. How could this be? Likewise, they recall no white mice or laboratory at Ferrie's apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. Along the same line, the late Don Lee Keith spent many years researching a biography of Sherman, and his papers reveal NO link between the two, save a document from a local reporter working with Garrison, whose source was...Garrison.

Sherman's death was surely an unsolved mirder, and who knows if it may have been related to her work. The link between her death and the JFK matter is Ferrie; and given the paucity of evidence that she knew or worked with Ferrie, it is hard to do anything other than file this under interesting speculations. I tried to discuss this with Haslam, but he seems to have dropped contact with me.

Barring any new evidence, this is my take on it, in a general way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On page 283 Ed Haslam reports that a fellow writer told him on the publication of Mary, Ferrie & the Monkey Virus in 1995: “You have everything except a witness”. This witness came forward in the form of Judyth Vary Baker in 2000. In his book, “Dr. Mary’s Monkey” Haslam attempts to use Baker’s story to support his own theory about the death of Mary Sherman.

There are two major problems with this. First of all, Baker could well have read Haslam’s first book, and therefore is only giving back what he has already written about the secret research project.

The second problem is that the story that Baker was pushing in 2000 does not support the theory put forward by Haslam in 2007. For example, this was the story that Baker was telling in 2000.

John,

You seem trapped in your own catch-22 here. First, you seem to be assuming that Haslam had no involvement with a JVB until the year 2000 when Judyth conveniently appeared. That is not so. He met someone saying they were JVB some time before. Therefore, when he met the actual JVB, his curiosity was already more than piqued.

The fact that you are implying that Ed would use Judyth simply because she was convenient and not because he found her credible points to your having a lack of faith in Ed's ethics. How can you then comfortably recomment the rest of his book?

You also complain that Judyth might have read Ed's book before coming forward. But then you appeare surprised that Judyth's statements are not identical to Ed's. That seems to show a narrow focus that has led to an equally narrow conclusion. Why not just suppose that Judyth's statements are hers from her experiences, and that Ed's investigation is in some ways parallel but in some ways different?

Then you are comfortable not comparing Judyth to Ed. (I don't think Ed will mind.) Judyth is a witness. Ed is a researcher.

Judyth is documented to have been in NOLA in the summer of 63. She is documented to have worked at Reily with LHO. And she is documented to have had success in cancer research involving rats. She just happens to plop down in NO.

LHO then ends up the accused assassin of JFK, conveniently murdered while in police custody. The WCR knows about the events in NOLA but refuses to investigate, burying them in the WCR H&E. Then cancer specialist Dr. Mary Sherman is murdered in NOLA at the time the WCR is published. Garrison reads the H&E and realizes what has happened. He decides to investigate and runs into a hornet's nest. Later, David Ferrie ends up dead, while Clay Shaw goes free. Garrison's work leaves tantilizing leads to rats and cancer research involving David Ferrie.

Do we as researchers now want to open doors and walk through them, as Ed has, or try to close them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pam said matter-of-factly:

"You seem trapped in your own catch-22 here. First, you seem to be assuming that Haslam had no involvement with a JVB until the year 2000 when Judyth conveniently appeared. That is not so. He met someone saying they were JVB some time before. Therefore, when he met the actual JVB, his curiosity was already more than piqued."

WHAT?????

TWO Judyths?

Please elaborate.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WHAT?????

TWO Judyths?

Please elaborate.

I had the opportunity to meet and speak with Ed Haslam a couple of weeks ago. He is a very personable man and gives the impression of being sincere, honest, and forthright about what he does and doesn't know.

He told the strange story (the account appears in his book) of attending a party in 1972 near Tulane's campus in New Orleans, where a woman was introduced to Haslam and his girlfriend as Judyth Vary Baker. Years later when CBS was doing a 60 Minutes segment on Judyth Vary Baker, Haslam came to realize that the two women were not the same person.

Haslam said he stays in touch with the second Judyth Vary Baker, and of course he finds her credible.

Haslam goes into much greater detail in Dr. Mary's Monkey. He also describes the story of the two JVBs in an interview with Jim Marrs here (click the link to www.TheMonkeyVirus.com) or one can view it on Google video I think.

http://drmarysmonkey.com/component/option,...r/Itemid,10032/

Edited by Michael Hogan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had the opportunity to meet and speak with Ed Haslam a couple of weeks ago. He is a very personable man and gives the impression of being sincere, honest, and forthright about what he does and doesn't know.

He told the strange story (the account appears in his book) of attending a party in 1972 near Tulane's campus in New Orleans, where a woman was introduced to Haslam and his girlfriend as Judyth Vary Baker. Years later when CBS was doing a 60 Minutes segment on Judyth Vary Baker, Haslam came to realize that the two women were not the same person.

Haslam said he stays in touch with the second Judyth Vary Baker, and of course he finds her credible.

One of the problems with “Dr. Mary’s Monkey” is that it is full of coincidences. There are two Judyth Vary Bakers in this story. However, they are not the same woman. It seems that for some unknown reason, in 1972, someone was impersonating the Judyth Vary Bakers that we all know (and love).

There are also two other troublesome coincidences in the book. Ed was going out with a girl who apparently was living in an apartment that was formerly used by David Ferrie as a scientific laboratory.

Ed leaves the entertainment industry in 1980 and goes into advertising. It turns out that one of his company’s prospective clients is Ed Butler who conveniently shows him Gary Banister’s files.

There is a lot to like about this book but at times it does expect the reader to believe in the importance of coincidence in such an investigation.

Ed had earlier joined the forum with the intention of answering questions about his book. He has been made aware of this thread but has so far avoided joining in this debate.

I would like to question him about the use of Judyth Vary Baker as a source. I can see why he was tempted to use Baker as it helps supports the idea that Dr. Mary Sherman was involved in secret research into cancer. In fact, without this evidence, this story is pure speculation.

In the Appendix, Ed allows Baker to tell her story of being in New Orleans working for Sherman. However, other than this, it contradicts Ed’s theory that Sherman was involved in carrying out secret research into developing a vaccine to prevent an epidemic of soft-tissue cancers caused by polio vaccine contaminated with SV-40.

In her original account, Baker said she was working on an US intelligence covert project attempting to develop a cancer virus to kill Fidel Castro. As late as 19th September 2004 she told forum members that “I am a witness. I knew Lee Harvey Oswald and met a number of his associates, including Guy Banister, David W. Ferrie, Dr. Mary Sherman. I shook Clay Shaw's hand and was introduced to Carlos Marcello. I have living witnesses backing this up, and also saved evidence from 1963. I was trained to become a doctor specializing in cancer research, but my career was cut short due to my involvement with Lee. I was engaged in a project to try to assassinate Castro and once dated Castro's Minister of Finances son, Tony Lopez Fresquet. I was just a young girl, who resembled Marina Oswald and who fell in love with Lee.”

Baker never told us anything about secret research into developing a vaccine to prevent an epidemic of soft-tissue cancers caused by polio vaccine contaminated with SV-40. However, I expect this will be her story in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='John Simkin' date='Aug 9 2007, 05:37 AM' post='113480']

[One of the problems with “Dr. Mary’s Monkey” is that it is full of coincidences. There are two Judyth Vary Bakers in this story. However, they are not the same woman. It seems that for some unknown reason, in 1972, someone was impersonating the Judyth Vary Bakers that we all know (and love).

Well, John, this wasn't a problem in your first post when you overlooked mentioning the early JVB, was it?

Or is the 'problem' that you can no longer blithely claim that Ed used JVB because she conveniently appeared in 2000?

You are comfortable stating that the impersonation occurred "for some unknown reason." Do you really believe this imposter event was simply irrelevant, or are you unwilling to address the implications? What about the sightings of the LHO imposters? Did they also happen for "some unknown reason"?

If you want to keep an open mind you can ask, as Ed has, why there was someone impersonating JVB years before he met the actual JVB. You might wonder if this was done as part of an agenda to discredit the real JVB before she ever came forward, or to create a situation where the name JVB would be remembered. If you had a curiosity about how intelligence works, you might want answers to these questions, that is. If you were just trying to shut doors leading into dangerous areas, you might not.

And if you want to disregard co-incidence as being relevant to research, then you've opened up yet another door, haven't you? What is your foundation for that? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to keep an open mind you can ask, as Ed has, why there was someone impersonating JVB years before he met the actual JVB. You might wonder if this was done as part of an agenda to discredit the real JVB before she ever came forward, or to create a situation where the name JVB would be remembered. If you had a curiosity about how intelligence works, you might want answers to these questions, that is. If you were just trying to shut doors leading into dangerous areas, you might not.

Why did they not just kill her? If she had been involved in this secret research, would they have just left it as a warning from David Ferrie? Why go to all the trouble of impersonating Judyth just in case she came forward as a witness at a later date? How did they know that Ed Haslam was going to later investigate the case 30 years later. If this had not happened, no one would have known about the JVB impersonation.

I was in correspondence with Judyth Vary Baker for two years. She constantly promised to send me evidence that her story was true. She did not. Although she did send me the information that she gave Ed Haslam, that proved that she won awards for science as a schoolgirl and worked at the Reily company in New Orleans.

Sometimes she answered questions, sometimes she didn’t. I started posting my questions on the forum. Unwilling to answer them she posted a message on the forum to say that her eyesight had got worse and as a result she would no longer be answering questions.

I, like most researchers, eventually came to the conclusion that Judyth was not telling the truth. I suspect she was suffering from some psychological disorder (it is not uncommon for people to claim to be part of a major news story – I read an interesting article by a former detective you said that it is a major problem when you are investigating a crime that has received a great deal of publicity).

Along with Wim Dankbaar, who seems to be easily convinced by confessions, you are one of the few researchers who still believe in her story. If that is the case, maybe you (or Ed) could explain what was really going on at Mary Sherman’s laboratory. Is Ed right when he says Sherman was developing a vaccine to prevent an epidemic of soft-tissue cancers caused by polio vaccine contaminated with SV-40. Or is Judyth right when she says it was an US intelligence covert project attempting to develop a cancer virus to kill Fidel Castro?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, et al,

I am very busy with my professional life at the moment and have not had time to participate in this forum.

Perhaps that will change one day, but for the moment I have to focus on other things.

Thanks for your interest.

Ed Haslam

author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY

www.TheMonkeyVirus.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John, et al,

I am very busy with my professional life at the moment and have not had time to participate in this forum.

Perhaps that will change one day, but for the moment I have to focus on other things.

Thanks for your interest.

Ed Haslam

author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY

www.TheMonkeyVirus.com

That's a shame. The book includes a lot of interesting information that I wanted to talk to you about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did they not just kill her?

Judyth managed to go under the radar and stay there for quite some time.

If she had been involved in this secret research, would they have just left it as a warning from David Ferrie?

It was more of a threat.

Why go to all the trouble of impersonating Judyth just in case she came forward as a witness at a later date?

JVB was a person of interest for reasons that have not yet been defined.

How did they know that Ed Haslam was going to later investigate the case 30 years later. If this had not happened, no one would have known about the JVB impersonation.

Ed was interested in Dr. Sherman at the time he met the JVB imposter. Perhaps the fake JVB was supposed to be some sort of bait.

I was in correspondence with Judyth Vary Baker for two years. She constantly promised to send me evidence that her story was true. She did not. Although she did send me the information that she gave Ed Haslam, that proved that she won awards for science as a schoolgirl and worked at the Reily company in New Orleans. Sometimes she answered questions, sometimes she didn’t. I started posting my questions on the forum. Unwilling to answer them she posted a message on the forum to say that her eyesight had got worse and as a result she would no longer be answering questions.

I recall that and can only speak to my recollections, and to my own interactions with Judyth.

I, like most researchers, eventually came to the conclusion that Judyth was not telling the truth.

You have made that clear.

I suspect she was suffering from some psychological disorder (it is not uncommon for people to claim to be part of a major news story – I read an interesting article by a former detective you said that it is a major problem when you are investigating a crime that has received a great deal of publicity).

I find that an unrealistic opinion. What I have seen from 'most researchers' is that they tend to set Judyth up and create expectations and then when her statements don't match their false criteria, they claim them 'untruthful'. The issue is that you are starting and ending from the proposition that JVB is not a witness and are according her little if any respect based on her documented credentials.

Along with Wim Dankbaar, who seems to be easily convinced by confessions, you are one of the few researchers who still believe in her story.

I was not 'easily convinced' by the statments of the Weldon mystery witness, as you may recall.

I am finding Judyth's statements and situation to be complex and yet informative. In case you're looking for my credentials, my education includes a focus on history, both in the US and the UK (U of Edinburgh). I find no issue in leaving a door open for Judyth's statments. In fact, the more objectively I treat them, the more interesting they become. The entire series of events in NOLA are the key to the assassination, from my standpoint.

If that is the case, maybe you (or Ed) could explain what was really going on at Mary Sherman’s laboratory. Is Ed right when he says Sherman was developing a vaccine to prevent an epidemic of soft-tissue cancers caused by polio vaccine contaminated with SV-40. Or is Judyth right when she says it was an US intelligence covert project attempting to develop a cancer virus to kill Fidel Castro?

Ed was working pretty much in uncharted territory when he wrote MF&TMV. I applaud his courage in pushing the envelope and stating what he believed to be true at that time. It certainly seems logical that Dr. Sherman could have been involved in trying to counteract a contaminated strain of polio vaccine.

At the same time, based on Judyth's statements and those of many others, it is also possible that Dr. Sherman was involved in the plan to assassinate Castro that involved cancer. Is it difficult to imagine that both projects might have been in process at that time? They don't seem to be mutually exclusive to me. At the same time, if I had to pick one that I found more likely it would be Judyth's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Simkin "Why did they not just kill her?"

Judyth managed to go under the radar and stay there for quite some time.

If she had been involved in this secret research, would they have just left it as a warning from David Ferrie?

It was more of a threat.

Why go to all the trouble of impersonating Judyth just in case she came forward as a witness at a later date?

JVB was a person of interest for reasons that have not yet been defined.

How did they know that Ed Haslam was going to later investigate the case 30 years later. If this had not happened, no one would have known about the JVB impersonation.

Ed was interested in Dr. Sherman at the time he met the JVB imposter. Perhaps the fake JVB was supposed to be some sort of bait.

I was in correspondence with Judyth Vary Baker for two years. She constantly promised to send me evidence that her story was true. She did not. Although she did send me the information that she gave Ed Haslam, that proved that she won awards for science as a schoolgirl and worked at the Reily company in New Orleans. Sometimes she answered questions, sometimes she didn’t. I started posting my questions on the forum. Unwilling to answer them she posted a message on the forum to say that her eyesight had got worse and as a result she would no longer be answering questions.

I recall that and can only speak to my recollections, and to my own interactions with Judyth.

I, like most researchers, eventually came to the conclusion that Judyth was not telling the truth.

You have made that clear.

I suspect she was suffering from some psychological disorder (it is not uncommon for people to claim to be part of a major news story – I read an interesting article by a former detective you said that it is a major problem when you are investigating a crime that has received a great deal of publicity).

I find that an unrealistic opinion. What I have seen from 'most researchers' is that they tend to set Judyth up and create expectations and then when her statements don't match their false criteria, they claim them 'untruthful'. The issue is that you are starting and ending from the proposition that JVB is not a witness and are according her little if any respect based on her documented credentials.

Along with Wim Dankbaar, who seems to be easily convinced by confessions, you are one of the few researchers who still believe in her story.

I was not 'easily convinced' by the statments of the Weldon mystery witness, as you may recall.

I am finding Judyth's statements and situation to be complex and yet informative. In case you're looking for my credentials, my education includes a focus on history, both in the US and the UK (U of Edinburgh). I find no issue in leaving a door open for Judyth's statments. In fact, the more objectively I treat them, the more interesting they become. The entire series of events in NOLA are the key to the assassination, from my standpoint.

If that is the case, maybe you (or Ed) could explain what was really going on at Mary Sherman’s laboratory. Is Ed right when he says Sherman was developing a vaccine to prevent an epidemic of soft-tissue cancers caused by polio vaccine contaminated with SV-40. Or is Judyth right when she says it was an US intelligence covert project attempting to develop a cancer virus to kill Fidel Castro?

Ed was working pretty much in uncharted territory when he wrote MF&TMV. I applaud his courage in pushing the envelope and stating what he believed to be true at that time. It certainly seems logical that Dr. Sherman could have been involved in trying to counteract a contaminated strain of polio vaccine.

At the same time, based on Judyth's statements and those of many others, it is also possible that Dr. Sherman was involved in the plan to assassinate Castro that involved cancer. Is it difficult to imagine that both projects might have been in process at that time? They don't seem to be mutually exclusive to me. At the same time, if I had to pick one that I found more likely it would be Judyth's.

Thank you for your detailed response. Do you agree that it is a shame that Ed Haslam has decided not to get involved in this debate?

It was brave (or foolish) for Ed to use Judyth as a source. After all, it did not really support his theory about the death of Dr. Mary Sherman. I think he has done some really important research into the case of Sherman. If he is right about the research she was carrying out, it is even a bigger story than the one that linked it to the assassination of JFK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×