Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Baker


Bill Byas

Recommended Posts

"P.S.I notice Mr. Wim has not answered my quewstion of why it is OK for James Files and Judyth Baker to incrimalate dead people but he says it is evil for Dave Rietzes to do the same!"

That is because I usually don't discuss with dishonest liars who refuse to disclose their true identity.

However, in this case I shall make an exception:

James Files and Judyth Baker are both WITNESSES with a TESTIMONY, that they are willing to repeat UNDER OATH. In addition they have corroborating evidence and witnesses for what they say.

Dave Reitzes does not fall in that category. He just falls in the category of sharks trying to smear and discredit them with lies. It is the same category you fit in. And yet another category you share is the category of people solliciting for my summary on Vernon:

----- Original Message -----

From: Wim Dankbaar

To: Dreitzes@aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 6:11 PM

Subject: Re: *****SPAM***** Bob Vernon

I don't hate you. I just think you're doing a job. Somebody else would do it, if you wouldn't.

Wim

----- Original Message -----

From: Dreitzes@aol.com

To: info@jfkmurdersolved.com

Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 6:08 PM

Subject: *****SPAM***** Bob Vernon

Wim,

Does your offer apply to people you hate?

Dave \:^)

>John and all,

>

>I am not interested to engage in a flame war with Dr. Truth

>here. I believe it does not serve any goal and I believe it is

>something the Dr. thrives on. However, those who are truly

>interested in another side of the story of my dealings with

>Mr. Vernon are welcome to email me at info@jfkmurdersolved.com

>and I will be glad to send them a summary.

>

>Wim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: Mr. "Bias", since you're in friendly email contact with "Dr Truth", you may ask the summary from him, as he has informed the JFK lancer forum that he does have it now.

Edited by Wim Dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Judyth  has answered me about the claims of Dave Reitzes, who is a staunt follower of John Mcadams in my book. I am sure she will answer you once she sees this post. Personally I would not dignify any of Reitszes' claims with a response. His methods are despicable in my view.

Wim,

I do'nt know what you mean by his 'methods' does'nt he pretty much look up things in books?

If Reites is wrong the only thing to do is to say what is right. If you do'nt people will say your 'copping out' and then guess what?-Mcadams wins.

Sincerenly,

Bill

Bill,

I could write a book about Reitzes' methods, but I don't have the time and interest. Let me suffice with one that is enough for me. If you go to the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup and do a serach for Joe West, you will see that he tries to portray Joe West as a conman. Joe West is dead and he can't defend himself. My opinion of Joe West is that he was a great man who tried to do (and would have been succesful had he lived) the only sensible thing in this case as to solving the question if there was a conspiracy involving multiple shooters: exhume the body of JFK.

Wim.

Reitzes does a lot of questionable things. One of his favorite things to do is to use something to invalidate a witness he doesn't like while using the same thing to promote witnesses he likes. I know that sounds confusing so I have provided an example.

"...polygraphs are a notoriously unreliable indication of dishonesty in the first place, and most courts will not accept polygraph examinations into evidence for precisely that reason. The following is a selection of online articles that might be of interest regarding this topic:..."

http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html

"Prior to Shaw's preliminary hearing, Garrison ordered a polygraph examination for Perry Russo; the test indicated "deception criteria" when [Perry] Russo claimed to have known Lee Oswald and Clay Shaw."

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100okeefe.html

"In March, Garrison had assigned James Kruebbe to administer a polygraph examination to Bundy. Kruebbe's analysis was that Bundy was lying."

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100bundy.html

In short, Reitzes is a hypocrite. He attacks Perry Russo and Vernon Bundy for failing a polygraph examination while he defends Jack Ruby even though he himself failed exactly the same test.

I e-maile dReitzes and heres his responsre.

=====QUOTE STARTS=====

Subject: Re: Simkin forum

Date: 9/11 12:33 AM From: Dreitzes

Bill,

 

Your correspondent seems to have gone to a lot of trouble to try to discredit me, even scouring my footnotes for something to use against me! I honestly had no idea I was so important.  \:^)

 

Unfortunately, in order to "get" me, your correspondent misrepresents some things and takes some statements out of context. Of course polygraph examinations have been shown to be unreliable, so naturally I do not rely upon them; the point I made in the articles your correspondent cites is not that I place any particular value upon polygraphs, but that Jim Garrison did -- and lied about them when they failed to support him.

 

It was Jim Garrison who ordered polygraph examinations for Perry Russo and Vernon Bundy; it was Jim Garrison who deep-sixed the results when they weren't what he wanted; and it was Jim Garrison who lied about them later on (even under oath). See my articles for details.

 

I present plenty of other evidence that Perry Russo, Vernon Bundy, and Jim Garrison were liars, and none of it has anything to do with polygraphs. Your correspondent must agree with me, I gather, as he doesn't challenge any of this evidence. He just seems to want to attack me.

 

Your correspondent also scoured the footnotes of my Ruby article and seized upon the statement that "polygraphs are a notoriously unreliable indication of dishonesty in the first place, and most courts will not accept polygraph examinations into evidence for precisely that reason."

 

This is absolutely true, of course; if I placed any emphasis on polygraph exams, I would have discussed Ruby's exam in the body of my article, instead of relegating the subject to a footnote, where I responded to claims made by another researcher.

 

Unfortunately, your correspondent doesn't seem too familiar with the evidence, as he errs in stating that Jack Ruby failed the polygraph examination ordered by the Warren Commission. Of course Ruby passed the examination. Do I care? Not really, otherwise I'd have emphasized it in the body of my article. Even if one were to accept the validity of polygraph exams, my article lists several specific reasons this particular examination of Ruby's was compromised.

 

In the article I present plenty of other evidence relating to Ruby, and I gather your correspondent can't challenge a word of it, otherwise he certainly would have done so, don't you think?

 

Perhaps your correspondent is confused because, as discussed in my article, the HSCA's panel of polygraph experts found several reasons to doubt the original polygraph operator's conclusions; however, I cite several examples showing that the panel's conclusions don't hold up to scrutiny. For example, they interpreted a physical reaction of Ruby's to suggest he may have been lying when he denied knowing Oswald; but I point out that, in order to accept this, one would also have to accept that Ruby lied when he denied being a Communist: this latter question "evoked by far the most dramatic breathing reaction" of the entire examination. So there's no reason to question the polygraph operator's judgment when he concluded Ruby was telling the truth -- unless one wishes to argue that Ruby secretly was a Communist.

At any rate, the whole point of the two articles cited by your correspondent is, in the case of "The JFK 100," that Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" is an unreliable source of information; and, in the case of "In Defense of Jack Ruby," that the assumption that Ruby was part of a conspiracy is unwarranted and ill-informed. Does your correspondent disagree about either of these things, and can he refute either thesis of mine? He doesn't say. He doesn't even seem to care what my articles are actually about. Again, it seems he only wants to attack me.

 

I guess this sort of thing passes for research in some quarters.

 

Thanks for writing, and take care.

 

Dave

 

P.S. Don't expect any meaningful evidence from Wim Dankbaar. If he had anything worthwhile, he would be eager to show it to everyone, instead of sitting around calling people names all the time.

 

=====QUOTE END=====

I think Reitzres has a point about Mr. Wim. :o

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"P.S.I notice Mr. Wim has not answered my quewstion of why it is OK for James Files and Judyth Baker to incrimalate dead people but he says it is evil for Dave Rietzes to do the same!"

That is because I usually don't discuss with dishonest liars who refuse to disclose their true identity.

However, in this case I shall make an exception:

James Files and Judyth Baker are both WITNESSES with a TESTIMONY, that they are willing to repeat UNDER OATH. In addition they have corroborating evidence and witnesses for what they say.

Dave Reitzes does not fall in that category. He just falls in the category of sharks trying to smear and discredit them with lies.

OIC. :o

Its evil to accuse dead people if your Dave Reizrse, because they are not alive to defend themself...but its OK to accuse dead people if your a 'WITNESS' with 'TEXTIMONY' UNDER OATH, because then dead poeple magicaly come back to life and defend themself! :D

Great argum,ent Mr. Wim! You are such a superoir person! :P

Bill :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I've found myself posting about Judyth on aaj and want to share some of it with you here.

In brief, when Debra Conway joined Judyth, Martin, Howard and Anna in New Orleans early in 2000 she surprised them with a video camera (or there was a miscommunication) and proceeded to film interviews of Anna and also Judyth, who stopped it midway, as she was uncomfortable. The group also did a walking tour of all the LHO-Judyth connected places in NO that was filmed mostly by Martin. Since soon after that Debra promised to send the original tapes to Judyth, but has as yet failed to do so. She has made additional promises this year that she would do so, but still nas not.

That is the basic framework. I was questioned by McAdams as to why I found the strange behavior surrounding Judyth's early projects, including 60 Minutes, The Love Story, and the early version of her book, "sinister". This is my reply:

The fact that Debra has continued to hold onto these tapes does unfortunately open up the door (that Debra has deleted material from the tapes). In fact, something does not seem right. Unless there is something on one of the tapes that Debra does not want known by Judyth, Martin or Howard, why would she promise to send them and yet retain them? It is almost as though Debra realizes that through them Judyth has the verified credentials she was looking for went she went to Debra in the first place, and by relinquishing the tapes Debra must relinquish control over Judyth's credibility once and for all. Perhaps she hasn't been able to do that. Perhaps she hasn't been able to deal with the possibility that Judyth may yet be given an open forum. I'm just speculating, yet I am becoming increasingly curious. There is definitely a mystery surrounding Debra's retention of these tapes and the catch-22 situation she has placed herself in.

Why do I consider the curious things that have happened 'sinister'? Well, deduction. 60 Minutes is fascinated by Judyth's statements, invests 18 months of research and personnel, and then has the door 'slammed in their faces' by some unknown person. Even Don Hewitt has puzzled ever since as to why that 'story of our lifetimes was unbreakable'.

Why?

Next, apparently all 'reputable' American publishers, who were initially blown away by Judyth's story and fascinated by her 'teaser' mini-book, have suddently become uninterested.

Why?

Then we have Lancer 2000, where everyone knows of Judyth's existence; there is a panel on LHO in New Orleans, and, for some reason, there is NO mention made of Judyth's name or statements during the panel. As Judyth represents new research, I find this a staggering omission, however it happened. Remember, I attended 98 NID where Weldon's presentation was center-stage -- the entire thing consisted of the statements of someone whose name was never given, nor his job description. There had been absolutely no vetting of this story prior to presentation -- NONE. But it was new research, and it was welcomed with open arms for that reason.

Why was Weldon's nameless witness (at that time) given a red carpet, and Judyth, who had not only a name, job title, proof that she worked with LHO in NO, but a personal story to tell ignored?

Why? .

Last but hardly least we have TLS, with an hour devoted to Judyth's story. All the other participants in the new episodes are furious -- why is Nigel spending so much time on Judyth and so little time on them? Their feelings are understandable, especially when the entire hour about Judyth excludes witnesses that were available and willing to talk, included statements and photographs that had not been approved, and omitted anything about Anna Lewis. Why would Nigel spend so much time with Judyth's statements and yet omit the very things that would seem to clinch them?

Why?

What I am perceiving is that there may be specific people at key places putting pressure on for reasons that they don't want understood. The public is supposed to believe that Judyth is just not credible; but if that is the case, why have there been so many odd and unexplained things going on? Why after 4 years is Judyth more talked about than most anything else?

I find it odd to the point of being sinister.

Pamela B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pamela,

In my opinion, Debra is retaining the tape of Anna Lewis because it enforces Judyth's credibility.

This must also be why Debra has been silent about Anna Lewis, whenever she denounced Judyth as non credible. She should have said that Anna Lewis is non credible too. However, it is no secret that Debra dislikes Judyth.

I have seen the tape and I can fully understand why someone who does not want Judyth to be believed, would not want the tape become public knowledge. After all, Anna is a living witness confirming Judyth's claims about her relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald, because she saw them together, acting as lovers. It is an absolute shame that Anna was not used in the History Channel program. What exactly transpired there is still a little fuzzy to me.

The real question is why Debra would want to withhold the truth about this part of the Kennedy Asssination. My guess is that her reasons are purely personal, which is still not aan excuse.

In that regard, it is noteworthy that Anna did not like Judyth either. She thought Judyth had an attidude and was a "stuck up girl". But she decided to support Judyth because she would not want to betray the truth, which in my book speaks for her.

Wim

Edited by Wim Dankbaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Wim Dankbaar,Oct 8 2004, 09:08 AM said:]

In my opinion, Debra is retaining the tape of Anna Lewis because it enforces Judyth's credibility.

--Wim, I think you're correct. I agree that this is the most logical reason for Debra's retaining the tapes, despite her repeated assurances that she is sending them. I also think Debra may be unwilling to face the future knowing that she will no longer have any involvement with Judyth. And, as most everyone has witnessed Debra's unprofessional treatment of Judyth, probably nothing she could say at a public level would have any effect anyhow. Debra has IMO made a collossal mistake by treating a new witness in such an unprofessional manner. I hope she quickly comes to her senses and relinquishes the tapes before she does further damage to her credibility or Lancer's.

This must also be why Debra has been silent about Anna Lewis, whenever she denounced Judyth as non credible. She should have said that Anna Lewis is non credible too. However, it is no secret that Debra dislikes Judyth.

---Debra has acknowledged infecting Anna by telling her she (Debra) that she didn't find Judyth credible. By inference, she didn't find Anna credible either, which is about the same as telling Anna Debra thought both Judyth and Anna were lying. That is a very unprofessional way to treat a witness, and it is difficult to say what effect that has had on Anna's declining further interviews. After all, it was Debra who was interviewing Anna in the disputed tape. Anna came forth voluntarily, at Judyth's request. Debra was not even directly involved. Yet Debra took some steps forward and interacted with Anna privately, including giving Anna Debra's personal opinions. I don't know why Debra doesn't speak of Anna; perhaps she thinks that by ignoring her, her statements will go away. Of course, that is not true.

I have seen the tape and I can fully understand why someone who does not want Judyth to be believed, would not want the tape become public knowledge. After all, Anna is a living witness confirming Judyth's claims about her relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald, because she saw them together, acting as lovers. It is an absolute shame that Anna was not used in the History Channel program. What exactly transpired there is still a little fuzzy to me.

---I agree, Wim. It seems to me that Nigel virtually gutted TLS, and nobody knows why. I know Martin does not agree with me; however, when we look at what is missing, they are the very things that would add depth to Judyth's statements.

The real question is why Debra would want to withhold the truth about this part of the Kennedy Asssination. My guess is that her reasons are purely personal, which is still not aan excuse.

---Agreed, that is completely unprofessional. To think that she, of all people, would run the risk of being perceived as someone who tried to block new research rather than encourage it is distressing. There is no excuse. The best thing she can do now is relinquish the tapes and speak only constructively about Judyth from now on (or not speak about Judyth at all).

In that regard, it is noteworthy that Anna did not like Judyth either. She thought Judyth had an attidude and was a "stuck up girl". But she decided to support Judyth because she would not want to betray the truth, which in my book speaks for her.

---I find that charming, somehow. I can picture the two of them, with such different upbringing and orientations, both deciding to put their differences aside in order to bring forth Judyth's experiences and Anna's with as much validity as possible. To think that this well-intended and risk-taking process was subverted in any way is quite shocking. And to think that the wounds have not been allowed to heal by Debra's acting in good faith and sending the tapes to Judyth as she has promised since 2000 is nightmarish. I can only hope that Debra will at last choose to do her part to turn those events included in the tapes into as much of a win-win situation as possible and quickly relinquish the tapes and send them to Judyth.

Pamela :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I see here is a lot of built-up hostility for Debra Conway. I don't know her and have never done business with her, but the JFK Lancer website has provided much that would help me in the course of my investigation.

I believe Judyth enough to have asked her if I could write a screenplay from her story, as it would make an excellent motion picture, but the hostility of her supporters toward JFK Lancer will not help matters in any way, shape or form when they try to get her story out.

Debra may or may not be doing these things, I don't know, but in my book, we shouldn't be condemning her; rather, we should accept the fact that Judyth apologized to her and, if we must be hostile, let it sit and not rise to the forefront. After all, we're not here to condemn people. In the words of the late, great cat Lord Buckley called The Nazz (Vaughn knows what I'm talkin' about), "I have come not to judge the world, but to save it." We're not judging her or anyone, we're telling them the truth. Whether they accept that or not is their problem.

And the rest may be damned!

Gibson

P.S. I apologize for anyone who takes the tone of this message the wrong way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wim and Pamela,

It is far more than a tape that Debra is withholding from Judyth to have back.

There is a lot of papers as well that Judyth calls Project J files. This is what Debra holds that is so worrysome for Judyth.

This is what caused me a lot of stress in the last weeks.

Judyth is afaid that Debra is going to change alter and maybe even destroy these papers that show creditablity to her story.

I know that there is something to it or reactions and words and deeds would never take place the way that they do.

I hope that somewhere along the line things do change to make Judyth's story come out in the way that it really should.

I can't help but wonder why Judyth doesn't openly on the forum of Lancer confront Debra ONCE AND FOR ALL OVER ALL OF IT. Not through other people but through her. Maybe Debra is cornered on her stopping her to post now and the door is open that is why Judyth now is told there is NO BLOCK ON HER POSTING.

Running from an issue never helps, it only hurts it more. When is Judyth finally going to post, even in moving there are computer networks one can go to over seas that helps them to still have access to their own old email address. So, Judyth still should be able to see what is going on. In America most have computers so we don't have that, but overseas they do, she should be able once in a while be able to tap into what is going on even in her old account.

I look forward to seeing very soon something from Judyth.

Thanks,

Nancy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now out of fairness to Debra,

I will say that she maybe wanting to hold things to protect them from being twisted until the right time to release. Who knows?

But she does come across as sometimes rude whenever Judyth's name is even slightly mentioned. This goes against Debra's creditablity of being very noble.

Why? Wim writes it mild.

It isn't mild from what was explained to me by Judyth it is a plot to conceal truths.

If Debra would give over what is asked maybe all could rest more and I do think Project J Files DO exist and as well as this tape. Something Judyth sent to me lets me know of this.

True, we judge without all of the facts to know all things. This makes it harder on Judyth that this is happening.

I am sorry, I can't be all that fair to Debra. I want so much to confront her on this and get the whole thing over with. I am in the middle as I have said on Lancer and that isn't an easy place to be.

Debra has never done a thing to me to make me be harsh on her. But, this hold back on her part only makes it more agravating. One time she says she will give the tapes back then she pulled back and said NO on it later, then she told someone privately that she is not well yet and will do it later on.

Well, when? This is only playing games as well.

So, how can anyone be fair in judgements. I am having a real hard problem with it. Open to Debra, not saying what I would like to say, but wishing it were all out in the open.

I like Lancer forum, I wish one day maybe, I could meet Debra, who knows on that one? But I do think something is so wrong with even Debra's story of her constant change of mind.

She should just give it back to who gave it to her which was Judyth.

That is it, make a copy of everything and give it back to her.

Plain and simple,

Nancy

And for me I am tired of being sorry over what I am not even doing anything wrong except telling only small bits and pieces of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gibson,

I don't have any negative feelings toward Lancer or Debra, but I do have concern over the unresolved situation. In fact, this episode has been very painful for me as I was a presented at NID in 99 and 02, and had considered Debra to be a mentor. However, the more I researched Judyth's experiences involving Debra, the more distressed I became for everyone involved, as it seems that a no-win situation has existed for some time now, based on miscommunications occurring back in 2000 when Debra joined Judyth, Martin, Howard and Anna in New Orleans.

I stepped in this summer as a go-between to attempt to sort out the issues and provide some definition as to how a win-win situation might evolve out of this. It is my belief that when Debra follows through on her promise to send the tapes to Judyth the issues of the past will fall away, and hopefully there will only be constructive comments from then on. However, I also believe that the longer Debra holds onto them after promising to relinquish them the more likely it is that there will be additional episodes of unpleasantness. I hope Debra will choose to act in a manner consistent with the professional I know her to be so that everyone can move on.

Pamela :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
There are two witnesses who put Judyth and Lee together as lovers. Most other witnesses are either dead (like Sherman, Ferrie and Banister to name a few) or afraid to talk.

There are no (public)  documents to put Oswald and Ochsner together. You can be sure this would not be in Ochsner's interest and that he has done his best  to avoid any paper trail on this connection, given the sensitivity and secrecy of these operations. So ... No, unfortunately there are no such documents available that I know of. Did you you know that in conspiracy law, circumstancial evidence is enough?

Judyth  has answered me about the claims of Dave Reitzes, who is a staunt follower of John Mcadams in my book. I am sure she will answer you once she sees this post. Personally I would not dignify any of Reitszes' claims with a response. His methods are despicable in my view.

Bill, would you please tell me a little more about yourself? Such as your interest in the JFK assassination, when it started, what you believe, what you studied and if you have published or written anything on the case? You are a new member and I have never seen your name before. Are you "a new kid on the block" or have you been around a lot longer?

Thanks in advance,

Wim

I'd simply like to say that when Lee told me that Dave hit him in the mouht, there was no date given. I did know that Lee attended a few meetings in late 1954. I did not 'do research'but presented the information that I knew... that Lee's tooth came out when he was hit by John Neumeyer... and Lee said he saved it in a glass of milk and later, it was reseated and saved. In the dental records, the Nolan report showed that one of Lee's front teeth was rotated. Rotation can happen from many causes, such as, it can grow that way. But it can also REgrow that way if some bone damage occurred when the tooth was knocked out and then saved. There is NOTHING "Magic"about a saved tooth, despite what Armstrong and others contend. Go look on the internet at the hundreds of pages of advice on how to save a knocked-out tooth.

Now, here is where you can read, at the bottom of the file, about Lee's rotated tooth. Again, this can occur if the tooth is knocked out and then is reseated and grows back in, if there was some bone damage:

http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/norton2.htm

What causes bone damage in the maxillary jawbone tissue? A trauma. When Lee was hit the first time, the tooth was either loosened or it actually fell out. I assumed it fell out when Johhnny Neumeyer hit the loosened tooth. But it could easily have been the other way around. That is, the tooth was knocked out, Lee saved the tooth and got it reseated, but it would not be strongly reseated for quite some time, and a second blow to the tooth could seriously loosen it, especially if the new bone was still fragile and fresh. At any rate, there was fear the tooth would fall out. That Reitzes jumped all over me for assuming a date, I appreciate. people are always asking me to place dates where I can, and I did my best. I was told, after all, long ago. However, there is NO doubt that Lee's tooth was knocked out and SAVED. The "magic tooth"was NOT magic. It was common sense to want to save it, as a teenager who cared about his looks.

The incident with Dave Ferrie revolved around a fight when Ferrie made a pass at Lee after Ferrie rode Lee to his house on his Harley-D motorcycle to show him a telescope and other items; other boys were there but went home. Ferrie promised to drive Lee back on the motorcycle, but instead, made a pass at him. Lee resisted, and Dave beat him up. In the end, because Lee didn't tell on him, Lee's silence forged an eventual friendship between these two individuals, as Ferrie was grateful.

Reitzes was right to point out that I had the sequence or dates wrong. However, he also calls me a xxxx. There is a big difference between being asked what happened and doing the best you can to tell what happened, and being accused of lying when you have done your best. Other of Mr. reitzes'objections, so-called inconsistencies, have for the most part resulted from his extracting materials out of context, and in other ways misrepresenting the materials. I have answered a long, long list of 'objections'he made that for the most part were absurd objecdtions. In a long list, I found only two matters of concern, and neither was a serious matter. Reitzes cites from stolen emails and even altered materials and claims I wrote them all, usually. The character of Mr. Reitzes can be described quickly: I corresponded with him under the condition that our correspondence would be kept confidential until my book came out. According to Mr. Vernon, Reitzes, concerned about my conduct (what in the world did I do?) decided to publish the confidentia emails. He did this some little time after trying to blackmail me... that is, he demanded I answer certain questions or else within 24 hours, he would publish the confidential emails. I refused to cave in, so eventually he published them anyway. I might add that Mr. reitzes seems to be obseessed with the matter of Lee and me. He has demanded I answer dozens of questions at once with no regard for my eyesight or my schedule. If somebody doesn;t respond within a certain time limit, such as one of my friends, he states they are afraid or cannot answer. That's silly: he is not the center of the universe.

The book will come out eventually. The attacks on the internet do make publishers wary, and who can blame them? Nobody makes money off a JFK book. I am not in this for any other reason than to clear Lee Oswald's name. This task has been arduous, but I will prevail, because I'm telling the truth, meaning that the evidence and witness count keeps rising in my favor. That's why the attacks on me keep going on -- anything to bury my statements under a huge pile of attacks so that people will not look anymore.

Fortunately, thore are good people who care about the truth and realize that witnesses are not machines, but are only flesh and blood. If I make an error in a date or a sequence of events, in no case does that obscure the fact that any such errors have perfectly reasonable explanations. It's not like it hasn;t an explanation.

Thanki you for caring, those who read all the way to the end of this statement. God bless you.

===Best regards,

Judyth Vary Baker

p.s. i answered this just in case somebody thought I didn't want to answer. It is not easy because, frankly, i am not feeling very well. jvb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People interested in the claims of Judyth Baker should read this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1758

To those interested: The 5 video tapes were returned to me yesterday with my reference copies. I will mail Anna Lewis' interview tape to her tomorrow, November 12th. I have yet to hear from Howard Platzman whether he will accept Judyth Baker's interview tapes and the "tour" tape. As soon as he gives the word the tapes will be mailed.

I do not have ANY secret files belonging to Judyth Baker. The files I have on the Lancer server are papers that Judyth gave to me either in person or through the internet.

I do not have any missing files from NARA pertaining in any fashion to Judyth Baker. I have never been to NARA and have always ordered any documents. I have never requested any documents pertaining in any fashion to Judyth Baker.

Sincerely,

Debra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...