Judyth Baker

[Wim Dankbaar]

We do indeed have copies of the Anna tape, but these are copies of copies, bad quality. Debra has the original, best quality.

Uwe, As I said before, there is a need for you to distinguish between Judyth's story about her experiences in 1963 with Lee Harvey Oswald and what she may have said about her current situation and Debra's treatment of her. Some of it may have been speculation and she may heve been jumping to conclusions. However, I dare to say that Debra's treatment has at least been dubious. It seems you have now chosen to join Debra in her attacks and denouncements of Judyth. You say "time will tell" if Judyth is telling the truth, yet it doesn't stop you from insinuating that she is not. I mean "love affair stunt" is a very negative valuation on your part. Let us assume that Judyth is telling the truth, then I think it is fair to say that she has shown courage to come forward with this information, and that she has done JFK research and the truth a tremendous favour. Indeed time will tell whether your and Debra's treatment have been obstructive and counterproductive. I have said this before: A forum administrator, running a website dedicated to uncover the truth about JFK's assassination, has a responsibity and needs to be extra careful in venting opinions about witnesses with inside information, the more so because these witnesses may reveal information at personal risk. That is not to say that Debra can't have an opinion, but if she wishes to express it, then at least she should be able to argument it. I have had private and non private exchanges with Debra, and must say that she has not given any backup whatsoever for her attacks on Judyth story. Only vague allegations that backup exists, but she cannot reveal it for various unspecified reasons. Whether she likes Judyth is a different issue, has nothing to do with Judyth's account of 1963, but I continue to believe that 's a big part of Debra's motivation.

I know that some people here do not like to see heated exhanges and fights, but I can't imagine that it is deemed fair for you and Debra to denounce what may be an important witness, without any backup, and not expect any countering? Is it allright for you and Debra to discredit Judyth and then label the counters as flame wars or not allow others to react? For contrary to Debra , I CAN backup accusations that she has been less than truthfull about Judyth.

Moreover, Uwe, I can't imagine how you can reasonably maintain that Judyth has been making her story up about knowing LHO intimately.

Please let us debate the evidence. What is it exactly that you or Debra deny of her story?

Do you deny that she was a promising cancer researcher?

Do you you deny that she was contacted and given assignments for her research by people connected to the CIA?

Do you deny that she worked at the Reily Coffee Company at the exact same time Lee did?

Do agree with Debra that "that is all she has"?

Do you deny that Anna Lewis told the truth in her confirmations of seeing Lee and Judyth together, acting as lovers?

Do you deny that Mac McCullough told the truth about seeing Lee and Judyth together?

Do you deny that Ed Haslam told the truth about meeting a fake Judyth Vary Baker in the early seventies?

Do you deny that her children and her sister told the truth about Judyth having told them of her affair with Lee Harvey Oswald decades before she went public?

Where does Judyth's alledged fiction end and where does it start? What WOULD convince you that she knew Lee Harvey Oswald? For it seems you rather believe that Judyth engaged in a vast conspiracy to convince the public of a bogus story with the complicity of a number of people, and the help of a number of supporters, including me, what Debra and her allies call so graciously "Team Judyth".

Wim (a proud member of "Team Judyth")

[Dave Weaver]

We do indeed have copies of the Anna tape, but these are copies of copies, bad quality. Debra has the original, best quality.

I, for myself, wouldn't care about the quality Wim, as long as one can

understand what Anna does say.

I am sure many many true researcher (again, I am not a researcher I am,

if at all, a scholar of the case) would have loved to see the video, regardless

of the alledged bad quality.

And btw. the quality issue came up in public, only later, when I (i think it was me)

raised the issue after you wrote that you had the video.

This is not the Zapruder film we're talking about, so in fairness and without

knowing the facts about what went down in NO when the video where shot,

maybe both sides had made an error.

Uwe, As I said before, there is a need for you to distinguish between Judyth's story about her experiences in 1963 with Lee Harvey Oswald and what she may have said about her current situation and Debra's treatment of her.

Some of it may have been speculation and she may heve been jumping to conclusions.

Wim, I can't help it,I was raised as a very open person, well in fact I

had up to no influence on what I should think or not think by my parents,

so Wim, I am the owner of my mind, and my eperience tells me,

not to trust a persons stories when that person shows a behaviour of

telling things not as they are, even If that is now, and the other thing

was then.

So Wim, even without the other things I know now about Judyth and her story,

it was her behaviour in general, you know those little bulk mails with all the

things that turned out not to be true, the little untrue things like her mail address,

she being blocked from lancerforum, and so on and so on.

I don't need to explain that Wim, just read your mails from her with open eyes,

ask me if you don't comprehend what she tried to do .

However, I dare to say that Debra's treatment has at least been dubious. It seems you have now chosen to join Debra in her attacks and denouncements of Judyth.

Again, don't try to put me in a hat with Debra, that has nothing to do with her,

but I can not say anything negative about Debra.

You say "time will tell" if Judyth is telling the truth, yet it doesn't stop you from insinuating that she is not.

By time will tell, I mean it will show her believers that I within very short

time was able to see through her Wim, I don't know what it is, that leds you

to believe in her, Ok you say you have the proof, well you think ! you have

the proof Wim and that is a difference.

You must distinguish between her initial story at the moment when she did

come forward, and the story how it is now, the story has changed Wim,

you can say a thousand times it has not,that you just have found out more

things that do support her initial story, I know that she has embelished (?)

her story Wim, the proof will be in my book

May I add my thoughts on witness contamination ?

Once a witness comes forward and says this and that, should the witness

be allowed to become his own researcher in the case ?

I think no, because later it will be impossible to see what that witness knew

at the start and what the witness did learn through other means, like books,

the internet,research and by talking to other researchers.

That is the main ! error that was made Wim, Judyth is actively for years

researching things to support (I call it embelish) her story.

A witness should not actively participate in finding things that do support

the witnesses story,the witness should leave that to other persons, as long

as the other persons know how to handle that in a way it should be done, namely

not to feed the witness with information, but to check out the witnesses

truthfullness.

That is not the case with Judyth, she does actively participate in research,

therefore the witness is contaminated and has put herself in a very

dangerous position in regard of her value as a witness.

I mean "love affair stunt" is a very negative valuation on your part.

Can't help but I see it that way Wim.

Let us assume that Judyth is telling the truth, then I think it is fair to say that she has shown courage to come forward with this information, and that she has done JFK research and the truth a tremendous favour.

Wim, she had how many years now, to let the world see that she is telling the

truth ?

An error here and there Wim is not the problem, it's 40 years now, so naturally

she can not remember every detail, but when speculation and assumptions

are sold as facts, until someone comes along and says "hey wait a minute, that

could not have happened that way, because it is hitoricaly proven that it was

different", well then the error becomes a pattern of behaviour on her part.

Indeed time will tell whether your and Debra's treatment have been obstructive and counterproductive.

Those are strong words Wim, and I bite my tongue now and let my fingers not

type what I think about that sentence right now.

As I said I am not a researcher, I am also not good at writing my thoughs

in a manner that they become totaly clear, I do my best, but if words

would have electronics parts in them, I think I would have better ways to

handle them.

Everyone has his field he is good in, but that doesn't mean one should stay

silent if one sees things that don't add up.

I have said this before: A forum administrator, running a website dedicated to uncover the truth about JFK's assassination, has a responsibity and needs to be extra careful in venting opinions about witnesses with inside information, the more so because these witnesses may reveal information at personal risk.

Here on this Forum, neither Debra nor I have any function apart from a normal

membership, so at least I take the freedom to express my thoughts and

what I know, even if it doesn't qualify as valuable contribution to solving the JFK

assasination.

But if it helps at least in some little ways to see fact from fiction, even by only

showing the wrongs in the behaviour of the witness that I think is not bad

either.

Remember Wim, it was not me making those statements that turned out to be

wrong statements, even you agree they were, it was Judyth.

That is not to say that Debra can't have an opinion, but if she wishes to express it, then at least she should be able to argument it. I have had private and non private exchanges with Debra, and must say that she has not given any backup whatsoever for her attacks on Judyth story. Only vague allegations that backup exists, but she cannot reveal it for various unspecified reasons. Whether she likes Judyth is a different issue, has nothing to do with Judyth's account of 1963, but I continue to believe that 's a big part of Debra's motivation.

Wim, on that I can only speculate, I think it has to do with trust.

You both don't trust each others, for obvious reasons, so of course

she will tell you not everything she knows, you don't either.

That's how it is.

I would like to see you and Debra sitting together, both with the proof you

two have, and go that trough in an open manner, ready to accept the facts,

but without trusting each others, that won't happen Wim.

I know that some people here do not like to see heated exhanges and fights, but I can't imagine that it is deemed fair for you and Debra to denounce what may be an important witness, without any backup, and not expect any countering? Is it allright for you and Debra to discredit Judyth and then label the counters as flame wars or not allow others to react? For contrary to Debra , I CAN backup accusations that she has been less than truthfull about Judyth.

Wim, did I ever say anything about flamewars, I just say, that I always

said why I think Judyth is not telling the truth, and that I saw what statements

she made that did turn out to be untrue.

And I saw the pattern in her behaviour and therefore I think she is not

telling the truth oabout other things too.

And I say she is a contaminated witness, and therefore very hard to sell to

the public too.

Also, I don't like to get put into boxes Wim, as I am not in any box, or on any

side simply because of likeing or not likeing a person, Wim, I like you

although you believe in Judyth, so I can and have always seperated those

things,my life has other more important aspects than to show who is right or

who is wrong about Judyth Baker, I know I am right, you say you are right,

are you therefore my enemy ?

I did not change my behaviour regarding you, but I saw a change on your side,

after I dared to "attack" Judyth.

And honestly I am thinking more about that, then I think about Judyth Baker.

Moreover, Uwe, I can't imagine how you can reasonably maintain that Judyth has been making her story up about knowing LHO intimately.

Show me the proof Wim, show us all the proof, stop saying those that are

saying Judyth was not Lee's lover, are wrong.

Stop using the book as excuse.

Furthermore I know as a fact that Judyth has been tested on different occassions and failed the test Wim.

Please let us debate the evidence. What is it exactly that you or Debra deny of her story?

I can and will only speak for myself Wim, please stop putting me and Debra together, I have the means to build my own opinion about everything I am interrested in.

Do you deny that she was a promising cancer researcher?

Never did I doubt that, we have in germany something similar that Judyth

did achieve it is called "Jugend forscht" that would be something like

"science fair" i think, taht is often a basis for a future career in science.

Do you you deny that she was contacted and given assignments for her research by people connected to the CIA?

I don't doubt that this was possible, as in those times as it is nowadays, in almost every country,

there is a program to find and filter out the best and most promising young

persons that are very good at specific scientific fields and to use them for

research under the umbrella of the government.

Do you deny that she worked at the Reily Coffee Company at the exact same time Lee did?

Never did say this Wim, she and many others worked together with Oswald at Reily's at the same time.

Do agree with Debra that "that is all she has"?

Wim,I am not witholding the supporting evidence for the sake of a book deal Wim, so based on what I know, yes that is all she has.

Circumstantial evidence may support other things she says, but not having

seen anything yet, I take the risk and must say , that is all she has.

Do you deny that Anna Lewis told the truth in her confirmations of seeing Lee and Judyth together, acting as lovers?

Never saw the Anna Lewis interview Wim, how could I when only Debra had it for all this years, which of course was not the true, only heard the little snippet on

Blackopradio, so you know my address, send it to me together with the deMohernschildt interview please, and add a copy of the other tapes too,

I'll pay you the cost for the tape, the time for making the copy and the cost for sending it.

Do you deny that Mac McCullough told the truth about seeing Lee and Judyth together?

Has his statement been investigated fully, is it only his word, or is there

more. I am not talking about lie detector test or so, anything that goes

further than his statement ?

Do you deny that Ed Haslam told the truth about meeting a fake Judyth Vary Baker in the early seventies?

How can I know if he met the fake one Wim, all I know that his interview on Blackopradio did contratict Judyth's story in essential parts.

I told you that already and the error he made i told you about, may or may not be

a minor error.

Has anyone ever asked him, where the fake Judyth did live at that time, as he was

invited by her for dinner, I think the address she lived should be known.

Do you deny that her children and her sister told the truth about Judyth having told them of her affair with Lee Harvey Oswald decades before she went public?

If she decided to make it up then already, that could be very well true.

Where does Judyth's alledged fiction end and where does it start? What WOULD convince you that she knew Lee Harvey Oswald? For it seems you rather believe that Judyth engaged in a vast conspiracy to convince the public of a bogus story with the complicity of a number of people, and the help of a number of supporters, including me, what Debra and her allies call so graciously "Team Judyth".

Well Wim, I myself was stamped as a member of Team Debra by only trying to help the forum and its members (including you) out in time of technical problems.

That's how things happen out there, not my fault I didn't ask for it.

As for the other things, show me the proof Wim, once and for all, not newspaper

clippings, I mean the real bombshell that will lead me to so, sorry folks

I am a stupid person, I must appologize, Judyth is the "real deal" .

If you don't trust me, no problem, you did send me other things, I have

never given that out of hand, but I don't think you will take the risk.

Not only are witnesses contaminated, but the whole climate in the

jfk research commiunity is.

Last word about Debra, she has given me no reason to be suspicious about her

Wim, so why should I,and everything I know of that she was accused of by Judyth and others in the past has turned out to be not true, so why should I have any negative feeling towards her and doubt her character.

I am always, and have always formed my opinion about persons

on facts I was seeing with my own eyes so to say.

Wim (a proud member of "Team Judyth")

Uwe/Dave (who once dreamed of becoming a member of Team Honda, winning the world 500ccm road championship, but that is a total different story).

Edited November 15, 2004 by Dave Weaver

[Wim Dankbaar]

Uwe, will answer soon, but need to screen my response first with others.

Wim

[Pamela Brown]

Wim is pointing out an issue that has not yet been defined -- namely, how should the research community react to new research? Well-intended witnesses, such as Judyth, may go to those 'established' in the community anticipating being mentored and then finding that not to be the case.

How can new research be evaluated for credulity and yet also given an open forum so that the community (not just the elite) can decide for themselves what to think?

Pamela

[Wim Dankbaar]

Pamela,

I think you give too much credit to the "elite" and too little to "the community". I do believe they can decide for themselves, however they seem a little shy to speak their mind, negatively or positively. I share your dissapointment in that.

Wim

[Pamela Brown]

said:

I think you give too much credit to the "elite" and too little to "the community". I do believe they can decide for themselves, however they seem a little shy to speak their mind, negatively or positively. I share your dissapointment in that.

Wim,

I think we are in agreement and I need to communicate more clearly. It is my impression the 'elite' thinks they need to spoon-feed the rest of the community that which they find 'acceptable'. However, the result has been, in Judyth's case, that research has been supressed for 4 years that should have been available to the community.

I hope we all can learn from these experiences so that those with new information will make more effective -- if less intuitive decisions, such as thinking that by going to the 'elite' they will find an open forum and mentoring.

Pamela

[Dawn Meredith]

said:

I think you give too much credit to the "elite" and too little to "the community". I do believe they can decide for themselves, however they seem a little shy to speak their mind, negatively or positively. I share your dissapointment in that.

Wim,

I think we are in agreement and I need to communicate more clearly. It is my impression the 'elite' thinks they need to spoon-feed the rest of the community that which they find 'acceptable'. However, the result has been, in Judyth's case, that research has been supressed for 4 years that should have been available to the community.

I hope we all can learn from these experiences so that those with new information will make more effective -- if less intuitive decisions, such as thinking that by going to the 'elite' they will find an open forum and mentoring.

Pamela

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NOt to add to this but, I hope I see a post here that the Judith tapes of 4 years ago have been received by one of the four people in the so-called "Judith group".

At least this would end that particular discussion.

Debra, ball's in your court.

thanks,

Dawn

ps everyone else, please note that John has posted new rules re name calling and the like.. Let's please keep this to (1.) research and ( 2.) When necessary, keeping other's honest. Just no name calling.

[Judyth Baker]

Dear Forum Members:

I appreciate the opportunity to speak up here, wiothout fear of being censored or attacked viciously. I speak out to provide information. I am a living witness as to the innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I would like to address a number of questions that have been brought forth in the debate above. I'll number them for ease of reference.

1. I have been accused, above, of doing my own research after speaking out. Mr. Weaver -- Uwe-- does not know my prior historyin this matter. As do many, he relies on information from other sources. Here is the situation: David, you may not be aware that I did NO RESEARCH AT ALL for almost a year. ONLY after I delivered the full account, either verbally or via emails, and a book, into the hands of Dr. Howard Platzman and Martin Shackelford, did I THEN start doing research.

Why did I start doing research?

because I knew the names of the people who were really involved.

Because I knew what organizations and events occurred.

because I knew where to look. I also told others where to look.

For example, I knew about the end-of-August newspaper article about 8,000 pounds of monkeys arriving in New Orleans on a Sunday morning for Tulane University. I knew to look for that article, and I found it. Who would know how important that article was? I did. And those who have my full testimony in their hands know why it's important.

Another example: I knew that I had written on Lee Oswald's time cards, that would prove I had handled them, but after the passage of years, I could no longer remember details. For three years, other people tried to get these time cards for me.

Finally, Nancy Eldreth got them. Nancy can really get the info!

Upon examination, several of the time cards had my initial on them. I provided examples of my handwriting to compare with the initials. Yes, that was active research, but it was research nobody else could do, so I had to do it. How could this 'contaminate' me, since I first provide the information, and then ask people to look for it, and if they cannot find it, then try to get it done myself? Should we wait another forty years to get all the correct details?

I asked researchers, including Greg Parker, for example, to see what he could find out about Jack Ruby and bioweapons. He found some remarkable new evidence. Using his leads, I found more. Was I contaminated? No, because it was I who provided the base information.

In every case, my 'research' was based on prior information I already had.

One final example: I spoke up about Dr. Alton Ochsner's involvement in the get-Castro project. Because I had papers linking Dr. Ochsner with my mentors from Roswell Park, I was able to prove Dr. Ochsner had done cancer research in melanomas at the same time I did. I could prove with newspaper articles that I was assigned to do advanced research in melanoma by the American Cancer Society and the NIH, through Roswell Park.

The charge against me was originally that Dr. Ochsner didn't study melanoma as I had claimed. Proof that he did is on page 156 of his official biography, Surgeon of the South, which I did not own until Wim Dankbaar purchased it for me recently (I'm quite poor and own very few books now). Thanks, Wim, for getting me that book!

It is illogical that I should not be allowed to declare a fact and then eventually find proof to back up the fact. I've been sent materials, too, from anonymous doctors and others, and have shared these with the research community.

I repeat, that only AFTER I stated the ENTIRE story and many, many details, did I then go and seek additional evidewnce to back up what I personally was able to offer.

Based on the evidence I owned personally, with the addition of new evidence found based on my testimony, a phenomenon has occurred: a steady flow of new evidence, and an occasional new witness coming to the fore, constantly adds additional support to my testimony.

THAT is why I am still alive and kicking and cannot be 'debunked' or killed off without people resorting to character assassination. I am almost 62 years old and devoted almost my whole life to helping people and raising five wonderful children, so it's been pretty hard to turn me into a something different. No matter how many negatives you may read about me, ask for the PROOF.

Nit-pickers can take one of my long, long posts and quote it and ninety-nine others out of context to make it seem I have been inconsistent, but often a typo or missing word (dare I say deliberately missing, sometimes!) was the only problem. I was underwhelmed to see that Mr.; reitzes found some fifty discrepancies that, on closer examination, existed mostly in his head.

Now he's carrying on about Lee's missing tooth. I've tried to tell Mr. Reitzes that the incident actually could have happened before or after a certain date. It really doesn;t matter, as Lee DID ATTEND CAP meetings BEFORE July, 1955, which Reitzes claimed to me was not so. Well, it WAS so. I finally found backup for it, too, in two staements in the literature. Gee, there I go again, doing my own 'research.' But I had to disprove Reitzes, who pretends i haven't disproven him by re-writing his materials ---for who knows the umpteeenth time.

Nobody is perfect. I do not claim to be perfect ---and since my two brain concussions, sustained after two car 'accidents'i n Dallas, my judgment in the past three years has not been as good as formerly. I tend to jump to conclusions and am more impulsive now, as a side effect of the concussions. My vision and strenght have also been impaired. I have apologized for jumping to conclusions in the past couple of years about some things. This was not characteristic of me when I first spoke out. I'm impaired somewhat, now. In fact, when I took two of my written exams for my doctorate in English, I had to be granted unlimited time under supervision because of my short term memory problems and my inability to proof read my work anymore.

Am doing the best i can. Have edited this letter to all of you to try to make it more legible.

ITEM NUMBER TWO:

2. Witnesses.

Question: HOW MANY WITNESSES MUST A PERSON BRING FORTH TO BE BELIEVED?

One?

Two?

Three?

I have seen court cases (I was a newspaper reporter for almost seven years in Houston area).

ONE WITNESS of good repute was sufficient even in a murder case.

I have presented the following persons as witnesses supporting my testimony:

1) Anna Lewis...wife of David Lewis who worked for Guy Banister....states Lee and I were lovers in one taped film and two audiotapes...she did not know of get-Castro lab, but only of my relationship to Lee...

2)Mac McCullough....saw Lee and me together numerous times, says so in 2 audiotapes...the book goes into more details...Mac associated as employee of Marcello retainers...

3) Lynda Bauer...my sister, knew since 1964 of my affair with Lee...

4) Edward Haslam...ran into 'me' in 1972 when he began looking into the Mary Sherman murder and received some unwelcome attention regarding 'Judyth Vary Baker'...... Haslam says NOTHING that cannot be trusted. Read his book, Mary, Ferrie, and the Monkey Virus to see how methodical and careful he is.... he personally knew Dr. Mary Sherman

That's four supporting witnesses as to my activities in New Orleans. three of them relate that Lee and I were lovers. In a court of law, a slam-dunk.

These witnesses are being attacked irresponsibly by the same people who attacked me before they even knew how to spell my name correctly. It was a knee-jerk reaction to dismiss me by the Lone Nut theorists, especially.

---------------------other witnesses------------------

I can't even count all the minor witnesses who have supported previously unknown aspects of the life of Lee Oswald or of our work in New Orleans together, and what happened there and later.

many have called or written, supporting small aspects never before brought public.

I am grateful to them all and rwquest that anyone else who can help verify my account please do contact me. Many have also supported my account but will not allow me to use their names. They are afriad.

I can't blame them, after what has happened to me.

But here are just a few of many who have stepped forward to verify samll or large aspects of my testimony, including some who actually witnessed what I testified with their own eyes:

Carlos Marcello's granddaughter

my son, Josiah Baker

my daughter, Sarah Baker

my mother, Gloria Ware

Debbee Reynolds

Michael Riconosciuto

Rob Strom, David Tracy, Bob Pope and others regarding my cancer research

a former inmate of Angola prison

a former Oak Ridge employee

There are many more, but I have a short term memory problem now, and can't cough up the whole list.

I have in my possession, in addition, letters from significant persons such as a governor, a senator, a HUAC committee member, an assistant to President Kennedy, the chief radiobiologist at a Walter Reed research center, materials about two Oak Ridge/CIA trained radiobiologists who I can prove mentored me, and many newspaper articles, documents, letters and mementoes saved from 1962 through 1964 specifically relating to the case

Again, how many witnesses do I need? One? Two? Three?

3. The book.

I have given out information for almost five years, now, inviting anyone to come and visit me and see the materials for themselves.

These materials will be reprinted in the book that will be coming out.

Several times, books were written, but the publications were blocked.

Yes, blocked, either by the actions of those who know who they are, and who even stated they would block the book, or by agents who, out of fear or for some other reason, promised action BUT DID NOT EVEN SEND THE BOOK TO A SINGLE PUBLISHER. This happened to me not once but twice in the past four years.

Why?

Do not think this surprising: the Nigel Turner docuimentary, THE LOVE AFFAIR was presented stripped of witness testimony and almost all evidence, and even so was not allowed to survive. It was shown only five times instead of until the 50th anniversary, in the Men Who Killed kennedy series. Nigel Turner did everything he could to tell the story right. He did a good job, except witnesses were not saying a thing about verifying my affair with Lee, etc. For whatever reason the documentary did not contain witness accounts or evidence, nevertheless, even in that state it was not allowed to remain avauilable to YOU, the people.

It was taken away from you.

The History Channel hastily put together a yes-man committee of Lyndon Johnson supporters who had written about Johnson, and they declared unanimously that the documentary THE GUILTY MEN was seriously flawed. I'm told that the main subject of that diocumentary, Barr McClellan, wasn't even contacted to verify the information in the documentary.

Nor did any of these august fellows contact me-- yet The Love Affair was also pulled form the shelves and from the airing schedule.

THE LOVE AFFAIR, which should have been shown again this November 22 -- for you, the American people, and for you, the people of the world-- to view and decide for yourselves ---you have had it decided for you what you shall or shall not see.

Neither The History Channel, nor Jack Valenti and his subalterns, nor the distinguished panel members ever contacted me to verify if the information presented by Mr. Turner was correct (Turner who took months interviewing me, filming me, seeing the evidence, and contacting my witnesses). The panel didn't give me so much as sixty seconds.

The documentary was withdrawn, and thousands who ordered the documentary were denied the right to own the video/CDs. I was told up to 50,000 copies were destroyed.

The book, if all goes well, will be available in 2005. I

have received threats, harrassments, and lost my job and health in the process.

Armchair opinons from Mr. Weaver, or declarations from his friend, Debra Conway, saying I have changed my story, etc., etc. will have to prove my first and original book differs from what will be provided to the people of my country and to the world in 2005. I placed a teaser book out to editors in 2000, in fear of getting sued and also to stop piracy (if editors liked the book, they'd get the full version).

The manuscript was pirated anyway. In fact, things neither I nor my 'with' author, Dr. Platzman, ever wrote are 'quoted' as part of my book by those who purloined parts of the manuscript and who stole emails. The agent who sent around that first book was fired for adding extraneous and incorrect materials, and for trying to becojme a co-author thereby, among other reasons.

The only difference in the present manuscript from the very first one, that was not shown to anyone, except a portion of it to a couple of my professors, is that there is now a lot of supporting evidence for what I originally wrote to my son, Josiah. He was supposed to publish the book after I died.

Frankly, I wish I had never spoken out and that the book had been published after my death.

However, it wouldn't have had all the supporting evidence in it, nor the statements of witnesses who, I thank God, have had the courage to speak out, for they know that I was there, and they know that Lee and I loved each other, to the end.

I can't really see what I am writing and hope there are not too many typos.

I thank God for the fact that I am able to post here, on this forum.

One final word:

4. About my not being able to post at Lancer.

Good grief! Look how much I have posted, whenever I could!

I was indeed blocked from posting on Lancer. I never said it was necessarily on purpose, although Debra Conway did block my emails to her during that same time period.

Despite the fact that Debra had said I could never, EVER be allowed to speak at a Lancer event, I still regret the turn in what had begun as a friendship. Most of the bad blood between us, I was told, was because I became close friends with researcher Mary Ferrell, who did not like Debra, and who told me many things about Debra's ambition to take over Mary's place when she died.

Now, that is how Mary felt. There are aspects about Mary Ferrell and me which have been mis-reported, such as Robert Chapman proclaiming that my friends invaded a sick and sleeping Ferrell in her apartment to wave a paper in her face and demand answers about a certain post attributed to Mary. They were described as a rabble sent by me.

In fact, I was there, too, but Mary didn;t tell Chapman that. I think she still wanted to protect me a little, even at that late date.

In fact, we made a tape recording of that visit, and it was nothing as described by Chapman. One has to wonder why he posted the story of the 'invasion'of Mary's apartment. The story went out that Mary had been beleaguered by hellions.

That tape recording will now be made available to researchers (we don't want it on internet to the public because it is a very personal tape). In fact, Mary said she did not write the post that damned me on the internet.

Later, another researcher repeated his inquiry to Mary on the subject, and she again affirmed she hadn't written the material as it appeared in its final form on the internet, but she also added that she was worn out trying to defend me against my Dallas-based enemies.

And in fact, Mary was told many lies about me, that I constantly had to prove were not true. Her friend David Lifton constantly made up the most remarkable fairy tales about me. You can read the sillier ones on the internet, such as his writing, not long after the Sept. 11 attacks, that I was associated with the terrorists. That was a lousy thing to do, as people were acting paranoid at that time, and I got harrrassing phone calls after he did that.

Finally, as I was hospitalized and ill, I could not longer visit Mary, having moved to Florida, with my emails to her returning without answers, and Jimmy Ferrell picking up the phone to say Carol Ann told him I was not allowed to talk to Mary anymore. Then, we being isolated from each other, Mary began to believe the stories, I think, and in the end, although she never denied I had some evidence that proved a close association with Lee, she posted, it seems, a final denunciation of me.

Since then, it's been hard to trust Dallas-based researchers.

I have also, since then, learned a lot about Mary Ferrell that really distresses me. I should never have confided in her. Debra Conway was very nice to me at first, too, and I had no hint that later she would wage a campaign against me. I do believe Debra believes I'm not telling the truth. But I am telling the truth, darn it.

This November, at her Lancer Conference, I do hope that I will not once again receive emails from people upset and distressed about the negative speeches that Debra and some of her friends made at the Lancer conference about me.

I hope that those attacks against me, which were made without my being able to defend myself, will not be repeated this year at Debra's event.

I apprecioate the Lancer forum and the research effortds there.

But I do not feel welcome there. The 'protected forum'with my name there has allowed the most horrible things to be writtren about me without so much as removing a dot or dash.

Now, as to difficulties posting at Lancer, I simply could not post there, for whatever reason, for a long time. Look at the posts I have put here, and also recently at Lancer.

Had I been able to post before, I would have.

It is a FACT that I am unable to post, and have been unable to post, on google groups for two years now. John McAdams himself actually posts my infrequent messages there, since I can't and he understands I would post if I could.

I can post now on lancer. But in the past, for a long tiome, couldn't, and thought it was still that way when David Weaver said no, all was well and that i could post there. I began posting, and lo, not long aftter, Lancer crashed. Not once, but twice. And my former posts vanished. I thought it too much of a coincidence, and spoke my mind, but I was probably wrong. Nevertheless, all those posts were lost. I haven;t seen them returned to the revived Lancer forum. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places?

David Weaver should understand that maybe I am not the computer guru he is, and for some reason, my difficulties about posting at Lancer were real, and I was not lying. Why in heaven's name would I not post there at Lancer if I could?

But I prefer to post here, and ask people to come here, where I feel I am being treated more fairly. Horrible things are allowed on the special 'judyth'' protected forum'section. Protected from WHAT? You should assess for yourself if that forum is protected. What I do know is that at alt.ass and alt.con, messages in defense of me were frequently deleted or not allowed to be posted.

That's a fact.

The book will bring out, in permanent form, the information lovingly held intact and as a service to my country, to the family of Lee Harvey Oswald, and to the people of America, who deserve to know the truth. The price has been high. But I now have a clear conscience.

Thank you for your patience in reading this long post.

I try to say as much as i can in these posts because there is no telling what the future holds. There may not be another chance to speak out. One never knows: I am living overseas because I did receive a death threat.

We owe it to our children and to those who have died because of their special knowledge, for us to speak out, before it is too late, before people don't care anymore about what they have inherited as to government, from the execution that occurred on November 22, 1963.

God bless us every one.

Best regards,

Judyth Vary Baker

Edited November 18, 2004 by Judyth Baker

[John Simkin]

When I first saw Judyth Baker tell her story on Nigel Turner’s, The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Love Affair (November, 2003) my immediate reaction was to think she was lying. I said this on my website and on the Forum. Judyth made contact with me and insisted she was telling the truth. If you typed in “Judyth Baker” my page on her was ranked number 1 at Google and she was obviously concerned about the impact this would have on her case. I did agree to make a changes to my page on her. At her request I added that JFK researchers Jim Marrs, Martin Shackelford, Wim Dankbaar and Howard Platzman believed her story.

Judyth was always very charming and she was soon sending me documents that she claimed supported her story. These documents did show that she was in New Orleans at the same time as Lee Harvey Oswald but it did not prove that they were having a relationship.

Judyth did put me into contact with several researchers who did believe her story. I was impressed by this as several of these people had a long history of researching the JFK assassination. She clearly had persuaded some people she was telling the truth. However, I continued to have my doubts.

Judyth patiently answered my questions. However, I gradually came to the conclusion that she never had a relationship with Oswald. Although I think it is possible that she genuinely thinks she did.

After about a year of receiving emails from Judyth my views on the case was similar to those I had when I first saw the documentary. I think the story dates back to a creative writing class she attended. I suspect she began to imagine what would have happened if she had met Oswald in New Orleans. In other words, the story began life as an outline for a novel.

It has not been in Judyth best interests to promote this story. She definitely believes her life is in danger and has been living in Europe for many years. Judyth is just another one of the victims of the JFK assassination.

[Guest John Gillespie]

"Judyth patiently answered my questions. However, I gradually came to the conclusion that she never had a relationship with Oswald. Although I think it is possible that she genuinely thinks she did."

John,

I mentioned, a few missives ago, that a Dutch site which housed an interview for a magazine there was translated by me (Babelfish) and quotes Judyth as saying that at least some of the first words uttered to her by LHO during their first "chance" meeting were spoken by him in Russian. Those words may have been the first he spoke to her but it was unclear in this interview.

Nonetheless, the point here is that there may be some disinformation going on in that respect and I can understand that. But "may be" and its various cousins leads to frustration for us. Unfortunately, there were no witnesses to that meeting, at least according to Baker, so we will never know. If this aspect of the story is true it presents some interesting scenarios, n'est ce pas?

Regards, John G

Edited July 14, 2005 by John Gillespie

[Pamela Brown]

Ironically, John's position is indicative of one of the errors of orientation of most of us involved in attempting to resolve issues about the assassination. We tend to decide whether a person is 'credible' or not, and, if they are, 'believe' everything they say, and if they are 'not', discount everything they say. As a result, we are either in a state of excitement or depression over one individual; as though they were in fact the Holy Grail of the assassination.

This level of thinking is completely consistent with the circus-like atmosphere surrounding the assassination that the govt has created by attempting to demand that we 'believe' that the most unacceptable things are acceptable -- such as that a narrow exam of the already-compromised TSBD was sufficient to qualify as an exam of the crime scene, keeping the limo in the custody of the SS for 12 hours prior to a forensic exam was sufficient to claim evidence obtained from the limo had not been tampered with, and so on.

My position re Judyth, which has put me in disfavor with a number of those of the "credible/not credible" camp (who have gone to great extremes to attempt to get me to join their team), has been to attempt to look objectively at her statements and determine where they add value or conflict with existing information. I have not made a judgment on whether I 'believe' her or not, and will keep an open mind regarding them at least until her book comes out.

[Jack White]

Pamela...I entirely agree about the black/white all-or-nothing mindset of many researchers. A good example is Weberman, who insists that the tall tramp is Sturgis/Fiorini instead of Harrelson. He also says the old-man tramp is Hunt.

He is right about Hunt, clearly wrong about Sturgis...but he loses credibility by continuing to insist on Sturgis.

Jack

[Allan Eaglesham]

My position re Judyth, which has put me in disfavor with a number of those of the "credible/not credible" camp (who have gone to great extremes to attempt to get me to join their team), has been to attempt to look objectively at her statements and determine where they add value or conflict with existing information.  I have not made a judgment on whether I 'believe' her or not, and will keep an open mind regarding them at least until her book comes out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pamela:

Many of us are holding final judgment pending appearance of her book. Do you have any news on that front?

Thank you.

Allan

[Guest John Gillespie]

"Ironically, John's position is indicative of one of the errors of orientation of most of us involved in attempting to resolve issues about the assassination. We tend to decide whether a person is 'credible' or not, and, if they are, 'believe' everything they say, and if they are 'not', discount everything they say. As a result, we are either in a state of excitement or depression over one individual; as though they were in fact the Holy Grail of the assassination. "

Pam, Jack,

With all due respect to other members at this cherished site of which I am now fortunate to be part, aren't you engaging in the kind of mindset rigidity of which you accuse others? For example, the above paragraph is a total shoot from the hip and misrepresents me and a host of others here as having some sort of prejudiced 'position' regarding Ms Baker ("the Holy Grail of the assassination" - yikes).

Sure, I have seen unsubstantiated opinion offered up as dogma and have had a similar take on it. Your last offerings, for example, are drunk with it. FACT: I presented something which I believe had not been provided here before and which, from the standpoint of Intelligence - the world of Lee Harvey Oswald - is very signficant in so far as how LHO and Judyth met.

It's important from several perspectives if one thinks about it a bit. However, If it has no significance to some and is not appreciated (in a literal sense, that is), then so be it. But she has talked about a "Love Affair"; if LHO spoke first and in Russian it's called recruitment. If she knew it was coming it's quite another. If they fell in love anyway, that happens. Catch the drift here?? If she merely WANTED to think of it as the fate of love taking a turn, then that's another story. If you ask me, I suspect LHO was playing that chord like YO YO MA at Boston's beloved Symphony Hall. Regardless of speculation, this business of the Russian greeting goes to her credibility and someone ought to question her along the way.

But what's with the resentment bag? To ascribe various feelings and emotions to some of the contributors here strikes me as acutely judgmental and appears to be nothing more of the same 'elite' vs 'community' theme. Feeling left out? Little wonder. We elites will embrace you, so to speak, when you submit something worthwhile. Remember, Wim has met Ms Baker. Others have seen documents and conducted interviews. Let's get on the trail of the assassins!!

John G

Edited July 14, 2005 by John Gillespie

[Nancy Eldreth]

It is over a year now that Judyth stated her book was done and ready to go out.

The book is not out.

As far as I have heard has not been turned in even yet.

I found out that it was many years ago the book was stated to be done and that too not out at that time.

So, why is Judyth stalling? She claims it isn't for money. Then it should not matter who gets it I would think.

As far as I know it was accepted once over a year ago. Again, we wait.

Well in the mean time more papers even released into NARA yet not anything in the NARA is about Judyth Baker. In fact there is nothing at all to back her up not even in all of those papers. She is an unknown totally.

As for Files well at least he is known into NARA. Known to others who keep dates and times of Nixon.

This is something Judyth has to battle even more than the Files story.

I know they wanted to stop the love story from airing also Johnson story. I know for sure that only one was banned and that was Johnson. Maybe Judyth's story is also banned from ever being seen again, this I am not sure of?

I just wish she would post her PROOF and or get the BOOK OUT..........