Dawn Meredith

Exactly correct, Doug. All bold mine. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance," alternate draft provided to Robert Vernon, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004: "Judyth is 90% certain that Warren Commission exhibit Pizzo 453-B, a photo of the scene, includes her standing near Lee. The picture is blurry, but there is a resemblance between the girl in the photo and contemporaneous photos of Judyth. The dress pattern in the picture matches close-up photos of a dress Judyth wore in other photos in her possession. Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, October 9, 2004: "No, not standing next to Lee, but in the same general area as Lee - iF [sic] that person is me. The face is too blurry to be certain. The pavement sloped upward there, as I have proven with other photos, but I cannot prove this woman is me. Though have never been 100% certain the woman was me, I remember talking to the two girls shown in the footage under consideration. In any case, Lee simply happens to be nearby, and there is little, if any, interaction with the woman, beyond a smile in her direction as he approaches with flyers. I do not remember being filmed, but was warned that filming was taking place, and to leave at once, a warning which Lee gave to me. Quotations from a compilation by Dave Reitzes, at his website, links to actual posts and documents are there. Reitzes website on Judyth In her new book, Me & Lee, the telling has changed. She now says this of this incident: Lee arrived at Dr. Mary's apartment about 10:00 A.M. I wanted to be there with him, but he was afraid I would be photographed and identified.So I decided to dress up as a Cuban girl to change my appearance. First, I put in my specially tinted contact lenses that made my eyes brown. Then I put on too much make-up and curled my hair like Latinas did back then. I put on a festive looking sundress and black high heel shoes to complete the cha-cha look. Lee was amused by my efforts, and thought I could be a good "extra" in the scene to attract attention, but he wanted me to disappear when the TV camera arrived so I would not get captured on film. Everything worked according to plan. Lee and two paid helpers handed out leaflets. I engaged several Cuban girls in conversation to attract a crowd, discussing America's poor treatment of Cuba. The television crew arrived on cue and I disappeared, heading to Thompson's Restaurant to wait for Lee. This was all the subject of much debate on and off with the claim of being a certain girl in the photo changing to being the other girl, Judyth noting she remembered carrying a big black purse. That either one was her became more vague after it was shown in documents that the girls had been identified. A couple other things about this incident were discussed. One was Judyth claiming, and she wrote it this way in her first book, that Oswald and the men helping him pass out leaflets were all dressed in "white shirts, nice slacks and thin ties." But a film of the incident taken by WWL-tv showed one of the men wearing bermuda shorts. Seems to me someone posted a link to a clip of that at the time, but I cannot currently find it online ... perhaps someone here knows where it can be found. The other thing involved the film taken by WWL and the film shot that day by WDSU. Judyth went on about the big television cameras and what all went on with them getting all set up to film the event. Johann Rush, the actual WDSU cameraman who shot the film that day showed up on the newsgroup and posted that there was no huge setup ... that the cameras both he and the fellow from the other station used that day were small, hand held cameras. And in her first book, she did not meet Oswald at Dr. Mary's apartment that morning ... she met up with him on Canal Street. I wholeheartedly agree, Doug. Unless her story is absolute and accurate truth, the already muddy waters of this case are made even muddier, and worse, researchers are sent off down false trails. That is just not okay when it comes to uncovering the truth about the assassination of our president ... and for having an accurate history. Like any witness, Judyth's claims must be checked out. It's nothing personal against Judyth. It's normal, necessary ... and expected ... procedure. Excellent posts, Doug. Bests, Barb :-) Doug: You do raise many goood points. The pic is very interesting. I wonder why she would say it is her. But you cannot tell who it is. I had my first doubts about her when the Harvey and Lee thread was going on. But now I have gone back and looked at some of the NO period in Armstrong's book and it seems to back Judyth even more. As for why she refuses to do certain things I cannot speak for her. I know she totally discounts Armstrong w/o having read his most imprssive work. I hope that Dr. Fetzer sees fit to get her a copy of Harvey and Lee. It was Harvey she met and it is clear that he never shared this with her. (That they were two). I have considered that she has made it all up. In fact when I saw The Love Affair that raised many doubts for me. I will go back and see that again. Am in court all day today...so will get back to this later. Have you read her book? Haslams? Comments. Thanks, Dawn

Thanks Jim. Methinks there are too many egos in this case. I am getting weary of people critizing others for what they ARE doing. Ed Haslam does not need defending and as far as I am concerned neither does Judyth Baker or Jesse Ventura. Hey he is getting it on tv. What are THEY all doing? Easy to be critical. easy to put down others. In fact the entire research community makes a habit of it. I have long wondered it it IS ego ir if some are not who they say they are. Either way, it's very sad that people can't just support each other's work. With one common goal: the truth. Sans ego. Jim: Will you please see to it that Judyth gets a copy of Harvey and Lee. It really augments her work. After I finished her book I went to H and L summer of 63...most interesting. If you don't have the book you must get it. And Judyth's detractors would do well to read her book. As well as watch the video with Anna Lewis. Dawn

This IS distressing. I wish someone would turn JFK and the Unspeakable into a film. Add some Harvey and Lee. So much has come out since JFK and the subject is ripe for another blokcbuster in the same vein as JFK. Instead Leo will convince people of more lies. If as Jim suggests he is open to being educated, I wonder if he could insist on revisions in the script. Or if the director would be open to a good dose of Jim Douglas. Dawn

James Fetzer, not buying that the Zapruder film was a fake. Robert Groden has a blow up of one of the frames of the Zapruder film after the fatal head shot and it clearly shows an outward "volcano" effect of the back of JFK's head. There is your blowout. Just because some folks think the back of JFK's head appears intact in the Zapruder film, post kill shot (and not in close analysis) does not mean it was. I think it was severely damaged like a cracked eggshell at that point, only fully collapsing later on the road to Parkland and at the hospital when the back head wound at that point was quite large. By that time blood and brains had time to ooze out and fully deform the back of the head. I have not read a single book on the Z fil's authenticity or lack thereof because to me it is a side issue. However, Robert I do not believe anyone is saying that the actual film is a fake but intead that it was tampered with after the fact to hide additional evidence, such as the limo actually stopping. Or how far Connally was actually turned around. Becuase the kill shot to the head is left in, proving a shot from the front, thus a conspiracy, I find the film valuable. I think we just need to stop using the term "fake" when referring to the Z film. Altered is a better term, and I do believe that this occurred. I did read (My good friend) Richard Bartholomew's review of Assassination Science in the 90's but it was in bad need of an editor. Dawn

Dawn: I am totally puzzled. As a defense Attorney how can you evaluate a case with only hearing half of the evidence? Does it not bother you that JVB refuses to be questioned by myself or Greg Burnham? Isn't cross examination the most ueseful tool to determine the veracity of a witness? Does it not bother you that there are inconsistencies in nearly any statement Judyth has ever made? Does it not bother you that Judyth claims to have physical evidence,i.e., Oswald's handwriting on a book but refuses to allow an expert to examine that handwriting? Does it not bother you that Judyth has deeply researched the assassination but even then makes errors about Oswald? Are you aware that Judyth has identified herself in pictures of Oswald handling out handbills in New Orleans and even claims to have the dress from that photo but those photos have been positively identified as other people? Do you know that she claimed one person in the photo was her and when that person was identified she claimed it to be the other? Do you really honestly believe a high school student who was probably dissecting worms and frogs was one of the top researchers in the world on cancer along with those scientists and physicians who had been studying at the highest level for years? It goes on and on. Do you really believe any trier of fact could reach a verdict without her being questioned, without credible corroboration, and by thcn claiming that she has physical evidence but refusing to submit it for examination? Would you really place your legal reputation on the line based on such absence and inconsistency of evidence? If so, I am truly amazed and disappointed that a member of the bar would be willing to do this. I believe a start would be to establish whether Judyth ever even met Oswald. I do not believe that any credible evidence exists to establish even that fact. As a criminal defense attorney, you , of anyone, have to appreciate the necessity for skepticism in evaluating any client's story. How many of your clients have told you that they are guilty. My experience is that it is very few. I find it incredulous that you would not demand that those inconsistencies be resolved before you could even begin to evaluate the evidence and the veracity of JVB. I would welcome the opportunity to question Judyth and my offer remains open. You and I both know it is an offer she will never accept. My best, Doug Weldon Doug: I am not staking my legal reputation on anything. I have said now since 2004 that I believe Judyth. We used to email frequestnly and she always my questions. We were corresponding first when whe could not get her video that Deb Conway had taken with Anna Lewis. Now why would a researcher refuse to part with a witnesses' proof? I know that Judyth has answered so many questions for so many over these years. The various allegations you make are not known to me. And I did not just decide based on your so called "half the evidence". I have read much information critical to her on these pages. Most of it was nit picking. She HAS corroboration but for some no matter how much evidence she presents it won't be enough. Given how secret the entire "project" was it is amazing to me that she has any evidence. How could I possible know that she would never accept your offer to ask her questions? You make a amazing amount of assumptions that I cannot address as I don't know anything about their truh or falsity. If I were Judyth I would be tired of being attacked and certainly avoid answering questions by someone with an agenda. She has done much of that already. I would like to see LHO's handwriting tested. Best Dawn

Review of Judyth Vary Baker Thread Members Give Impressions as to Logic in Debate http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15870 First, we don't know much about Anna Lewis. Is this the Anna Lewis who was married to David Lewis? Under what circumstances was the interview taped? Did anybody discuss evidenciary matters with her prior to the interview? Why has Anna Lewis not been interviewed in any other venue (testimony, TMWKK, etc.)? THE VIDEO INTERVIEW LETS US LEARN MORE ABOUT ANNA LEWIS, WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE LATE DAVID LEWIS. IT WAS TAPED IN 2003 AND BROUGHT TO THE INTERNET BY WIM DANKBAAR. ACCORDING TO DANKBAAR IN A 2007 POST http://jfkmurdersolved.com/phpBB3/viewtopi...bff5af704433b39 DEBRA CONWAY INTERVIEWED LEWIS. Yes, it was Debra Conway who taped this, and I believe this was done in 2000, not 2003. Others present ... I will probably miss someone ... included Martin Shackelford, Judyth Vary Baker, Joe Riehl ... and I am not sure if Howard Platzman was there or not. And I cannot find the exact quote, but Debra has commented that Anna Lewis told her something along the lines of her not remembering Judyth as the girl she remembered, that she wasn't sure/didn't think this (Judyth) was the woman she knew. Will continue looking for that quote. I DO NOT KNOW IF ANYONE DISCUSSED EVIDENTIARY MATTERS WITH LEWIS FIRST. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD QUESTION FOR ANY WITNESS. Judyth found and spoke to Anna Lewis previously, before this trip to NO. Even Martin Shackelford acknowledged that. I find that troubling for a couple of reasons, not the least of which being how Judyth went about interviewing McGehee ... early on, at least according to a "highlights" transcript that Judyth emailed around, saying, when he spoke about seeing a big black cadillac pull out down the street just after Oswald left his barbershop, "I suggested that perhaps others had tried to influence him about the incident, prompting a false memory, but he said no, he had not been influenced by anyone." Extremely inappropriate. And, as far as we know, there is no actual transcript of her interview with McGehee. If there is, that would be important to see. ANNA LEWIS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAS NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED IN ANOTHER VENUE. SHE DID NOT TELL GARRISON THE TRUTH ABOUT KNOWING JVB. SHE SAID DAVID HAD TOLD HER TO KEEP HER MOUTH SHUT. Anna Lewis, according to the old team Judyth, acknowledged that Anna Lewis refused to go on camera and repeat her story for the TMWKK "Love Affair" segment. And where did Anna Lewis get this thing about Oswald firing a warning shot? That came from Judyth's early story/draft. Just how exposed to Judyth's story was she before this interview? Poor thing looked scared to death, it was like she was going by a script .... and forgetting and getting lost some times, mouthing things to someone and getting some prompts. Second, what are we to make of that fact that David Lewis had a great deal of contact with NODA Jim Garrison's probe in its first few months, but described his alleged contacts with Oswald in way that did not include double-dating with Oswald and Baker? What are we to make of Garrison himself dropping Lewis as a witness after apparently falsely reporting that he was shot at by exile Carlos Quiroga? I DO NOT KNOW WHY DAVID LEWIS DID NOT MENTION THE DOUBLE-DATING OR HIS STATEMENTS ABOUT QUIROGA. HE DOES NOT APPEAR ON THIS TAPE. Third, it is not unheard of for peripheral witnesses to be influenced by the comments of other claimed witnesses. I have seen a transcript of Baker's interview with Edwin Lea McGehee, wherein she tells him right off the top (of the transcript, at least) that she was the woman in the car near his barbershop in 1963, and makes a few other statements I consider inappropriate for a formal interview. This causes me to have less than full confidence in the Lewis interview. YOU MENTION JVB'S STATEMENTS AS A WAY TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN THE LEWIS INTERVIEW. I AM NOT SURE WHY YOU SAY THIS. Sounds like Stephen has a copy of the same document I do. Judyth's interview technique with McGehee was wholly inappropriate based on her partial transcript she sent around. Anna Lewis's script like telling, forgetting and getting lost, looking (and sometimes mouthing) to someone for prompts .... none of that bolsters confidence in a witness. Judyth having found and talked to this "witness" first is troubling .... and then in this taped statement said witness mentions Oswald firing a warning shot .... which is straight out of an early draft of Judyth's and rather sets off the uh-oh alarms even louder. Lewis says she met Oswald in April 1962 ... then says sometime between January and April 1962. Aside from having the year wrong, her memory doesn't seem that good on this. I do not know Anna Lewis, and I in no way accuse her of anything or impugn her character, but there is another troubling aspect that was revealed over the course of many posts discussed on the mod group years ago. And that is an allegation that Anna Lewis was promised compensation. I understand Ms Lewis is of meager means, and sadly, caring for a severely ill/disabled child ... who is now an adult. I don't recall who first made the allegation, but it was hotly and loudly denied. Then a member of then team Judyth admitted that there was talk of trying to help her out, but that that came about only after her interview had been taped. I can't make any judgment, or even an opinion on that, other than to say that it is one more thing that feels very uncomfortable about this woman's statement overall. And, Dean, it is a *statement* ... it is not "testimony" as you referred to it in the other thread. This was not sworn testimony ... it was a statement. And a statement can carry weight .... but this one, factoring in all the things I mentioned, and David Lewis *not* mentioning any of it to the Garrison investigation when he was interviewed, just doesn't come across to me as credible evidence. Barb :-) Of course Anna Lewis lied back then. People were still dropping like flies. Most would have lied. Even to Garrison. Sorry, I have now read most of this book and I find it totally convincing. And there are many I did not find compelling like James Files, or E. Howard's "deathbed" comments,for example. Really, given all the secrecy surrounding what both Judyth and Lee were involved in back in 1963 in NO, how many of us could prove any of it? Judyth saved a lot of documentation, her memory is incredible and her story has that ring of authenticity. As a criminal defene atty. for now more than twenty five years I have become fairly good at assessing a person's credibility and Judyth, for me, passes the test. Dawn

3) Jim Fetzer and Dean Hartwell, two of Judyth Baker's most ardent and constant supporters, were the first respondents on this new thread. They voiced some of the reasons they support Judyth's story. By and large, they seem to be the same reasons given previously. I would like to hear them explain in more detail how they believe Judyth's new book is a game changer (or mind changer for that matter) as it pertains to her alleged love affair with Lee Oswald. I have read their Amazon reviews of Me & Lee. Hi Michael, The book confirmed my belief in Judyth's story so I can't say it changed my mind. I am impressed with it's internal consistency. Judyth recounts her life in a manner I would expect one who is recalling their past. She remembers people who made an impression on her, she talks of how she felt when events took place and she discusses places she went. I especially felt confirmation of her story when I connected her recollections to other facets of the JFK tragedy. She quotes Oswald as speaking favorably of the President and as being ardently anti-Castro. She explains his route to Mexico and confirms his trip there in a way rarely described before and yet not contradictory to facts. She also explains that Oswald could drive and had a TX driver's license, which is also well supported. Michael, like all of us, you have read or will read this book through your own prism of how you perceive Judyth's credibility. Not a problem. I am interested in your thoughts on the book. I started this book yesterday morning. Could not put it down until it was time to go to family for Thanksgiving. Like Dean I concur that this book confirmed my belief in Judyth's story. A major new point for me was to realize that meeting LHO was not accidental but had been planned. I have not had the time to keep up with the massive amount of criticsm of Judyth, so would appreciate if someone could summerize some of the salient points. I am familiar with the "Cancun" issue and feel that Judyth has adequetly addressed this. That she was a cancer whiz in high school has been completely documented by press clippings. That those in NO would want someone young and untraceable like a Judyth is not at all difficult for me to understand and believe. That she would stay silent for decades makes perfect sense given the amount of witness deaths. Her story always rang true to me and her book lays it all bare, much like Dr Mary's monkey. In fact these books should be read together. Great job J. Thank you for your witness. Dawn

I couldn't agree more. Up north I used to listen to Larry King when he had a radio interview show. Every Nov.22 his entire show would be about the Kennedy Assassination. He really was interested in it. Why the Bushes are going to be on I don't know. Maybe Larry King has no choice -- maybe CNN booked them. I hope he mentions President Kennedy to them. I don't know if Geraldo is on or what time, but I'm tired of him protecting the assassins because as he said on his show Rivera Live on CNBC in 2001, "There was no conspiracy. Oswald killed Kennedy from behind and alone." Paraphrase. And it was apropos of nothing. He just came out and said it. The next week he announced he had a new job on Fox as Foreign Correspondent. This was right after 9/11. Kathy C ______________________________________________________________________ A couple of things, Kathy: I always read and like your postings because I believe you take a scalpel to things, with expertise. Larry King has always been a big favorite of mine because of his old radio show on Westwood one. I worked in radio and very much admired him because he could draw out anyone on the air and they all seemed to like him, which he used to get them to open up. Unfortunately, there is the truism, as you put it: 'Maybe Larry King has no choice -- maybe CNN booked them.' That is in the category of "ya think?" Also, I have been an admirer of Geraldo, often reluctantly, for a long time. When I lived in New York in the early Seventies I watched him on WABC and it was clear that he was trying to make a name for himself with his looks and his chutzpah...but he had substance as well. He quite recently has come around on 911 as an inside job - and there is video on youtube to prove it - at least in terms of the Building 7 imbroglio. He strikes me as a decent and open-minded person, unlike so many dogmatic people we both loathe. By the way, it was on that old Larry King radio show, on the 10th anniversary of Nixon's resignation, that he had Fred Thompson and Sam Dash as part of the program, for a couple of hours. It was on that broadcast - to which no one else listened, evidently, that Sam Dash said he believed Deep Throat was a composite. Hang in there. We will win. Happy Thanksgiving, JG John: Yes Geraldo slipped re 9-11 but he has since reversed himself making clear that there are no conspiracies. In JFK or 9-11. I see most of this stuff on facebook, and it was several days ago that I saw both videos so no clue where it was now. It galled me to see the Bushes on King last night. Especially given all that Russ Baker has unearthed in Family of Secrets. Re Poppy and 11/22/63. Tasteless Larry. Dawn

Bernice: I tried twice to copy and paste this vid. at DPF but it did not take. Can you post it? It is in the JFK section in the Jesse Ventura thread. Many thinks, Dawn

For sure. Sloppy of me. Careless too. My favorite story regarding this book took place in 1972. There was some sort of auction and "Portrait of the Assassin" was among the items being sold. It was signed by the author with the words "best personal regards" and the word "personal" was misspelled. (Brings to mind Dan Quale ). Dawn

Very odd. Have the moderators had anything to say? I have not been here in several days so I do not know how much commentary it had. I know others have had their posts disappeared, or so they have said. With Peter L there was warning. Jack White however has said his stuff was removed at various times. The moderators always deny this. Yes great article but I know it will garner criticism. Dawn

Did not see ths show but there is no doubt on Viet Nam. It would not have occurred. But I doubt a network on tv woud see it that way, although Austraila may be more honest. Did anyone see this show? Dawn

If the FBI murdered these innocent kids in 1970 imagine what they would do to war portesters today IF we were to actually have a true anti war movement. Put us in FEMA camps? On no fly lists? Or just shoot us like 5/4/70. Is Obama any better than Nixon? Dawn

I have always believed this version -even long before I read it- of the events. And people wonder why the Kennedy family remains silent. I wonder if the murder of John John helped bring on Ted's brain tumor. I knew Cutler -just in passing-in Massachusetts and in 1975 his dart from the sewer theory sounded a bit strange, not so now. A gunman there at least is quite plausible imho. Dawn

I find that the best way to deal with the trio mentioned above is to avoid reading a word they have posted. Jim is correct, they are here to flame, disrupt and insult. Engage at your own risk. Just because Jim and Jack disagreed on Judyth does not mean they would end their long friendship over this. My husband and I disagree on 9-11 and are very happily married. He is waiting to hear from controlled demo experts on the WTC buildings 1 and 2. (Agrees that building 7 fell "consistent with controlled demo".) Steve, you will recognize the flamers quickly as they post a great deal. Garbage in garbage out. Dawn

Thanks Jack. I remember being rivited when I heard him on coast to coast some years back. What does the ST stand for in FWST? I am assuming FW is Fort Worth? Dawn

Instead, he asked for "ANYBODY." "Anybody" I would assume would mean "anybody." Any old unemployed no-win no-fee first year law graduate off the streets, would be "anybody." It appears from the moment he was lifted to the moment he was shot, he continued to demand a lawyer, ANY lawyer. But all "reasonable" people know, it was imperative he was kept away from ANY lawyer. ________________________________________________ In 1983 I spend a few days trying to locate Abt. But from John's post he may well have been dead by then. I tried the ACLU in several places, beginning with New York. Has anyone ever tracked him down? Of course they could not let LHO have an attorney because that was quite dangerous for the conspirators. Dawn

BK I like to plug COPA any chance I can get. It is the best org. around now. Last year it was just incredible. Not sure I will be able to make it this year however, due to a family committment out of state. I also think your grand jury idea is our last and best shot at getting this thing solved and at best history put right. Anything new going on there? Thanks for all you do. And to John Judge, the soul of COPA for so long now. Dawn

Thanks for these Bernice.

I would strongly encourage everyone to get Dr. Martin Schotz' book History Will Not Absolve Us as there is far more in this speech that shows just how much Castro knew about what was going on ...I scanned it to John Simkin years ago but he said the scan did not come out. This entire speech needs to be online. It is not because then the Castro did it idiots would be forever silenced. Dawn

This is for John. Flammode Paris was kind enough to send this to me today. The Castro quote from 11/23/63. Dr Martin Schotz' book "History Will Not Absolve Us" has the speech in its entirety. It is really something. Full of insight as to the forces really behind the death of JFK. Dawn "These events occur precisely at a moment when Kennedy was being severely attacked by those who considered his Cuban policy to be weak. It could not be us, but only the enemies of the Revolution and the enemies in general of a more moderate policy, a less warlike policy. . . who might be interested in the death of President Kennedy. [They are] the only ones who perhaps could have received the news of Kennedy’s death with satisfaction. A few days ago an incident drew my attention. This was while the Inter-American Press Association Conference was taking place. It was a scandal. . . . They [anti-Castro exiles] made long tirades. . . against the speech delivered by Kennedy in Florida . . . [which] disappointed a number of persons who favor a more aggressive policy against Cuba. It was a disappointment for the counterrevolutionary elements, and it was a disappointment for the warmongering elements in the United States. . . . There is something very interesting—really very interesting and curious which drew my attention when I read it. That is why I remembered it and looked for the papers. It says: “The third editor to express his opinion was Sergio Carbo.” . . . Carbo . . . is Director of the Executive Council of the Inter-American Press Association . . .an important post in reactionary intellectual circles . . . his statement ends (and this is what drew my attention) . . . by saying: “I believe that a coming serious event will oblige Washington to change its policy of peaceful coexistence.” What does this mean? What did this gentleman mean when he said three days before the assassination . . . in a cable . . . from Associated Press, dated November 19, ap number 254, miami beach . . . “i believe that a coming serious event will oblige washington to change its policy of peaceful coexistence”? what does this mean, three days before the murder of president kennedy? because when i read this cable it caught my attention, it intrigued me, it seemed strange to me. was there perhaps some sort of understanding? was there perhaps some sort of plot? was there perhaps in those reactionary circles, where the so-called weak policy of kennedy toward cuba was under attack, where the policy of civil rights was under attack—was there perhaps in certain civilian and military ultra-reactionary circles in the united states a plot against President Kennedy’s life?

It wans't just the MSM, it was also the blogosphere which rose up against Caroline. This is what convinced me that the blogosphere was going to be little different than the MSM. The following column really ticked off Jane Hamsher. As it shoudl have. http://www.ctka.net/2009/hamsher.html That is an excellent column, Jim. Great info about JFK not being on the side of the colonialists; most do NOT know this. A lot of the "young" folks don't know much about John Kennedy. I wonder when the MSM will start talking honestly about the JFK assassination. Just last night I heard Chris Matthews on Hardball pushing the Big Lie about Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone nut killer of John Kennedy. [btw, Chris Matthews a friend of Richard Haass, head of CFR, and Haass' wife is an editor of Chris Matthews' book ...] A lot of the "young folks" don't know much about Lyndon Johnson either. They think he was some "great" man who gave black folks civil rights in 1964-1965 and was some sort of innocent bystander in the JFK assassination and cover up. They need to read LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination by Phillip Nelson: http://www.lbj-themastermind.com/ . This was after Lyndon Johnson had done practically nothing for civil rights under JFK and was sabotaging the Kennedy's policy agenda on all fronts, domestic and foreign. Then, in my opinion, Lyndon Johnson and the CIA (and the shadow government) murdered John Kennedy. And the first thing Lyndon Johnson did, to pacify the Left who was so deeply suspicious of his possible role in the JFK assassination, was to come out for civil rights out of the blue. Didnt LBJ sign the Voting Rights Act into law? You really have to do better Robert. You wonder when main stream media will start talking honestly about the assassination? You mean when will they blame LBJ? Your job- if you choose to accept- is to do the Len Colby smackdown. Or so I have been told. Len: Many former candidates have been elected with little more than a law degree. It was that she has written on the Constitution that puts her in a better position, many candidates don't have a clue about the document they swear to uphold. And John John was blown out of the sky. But I don't expect you to do your homework.

Hey Dixie: It is my understanding that Jerry Rose got very spooked over something after the deaths of Bud Fensterwald and Larry Howard and stopped JFK research, or at least his publication. I used to get The Third Decade also, in the 80's I think, also Gary Mack's "Cover-ups". I have heard two different stories re Jerry- both involving TX connection angles. Perhaps Jack can shed some light on this. I miss all the different mags, especially Probe which was my favorite. A friend got me a subscription until Lisa and Jim ceased publication. Of course they still write online which is even better, for conserving trees. Very interesting story you posted. This case gets stranger every time I read something. THE most complex murder case of all time I believe. Dawn

It wans't just the MSM, it was also the blogosphere which rose up against Caroline. This is what convinced me that the blogosphere was going to be little different than the MSM. The following column really ticked off Jane Hamsher. As it shoudl have. http://www.ctka.net/2009/hamsher.html Perhaps it was the fact she had absolutely no qualifications other than her pedigree. That is bullcrap. She has a law degree. She has written books. She UNDERSTANDS the constitution. She has as much qualification, if not way more than most candidates. The media was horrendous. That's because they are- by choice- ignorant when it comes to the assassinations. In fact I'd go so far as to say that attacking her the way it did the CIA's Operation Mockingbird got rid of her and let her live. Unlike her brother, father and uncle. Dawn