Stephen Roy

Lots of interesting stuff here. But...

I was always amazed that Sciambra dismissed Ferrie's complaints of sickness as phony, since he died a few days later, and this memo is dated after Ferrie's death.

BTW, Sciambra died recently.

"1.In Garrisons book "On the trail..."he is called Marachini...(german edition)"

Garrison was going from memory. I base the correct spelling on a lengthy personnel file on Marochini, provided to HSCA in May 1978 by his then-employer, Chrysler Michoud.

"2. Nobody knows, which kind of relationship Ferrie and Marachini had. Marachini was living next door to Clay Shaw,(1309 Dauphine street) and a frequent Ferrie-visitor..."

I am saying that Marochini only shows up those 2 times on Ferrie's radar, based on my long study of his life: In the EAL investigator's report (visit to apartment) and Ferrie's testimony at an EAL dismissal hearing (translation of document). None of Ferrie's friends I've interviewed knew Marochini. What is your source that he was a "frequent Ferrie-visitor"?

"3. You are right, it was Coffee, not Marachini, who was with Ferri on his Huston trip... sorry for that..."

"4. Garrison says in his book, that Marachini and Oswald started working at Reilys exact on the same day --sry I rather believe Garrison, who was at the center of the events, than you..."

Again, Marochini's Chrysler personnel file would seem to be a pretty solid source. Marochini's record from that time:

2/1/62 to 8/15/62: Asst Mgr, L & J Wine Co.

11/1/62 to 3/19/63: Sales Rep, Solari Inc Wine

3/19/63 to 6/10/63: Sales Rep, Standard Coffee

6/10/63 to 8/25/63: Wine Steward, Arnaud's Restaurant

8/26/63 to 7/9/64: Shop Scheduler, CCSD (Chrysler) Michoud

7/10/64 to "present" (1978) Material Specifications, CCSD Michoud

With all due respect to Garrison, he goofed on details from time to time.

"One of Ferries boys Dante Marachini - he was with Ferrie on his Huston trip 22.11.63 - started working for Reilys the same day Oswald and Judyth did: coincident? hardly..."

Lots of mistakes here:

1) Not "Marachini". His name was Dante A. Marochini.

2) He was not what we would consider as one of "Ferrie's boys." He was much older (38 in 1963), and his only connection with Ferrie was that he was a friend of James Ronald Lewallen, who had been a friend of Ferrie's since 1947. Marochini came across the Ferrie radar only briefly: A private detective hired by Eastern Air Lines noted that he visited Ferrie's home with Lewallen once in late 1962, and he also helped Ferrie translate an Italian document.

3) Marochini was not on Ferrie's 11/22/63 Houston trip: Ferrie was accompanied by Alvin Roland Beaubouef and Melvin Stacey Coffee.

4) Marochini did not start at Reily on the same day as Oswald or Baker (May 9); He started at Standard Coffee as a Sales Rep on March 19, and worked there until June 10, when he left for a job at Arnaud's Restaurant.

If this is the same guy:

Donald A. Adams, b.Jan. 21, 1931, Barbertown OH

Barbertown High School, U.S. Army (Kentucky, Japan, Korea), BA in Education from Kent State, NY Life Insurance Co.

Married Jeanette 1955, 4 children

Became SA September 1962, retired from Akron RA December 1982

VP/Security of Brenlin Group, Chief of Police at Fairlawn OH, June 1993-present

Member SFSA and other groups

Duh, me!

I just clicked on his website. This is the same guy, and there's much more bio detail there!

If this is the same guy:

Donald A. Adams, b.Jan. 21, 1931, Barbertown OH

Barbertown High School, U.S. Army (Kentucky, Japan, Korea), BA in Education from Kent State, NY Life Insurance Co.

Married Jeanette 1955, 4 children

Became SA September 1962, retired from Akron RA December 1982

VP/Security of Brenlin Group, Chief of Police at Fairlawn OH, June 1993-present

Member SFSA and other groups

The argument that the Zappy cartoon is legitimate because the "alteration technology" did not yet exist in 1963 to have accomplished Z-film manipulation is refuted, once and for all, by the technology utilized in this 1928 film, "There It Is" -- Starring Mac (George Bundy?) and TUM (The Umbrella Man?)...

Many thanks to my friend, Scott Myers, for the clip...

Film clip posted for research purposes ONLY:

Interesting. Like David, I have a long background in TV (including the end of the film era), and I'd like to give this some consideration.

The question of a film alteration technology being adequate in 1963 depends on the type of alteration one believes was used on this film in 1963. Greg, can you specify any particular type of alteration you believe was used on the Z-film? Is there any consensus among "alterationists" as to what type of alteration might have been used?

Another factor to consider is if such alteration could go undetected by both the public and by trained eyes.

I confess that I come at this as something of a skeptic, but I'm not closed-minded

I have that pic, I'll see if I can find it.

However, I am convinced that, while it shows Shaw, it does not show Ferrie or Oswald. The people involved said it was an "adventure party" in 1949 for WDSU employees, and the figure resembling Ferrie was a WDSU announcer named Robert Brannon. Ferrie did not move to New Orleans until 1951. And the young guy is almost certainly not the 10-year old Oswald.

Just an FYI: One of Dave Ferrie's former "Falcon Squadron" cadets told HSCA that Ferrie took them to several locations for training, and he mentioned Belle Chasse (correct spelling; correct pronunciation is bell chase)as one of them.

The Falcons were a non-CAP sanctioned group created by Ferrie, which also included his "Internal Mobile Security Unit" or IMSUs. The boys recalled, however, that this was all American boys, except for one visit by a couple of Cubans (which probably included Buznedo).

The interesting thing is that this Ferrie activity at Belle Chasse was also in the spring of 1961.

I know Novel. I really don't think he knows anything about the assassination. He likes to be mysterious, and Garrison elevated him to mysterious.

I had a feeling (and, I think, mentioned it several hundred posts ago) that when Fetzer stopped serial responding (and being insulting), the activity in the thread would go down.

In terms of numbers, a shame...Nearly 3000 posts, surely a record, and nearly as many views as the pinned "Who Killed JFK?"

Stephen,

Just for clarity, I don't buy that at all either. Not for a second. The Secret Service was NOT actually employing his assistance. The part that I don't find far fetched is the possibility that "he was under the impression" that he was being somehow helpful. Again, as the patsey, he was likely told many things that were untrue by those who were setting him up to take the fall. This might be a detail that could be true. It makes no difference to my personal research work whether true or false. But, if he was told this falsehood and he told it to Judyth, she appears to erroneously believe it was true, and is now reporting from memory. I see that as possible, but not necessarily probable.

I see your point.

SR

RE: The proposed Black Op program:

I would like Baker to expand on this a bit, from her unauthorized book, pages 615-617:

"In early November, Lee's concern for Kennedy's safety increased. 'I was invited to help test security problems at Love Field,' he told me. 'I was to see where hiding places might be, things like that. What was I doing - helping or hindering - when I gave my report?' Lee spent a week checking out Love Field in every aspect. He'd be picked up and taken there, then returned discreetly to the TSBD building a few hours later...After their work at Love Field, other locations were also investigated. Lee was working with a Secret Service agent. 'I'm the trusted local native,' Lee explained. 'In a way, it's an honor to help scout out Kennedy's route, as well as emergency routes. The agent and me, we've become friends,' he added, a bit proudly. 'I think I can trust him'...Ironically, Lee, himself, soon to be thrust into the role of accused lone assassin, made many recommendations for the sake of the safety of the President."

Lee Harvey Oswald was a consultant to the Secret Service on Kennedy's motorcade route and safety procedures?

I understand what Karl, Greg and David are saying, but I don't buy it.

Why would the Secret Service need to consult with a "trusted local native" at all? They had an office in the D/FW area staffed with professionals, and they also used advance agents on this trip. (Vince Palamara, does this make sense??)

Why would the Secret Service pick a guy who, despite living in the area at various times in the past, had only been in the area for about a month, and thus was not up to date on any current threats? Why would they pick a guy with no known expertise in security or presidential protection?

What are the odds that the Secret Service would choose to consult with the very guy who would be accused of killing the president whose security was at stake? Could that have been covered up for more than 45 years without a hint?

RE: The proposed Black Op program:

I would like Baker to expand on this a bit, from her unauthorized book, pages 615-617:

"In early November, Lee's concern for Kennedy's safety increased. 'I was invited to help test security problems at Love Field,' he told me. 'I was to see where hiding places might be, things like that. What was I doing - helping or hindering - when I gave my report?' Lee spent a week checking out Love Field in every aspect. He'd be picked up and taken there, then returned discreetly to the TSBD building a few hours later...After their work at Love Field, other locations were also investigated. Lee was working with a Secret Service agent. 'I'm the trusted local native,' Lee explained. 'In a way, it's an honor to help scout out Kennedy's route, as well as emergency routes. The agent and me, we've become friends,' he added, a bit proudly. 'I think I can trust him'...Ironically, Lee, himself, soon to be thrust into the role of accused lone assassin, made many recommendations for the sake of the safety of the President."

Lee Harvey Oswald was a consultant to the Secret Service on Kennedy's motorcade route and safety procedures?

What concerns me in the transcript above is not so much the material about McGehee and his responses; what concerns me are some of Baker's statements. Several of them seem to be "leading statements." About the lady in the car, Baker says "That was me...I kept everything...I've got this all documented...I've got all the proof." When there seems to be uncertainty about the length of the woman's hair, Baker makes comments about how HER hair looked in 1963. When McGehee gives his opinion of why Oswald was there, Baker "shocks" him with information about experiments on prisoners. When the car is discussed, she tells McGehee what the car looked like. When McGehee repeats information he had heard that Oswald could not drive, Baker insists that Oswald could drive.

It may just be that this was exuberance on Baker's part, or that the interview was not a formal one. But I have to keep this sort of thing in mind when considering Anna Lewis's statement, and Baker's role in arranging it and presence during it.

Edwin Lea McGehee was one of the "Clinton/Jackson witnesses" who emerged during the Garrison investigation. The stories of these witnesses suggested that Oswald was in the Clinton/Jackson area in the late summer of 1963, accompanied by others, and various theories have been propounded as to the reason for Oswald's alleged presence there. McGehee once said he thought that a woman may have accompanied Oswald there. Baker and another individual interviewed McGehee in 2001. These are portions of the transcript.

Excerpts of transcript of "highlights" of interview of Edwin Lea McGehee by Judyth Baker, January 20, 2001.

Baker: I don't know what you were able to see in the car.

McGehee: Just saw the back of your head. That was all I saw.

Baker: OK. Well, was it a dark-haired lady?

McGehee: Right. That's all I know.

Baker: Well, now, it wasn't a blonde? She was dark-haired?

McGehee: Yes, dark-haired.

Baker: Well, I have to, I have to tell you - that was me.

McGehee: Garrison always asked. He said, who...he wished he knew who that was.

Baker: I kept everything.

McGehee: Why didn't it come up at that time?

Baker: Well, I was scared to death, because - Dave Ferrie, you know - think he was murdered - Mary Sherman was stabbed - fourteen times - the other person I worked with.

McGehee: Well, I'll be damned.

Baker: I've got all this documented.

McGehee: Uh-huh, uh-huh.

Baker: I've got all the proof.

McGehee: Unbelieveable!...

Baker: (showing picture of herself) Tell me, if you'll - look at her, and see what you think...Does she look anything like the woman you saw?

McGehee: The back - yeah - but it's short - not long haired - long haired - uh - I think it's...

Baker: It was a little longer at the time.

McGehee: Yeah...uh. Maybe a bit longer down at...it was shoulder length...

Baker: Well, that's exactly right, it was the year before...

McGehee: Right...

Baker: And, uh, my hair was a shorter length at the time...

McGehee: [Oswald] got a haircut. And I thought that was strange. He kept trying to - in my opinion, he was trying to make me remember him. That was my opinion of why he was there.

Baker: Well, there were some things we were trying to do to prove who we were...

McGehee: Uh...

Baker: This will shock you, but - we were there becuase of prisoners being experimented on at Jackson Hospital, and I don't know whether you heard any rumors about them or not. They were injected with cancer cells. did you hear anything about that?

McGehee: No.

Baker: Well, Okay. Did you hear of any experiments that were being done on any prisoners in 1963?

McGehee: Right. No, no.

Baker: Well that was what this whole trip was about - going out there and - I had all this medical training and everything like that, and we - I was out there to check the bloodwork...

Baker: Do you remember about the car out there? I'll tell you what kind of a car it was in a minute, and see if you can remember.

McGehee: It was an old car - and like I said, a Nash, a Frazier.

Baker: Was it two-toned or one-toned? Or do you remember? I'm on record, so - I mean, uh, I'm on record as having already described the car.

McGehee: I don't know...I just glanced at it, and I looked mostly at WHO was in the car...No, didn't know that car.

Baker: Well, it was a...mainly green - darker green...two-tone, the other color had some tan in it...

McGehee: Well, were you driving it? So Lee didn't drive?

Baker: Lee was driving. He was afraid to drive because he didn't have a driver's license, so we were driving up side roads...

McGehee: Everything I read about him - since then - it said he couldn't drive.

Baker: Oh, believe me!..He told me he learned to drive when he was in the Marines.

McGehee: Well, I'll be damned!

Baker: I want you to know that you are not the only one on tape. I've got other witnesses.

Have you considered the possibility that David Lewis was not being forthcoming?

I presented Lewis's statements without comment, but since you brought it up...

You did. Much appreciated.

This is where people who have studied the Garrison case have an advantage. Lewis was a very eager witness. He was brought to Garrison by Jack Martin and was "more than glad" to give his statement. He tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to UPI. Garrison lost interest in Lewis after he claimed to have been shot at by a Cuban, then admitted that the story was false after polygraph exam. Some might say he was over-eager.

Why would a very eager witness withhold the most important part of his story? The only reasonable explanation might be that it was a limited hangout, or that he was trying to steer investigators in the wrong direction. But there is no evidence to support this. So his story stands, as it is.

To you. I see Lewis differently and think there are other reasonable alternatives, including the possibility that Lewis sensed that leaking too much of what he really knew could backfire. I don't think he trusted Garrison to take care of him.

HERE I GO WITH CAPS FOR CLARITY:

BUT, THEN: WHY GO TO GARRISON IN THE FIRST PLACE? IF HE FEARED SOMETHING WOULD COME OUT WHEN THE THREAD WAS PULLED, WHY HAND GARRISON THE THREAD IN THE FIRST PLACE?

THERE IS JUST NO EVIDENCE THAT HE PULLED HIS PUNCHES. WELL, UNLESS YOU CONSIDER WHAT ANNA SAID, BUT IT IS HER STATEMENT THAT IS IN QUESTION.

This is one of the reasons why Anna Lewis's story cannot be accepted uncritically:

Fair enough. But I don't think Lewis' statements can be accepted uncritically either. I look at his situation as analogous to that of Dean Andrews, who gave valuable information then shiffted in the wind when put under pressure by the WC.

NO, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT DAVID'S CREDIBILITY WAS OPEN TO QUESTION, TOO.

It conflicts with her ex-husband's story in an important respect, the alleged double-dating.

]It does; I don't think that's reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, though.

I'M NOT ADVOCATING THROWING IT OUT; I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE UNCHALLENGED WEIGHT ACCORDED TO IT BY FETZER.

Another problem with her story is that she said she met Oswald in early 1962[/i], when the historical Oswald was in the USSR.

That is a horse of a different color.

AS I NOTED TO BAKER, SHE WAS VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT HOW IT FIT INTO HER 1962 TIMELINE. THIS WAS NOT A SIMPLE "MIS-SPEAK." UNLESS, OF COURSE, IT WAS ONE OF THOSE HARVEY AND LEE THINGS.

I also note that he indicated that he did not work at Continental Trailways Bus until 1965.

BAKER HAS IT IN HER UNAUTHORIZED BOOK THAT LEWIS WAS USING THE TRAILWAYS STATION AS SOME KIND OF PROCESSING CENTER FOR CUBANS IN 1963. BUT DAVID NEVER GAVE ANY INDICATION THAT HE WORKED THERE PRIOR TO 1965. THE ONLY SOURCE WE HAVE (BESIDES BAKER) IS ANNA LEWIS. AND AGAIN, ONE NEEDS TO BE CAUTIOUS OF HER ACCOUNT, OR SEEK FURTHER CONFIRMATION.

Acknowleged.

THANKS FOR BEING OPEN MINDED ABOUT THIS, BY THE WAY.

MORE COMMENTS FROM JUDYTH ABOUT DAVID LEWIS FROM AN UNPUBLISHED INTERVIEW

NOTE: If Judyth has more to say about Stephen Roy's comments on her last post, I will publish them

Excerpts from unpublished interview with David Franklin Lewis Jr. by NBC News, undated but early 1967 (ARRB/NARA):

THANKS TO MR. ROY, WE HAVE SOME STATEMENTS OF DAVID LEWIS' TO LOOK AT. BUT FIRST:

1) REMEMBER THAT HIS WIFE WAS PREGNANT AND STATED SHE HAD BEEN HARRASSED BY A GARRISON INVESTIGATOR

2) REMEMBER THAT IF LEWIS SAYS TOO MUCH, HE COULD GET ARRESTED.

3) REMEMBER THAT DAVID FERRIE IS DEAD OF MYSTERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES, DR. MARY SHERMAN WAS MURDERED, GUY BANISTER WAS FOUND DEAD (BUT FRIENDS SAID HE HAD BEEN MURDERED), AND DAVID HAS MANY CHILDREN. HOW MUCH CAN HE DARE TO SAY?==SEE COMMENTS BELOW==JVB

SR- Then why come forward AT ALL?

Q. Did you also know Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. I had met him on a separate occasion, but to say that our relationship was one that was very friendly, I would not state that, no. It was more or less a person that you were moderately acquainted with.

Comment: IT WAS COURAGEOUS OF LEWIS TO ASSERT THAT HE WAS EVEN MODERATELY ACQUAINTED WITH THE MAN WHO WAS THE DESIGNATED ASSASSIN OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY.

SR- Why come forward and tell only part of the story?

Q. Were you aware of the anti-Castro interests on the part of Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. Not that I know of, no.

==HE CANNOT BRING HIMSELF TO SAY A SIMPLE 'NO'--BUT HE WAS AWARE, IN FACT.==

SR- No, we don't know that he was aware. We have only HIS words.

Q. Did you know that Oswald worked for the William B. Reilly (SIC) Coffee Company?

A. No, I did not know that Oswald worked for Wm. B. Reilly until the investigations here started, just recently.

==This was not true.==

SR- Again, we have only HIS words.

Q. How much time elapsed from the time President Kennedy was killed until you told anybody you knew and had met Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. Over three years.

==DOES THIS SOUND LIKE AN OVER-EAGER WITNESS? COULD MR. ROY BE MISTAKEN?==

SR- He says he told nobody from 1963-1966. Then he talks to investigators and the press. Nobody forced him to talk to either.

Q. You just told us before that you had told it to your wife.

A. Well, that's true, that was on the day...just my wife alone, sitting at home.

==IT CAN BE SEEN THAT LEWIS WAS AVOIDING ALL MENTION OF HIS WIFE, ANNA, UNTIL FORCED TO ADMIT THAT HE HAD SPOKEN TO HER ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION. THIS AGAIN SOWS HE IS TRYING TO PROTECT HER.==

SR- This is an unclear transcription. Is he saying he told her he knew Oswald on November 22, 1963?

Q. Did you ever talk to Ferrie about Oswald?

A. No, I did not.

==I DO NOT KNOW, WASN'T THERE.==

Q. Did you ever talk to Oswald?

A. I have spoken with Oswald on a few occasions, yes. It was more or less just passing conversation. It was nothing to do with my business or his. It was more or less just passing the time of day. It was in a restaurant. I just happened to be a patron of the restaurant at the same time.

==Comment by JVB: this was Thompson's Restaurant. Note that Lewis again does not mention his wife Anna, who was working at Thompson's as a waitress.

SR- You would think he would have mentioned it, if he and his wife had double-dated with Oswald.

In other words, both Anna Lewis and David Lewis were present when Lewis says he was talking to Oswald. This confirms what Anna said on film, that she had seen Lee Oswald in Thompson's restaurant alone, as well as "with Judyth."==

SR- No, it doesn't. In context, he said Carlos was always present when he saw Oswald. And he does not confirm that it was "with Judyth."

This is getting positively weird now. Cue the Twilight Zone theme.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO THE LATEST FROM STEPHEN ROY

Roy says: I presented Lewis's statements without comment, but since you brought it up...

This is where people who have studied the Garrison case have an advantage. Lewis was a very eager witness.

==Mr. Roy is trying to show that Mr. Lewis was self-serving in his eagerness to tesify,but the "eager witness" never presented himself to the Warren Commission when they sought unsolicited testimonies in July, 1964. It was his friend, Jack Suggs Martin, who was an "eager witness." Perhaps Mr. Roy has mixed up the two, for Martin early on desried to vilify David Ferrie, with whom he had a falling-out in May, 1963.

MARTIN DIDN'T PRESENT HIMSELF TO THE WARREN COMMISSION, EITHER. WHEN GARRISON STARTED HIS PROBE IN LATE 1966, MARTIN WAS HIS PRIME WITNESS, AND HE BROUGHT LEWIS TO GARRISON. AS I NOTED, LEWIS TOLD IVON THAT HE WAS "MORE THAN GLAD" TO GIVE A STATEMENT, AND HE THEN TRIED TO SELL A STORY TO THE PRESS. THIS CAN HARDLY BE DESCRIBED AS RETICENCE.

Martin and Lewis were close friends: Lewis was living with Martin at the time of the Garrison investigation after he and his pregnant wife were harrassed by Garrison investigators.==

DAVID LEWIS DIDN'T TELL IT THAT WAY, AT LEAST NOT IN THE FIRST FEW MONTHS OF GARRISON'S PROBE.

Mr. Roy says: He was brought to Garrison by Jack Martin and was "more than glad" to give his statement.

==David Lewis was angry about what happened to his friend, David Ferrie. He stepped forward only after Ferrie was found dead.

WRONG. LEWIS GAVE HIS STATEMENT AND INTERVIEW ON DECEMBER 15, 1966. FERRIE DIED TWO MONTHS LATER, ON FEBRUARY 22, 1967.

It seems again that Mr. Roy is mixing up who was eager and who was not to talk. it was Jack Martin who later made a tape of statements by Lewis and unsuccessfully tried to sell it.==

MERRIMAN SMITH OF UPI SAID LEWIS APPROACHED HIM TO SELL HIS STORY.

Mr. Roy states "Garrison lost interest in Lewis after he claimed to have been shot at by a Cuban, then admitted that the story was false after polygraph exam. "

==Mr. Roy needs to be less sweeping in his statement. He needs to look at the polygraph examination again. The problem was that Lewis said Carlos Quiroga shot at him. David Lewis had written an account of having been shot at. I have a copy for anyone who wishes to look at it. The account was hand-written and made soon after the incident. His wife agreed that this occurred. Lewis did not say that he could recognize the person who shot at him. Later, he said it was Quiroga. That had to be untrue because Lewis had not stated that Quiroga was identified in his original account.==

YOU ARE CORRECT THAT LEWIS DID NOT NAME QUIROGA IN HIS ORIGINAL ACCOUNT. BUT DICK BILLINGS OF LIFE, WHO WAS WORKING WITH GARRISON AT THE TIME, NOTED IN HIS JOURNAL: "LEWIS HAS REPORTED HE WAS SHOT AT ON CHARTRES...A LIE DETECTOR LATER PROVED THIS A LIE TO GAIN ATTENTION."

Mr. Roy : Garrison lost interest in Lewis after he claimed to have been shot at by a Cuban, then admitted that the story was false after polygraph exam. Some might say he was over-eager.

==Mr. Roy implies that the entire story itself was false. But Lewis was implicating Quiroga: Quiroga and Lewis were on unfriendly terms, and Quiroga, by the way, also failed his polygraph test with Garrison. he failed essential questions such as, had he ever seen the weapons used in Kennedy's assassination.==

Mr. Roy stated: He tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to UPI.

==Jack Martin who was trying to sell the story, not David Lewis.==

Mr. Roy: Some might say he was over-eager.

==Who besides Mr. Roy? David Lewis did not try to sell the story. David Lewis did not step forward to the Warren Commission. He is being held guilty by association with the eager Mr. Martin.==

ACCORDING TO MERRIMAN SMITH OF UPI, LEWIS TRIED TO SELL IT TO HIM. I'LL FIND THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.

Mr. Roy: Why would a very eager witness withhold the most important part of his story?

==He was not that eager, Mr. Roy. And what was this father of five children to do? Get himself arrested --as happened to Clay Shaw?

So he was supposed to say that he and his wife (who was pregnant, and would be brought in for heavy questioning) double-dated with the man the Warren Commssion concluded killed John F. Kennedy. Then what, Mr. Roy? He had five children and another on the way. Soon after speaking out, he was accused of stealing items from the bus station (just a coincidence?). He fled the city. He and his wife were afraid to be seen together and got a divorce. But he had been brave enough to declate that Oswald was seen with Guy Banister. He did what he could.==

Mr. Roy (who never mentions David Ferrie as Lewis' friend) states: The only reasonable explanation might be that it was a limited hangout, or that he was trying to steer investigators in the wrong direction. But there is no evidence to support this. So his story stands, as it is.

==A reasonable explanation is that a father of five little kids, working part-time jobs trying to survive, does not volunteer information that will get him arrested. Imagine if he would have stated that he knew Oswald so well that he and his wife double-dated with Oswald and his girlfriend. Believe it or not, David Lewis liked the idea of staying out of jail.

I DON'T FOLLOW THIS AT ALL. IF HE WANTED PRIVACY, WHY COME FORWARD AT ALL? WHY GO TO THE PRESS? DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT SAYING HE DOUBLE-DATED WITH OSWALD WOULD GET HIM ARRESTED?

Mr. Roy then implies that if a person married to anothe person is a certai kind of person, the person they are married to is also the same kind of person--a logical error).==

Roy says: This is one of the reasons why Anna Lewis's story cannot be accepted uncritically: It conflicts with her ex-husband's story in an important respect, the alleged double-dating.

==There is NO CONFLICT. Failure to mention an event is not evidence that the evernt did not occur. There was obvious danger for Lewis in bringing up the matter. Anna Lewis herself suffered consequences for doing so, decades later.==

1) THERE IS A CONFLICT. DOUBLE-DATING, YES OR NO? HOW MANY TIMES HE MET OSWALD. HOW WELL HE SAYS HE KNEW HIM.

2) THERE WAS NO DANGER IN BRINGING IT UP.

Roy says: Another problem with her story is that she said she met Oswald in early 1962, when the historical Oswald was in the USSR.

==Anna Lewis was refreshingly unrehearsed in her story. She spoke spontaneously and at the behest of others, without any prior preparation. She spoke off the top of her head. We have witnesses who say they saw Oswald in New Orleans in the fall of 1962, and Anna herself later said it might have been in the Fall. She was going back decades and speaking spontaneously. Unlike researchers, she hadn't spent years going over those memories and events. Most of us believe that she did a good job recollecing as many details as she did.==

BUT SHE PUT IN IN CONTEXT WITH EVENTS THAT WERE HAPPENING IN HER LIFE IN 1962! MARRIAGE, PREGNANCY, PLACE OF RESIDENCE. THIS CANNOT HAVE BEEN A SIMPLE MISSTATEMENT.

Roy says: I also note that he indicated that he did not work at Continental Trailways Bus until 1965.

==Though Lewis did not bring up his employment (part-time) at Trailways in 1963, he also did not bring up a number of other part-time jobs he had held. he simply said he had held some part-time jobs.

AND DID NOT MENTION TRAILWAYS.

Nor did he bring up the fact that he was still working part-time for Guy Banister in 1963 (he asked us not to tell his wife, because he had promised her that he quit working for Banister in 1962.

YES, HE DID BRING UP HIS WORK WITH BANISTER, IN SEVERAL INTERVIEWS.

Note that some researchers on the "Oswald did it" side insist Lewos was just an office boy for Banister. But Lewis and Martin worked togeher as a team for Banister between 1962 and when Banister was found dead in June, 1964.

There is even a record showing their political involvement, via Banister, in local elections, thanks to Jerry Shinely. Lewis only gave a brief outline of his many activities.==

I am going to be unavailable soon. It cannot be helped. JVB

THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT CONFLICTS BETWEEN WHAT DAVID LEWIS SAID IN 1966-7, AND WHAT ANNA LEWIS SAID IN YOUR INTERVIEW.

Sorry for the caps! I wasn't shouting, just don't know how to insert comments in a long post!

Excerpts from unpublished interview with David Franklin Lewis Jr. by NBC News, undated but early 1967 (ARRB/NARA):

Q. Did you also know Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. I had met him on a separate occasion, but to say that our relationship was one that was very friendly, I would not state that, no. It was more or less a person that you were moderately acquainted with.

Q. Were you aware of the anti-Castro interests on the part of Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. Not that I know of, no.

Q. Did you know that Oswald worked for the William B. Reilly Coffee Company?

A. No, I did not know that Oswald worked for Wm. B. Reilly until the investigations here started, just recently.

Q. How much time elapsed from the time President Kennedy was killed until you told anybody you knew and had met Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. Over three years.

Q. You just told us before that you had told it to your wife.

A. Well, that's true, that was on the day...just my wife alone, sitting at home.

Q. Did you ever talk to Ferrie about Oswald?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you ever talk to Oswald?

A. I have spoken with Oswald on a few occasions, yes. It was more or less just passing conversation. It was nothing to do with my business or his. It was more or less just passing the time of day. It was in a restaurant. I just happened to be a patron of the restaurant at the same time.

Have you considered the possibility that David Lewis was not being forthcoming?

I presented Lewis's statements without comment, but since you brought it up...

This is where people who have studied the Garrison case have an advantage. Lewis was a very eager witness. He was brought to Garrison by Jack Martin and was "more than glad" to give his statement. He tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to UPI. Garrison lost interest in Lewis after he claimed to have been shot at by a Cuban, then admitted that the story was false after polygraph exam. Some might say he was over-eager.

Why would a very eager witness withhold the most important part of his story? The only reasonable explanation might be that it was a limited hangout, or that he was trying to steer investigators in the wrong direction. But there is no evidence to support this. So his story stands, as it is.

This is one of the reasons why Anna Lewis's story cannot be accepted uncritically: It conflicts with her ex-husband's story in an important respect, the alleged double-dating. Another problem with her story is that she said she met Oswald in early 1962, when the historical Oswald was in the USSR.

I also note that he indicated that he did not work at Continental Trailways Bus until 1965.

Interview of David Franklin Lewis Jr. by Det. Louis Ivon, Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, December 15, 1966:

Q. Approximately how many times have you seen Lee Harvey, who you later identified as Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. No more than four times, each time in the company of Carlos [later identified as Carlos C. Quiroga].

Q. The day that you first met him, were you introduced to him?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you hold conversations?

A. No, more or less "I'm glad to meet you."

[...]

Q. I am going to show you another photograph. Do you know this man?

A. This man is Lee Harvey Oswald. The man I know as Lee Harvey and the man I was introduced to in the lower portion of our building, in Mancuso Restaurant by Carlos.

[...]

Q. Have you ever seen Lee Harvey Oswald and David Ferrie together?

A. Not to my knowledge - No. They may have been, but I don't know.

[...]

Q. Is everything in this statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge?

A. That is correct.

Q. You are making this statement freely and voluntarily?

A. I am more than glad to give this statement.

[...]

Q. After leaving Banister's employment, where did you work?

A. [...] Odd jobs from April [1963] to March 1964 and reported to Louisiana Employment Office...Trailways - April 4, 1965 - Continental Trailways Freight Agent to present [December 1966].

Statement of David Franklin Lewis Jr. to Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, December 15, 1966:

[...] In the late summer of 1963, I was reporting to the Louisiana State Employment Office, at 601 Camp Street seeking steady employment. At this time all I had was odd jobs from time to time...On one occasion I...stopped by Mancuso's Restaurant...I noticed...a fellow I was introduced to by Carlos as Lee Harvey in the restaurant. It has now been determined by me through photographs that this man was Lee Harvey Oswald...When I first seen Lee Oswald in the restaurant, he didn't talk much, but he seemed to be anxious about getting on his way...I had only seen Oswald about three or four times in the neighborhood of Lafayette and Camp Streets in the Newman Building...

OK. SINCE I HAVEN'T MASTERED THE ART OF REPLYING TO PIECES OF POSTS, I'LL INSERT MY COMMENTS IN CAPS FOR CLARITY.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO STEPHEN ROY ABOUT FERRIE'S "STUFFED MONKEY"

NOTE: Stephen Roy takes a cheap shot at me in relation to the use of the phrase, "large kitchen",

as a description of David Ferrie's kitchen. Not only do I not remember using the word, "large"

YOU DID, IN YOUR LONG ARTICLE IN THIS THREAD ABOUT OCSHNER.

, but

I am not the witness who lived through these events and, therefore, even if I had used the word,

"large", that would not make Judyth responsible for that description.

I DIDN'T SAY SHE WAS. I SAID SOMETHING LIKE "LARGE KITCHEN, AS FETZER DESCRIBED IT."

This seems to me to be one

more example of one of her critics, this time Roy, attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill.

And his use of a photo taken in 1967 to test her recollections from 1963 is simply beneath contempt.

I DIDN'T USE THE 1967 PHOTO. BAKER DID.

JUDYTH RESPONDS:

Miss Baker:

Lemme see if I follow this: Because you failed to correctly identify the stuffed animal in

Ferrie's doorway until you saw the picture, this enhances your credibility in some way?

==Dear Mr. Roy, I was NOT in New Orleans in 1967, so of course I "failed to correctly identify the

stuffed animal in Ferrie's doorway." However, you dod not even mention ANY stuffed animal. You

only asked 'what' was hanging in his doorway (and of course youi knew that I only was there in 1963).

It turned out that the photo in question was made in 1967. So we are not talking about enhancing my

credibility. I'm concerned about your ethics.==

YOU ARE REFERENCING THE 1967 PHOTO, NOT ME. HOWEVER, I MAY HAVE SAID ONLY 'MONKEY' AND NOT 'STUFFED MONKEY' WHEN WE HAD OUR EXCHANGE IN ABOUT 2001. I DON'T HAVE THE EMAIL HANDY.

So even though I told you back almost a decade ago that it was a stuffed monkey, it just now

clicked in your head that it fits in with the many monkeys you say were processed there?

==Despite what you might think of me, I do not go about trying to "insert' myself or our project into

everything I see. I had not seen this photo until recently. And it took awhile for me to realize that our

work with monkeys could--I do not say DID--inspire the stuffed monkey. You have to admit it's an oddity.==

I AGREE. IT IS AN ODDITY.

I do have many other pictures, including a whole series from 1963, and I know more about where/

when the stuffed monkey was obtained, but I'm mindful of the fact that some of the stuff I post seems

to end up as part of your account.

==An easy accusation to make, Mr. Roy, since you've posted so much. However, you have never seen my

full account. Besides, it goes both ways. I told researchers about Dave's Harley before you ever posted

about it, for example. I have stated that Dave's furniture belonged to his mother: invesigators have searched

your posts without finding ay such reference in your posts. I suppose if you now bring it up, I can say that

"some of the stuff I post seems to end up as part of your account." The fact is, we will have overlaps, Mr.

Roy/Blackburst sinmply because I knew the man and you have interviewed people who knew the man.==

IT PAINS ME TO HAVE TO SAY THIS, BUT I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT YOU DID KNOW FERRIE. THAT'S PART OF WHAT THE CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING YOUR ACCOUNT IS ALL ABOUT.

You're now citing the monkey from the picture I "found" as some sort of "in-joke" by Ferrie.

==I am doing nothing of the kind, Stephen. I simply said, and repeat, that you implied the monkey was hanging

there in 1963. I told you I remembered nothing except maybe a plant on the wall. Though you have collected

many photos, etc., you never met David W. Ferrie. I remind you that you did not say "What kind of stuffed

animal?" You asked WHAT was 'hanging' between the livingroom and dining room. When I told you I could

remember nothing unusual, you stated there was a MONKEY hanging there IN 1963.

I DON'T HAVE THE EMAIL HANDY - IT'S ON AN OLD COMPUTER. IF I DID SAY 'MONKEY,' NOT 'STUFFED MONKEY,' I STAND CORRECTED.

I am glad you think you know how the monkey came into his possession. I sent an email about the monkey photo

to several people and lo, it is now on the Education Forum. And you jumped on it.

THAT'S RIGHT. I DIDN'T BRING IT UP. YOU DID. AND IT WAS HEADLINED AS "SUPPORTING JUDYTH OVER STEPHEN ROY."

As I recall, you said you weren't going to get involved in this. I certainly have no time for this any more than you

might. I was silent here for five years and want to return to that.==

I SENT YOU A MESSAGE ON THE FORUM ABOUT THAT. I STARTED ON THIS THREAD GIVING AN OPINION ABOUT HASLAM'S BOOK. THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE END OF IT, BUT IT WAS FETZER'S INSULTING ATTITUDE THAT COMPLICATED THINGS.

But since you're inclined to talk about Ferrie's apartment, tell us more about Ferrie's "large kitchen", as

Fetzer described it. I posted pictures of it a few pages back. How was the research done in that kitchen?

==I am NOT inclined to "talk about Ferrie's apartment", Mr. Roy/Blackburst.

I spoke up about the monkey photo. You misrepresented the date of the photo as 1963. Shame on you!

YOU BROUGHT THE PHOTO UP. I DIDN'T.

And you and I have already discussed Dave's kitchen before. Your problem is proving how nice and orderly and clean

Dave kept his kitchen (not). How his young boyfriends would be able to figure out what was and what was not scientific

equipment in a place full of all kinds of unusual things, about which they knew zilch. They wouldn't be able to recognize

a table centrifuge or what looked like a pressure cooker (used for sterilizing equipment) if they sat on one. The Waring

blender was just a blender.

I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT THE KITCHEN. YOU DO. LOOK AT THE KITCHEN PHOTOS I POSTED.

Yes, I was able to work in primitive conditions in Louisiana. Just as I had done under a high school stadium with a dirt

floor, in Florida. Doing the tasks I did there, with additional work taken over to Dr. Sherman's --and sometimes to my

own apartment--where I had my own microscope, with many long evenings alone to do additional work far away from

Dave's kitchen and his kiddies.

You told me I was 'wrong' about what was 'hanging' in the doorway. You replied that a MONKEY was HANGING there--

in 1963. At no time did you ever imply it was a stuffed animal that I had to identify. You added that today. I have of

course kept the emails on the subject.

FOR THE THIRD TIME, I APOLOGIZE IF I OMITTED THE WORD STUFFED 10 YEARS AGO. BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY 'MONKEY' DIDN'T RESONATE WITH YOU THEN.

I remember your also writing to me that Dave's Stinson airplane engine was supposedly being kept in his bath-tub there,

in 1963, according to reports of friends. If you didn't send that, somebody with your email address did. Now, that's

something we need to see in a photograph.

I DON'T HAVE A PHOTO OF THAT. IT WAS TOLD TO ME BY A FELLOW EAL PILOT, DAVE'S UNION STEWARD, WHO MENTIONED IT WHEN REMONSTRATING WITH DAVE ABOUT HIS GENERAL SLOPPINESS.

You said you weren't going to jump into this--then you did so anyway.

EVEN BEFORE I POSTED ON HASLAM'S BOOK, I WAS APPALLED AT HOW FETZER WAS TREATING PEOPLE, LIKE JACK, BILL KELLY, OTHERS. WHEN I DID MY POST, SUDDENLY HE ATTACKED ME.

I had to respond to your insinuation that Edward T. Haslam reprinted a mere 'factoid' about the Warren Commission

coming to New Orleans on July 21, 1964. Your failure to research the matter before criticizing Haslam surprised me.

The comment was an attack on Haslam's care in research, but actually revealed your own carelessness in research.

That does concern me.

WHEN I FIRST BROUGHT THAT UP, IT WASN'T DIRECTED AT HASLAM HIMSELF. THEN FETZER JUMPED IN. LOOK, HASLAM, ON PAGE 134, QUOTED A FRIEND AS SAYING THE WC 'STARTED' TAKING TESTIMONY ON THE DAY SHERMAN WAS FOUND. IT LEAVES AN UNWARRANTED IMPRESSION.

Your specious comment that Haslam had merely used a 'factoid: required a prompt and accurate reply. You were making

an insinuation concerning the quality of Haslam's research. I had considered your research generally good. Why you must

attack Haslam, I do not know. Why you never met him, I do not know. You've had two decades to do so. You say you

have scoured heaven and earth to find out all you could about Ferrie, yet this man wrote TWO books with "Ferrie" as a

major subject--Haslam, a New Orleans native and longtime resident--a humble man who does not promote himself as

an 'expert'--and yet he is.

You attacked a man you failed to even attempt to meet.

I TRIED VERY HARD NOT TO 'ATTACK' HASLAM. I WAS POLITE AND RESTRAINED, AND NOTED THAT HE DID NOT OFFER MUCH, IF ANY, EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS THESES. I DID TRY TO CONTACT HIM SOME YEARS AGO, BUT HE SEEMED DISINCLINED. AND IN HIS RESPONSE POSTED BY THE UBIQUITOUS FETZER, ED TOOK SOME SHOTS AT ME. .

Nor would you consent to meeting me,

LET'S NOT GO THERE AGAIN. WE TRIED TO ARRANGE SOMETHING AND IT DIDN'T WORK OUT.

nor would you even accept copies of Ferrie's lecture notes that I freely offered you.

Why?

BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WAY TO PROVE THEM GENUINE. THEY WERE IN YOUR HANDWRITING, AND THEY DON'T SOUND LIKE FERRIE TO ME (I'VE SEEN THE ONES IN THE UNAUTHORIZED BOOK - YOU KNOW, THE ONE WHERE YOUR THROW QUITE A FEW SHOTS AT ME.)

I must conclude that you pick what YOU want to collect and you ignore meeting witnesses you do NOT like. I then wonder

if you have asked leading questions to the witnesses you HAVE deigned to meet (using your word, 'deigned'). Have you in

other ways influenced your witnesses, what you have decided to record, and what you have decided to ignore?

MY BOOK WAS ALWAYS A BIOGRAPHY!!! MOST INTERVIEWS WERE FORMAL AND RECORDED IN SOME WAY. BUT SOME WERE CASUAL MEETING OR PHONE CALLS. SO SUE ME.

AND IF I WERE YOU, I WOULDN'T BRING UP THE LEADING QUESTIONS THING. I HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT YOU SENT ME OF YOUR INTERVIEW WITH MCGEHEE.

These are questions that must be asked about any book or any reports you make about your witnesses, because you have

failed to personally interview Haslam, yet have several times made specious or false comments about his work, and you

refused materials I offered you about Ferrie, as well as refused to meet me. You even posted that I REFUSED TO MEET

YOU. Dr, Howard Platzman has verified several times that it was YOU who refused to find time to meet ME. He also tried to meet with you. You never had time.

DON'T GO THERE. I TRIED.

You said you weren't going to be involved in this, then involved yourself. You said certain things were beneath you, then

you promoted yourself as someone who has collected Ferrie material for twenty years, that you wrote a book, while Haslam only "self-published" and only worked "two years" (!!!!!!!!) on his. You said these things were beneath you, and they are.

GUILTY. THOSE WERE ANGRY REPLIES TO FETZER'S ARROGANT CONDESCENSION AND STUPID COMPARISONS OF MY PROJECT TO ED'S.

I have tried to refrain from being impolite or rude. However, I will not allow inaccuracies about a honest, careful researcher to

be posted here without a reply.

I'VE GOT NO BEEF WITH ED. I TRIED TO BE POLITE. I DON'T THINK HE PROVES HIS CASE.

It seems you have decided to pick and choose what witnesses and information you will accept in your own research efforts.

You decided who Ferrie was a long time ago. You stated Ferrie "never" met LHO, and even after Frontline posted the campout

photo showing them both in the same photo, you said they didn't know each other.

YOU'RE CONFUSING ME WITH SOMEONE ELSE. I WROTE THAT THEY WERE IN CAP AT THE SAME TIME LONG BEFORE THAT.

Your position has never changed: Ferrie

denied he was EVER involved in anything, so THAT is the TRUTH. And you believe him! You always cite "docuemted Ferrie

witnesses" without ever giving their names OR even their quotes OR inerview dates. And everybody swallows it, mainly

because you also cite available materials about Ferrie that are at your fingertips (but others can reach those materials, too).

WHAT I HAVE SAID IS THAT I CONSIDER ALL THE CONSPIRACY ALLEGATIONS REGARDING FERRIE, AND I ALSO CONSIDER HIS DENIALS. PAMELA, FOR ONE, WANTS ME TO IGNORE HIS DENIALS AND JUST PRESUME HIM GUILTY.

Pamela Brown has noted:

"I'm giving you some advice; take it or leave it. I don't want to be sandbagged again by you and your 'book'. As far as

I am concerned, until it is published it does not exist. The only thing we have to evaluate are your posts and what you

have at your webpage. I'm not playing your game anymore."

PAMELA IS NOT OBJECTIVE.

I certainly feel that you "played a game" with me when you said i FAILED your "TEST" when I did not describe a MONKEY

hanging in the doorway that is in a 1967 photo. We poor ignorant folks didn't have the death photos of 1967 that were at

YOUR fingertips.

THAT WAS IN EMAIL, AS I RECALL - PRIVATE. I RECALL JUST THINKING THAT IT DIDN'T PROVE ANYTHING.

I just had my memories that there was no such thing 'hanging in the doorway' in 1963. You said I was wrong, and told Dr.

Platzman and Martin Shackelford that apparently my memory had failed me. I had no defense because you were "the Ferrie expert."

I noticed this on aaj, sent to me:

"Steve showed Judyth to be a fraud. So of course she probably doesn't like him."

But in the same thread, you wrote:

> "I don't proclaim myself to be an expert, just a specialist. A few have

> given me kudos in this area. An example would be Paris Flammonde's

> "Masques of New Orleans." Also, I think Baker has described my work in

> positive ways. '

THIS SHOULD HAVE SHOWN YOU, MR. ROY, THAT I HAVE GIVEN YOU CREDIT WHEN CREDIT WAS DUE. I ALWAYS TRY

TO BE FAIR. I WISH YOU HAD TREATED ME FAIRLY, HOWEVER! INTERESTINGLY, PAMELA, RIGHT AFTER THAT, MENTIONS

WHAT YOU DID TO ME ABOUT DAVE'S RING--A MATTER YOU WILL CERTAINLY BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN TO EVERYBODY FROM

YOUR VIEWPOINT, WHICH WILL LEAVE OUT EVERYTHING DEVIOUS, JUST AS IN THE MATTER OF THE MONKEY THAT YOU

NOW SAY YOU MENTONED AS A 'STUFFED ANIMAL' TO ME--WHICH YOU NEVER DID.

WROTE PAMELA:

"Well, you may have burnt your bridges with Judyth after the Ferrie ring sandbagging, but you never know." (May 13)

PAMELA KNOWS YOU CHANGED THE RULES AND WAITED YEARS BEFORE BACKTRACKING AND CHANGING WHAT YOU

TOLD PLATZMAN (CLAIMING THAT HOWARD HAD TO HAVE CHEATED AND TOLD ME THE ANSWER--YEARS LATER, PERHAPS

AFTER A WITNESS DIED--AND THEN CLAIMED THE RING HAD NEVER EXISTED.

I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK INTO THE GARGOYLE RING TEST RIGHT NOW.

YES, I TRY TO BE FAIR . MR ROY NEVER CALLED ME A DIRTY NAME ON AAJ OR ALT-ASS. EVEN TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT

TREATED ME JUSTLY OR FAIRLY, I TRY TO BE OPEN-MINDED. MAYBE SOMEDAY THEY WILL CHANGE...

"FOOL ME ONCE" (THE RING) SHAME ON YOU. FOOL ME TWICE (THE MONKEY) SHAME ON ME!

YOU HAVE SHOWN HOW YOU PLAY YOUR CARDS, MR. ROY. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

JVB

For reasons I don't fully understand, you find it necessary to preemptively try to attack me and my project. Judyth, it doesn't matter what I think. Yes I have doubts, for what I consider to be good reasons. Your story does not stand or fall on my opinion. If you want me to be less visible, you and Fetzer should just leave me alone. Ignore me, if you want.

To: Stephen Roy & Judyth Baker,

I have a few questions to which either (or both) of you may have answers.

Do you have the New Orleans telephone number that was used by David Ferrie from the summer of 1963 to call various individuals in Washington DC? Just to be up front, I have had the number--verified by the FBI--since 1998, as well as the list of all of the numbers he called from that number during that period of time. Have either of you any knowledge as to the significance of the numbers he called (or from which he received calls) or done any research on the subject?

Thanks--

Sounds interesting. I do have the list of calls from Ferrie's employer, the law offices of Gill, Bernstein, Schreiber and Gill; while we can't be sure he made every call, it is likely that he made many of them. I have checked into some of the numbers, but not others. (It'll be great when we eventually have "historical" phone listings online. For now, it's a matter of getting old phone books.)

I do know that Ferrie had extensive phone and mail contacts that summer with a man in Washington D.C. named George Augustine Hyde, regarding Ferrie's possible ordination by the "Orthodox Catholic Church of America." Hyde was born in July 1923, attended (but left) traditional Catholic seminary, taught in high school, was ordained in July 1946 in Atlanta in the "Orthodox Church of Greece," moved to D.C. in 1950, became a bishop in the "American Holy Orthodox Catholic Church" and "Apostolic Eastern Church" in May 1957. in 1960, he founded the above-mentioned "Orthodox Catholic Church of America," with "an active pastoral outreach to gay people as members and priests." (In 1970, Hyde would be elected Archbishop of this church.)

I need to look into Hyde more deeply, and try to check some of the other numbers Ferrie likely called. Any information in this regard would be appreciated.

"What you might want to explain, moreover, is why you do not seem to have published

even an article about your "findings". That strikes me as very odd. And it

is not about "churning out quickie books", which is a silly remark, but having

research results worth publishing. I take it you haven't because you don't."

He's explained himself several times now. This is getting old real fast.

Thanks for noticing, Todd. Fetzyr keeps ignoring the points I raise, and trying to suggest that there's something suspicious about me.

AN INTERESTING CURIO THAT SUPPORTS JUDYTH OVER STEPHEN ROY

Stephen Roy asked me what I remembered "hanging in the entrance

between the living room and dining room." When I stated that I could

not remember anything hanging there, Mr. Roy (Blackburst) triumphantly

stated that photos had shown "a monkey" was hanging in the entrance.

Imagine my surprise to discover that the monkey photo was made in Feb.

1967 when Dave Ferrie was found dead -- not in 1963. The monkey was

one of those jointed toy-monkeys that can cling to such things as trees,

flagpoles or doorways. Here is the photo showing it dangling there:

By no means can it be proven that it was present there in 1963. However,

it took some time for me to realize that MAYBE DAVE FERRIE HAD THE MONKEY

HANGING THERE BECAUSE WE'D WORKED WITH SO MANY MONKEYS, AND

WITH THE MONKEY VIRUS. Give me a better reason for its presence there.

JVB

Miss Baker:

Lemme see if I follow this: Because you failed to correctly identify the stuffed animal in Ferrie's doorway until you saw the picture, this enhances your credibility in some way?

So even though I told you back almost a decade ago that it was a stuffed monkey, it just now clicked in your head that it fits in with the many monkeys you say were processed there?

I do have many other pictures, including a whole series from 1963, and I know more about where/when the stuffed monkey was obtained, but I'm mindful of the fact that some of the stuff I post seems to end up as part of your account. You're now citing the monkey from the picture I "found" as some sort of "in-joke" by Ferrie.

But since you're inclined to talk about Ferrie's apartment, tell us more about Ferrie's "large kitchen", as Fetzer described it. I posted pictures of it a few pages back. How was the research done in that kitchen?