Stephen Roy

You have GOT to be kidding...

Ed has a very good discussion of the autopsy report on page 232 to 241 of

DR. MARY'S MONKEY. She cannot have been killed in her apartment and

the damage is consistent with a massive electrical discharge, not from the

use of the particle accelerator itself, as Jack mistakenly supposed. Perhaps

it was accidental rather than intentional, but the murder hypothesis would

require a motive, which I am suggesting as an hypothesis worth exploring.

Based upon Haslam's research and what Judyth had told us, Mary Sherman

knew Ferrie and Vary and Lee, as I should not have to explain. That Adele

Edisen, Ph.D., a neurologist, was given Lee's phone number BEFORE he had

moved to New Orleans is another indication that his apartment was chosen

for its proximity to the secret lab. A further hypothesis worth considering is

that Mary may have been killed to create a dramatic incident that would blow

the cover of these convert activities, which Ed discusses on pages 369-370.

You seem to be missing interesting aspects of what was going on. 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.

Roy can quibble over "investigation" or "reinvestigation", but he displays an

acute lack of imagination about Mary Sherman, M.D., whose murder, we may

presume, was motivated my powerful reasons. An hypothesis that is worth

considering is that she was troubled by what had taken place, including the

murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, whom she knew, and that she had decided to

approach the Warren Commission with information in her possession. That,

I submit, is a theory of the case that bears contemplation. And I must say

that, for someone who claims to have done so much "research", I cannot

understand why he has done so little publication. Publishing your findings

is an important test of whether you are right or wrong about your research.

It strikes me as odd that, after so many years, Roy still has no publications.

WHY may we "presume" that Sherman's murder was motivated by powerful reasons? What about the sexual mutilation?

What is the evidence she knew Oswald, or decided to approach the Warren Commission?

And we've been over this: My book is not done. I can only work on it part-time. I don't churn out quickie books like others.

But what about her murder leads inexorably to the PRESUMPTION - to the exclusion of other reasons - that it was "motivated by powerful reasons"? Certainly, on the face of it, it was a murder. She was stabbed and mutilated, as well as burned. Why could it not have happened in her apartment? Jack suggested a blowtorch: There are several references in Samuels' report to burns. Could not the killer have tried to burn the body? Why leap to the conclusion that it was "motivated by powerful reasons"?

Your answer to my question about evidence that Sherman knew Oswald is: Haslam and Baker. But Haslam presents no evidence that she knew Oswald; and Baker's story is challenged by many in the research community, which is the whole thrust of this thread. As for Edisen, in addition to her not linking Oswald to Sherman, she apparently does not support Baker's story. So the question remains essentially unanswered.

I'm not "missing interesting aspects"; I'm not making silly leaps of logic where the evidence fails to support or even suggest it.

Once again, an ad hominem: You question why I have not published an article on my unfinished book. I have had no reason to do so. I've written many things on Ferrie on the internet; I've helped other authors; and I spoke at Lancer NID in 2000 (where I had brief chats with you, Jack and Greg, among others) and again in 2007, as I recall. You bring this up to try to raise some sort of suspicion about me, but you are not allowed to question the motives of another poster. Knock it off. Compete with ideas, not attacks.

Roy can quibble over "investigation" or "reinvestigation", but he displays an

acute lack of imagination about Mary Sherman, M.D., whose murder, we may

presume, was motivated my powerful reasons. An hypothesis that is worth

considering is that she was troubled by what had taken place, including the

murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, whom she knew, and that she had decided to

approach the Warren Commission with information in her possession. That,

I submit, is a theory of the case that bears contemplation. And I must say

that, for someone who claims to have done so much "research", I cannot

understand why he has done so little publication. Publishing your findings

is an important test of whether you are right or wrong about your research.

It strikes me as odd that, after so many years, Roy still has no publications.

WHY may we "presume" that Sherman's murder was motivated by powerful reasons? What about the sexual mutilation?

What is the evidence she knew Oswald, or decided to approach the Warren Commission?

And we've been over this: My book is not done. I can only work on it part-time. I don't churn out quickie books like others.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO STEPHEN ROY ABOUT A CLAIM BY ED HASLAM

==Stephen Roy makes it seem that Haslam did not do his homework, implying

that the Warren Commission only came once to New Orleans. The first time the

Warren Commission visited New Orleans, they subpoenaed witnesses. But they

missed key witnesses such as Guy Banister, Dr. Mary Sherman, etc.

The Warren Commission finished obaining testimonies in Dallas on July 14, 1964.

They then commenced to New Orleans.

Dean Andrews was the first witness interviewed on July 21, 1964 (Vol. XI) when

the Warren Commission once again opened its investigation in New Orleans, this

time, TO TAKE UNSOLICITED TESTIMONIES from those volunteering information.

Dr. Sherman's murder was front-page news that day.

The testimony of Evaristo Rodriguez was next, followed by Orest Pena.

Edward Haslam DID do his homework. Stephen Roy did not.==

Something just occurred to me. It is stated, in conjunction with Haslam's "Dr. Mary's Monkey," that Dr. Mary Sherman died "on the day that the Warren Commission began its investigation in New Orleans." (paraphrase)

Sherman died on July 21, 1964.

But the Warren Commission investigation of New Orleans was ongoing, from its first months, when it received its first FBI and Secret Service reports. By April 7, 1964, Wesley Liebeler was in New Orleans interviewing Sidney Edward Voebel, and Albert Jenner was there interviewing Freddie O'Sullivan. It is hard to believe that the Warren Commission "began its investigation in New Orleans" near the end of July, so late in the game, when the report was already being written.

Is the assertion above actually a fact (source?) or a factoid - something written as a (wrong) guess, and then repeated from book to book?

Hi, Miss Baker. Good to have you back.

OK, first, I don't take "homework" assignments. I'm doing research, as best I can.

I wasn't necessarily quoting Haslam above, that Sherman was found dead "on the day the Warren Commission began its investigation in New Orleans." I said that it has been stated, in conjunction with Haslam's books.

That claim has been repeated all over the internet. Fetzer has said it here more than once. Your former associate Wim Dankbaar has said it:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/judyth.htm

The folks at CTKA have said it:

http://www.ctka.net/posner_jd.html

Do a Google search for "mary sherman warren commission new orleans" and you'll find numerous hits on it.

But since you brought it up, Haslam does report the claim on page 134:

"Keith also observed that Warren Commission investigators started taking their testimony in New Orleans on the morning of July 21, 1964, several hours after Mary Sherman's murder. Some consider this coincidental timing suspicious, and speculated that her death may have somehow been related to the Kennedy assassination or to her association with David Ferrie."

And therein lies the problem: The claim creates the impression that Sherman was murdered to keep her from testifying to the Warren Commission, a claim unsupported by the facts. There is not the slightest trace of interest in Sherman in Warren Commission records. She appeared nowhere until Garrison mentioned her in the Playboy interview. (And as for Banister, the WC had no reason to be interested in him, as he is only mentioned in passing a few times in FBI and Secret Service reports. There were no allegations against him in 1964.) As I noted (and you essentially echoed), the Warren Commission's New Orleans investigation was ongoing (including April interviews) and July 21 was a continuation, not the start of this phase of the investigation.

I don't want to get into this "homework" thing. I have obtained zillions of documents and done dozens of interviews. I note that Haslam does not cite many documents or interviews on JFK-related matters in his endnotes. I am not uncomfortable with my level of research.

Ferrie allegedly flew Larry DeJoseph in a chopper to survey an area that was being looked at for a training facility in Lousiana. That came from a SOF mixed up in anti-Castro business at the time.

DeJoseph was an employee of Trafficante's in Havana. He also mixed with Frank Fiorini and Gerry Hemming during the early 1960s. The photo attached shows Ferrie and deJoseph.

JK

I am a bit uncertain about this photograph. When first posted a few years ago, it was represented as showing Ferrie with Larry DeJoseph in 1963. I had an exchange with another EF poster about it (not sure if it was Larry or James, can't find the emails), and as I recall (correct me if I'm not remembering it accurately), it came down to it "looking like" DeJoseph. I get a bit leery of making definitive identifications from photos.

But my biggest concern is the photo itself: This appears to come from the Billings collection at Georgetown, and it seems to match a series of photos taken of Ferrie at Lakefront Airport in December 1966 by Lynn Pelham of Life Magazine. (During that photo shoot, Ferrie was interacting with flight students). Further, the braided cap Ferrie wears appears in other photos taken in 1966-7, but does not appear in any photos (I have found) prior to 1966.

So I'm not sure this was 1963, or that it was DeJoseph (who, incidentally, does not seem to show up on the radar in any other documents I found or interviews I've done.)

Edit: The photo did not copy to my reply. It can be seen above in post #12.

Why is Baker the plaintiff (complainant), while those who have questions about her are the defendant(s)?

In the post above, why is the plaintiff quoted at length (while asserting facts not in the record) while the defendant(s) are quoted to a far lesser extent?

Something just occurred to me. It is stated, in conjunction with Haslam's "Dr. Mary's Monkey," that Dr. Mary Sherman died "on the day that the Warren Commission began its investigation in New Orleans." (paraphrase)

Sherman died on July 21, 1964.

But the Warren Commission investigation of New Orleans was ongoing, from its first months, when it received its first FBI and Secret Service reports. By April 7, 1964, Wesley Liebeler was in New Orleans interviewing Sidney Edward Voebel, and Albert Jenner was there interviewing Freddie O'Sullivan. It is hard to believe that the Warren Commission "began its investigation in New Orleans" near the end of July, so late in the game, when the report was already being written.

Is the assertion above actually a fact (source?) or a factoid - something written as a (wrong) guess, and then repeated from book to book?

Does anyone have any reference to Ferrie flying Helicopters? Im still tracking down that Ohio lead. Thanks a bunch guys for your help!

Mike

I haven't run across it in my study of Ferrie. I can say that his FAA records give no indication that he was qualified to fly helicopters.

BTW, Mitchell: We need to gab about Ferrie a bit.

Let's see. Jack looked at the photographs and reported that, in his judgment, the decedent was uncircumcised, even while he acknowledged Earl Rose had stated that he was "circumcised". The foreskin clearly overlaps the glans, which supports Jack's judgment. After reviewing the nature of circumcision, it turns out that "partial circumcision" (enter: circumcision, partial) is a common practice, even though most of us are unfamiliar with the concept. Why Stephen Roy thinks he can dictate facts is beyond me, but that is what he pretends to be doing here. Since Oswald appears to have had a partial circumcision, the answer to the question, "Was he circumcised?", appears to have no definite answer. If it is meant in the sense, "Was he (completely) circumcised?", the answer is, "No". if it is meant in the sense, "Was he (partially) circumcised?", the answer is, "Yes". The question of circumcision therefore appears to be moot. Even if Judyth may have given different answers on different occasions, it simply doesn't matter. If Jack, who is no fan of Judyth, can look at these photos and concluded that, contrary to the autopsy report, he was uncircumcised, then what possible difference can if make? Far more important are her observations that he had "impressive equipment", which I can confirm based on the photo in my possession (that I am now going to have to find) and that he did not shave his pubic area (which appears to be shaven in these photographs). If anyone is making "inexcusable errors", it is Mr. Roy, who is attempting to impost (clearly unwarranted) opinions upon the rest of us. Why am I not surprised?

Irrelevant and illogical apologetics. Oswald was circumcised; Baker said he wasn't. She was wrong. No amount of spin can obscure this.

With all due respect to Jack, Oswald was examined by a physician. "Even if Judyth may have given different answers on different occasions, it simply doesn't matter." Only to those whose goal is neither objective nor scholarly; only to those whose sole goal for such contorted "logic" is to apologize for such errors, at all costs. Who is trying to "impost" things on who?

1) The black and white photos, and more importantly the autopsy report (done by a physician who actually examined him) establish that Oswald was fully circumcised.

2) Baker did communicate in 2000 with Conway and Reitzes that Oswald was not circumcised.

3) Once it became clear that Oswald was circumcised, Baker changed her story and began giving unbelievable excuses for the change.

In 2000, she had a 50-50 chance of guessing correctly, but she guessed wrong. Taken alone, that error is telling; taken in conjunction with her change of story and excuses, it is even more telling. A woman in an intimate relationship with a man could NOT make such an error. This suggests very strongly that she never had an intimate relationship with Oswald, calling her entire story into question.

For this reason, it is imperative for her chief apologist to find some way to spin this. The suggestion that Oswald was "partially circumcised" is crazy and in conflict with the evidence. The suggestion that Reitzes would fake the email is also crazy, as even those who vehemently disagree with him on other issues have indicated. (Perhaps Howard Platzman, who was copied on the email, would let us know if it is identical to what he received.) The suggestion that the autopsy and photos were faked some 30 years ago for the sole purpose of tripping up Baker is patently absurd. And the suggestion that this is a "moot point" is nothing more than a desperate attempt to get away from an indefensible error.

Just an FYI: This could easily get lost in a morass of detail. There is a LOT of stuff about Baker out there, some of it from her.

I also voted C before viewing the votes.

SR declares:I AM NOT A "SELF-PROCLAIMED" Ferrie expert. I do not use that expression. I am a Ferrie SPECIALIST. My comment above is far more understated, and a direct response to Fetzyr's belief that he knows more about things than other people.

Ok, so Roy is to date an unpublished self-proclaimed Ferrie SPECIALIST. Roy seems blissfully unaware that Fetzer is nipping at his heels. And how many books has Fetzer published? :-0

Yes, that first sentence is fairly accurate. Thanks!

Fetzyr is nipping at my heels??? Oh, I'm CRUSHED! Is that why the poll is at 82/6/11 right now?

I'm not looking at this as a contest. I've made some good observations here, and he just ignores me.

I believe he's published 29 books, as he keeps telling us. Your point? Does that disqualify...well, ALL the other posters here from having opinions? (Again, my knowledge of the New Orleans stuff is pretty good.)

SR proclaims:My "chops" on Ferrie and New Orleans are quite good (and profoundly better than Fetzer's), but he can feel free to "work things through in his own way" and post what he wants.

LOL. Roy tries to keep a firm rein on his status as a self-proclaimed Ferrie expert. He seems to think he is entitled to that because he has managed to hold his material close to his chest for how many years?

It's pointless for me to continue responding to Pamela McElwain-Brown, because she makes charges, I correct them, and she repeats the same erronous information again and again and again, as if by repetition it will stick. So I'll direct this toward readers:

I AM NOT A "SELF-PROCLAIMED" Ferrie expert. I do not use that expression. I am a Ferrie SPECIALIST. My comment above is far more understated, and a direct response to Fetzyr's belief that he knows more about things than other people.

My biography of Ferrie IS NOT FINISHED, as I'm only working on it part-time. I have shared material with many authors, researchers, producers etc.; I've posted a bunch of it here and elsewhere and I've spoken on it at JFK conferences.

If anybody sees her repeat these things again, please remind her that I've responded and they're NOT TRUE.

Let me acknowledge now that I misjudged Michael Hogan...it is clear that

Hogan is simply playing with words. What he has been attributing to me, however, is completely misleading.

I have thought he was a serious student of these things and have taken his questions seriously, but no more.

He has been making false and misleading statements regarding my position...Others

have suggested I was mistaken in my favorable opinion of him. I have resisted, but now I am convinced.

Ruh roh, Rorge...

Michael:

I guess that, after a brief moment of favor in Fetzer's eyes, you now need to be attacked. Welcome to the club.

What ARE you talking about? He never acknowledges points I've brought up, resorting again to attacks. Fetzer does not listen to other people here, but you are right that he thinks for himself. And yes, anyone who wishes to keep an open mind is a thorn in his side. Nobody expects him to "fall", because he really doesn't care what others think.

If Roy can take a step back toward objectivity, which he says he values, perhaps he can see that he is creating a strawman. Jim Fetzer may not say what Roy wants him to or think he should, but he is evaluating all the information on this thread and weighing it in his own way. Keep in mind he has to sift through information based on Roy's bias against anything involving Ferrie and conspiracy.

Why should he care about what others think? Isn't that just an appeal to the masses? Why not allow him to work things through in his own way and respect his right to disagree with you?

Example: I entered this thread by giving my own informed opinion (which I have also done on this and other forums previously, including long before Fetzer discovered all this) that Haslam's books, whatever their merits, do not follow standard research methodology. The conclusions are not supported by the evidence. Fetzer could have drawn me out a bit to cite specifics, but instead he went on the attack (as he has with virtually every other poster in the thread).

Example: His "psy-ops expert" made a couple of crazy statements about Ferrie being recruited by "the Company" (and being made to lose his hair) years before CIA even existed. I corrected them. Rather than say, oh yes, he made some mistakes, Fetzer went silent.

Example: After claiming that research went on at the "underground laboratory" in Ferrie's "large kitchen," I posted photos showing that it was not large, that the trio would have tripped over each other, and that there was no sign of a lab, lab equipment, mice cages, etc. At this point, Fetzer announced that he was leaving the conversation.

I'm not trying to convince Fetzer; it is hopeless, as he is not interested in hearing (with COMPREHENSION) any contrary evidence. So yes, I guess those posts went to "the masses," as do Fetzer's and everyone else's posts in this thread. My "chops" on Ferrie and New Orleans are quite good (and profoundly better than Fetzer's), but he can feel free to "work things through in his own way" and post what he wants.

As will I.

Hi Stephen, my replies are in CAPS:

Do we agree that JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald?

If not, explain Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

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.

I DO NOT KNOW IF ANYONE DISCUSSED EVIDENTIARY MATTERS WITH LEWIS FIRST. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD QUESTION FOR ANY WITNESS. 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.

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.

Dean:

Thanks for helping to turn the emotional level of this topic down a bit! Let me just give my own impressions. (I haven't yet mastered the art of quoting posts section-by-section.)

Point 1: My questions were somewhat rhetorical. I would need to be satisfied that this was the real ex-wife of David Lewis, that she was lucid and capable of an accurate statement, and that she was not influenced in any way in her memories. To the best of my recollection, she was originally "found" by, and the interview arranged by, Baker (or with her help), and Baker was present for the interview. (See below) Also, I seem to remember that there was some reluctance on either Lewis's or Turner's part to use her interview in TMWKK.

Point 2: David Lewis gave Garrison's staff an accounting of his contacts with Oswald; as I recall, he indicated that he encountered Oswald only two or three times; this did not include his wife or double dating. So his account varies from his wife's account.

Point 3: As I noted, I have seen one interview in which Baker was involved during which she made leading statements to the interviewee**. Since Baker was also involved in the Lewis interview, I would hope that Baker's exuberance did not influence Lewis's statements.

I am willing to accept the interview with reservations. I don't think it stands on its own as conclusive evidence; I would like to see corroborative evidence. This is just my opinion, but based on years of solid research.

**In the McGehee interview I mentioned, the transcript shows McGehee (one of the "Clinton/Jackson witnesses" who thought he had seen a woman in a car associated with Oswald) carefully answering questions, while Baker makes statements such as "Well, I have to tell you - that was me," "I've got this all documented," "I've got all the proof," as well as other leading comments. I would hope this was not done in the case of Anna Lewis, before or during the interview.

SR says:Thanks, Michael. I keep hoping that some - especially Fetzer - will start LISTENING to what others have to say, to seriously answer our questions without resorting to dismissal and avoidance, but it's beginning to look very unlikely.

Roy might want to take his own advice.

Why not at the very least acknowledge that Jim Fetzer listens to everything that is being said here, and chooses to think for himself? It would be a mistake to equate 'listening' with 'being swayed'. Anyone who wishes to keep an open mind seems to be a thorn in the side. Jim Fetzer will not fall to the appeal to the masses Roy seems to be pushing.

What ARE you talking about? He never acknowledges points I've brought up, resorting again to attacks. Fetzer does not listen to other people here, but you are right that he thinks for himself. And yes, anyone who wishes to keep an open mind is a thorn in his side. Nobody expects him to "fall", because he really doesn't care what others think.

For some reason, I keep hearing a Beatles song in my head...

All through the day, I me mine, I me mine, I me mine

All through the night, I me mine, I me mine, I me mine

Now the frightened are leaving it, everyone's weaving it, coming on strong all the time

All through your life, I me mine

Stephen, I know you initially were reluctant to get drawn into this thread. Once you were insulted

in such an ugly and unwarranted manner, I understand why it became impossible not to respond.

I think you can take solace in the fact that the overwhelming majority of members that have

read your posts on this thread know you have made consistent attempts to qualify your opinions,

balance your assertions, and refrain from straying far from things you have studied.

I believe that Forum members that are possessed with good judgment know exactly what

happened to you and why. And they know it reflects poorly on the ones that denigrated you.

PS) I would like to thank Greg Burnham, Jack White, Josiah Thompson, and Barb Junkkarinen

for their supportive comments. Those comments meant a lot to me and were appreciated.

Thanks, Michael. I keep hoping that some - especially Fetzer - will start LISTENING to what others have to say, to seriously answer our questions without resorting to dismissal and avoidance, but it's beginning to look very unlikely.

Not to belabor the point, Jack, but I'm sure Jim would sincerely argue, rightly or wrongly, that it is you who has changed! Perhaps Jim felt an obligation to defend the "underdog" (Judyth) and when she was being attacked--he took it personally. If that is correct, it's not that big a deal. I'm surprised this "feud" went this far, but I understand how it did. It's the result of one party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the "witness" is lying--and the other party honestly being absolutely convinced (rightly or wrongly) that the witness is the "real deal" who is being unfairly treated.

The error, IMHO, is the absoluteness of both of your individual, diametrically opposed, positions.

Thanks, Greg. I appreciate the understanding and fairness of your suggestions in this and recent posts. I've been there: Knock-down, drag-out disagreements that escalate to fights and beyond, into personal stuff. Nobody wins, nobody is convinced either way. I hate seeing what this mammoth thread has done to some of our friends and associates. I wish some of the combatants could just chill and stop serial-posting long enough to see that the whole world does not hinge on believing or disbelieving. We're losing the ability to accept that smart people sometimes disagree.

Do we agree that JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald?

If not, explain Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

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.)?

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?

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.

Jim, with over 2300 posts on this thread it has simply become too unwieldly to go back and find all of your

exact comments about the scholarship and quality of Haslam's research. I do recall you using the words

for the general public in one instance, but the larger point is that you have always defended the scholarship

and research in Dr Mary's Monkey. Your comment about "getting my points straight" is gratuitous.

As far as answering my questions, you have not. You left it that you had contacted Ed Haslam about them and were

waiting for his reply. That is where things were left. If you dispute this, I will take the time and go back and find the post.

I have watched virtually all of Haslam's videos. The more I watch Haslam, the less faith I have in him in terms

of his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers. If he has no evidence or research of his own to

offer regarding his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers, then his book is of questionable value to this thread,

as far as I am concerned.

I have simply claimed that Haslam presents no real evidence or proof that this was so.

You could have conceded that long ago and saved me some time and effort.

Not only that, I have claimed that there are inconsistencies and vagaries in Haslam's account.

I have always confined my comments only to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Baker. If Haslam

expects anyone to believe his account of meeting another Judyth Baker in 1972 with absolutely

no evidence other than his recollections, the rest of his unsupported statements need to be rock-solid

in order to afford him the benefit of the doubt.

(The above edited for space- SR)

Michael:

You and I seem to be among the few who have taken Fetzer's advice and obtained and read Dr. Mary's Monkey, watched/listened to the various YouTube and audio programs and read some of the related literature. While our main points of interest vary - for you, Baker; for me, Ferrie - I think we are seeing it the same way. I expected to see reasonably convincing evidence in support of key assertions, but I have not seen anything approaching that standard.

My key Ferrie questions are: Did Ferrie actually have an "underground medical laboratory" at any location? Did Ferrie actually work with Dr. Mary Sherman? I certainly see Haslam's belief that these things are true, but little if any verfiable, checkable evidence. We end up ultimately with circular corroboration: Baker confirms Haslam, and Haslam confirms Baker.

And my response from Fetzer has been even more troubling than yours. He challenges my qualifications to have an opinion. He invokes Haslam to suggest that I am nothing more than a jealous wannabe. He denigrates my research without making any attempt to see any of it. He tries to put me down by suggesting that my slow caution in my PART-TIME writing of my Ferrie biography doesn't meet his standard of churning out 29 books in even fewer years. Forum rules prevent me from using a word to describe how he has treated me.

I don't know where to go from here. It has become apparent that Fetzer is unwilling to consider contrary opinions and that he cannot discuss without schoolboy attempts at put-downs. I once respected Fetzer's ability to collate and analyze, but my respect has been diluted by his insistence that it will all become clear if we just have faith in his beliefs.

I have no beef with Haslam. I respect that he put his heart and soul into this book, and for all I know, the medical parts may have some substance. I have reservations about his mixing this all with the whole Ferrie and Oswald matter. I wish he had been more diligent in obtaining evidence, and that he was more willing to discuss these matters with people like you and me. And others. And I wish he had found a champion more interested in finding the truth than in proving himself right.

BTW, can anybody who has a good relationship with Marina Oswald discreetly inquire about this?

This circumcision thing could be a real game changer. I don't know how I missed it, unless it was while I was in the hospital. Barb, could you post a link to the "very long ramble" where she explains it?

I don't understand how a woman, who claims a great ability to recall details, who had an intimate relationship with a man could be wrong about such a detail. And the autopsy report/picture alteration thing sounds farfetched, too. Why would anybody (in 1963-4? Or even later) go to the lengths of altering a report and picture of that one detail?

This reminds me a bit of another item I brought up with Baker: She said Oswald told her about Uncle Dutz, but she pronounced the name wrong. I always thought it was pronounced to rhyme with "butts," but I later learned it was correctly pronounced to rhyme with "boots." But until I brought it up, Baker pronounced it "butts." She explained that she went with Martin Shackelford's insistence that it rhymed with "butts." But if you were Baker, who would you trust to pronounce it correctly: Martin, or Oswald himself? How could she have gotten that wrong?