Don Jeffries

Hello to all who have participated in this discussion over Judyth Vary Baker and thanks to John Simkin for allowing me to join:

Most of you may not have heard of me. Briefly, I recently published a book that presented a case against the government for causing infamous events, including the murder of President Kennedy. It is called Dead Men Talking: Consequences of Government Lies. I conclude that Lee Oswald was innocent.

I will disclose my bias in this discussion: I have publicly voiced my support for Judyth.

Though this debate has gone well over 1,000 posts with many assertions made by many people whom I have respect for in the JFK community, the debate will not reach any consensus. Jim Fetzer and others have produced much relevant evidence in support of Judyth and everyone is free to interpret it as they believe. I have no qualms with those who disagree with my point of view, but am concerned about how we come to our conclusion as to her and to other issues.

I will draw an analogy: Suppose someone tells the boss of a company that they witnessed an employee stealing company equipment. No videotape or anything, just one’s word against another.

What does the boss do? It will probably depend on which employee they perceive as the more loyal or the more valuable. They want to be fair, but in reality they are setting the burden of proof for one too high to reach. If the boss sides with the accused, the accuser becomes an Inconvenient Witness.

It serves no purpose for anyone to make Judyth an Inconvenient Witness. Whoever can articulate their position on any issue based on the facts and the weighing of facts for their relevance will have my respect.

Thank you all for your time.

Hi, Dean. It's nice to see you here. I look forward to reading your book and I'm sure we'll all benefit from your input on the forum.

Lee,

Thanks for one of the best posts in a very, very long thread.

The critical community seems never to learn; once again, we can see why so little progress has been made over the years. Too many egos, too many combative and sensitive personalities- it's an old story. We end up incessantly battling each other over theories and side issues. As Pamela notes, it's essential that CTers stand together for what will certainly be the biggest onslaught of lone nutterism to date when the 50th anniversary rolls around in a few years.

As I noted in an earlier post, only Judyth knows the truth about her and Lee Harvey Oswald. At this point, failing any new irrefutable piece of evidence, I think we're beating a dead horse here.

I would hope that this contentious issue doesn't irreperably damage the relationships between fine researchers like Jack White, Jim Fetzer and David Lifton. We've had too many of these feuds in the past, and they've been tremendous roadblocks in exposing the truth about the JFK assassination. Let's not let this issue further divide us. Reasonable people can disagree about Judyth Baker, or John Armstrong, or James Files, etc. Let's all stay aware of the big picture and remember that our foremost objective ought to be exposing the impossibility of the official story.

I hope Mr. Lane even has a desire to answer thoughtful and honest questions before this thread implodes ....

I agree, B.A. I certainly hope Mark Lane sticks around on the forum.

I received an email from David Lifton this morning telling me of some of the significant research he is doing rather than rolling around in the gutter with you and this unfortunate woman. Your continued posts make all the more important what I wrote back to him:

"David, you must understand that you do real research; Glell Viklund does real reserch; Duncan Macrae does real research; Barb Junkkarinen does real research. But James Fetzer doesn't do real research and never has. I don't think it is a personal attack on him to point this out. I think it is just something that can be read off the sum total of his enthusiasms. Instead of actually looking into things and finding out what makes sense and what doesn't, Fetzer prefers another role. He likes being a flack or press agent or cheerleader. His congenial tools are press releases, news conferences, mysterious "intel" authorities, blogs, obscure radio talk shows, and now, "channeling" a woman whose story was holed at the water-line years ago. Since he never gets his hands dirty in real research, he loses perspective and ends up backing ideas that most folks are willing to let sink into obscurity. None of this is very important. It's just some of the noise that accompanies genuine discussion and inquiry. You are wise to stay away from it."

Josiah Thompson

Josiah, you left out Jack White. Is he doing real research?

So you think Oswald was in that window, Duncan? And you agree, Josiah? I apologize if I'm misunderstanding what either of you said, but that's what I'm interpreting from your comments.

Unfortunately, the Hughes film didn't capture enough detail to make any conclusive statement about who is in that window. It looks like there are two figures there, but it's kind of like looking at a Rohrschach test when you blow it up like that.

Regardless, I think it was established a long time ago that Oswald wasn't in that window.

Hi Mark,

Don't know if you remember me or not. I spent a memorable afternoon in your Washington, D.C. office back in the winter of '76. I was one of the teenage volunteers running a local chapter of the Citizens Committe of Inquiry. While I was there, you received an interesting call from Freddie Prinze in Hollywood.

You are one of my personal heroes. Rush To Judgment was the second book I read on the assassination (after the much less notable They've Killed The President ). It was a seminal work on the subject, and the accompanying film you made, as well as your follow up book A Citizen's Dissent, assure your place in history. When the truth about the assassination ever truly emerges, you will be remembered by future historians as one of those who stood up for the truth.

I'm sure I speak for everyone here when I say it's an honor to be able to communicate with you on this forum.

Thanks, Judith, for the detailed response.

One quick question; was LHO then planning to carry one of his guns to work with him on the day of the assassination? Was this something he did on a regular basis? Thanks.

One of the most perplexing aspects of all this has been the curious response of the Kennedy family to JFK's assassination (and later to RFK's and JFK Jr.'s as well).

From the outset, there seemed to be the attitude, on the part of the press as well as every member of the Kennedy family, that the assassination was a subject not to be broached to his widow, children (even decades later), siblings, etc. To my knowledge, there has never been another example of this in modern history. As I've noted before, the family members of Martin Luther King fought hard to get James Earl Ray a new trial. His widow, Correta Scott King, even traveled to an out-of- state courtroom to testify for Ray when she was quite elderly. Compare this with the ridiculous reality that even now, nearly fifty years after her father's death, there isn't a single journalist in the world who would have the courage to even mention the subject of the assassination to Caroline, his lone surviving child.

Robert Kennedy's response to the assassination was especially surprising. One would have expected a fighter like him to go all out to investigate and expose those who were behind the crime. Instead, he clammed up and put the same strange force field around him as Jackie and later Teddy would. I can only surmise that Bobby realized just how powerful the forces that took his brother's life were, and was silently biding his time until he could be elected President himself.

I've asked this before, but is there any solid documentation for Bobby's supposed statement, in a speech given just before his assassination, that "the truth about my brother's death will only come with the power of the presidency?"

Okay, I'll post this before Cliff does. There is absolutely no mystery about where the back wound was located.

The bullet holes in JFK's shirt AND coat, which align perfectly with each other, are the best form of evidence one is likely to get. They are corroborated by the original location marked by Boswell on the autopsy face sheet, the location indicated by Burkley on the death certificate and the testimony of witnesses like Sibert & O'Neill. Obviously, the entrance point is far too low to have exited from the throat, assuming a shot from above and behind.

There are few things less clear than this in this case.

Mike,

You appear to bascially be a lone nutter now. I don't believe you presented yourself as such a few years ago. That exact same kind of change seems to be epidemic in the research community.

Harold Weisberg covered the missed shot that nicked Tague extensively in "Whitewash II." You should read his irrefutable research- it's essential to understanding this case.

As Jim notes, these are the same tired arguments we've heard ad nauseum. Shots were easy, gun was fine, Oswald was a good shot, "no evidence" that shots were fired from anywhere else, etc. Dr. Perry's belated claims that the throat wound was one of exit are belied by his initial description, which was unequivocally that it was an entrance wound. Anyone in the legal system will tell you that initial testimony is the most valuable.

EVERY piece of "evidence" cited against Oswald is tainted beyond repair. In fact, none of it could have been entered into the record at trial because of the laughable chain-of-possession issues that plague the crime scene (limo), mannlicher carcano, all ammunition, etc. To cite just one example; if I'd been Oswald's defense attorney, my first act would have been to introduce into the record the sworn affidavits of officers Boone and Weitzman, who both identified the rifle found on the sixth floor as a German mauser. Since the prosecution could not have even introduced the carcano into the record, because the only legal record of the search identified the alleged murder weapon as something else entirely, I would have then asked for all charges to be dismissed. Legally speaking, the state had no case against Oswald.

Thanks, Bill. I knew I'd read somewhere that Bundy himself told them there was no conspiracy.

I hadn't seen Mike Williams post for a while. I thnk we had these kinds of debates a few years ago. Monk made the points I would have, and I certainly couldn't have said it any better.

It's hard to take someone seriously who says there is no evidence of a shot from the front. The majority of witnesses identified shots coming from the general knoll area, film footage shows nearly all crowd (including police) attention was to that area in the aftermath of the shooting, JFK's head is propelled violently backwards following the head shot, a piece of skull bone from the back of his head was later found in the grass, motorcycle office Hargis was splattered with blood and brain matter (riding to the rear of the limousine), every doctor and nurse who examined the president at Parkland reported a huge hole in the back of his head, the initial description (and obviously the most relevant one) of the throat wound by Dr. Perry indicated it was one of entrance, etc.

I could go on and on, but like Monk, it's tiresome to go over this same debate.

Jim,

I didn't mean to criticize the way this thread has been handled. I didn't realize JVB was a member, and also was unaware that it is physically that difficult for her to post. Sorry for any confusion.

Judith, I'm interested in exactly what LHO told you about the impending assassination. Of particular interest to me is the comment about him perhaps firing a warning shot. This would indicate he was going to be carrying a gun (or have access to one) that day. Did he tell you that he was bringing a rifle to the TSBD? I apologize if this has been gone over before, and you've previously addressed this subject. Thanks.

This has been a long and interesting thread. There has been disagreement between many fine researchers here, which has tended to be the case with JVB from the beginning. I will not attempt to claim that I can distinguish whether Judith is telling the truth or not; ultimately, only she really knows that. It's certainly fascinating to think there is someone around who was Oswald's lover and privy to some "inside" information about the impending assassination. There seems little doubt that she has suffered for some reason, at the very least, and I'm interested enough to listen to what she has to say.

About that- I'd like to know exactly what LHO told JVB about the assassination. As I understand it, he was on an "abort team" to stop it, and followed orders on November 22. I do have to say that I respectfully disagree with those who've criticized him for not stopping the assassination. This was a 24 year old undercover intelligence agent, who certainly had learned to obey orders without question. I'm assuming he was told that those planning to assassinate JFK were "bad guys" and that his superiors were out to stop it from happening (with his inside help, of course). Yet another assumption- he was as surprised as anyone when JFK was struck by bullets.

Jim, Jack, Monk, Dixie, Barb, Doug, Mike, Kathy, Bill, et. al- I respect all of you, and appreciate your input here. I think this is an example of an issue where good people can disagree strongly on something without anyone being deliberately deceptive.

Question- is there any reason why Judith cannot join the forum again and post herself?

Oh, and Happy Birthday, Dixie!

Bill,

Thanks, once again, for continuing to post these very important excerpts from Doug Horne's book.

I thought that McGeorge Bundy had supposedly been recorded as telling the cabinet members there was no conspiracy, from the White House Situation Room. However, it appears that I may have been mistaken, in that Bundy was in charge of the Situation Room, but may have not actually been recorded himself in such a way.

I don't think there is an innocent explanation for high ranking officials in the administration to be assuring other members that there wasn't a conspiracy, and that the lone nut was already in custody, when virtually no investigation had even taken place. When you throw in the "edited and condensed" nonsense, and the unavailability of the unedited conversations when the AARB requested them, the story is all too familiar (and again, not innocent, imho).

Thanks for posting the "wink" photo, Bernice. Just look at that smile and wink on the part of LBJ's good ole buddy; one doesn't have to imagine much to see the outline of a return grin on the side of LBJ's turned head. And again, preserved for posterity, is Lady Bird's totally inappropriate smile, which she just can't contain.

John and Craig,

I am not suggesting that it's a good option to give more power to the government, especially since it is run by those I feel are corrupt and incompetent. However, the alternative is to let the vaunted marketplace handle things. Unfortunately, the corportate mentality is even worse than the bureaucratic one. That's why I am a populist- I'm against too much concentrated power, whether it's in government or business.

Yes, the poor can get treatment at hospitals now. However, the 75% or so of working-class people (throw out the top 1%, who run things and are above such financial considerations, and the next 20% or so that are paid extremely well to manage the mess, and the poor souls at the very bottom of the economic ladder), the majority of whom have some kind of health insurance coverage, will not be helped in the least by this bill (except for the pre-existing conditions reform and the extension of college students to age 26). That's where the problem lies; the cost is prohibitive now for the vast majority of people, and will only grow because of this bill.

Right now, I have what is considered a pretty good insurance plan through my employer. I pay about $12,000 per yer in paycheck deductions. That's just the start- my co-pays for everything increase pretty much every year, and even though I have the "top" (most expensive) plan, I still would have to pay 10% for any hospital or surgical procedures. Considering what those run now for even the most minor things, you can calculate what such a bill would mean to most people. There are also things added each year to the non-coverage list. Not life threatening, but desired, and more importantly, things that were covered only a few years ago.

This legislation didn't address the primary problem, which is that too many people are making too much money off the present system. Insurance companies are raping the public, and nothing in this bill will change that. Pharmaceudical companies are raping the public, and nothing in this bill will change that. Hospital CEOs and administrators, not to mention surgeons and doctors, have grown extremely wealthy under the present system. They will not lose a thing under this bill (in fact, one of the provisions actually assures that doctors will make even more money, since they will now be compensated at their regular rate for taking on medicare patients).

Unless those who are profiting the most from the present system are asked to sacrifice, no sensible reform can be accomplished. This bill is typical Republicrat nonsense; loud trumpeting and beating of chests, but in reality much ado about nothing. The problem has not been addressed, and the broken system has not been given even a minor repair. We needed at least a public option, and we didn't even get that.

This really assures that before too long health care will become a privilege, and not a right.

Initially, I felt that any proposed change had to be an improvement on the present dreadful system. After reading through some of the details of the legislation passed last night, I believe I was wrong. Somehow, against all odds, our corrupt and incompetent leaders may have managed to actually make this mess even worse.

As I understand it, the only "reforms" those presently insured under the present system will receive is that pre-existing conditions will no longer be an excuse for insurance companies to turn someone down (but inexplicably only beginning in 2014), and parents will now be able to keep their children who are attending college on their policies until age 26 (up from 21). Also, the legislation decrees that almost everyone will be insured now (is it 94%- it's very confusing), and this will obviously help the poor and others who simply can't afford insurance (or their companies don't provide it). Now for the downside....

Nothing, absolutely nothing, is in this legislation which will reign in the monstous profits of the insurance and pharmaceudical companies, not to mention the outrageous salaries of hospital administrators and CEOs. In fact, it is now very likely that the insurance companies will raise the rates on those they insure (with the excuse that the dreaded Obamacare has made their costs go up). Since the law mandates all companies with 50 or more employees must provide insurance, it is a certainty that any company within shouting distance of 50 employees will lay enough people off to get down to 49 or less. Nothing in there about the ridiculous rates the insurance companies already charge, or the prohibitive cost of prescriptions. Nothing about limiting rates or rate increases, or the amount of co-pays. Finally, the most absurd part of the legislation is the stipulation that everyone must get insurance. If one doesn't, one is subject to penalties which increase each year. What kind of "reform" is that?

I should have known that the Democrats would capitulate and offer up a "solution" that touches on none of the biggest problems most people face under the present system. The present system is screwed up beyond repair- the fair and reasonable thing to do is to scrap it entirely and go with a single-payer system, like the rest of the world. But that would mean for once the "American People" wouldn't be the ones sacrificing, the rich and powerful would. None of the Republicrats who "represent" us are about to do that, considering they all belong to the same class. It has been proven again that none of our representatives have the courage to stand up and do the right thing.

It's nice to know that all will be insured (to the point of being fined if they aren't), but unless there is something done about the financial burden our present health care system places on businesses and individuals, eventually health care will be just what some want it to be; a privilege, not a right.

I would urge all Americans to do everything they can to stay healthy.

Josiah,

Let's say you had been hired as a defense investigator for Lee Harvey Oswald, but have your present day perspective on the case. What witnesses do you trust, at this point? In your view, what now is the evidence for conspiracy?

Daniel,

You are certainly an equal opportunity offender. I don't think Len Colby and I have ever agreed on anything on this forum, but to call him a "dumbass" was out of line, and closing your post with an obscene threat was worse. I think Len's predictable positions can be debated without resorting to any of that.

Your attack on Peter is uncalled for on several counts. First, he's no longer a member and can't defend himself. Second, you resort to the same kind of tactics Peter himself has been accused of; slanderous defamations of charscter based on heresay and supposition. Accusatons that he's an imposter? Kind of like accusing someone of being a disinfo agent, isn't it? Then you bring up more serious accusations from an anonymous source. What is the point of that? Again, Peter can't respond to those charges because he's been banned.

For the record, Peter has shared several of the email exchanges in question with me. I found them to be friendly and caring in tone on both ends. According to Peter, he and Cigdem exchanged some 150 emails over the period of about a year. That's an enormous amount, and indicative of a strong cyber relationship. I wasn't going to bring this subject up again, but after reading your nasty attack on him, I felt the need to defend him, since he can't defend himself here.

Thanks, Bill. As usual- fascinating and valuable stuff.

This is turning into a real soap opera. Now that Cigdem Gole has identified herself, I am a bit baffled by her post. If I'd been in Peter's shoes, I would have expected her to state emphatically that this was overblown, a misunderstanding, whatever. I would have expected her to dismiss any claims of harrassment more emphaticaly. Instead, it seems to be a tepid, self-serving swipe at Peter. I don't know anything about what transpired between you two- but if you're going to go so far as to identify the subject line of his email as "cyber sex," then it seems to me you are stil making a vague accusation against him.

I would urge Cigdem to post the entire email exchanges at this point, because all you've done is raise doubts again. From his emails and posts on the DPF forum, Peter seems obviously distraught about all this, and maintains he did nothing wrong. If that's the case, I think Cidgem owes it to him to clear his name publicly, since the charges were made on a public forum.

All the moderators received an email from Andy yesterday, informing us that Peter was no longer a member. If it is true that his accuser has now publicly acknowledged that her accusations were the result of a misunderstanding, and has retracted them, then I think it is only fair to note that here, since the vague charges were available for all to see.

It seems that Peter is guilty of nothing more than having views which are objectionable to some here. As I noted before, any nastiness or name calling in his posts was hardly unique on this forum. Far too many posters resort to this on a regular basis, without being banned from the forum.

Mark Lane was the "star" of the critical community when I first started studying this case (mid-1970s). I joined his group Citizens Committee of Inquiry as a teenager, and one of my most memorable afternoons was one I spent in his office in the winter of 1976. He spoke to us (there was one other teen volunteer there) for a long time, mostly about the long distance call he'd just gotten from comedian Freddie Prinze.

Lane's "Rush To Judgment" was essential reading for anyone interested in JFK's assassination, as was the accompanying film he made. His followup book, "A Citizen's Dissent" was also very interesting, as it gave one an insider's view of how it felt to be fighting for truth against such powerful foes.

If there was a JFK Researcher's Hall of Fame, Mark Lane would be one of the first inductees.

Jesse's strength is also his weakness. His pro wrestling past has left him with a certain reputation and personna, which repels many people but attracts others. Lots of young people will be drawn to the subject of conspiracies in general, for instance, because of his background and style. Professional historians and mainstream reporters will treat him as predictably as they treat all CTers.

I agree with Pat as well about his show. A little too theatrical, and ultimately anticlimatic. However, it did serve to get the general subject on the air, which is a real rarity.

Jesse may not be perfect, but among public figures he is probably our best hope.

I'm so sorry to hear this. Rich's forum, at one time, was the pride of the JFK assassination critical community. Lots of traffic and great discussions. Despite being sick for many years, Rich put a great deal of time and effort into making it a great resource for researchers.

He will be sorely missed. My condolences to his family.