Judyth Baker

To all: I wish to thank everyone who has been so kind to me, and tto hose who have attacked me unfairly, well, I think they have shown their true colors. I have never minded answering reasonable questions. And nobody should take what I say without careful examination of the facts and what I have said (not what others SAY I said... there are corrupted materials out there, over which I have no control). I have given you the truth and stand by it. However, I am now in a situation where I do not have a computer that I can get access to easily, and for health reasons, I am not able to reach an internet cafe. I will have access only a very short time each day to somebody else's computer. Until my book comes out, I will have to confine my posts to just a few people and will not have an opportunity to read on this forum or on Wim Dankbaar's. Since I receive over fifty emails a day from new people, to whom I have tried to send personal responses, these, too, will sadly have to cease. I realize that there will be people such as Mr. Vernon who will continue to try to elicit responses from me, but between my eye problems and computer problems, I do not have time or ability any more to engage. Someday I may have my own computer again. The short time i will be able to spend using a friend's computer connection, I wish to communicate with my family, whom I miss very much, and with my dearest friends, who have supported me during this horrendous five years. I have learned a great deal and I regret that I have been unable to communicate as well as I had hoped who I am and the innocence of Lee Oswald. I pray for all of you in your efforts to find the truth. Remember to ask for quotations from researchers. Do not rely just on their statements. It isn't good enough to say "John Blank had no friends." There has to be the stated research behind it-- names, quotes, dates of interviews, sources. Do not take the word of someone making a blankey statement. "Jerry Cool said he knew that John Blank had no friends."(interview by Bill Will, June 7, 2004, Atalanta, Greece) It isn't good enough to just 'believe' what a researcher distills. Get the facts. I hope you ignore and do not give attention to those who use abusive terms. I care very much. I wish I could continue. My eyes, frankly, are just getting too bad to go on, compounded with lack of computer, and, foremost, I am at the end of my financial resources to improve the matter. I never thought I would lose job, home, car, health, etc. in just five years after speaking out. Any witnesses out there who had the good sense to keep quiet, I do understand. I no longer think they are cowardly. Perhaps they are wiser than I. I should have waited and had my book come out after my death. the book will be coming out this year. God bless you all. Best Regards, Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald. Jan 12, 2005 eof

To all: Regarding Stephen quote about the training camp: I was not aware of Dave going out to any training camp personally, but I know he was involved later in a minor incident with a couple of the people who were out there. I am not saying this amounts to any overt anti-Castro acticity, as such, by Dave in July and August of 1963. I saw no indication that it was overt. Stephen Roy has written: "On the July 1963 camp(s), we really have only Delphine Roberts (not a bad source, but not a great one) and Tannenbaum's film recollection." Tanenbaum (one n, is it not?) stated unequivocally that he saw the film, that it came from Georgetown. The statements that come to mind were that many respondents were asked if Dave Ferrie RAN the camp. They were not asked if he were involved in any other way. One remarked that he couldn;t keep his mind on any one thing long enough to RUN a training camp. I make a distinction between running a camp and having ANY involvement whatsoever, and I hope that Mr. Roy will publish the quotations that are behind the statements he just made of the interviews that centered on whetrher or not Dave was running the camp. That is not what I claim or some others have claimed. I know that Dave was obviously aware of the camp's existence because I saw a portion of the training film. I previously stated to Stephen in an email sent to him and a number of others that I saw a portion of that same training film, as it was being spliced in Dave Ferrie's apartment. I cannot state that Dave Ferrie was at the training camp. I did not see him in the film. But he was handling this rather poorly lit or underexosed film. I remember telling Stephen that Dave had some porn films and a Donald Duck film called "Moving Day"(no sound, black and white) that I noticed as some stacked reels in his apartment. It seems to me that though Stephen has not remembered or did not wish to mention my additional voice in this matter, that even if it means he adds a qualifier to my name, as he has done in the case of Delphine Roberts, such as "alleges she has seen" that it would reveal the true situation concerning witnesses. The quotations to back up what Stephen has said should be given to members here so they can decide for themselves if Dave Ferrie, simply because he was described as not RUNNING the camp, was thereby disqualified from ever BEING at the camp. I do not know anything except that he had to have contact with some of those people because he did have access to the training film at its earliest stage of creation. Best Regards, Judyth Vary Baker

I would like to add my welcome to Stephen Roy on this forum. There is no doubt that he has been called an expert on Dave Ferrie by many, and deservedly so. He will be able to supply much important information about Dave to this forum. I believe that a thread on Dave Ferrie where Stephen Roy offers information can be fruitful and useful to those interested in Ferrie. I would like to reiterate that I also knew Dave, and hope that someday Mr. Roy will want to add the materials I have offered him to his collection. My only objective is to bring forth into the light who is who, and that we have the right to know who the authors of the purveyors of information really are in this research community, and if they have an agenda, or can be trusted to offer the unvarnished truth. It is a fact that I was disappointed with Mr. Roy's handling of me as a witness, but I do recognize his expertise concerning the milieu of Dave Ferrie and believe he is well capable of presenting a great deal of information that nobody else has. I have seen him bring forth new information of value. Best Regards, Judyth Vary Baker

DearDawn: I do believe what Nancy means is I will be blamed as a part of the conspiracy to kill JFK because they are3 trying to prove Lee did it, and since there is plenty of proof I was in contact with Lee, I am also guilty. She is trying to show concern, I believe. As for handling the time cards, I handled them at Reily's, not later. I only wanted the time cards because I knew I had written on them and this would prove I handled Lee's time cards. My initial "J" is on five of the cards, and my initial has been erased from at least one card. Matt Allison knew I wanted to get copies of the cards in 2001, and he knew when I was coming to the Archives. He checked out all the Reily stuff so I could not look at it, and he has been caught red0-handed by close questioning that this is true right on internet forum. I cannot tell nancy things because she turns right around and tells Mr. Vernon. So far, Mr. Vernon has gone around with HIS twisted version of my testimony, and most recently has gone to Mr. reily himself, reporting that after telling "Judyth's crazy story"it made Mr. Reily laugh. Mr. Reily will not be laughing after he gets off the phone. Reily is a wily, clever, tough fellow, a charming man, but pres. of Tulane for a long time, tried to take over Ochsner's Foundation with two others in the 1970's, and he actually told Vernon that Monaghan came from Oak Ridge, revealing something I could not prove before. Nancy wants me to do things her way NOW, even though I have told her the book is coming out this year. Nancy gives everything to Vernon, as you can see above. Vernon published yesterday my critique of Mr. Blackburst, with the header : JUDYTH VARY BAKER THE QUEEN OF TWIST. So why should I respond to Nancy, when she is so easily influenced by Mr. Vernon? Nancy sent me an email calling me a xxxx because she claimed I had not really moved from Holland because my email address is till from Holland. Uwe Ebolde (sp?) (he goes by the name of David Weaver here, although that is a fake name) she said told her that. Well, calling me a iar when in fact I am indeed living elsewhere, and all my closest friends know this, is just one example of the problem I have with Nancy. I did try to be her friend and would not be in this kind of toruble if I had not written to her and offered her friendshiup when people were picking on her over at Lancer, where she was ejected. I believe Nancy is intleligent but cannot express herself, possibly because of some dyslexia. But when she started calling me a xxxx and also tried to force me to do what she wanted, she went too far. I repeat, my book is coming out, and seocndly,l she gives all her information to Mr. vernon. And she gets the information wrong, too. She told mr. Vernon thgat I sent her an email saying I had been in a mental institution and had undergone torture with electrochocking, while they yelled at me. I could send you those emails where she says maybe she dreamed it, and then when she said I lied and really did say those things. Of course I never had any such thing happen to me. I told her I worked for a psychiatrist, Dr. James Stuart, who used electroshock on people and that I had witnessed some bad sessions. She seems to have believed from this that I underwent it myself! geesh! I corrected her, but by then she had added quotes, such as that they were yleling at me to forget Lee's name while shocking me... and of course Mr. Vernon put this all over the internet. Nancy does not mean to harm, but she has done a lot of harm. I wish her well. I feel similarly about Mr.; Blackburst,/Mr. Roy who is angry that his real name is now out in the open. But just as David Weaver is really Uwe Ebolde, and there are others playing these games, people's lives are at stake, their reputations, their futures. My life has been absolutely squished since speaking out. I had a good reputation. My name is on a monument in Stafford, Texas, for civic service. I founded a Humane Society. I was a chold abuse investigator. I earned the Elect Lady award for service to my fellowman in the Mormon Church. I raised five lovely children, all good citizens. Three of the four I raised as a single parent. I do not drink or smoke. Money is not important to me and I worked counmseling the homeless and the poor for five years. I volunteered working with the blind for nine years. I helped train guide dogs for the blind and began trying to create a smaller dog breed that could be used as guide dogs for children and the elderly that could live in smaller quarters, such as an apartment. I taught school for seventeen years. I really did think, since I did not even have a parking ticket and had many friends, and had been a newspaper reporter for seven years, that I was safe, that my job was safe, that my reputation was strong enough to take a few attacks. I did not realize that porn pictures would be put out there--Vernon called attention to one--- that I would be called a con artist for trying to create a new dog breed, that an Fbi employee would complain and I would lose my job teaching and then find nobody would hire me again.... I did not know I would have to defend myself againsyt some of the silliest things on the internet. I am weary and worn and have lost my home, my job, my car, most of my belongings, and because of harrassment, I live in different foreign countries for over two years now. I miss America. My children. My grandchildren. But I received a serious death threat and at age 62 I live in a very private place. Wherever I go, I do make friends, but without my internet frtiends I would feel extremely isolated. I spoke out to defend an innocent man. I am speaking the truth. I am committed to the bitter end and realize that I will not probably see any reward fopr this in my lifetime. But I am doing what is right and only ask that people think this out. Why in God's name would I do this, when I had everything I could ever want, and now have lost so much? I sell my paintings for $2000 each. I was happy. But know what? I would have that occasional nightmare, seeing Lee shot before my eyes. I would realize that I had let him down. In the end, I believe my rationnal voice and my steady and sure presentation of the facts will, in the end, prevail. Those who have obstrcuted this case for forty years do not want a new witness emerging. I am grateful for the emails I get that help keep me going. One other thing -- no more nightmares. A clear conscience. That is worth a great deal to me. sorry about typos...eye problems Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald

To all: I have been told that David Blackburst (Stephen Roy) has posted on this Forum, but I cannot seem to find the post. I read his post over at alt.conspiracy, where Mr. Bob Vernon published it, and now reproduce that post here, with my commenhts. Before going any further, I would like to say that I regret having made Mr. Roy feel uncomfortable about telling people about his other name. I didn't do it to be mean to Mr. Roy. I apologize for making Mr. Roy feel that in some way I have made things harder for him. My intention was to make things easier for many others. Since Mr. Roy has said he has even used both his names at the same time at the Lancer Conference, I do not wholly understand why he is upset with me for mentioning his fake name now. He also said he would be publishing his book under his real name, so again, I do not understand why he is upset with me at revealing his true name to you here. I brought out Mr. Roy's real name on this forum because I believe that we must be frank and open with each other if we are to work in harmony together and in trust. Mr. Blackburst, below, wrote that he believed we were friends. I concur. BUT -- Mr. Roy NEVER told me his real name all the years we were "friends." I had to discover by accident that he was Mr. Roy. Mr. Roy was at the 2000 Lancer Conference, for example, but Mr. Blackburst, my friend, apparently did not attend, for he was cc'd about my concerns and did not mention that he was a panelist there. Mr. Roy did not bring up my name at the Conference, whereas my friend, Mr. Blackburst, had he attended the Conference, would surely have done so, for he knew how important it was to me to tell people that I believed Lee Oswald was an innocent man. Mr. Blackburst, my friend, had he attended the conference, would have asked me if I wanted to have my name mentioned. In fact, he already knew that I would have preferred it, because it was new information for those who came to the conference, and they had the right to know that a new witness was presenting. After all, I had already been known to Mr. Blackburst, my friend, for a year by then. And I had communicated in private emails that I was even thinking of attending the conference myself. I was dissuaded from doing so by my friends. When I told Debra Conway I suspected that she instructed the panel on which Mr. Roy sat not to mention my name, Mr. Roy wrote back to Lancer and said he had not been so instructed. My friend, Mr. Blackburst, would have comforted me at this time and perhaps given me advice on how to handle the situation. But only Mr. Roy was involved at Lancer.... Even as late as December, 2004, my friend, Mr. Blackburst, never told me in private what went on. Sadly, I had to learn from the post of Mr. Roy, today, what my friend, Mr. Blackburst, really was thinking at the Conference. This is just the kind of thing that has to stop. We must be frank and open. We must not play the old games. We can continue to go in circles, or we can be upfront and honest. I thought my friend, Mr. Blackburst, was treating me fairly. Mr. Roy, who never admitted to being my friend or to even knowing me, did not. ==========================More below========== For those who wish to read any more (I do not, but feel I must continue)....My comments are interspersed with Mr. Roy's =====like this==== I would also like to say that I have never experienced any problem with Mr. Roy personally, except that I feel he was not entirely candid with me, as I have indicated above, and I shall also note below. I did indeed feel we shared a friendship until I realized that he was not treating me entirely aboveboard. If I have been in error concerning this, I will certainly be happy to apologize. But please come with me to Mr. Roy's post. There are always two sides to every story. Best Regards, Judyth Vary Baker ====comments below===== ================================================== Stephen Roy Today, 05:00 PM Post #51 ================================================= > New Member > Group: Members > Posts: 2 > Joined: 7-January 05 > Member No.: 2230 > A big thank you to John Simkin for allowing me to pop in here an > clairify a few points. I have been in touch with Judyth Vary Baker since > about 1999, and we have had a on-again/off-again private correspondence. > For some reason, Baker chose to go public with it in this forum over the > past week. ======= ====================================== No, Stephen, I have not gone public with your correspondence, which is voluminous. I have mentioned only a very small part of the matter, as also have you. I have not posted your emails except as it touched upon using a false name on forums concerned with the JFK assassination, while using your real name elsewhere. You also used your real name at Lancer, so still I cannot understand why you are so upset that I have told people that these two people happen to be the same person. ----============more below====================== >ROY/BLACKBURST: I came onto the internet in the mid-90s under a variant of my given > name, and I engaged in discussion on some JFK newsgroups. One day while I > was at work, a scraggly 40-ish man came to my door and said something to > my wife about me "perpetuating the coverup." She excused herself, called > me and the police, but the man walked away. My wife insisted and I agreed > to adopt a "screen name", something a bit more anonymous. I tried several > possibilities but AOL said they were already in use. AOL allows up to 10 > characters, so I tried a TV term, "blackburst" (the signal to which all > video devices are synchronized in a TV studio), and AOL accepted it. I > became known as a David Ferrie specialist in the JFK groups. When people > would ask my first name, I arbitrarily chose "Dave" (after Ferrie). ===================================== This is all fine and good, except that you, Stephen, are not just 'anybody.'You have been declared THE expert on David W. Ferrie. YOU have been the one who is, in fact, quoted everywhere. But the name people quoted as THE authority was NOT the name that you recently said would be listed as author of the book on Dave Ferrie. So, how would anyone not in your inner circle know this? You said you were my friend, but you never told me, for example, that you were really Mr. Roy. We're talking about five years. I am sorry if your wife was frightened, and I can understand your decision to use the false name. However, since you used your real name at the Lancer Conference, I believed, and I think quite reasonably, that you were no longer afraid to use your real name, since you had come forth and presented yourself in person using your real name. Meanwhile, we have identity problems -- a number of people use multiple names and support their statements by writing to themselves and praising themselves...just one example of how false names create the illusion of many behind one, when that is not the case. And we have credibility problems, where sometimes one's word comes against another's. In my case, if I say something that the "Ferrie expert" says doesn't jive with Ferrie, who is going to believe me? The "Ferrie expert"must be truthful. If he is believed blindly, he must have earned that trust. -- I felt it imperative to begin to identify those who have used false names. My special concern with you, Stephen, remains that you are not just anybody. YOU are THE expert on Dave Ferrie. As such, everyone needs to know that you use two names in the research community--Blackburst and Roy. =========================more below ============ ROY/BLACKBURST: I explained publicly on a number of occasions that Blackburst was a > pseudonym, and why I chose it. I also explained this by email to several > people. Eventually, I did share research with a few folks, which > necessitated using my real name, but in a spirit of privacy. ========================-================== In other words, Stephen, you have been posting information on the Internet publicly under a fake name, but sharing research with a few people privately using your real name. We have had a lot of that going on in the research community. ===================more below=================== >ROY/BLACKBURST In late 1999 or early 2000, I was contacted by Baker and her > associates and we had numerous exchanges. I had a clear impresson that > Baker wanted to keep these exchanges private at that time. I also wanted > to remain on her bulk email list so that I could get the details of her > account. ================================================ This is not quite correct, Stephen. I did not contact you. Dr. Howard Platzman did, and after awhile, I received copies of your emails ABOUT me. I finally wrote to you because I did not like being talked ABOUT when I felt it would be better if we could speak to each other directly. I began to cc you on a large list on contacts after that. ================more below======================== >ROY/BLACKBURST In the summer of 2000 I signed on to the JFKLancer Forum, but the > rules required that I use my real name. I never used "Blackburst" on my > few posts on that forum. ============================================= But Stephen, how would anybody know that MR ROY and MR BLACKBURST were one and the same on the forum? How did they know that if they asked you questions about Dave Ferrie that YOU would be able to answer them, whereas hardly anyone else in the world could do that? But they had no idea you were that same expert, Mr. Blackburst. ==================more below======================== Debra Conway invited me to speak at the Lancer > NID2000 conference, and the topic of my 30-minute talk was agreed upon as > "Ferrie: Man and Myth." Although I considered speaking as Blackburst, > Debra convinced me to use my real name. Of perhaps 100 or so topics I > could have mentioned about Ferrie, I chose about 10. When I arrived in > Dallas, I was given a name tag with my own name, and I wrote "Blackburst" > underneath it. I made no secret of my identity. I spoke to numerous > attendees wearing this tag, including Steve Tyler, Joe Biles, Mary > Ferrell, Peter Dale Scott and many others. The tag can be seen in the > video of my talk. ================================================ Then why in the name of heaven are you upset at me for revealing your name and also mentuoning your wife's fright, etc? However, I had a unique experience, and so did many others who did not attend the Conference> Mr. Blackburst never said he attended this Conference. As I agonized about what was going on, Mr. Blackburst never indicated to me that Mr. Roy was going there, would be there, and would return, and have all sorts of information. Mr. Blackburst, my friend, never shared a single moment of that Conference with his friend, Judyth Baker. ===================more below==================== > It has been erroneously suggested that I was asked not to mention > Baker, but this is not true. I had not included Baker as part of my > limited talk time, but I do recall some email just prior to the > conference, in which she considered going to the event. ================================================= Yes, you certainly should have recalled it, Mr. Roy, because Mr. Blackburst, my friend, knew how upset I was at being told I should not go to this conference, when I wished so very much for people to know that I wished to speak out about the innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Blackburst knew I wanted peopel to know that a new witness was willing to speak out. I had just learned that Debra Conway had not told me about this panel. I complained to Mr. Blackburst and others later that I was very disappointed that Debra did not tell me about this panel. My friend, Mr. Blackburst, had no information about the Conference to share with his friend, Judyth Baker. He knew no more than the rest of us who had not attended. Or so we all thought. ======================more below=============== In the Q & A > following my talk, a question arose about Edward Haslam's thesis in "Mary, > Ferrie and the Monkey Virus." I replied that I had reservations about the > paucity of evidence cited in the book, and the author's tendency to ask a > question on one page, then repeat it a few pages later as a fact. > Nevertheless, I added (paraphrase) that a new witness had emerged whose > account, if proven true, could change the way we look at Oswald's time in > New Orleans. One or two other panelists then briefly made reference to the > Baker matter. ================================================= Mr. Roy, you do not mention that the name "Baker" was never given out. I also must remind you that my friend Mr. Blackburst never told me he had these reservations about Mr. Haslam's research, which in fact helps support my testimony. Mr. Roy brought up reservations about Mr. Haslam that my friend, Mr. Blackburst, never told me about. ========================more below=========== > At the time, I thought I was doing what Baker wanted. ============================================= I have emails that provide ample evidence that this was not the case. On the other hand, Mr. Blackburst received those emails, not Mr. Roy. ======================more below================== Years later, > questions were raised about whether ot not the panel was muzzled. I saw no > such thing. And questions were raised about why nobody mentioned Baker. > While her account was not part of my formal presentation, I DID mention > her in the Q/A. ================================================== Years later, Mr. Roy told me what my friend Mr. Blackburst apparently did not know, for my friend did not tell me one word about any of this. ===============more below===================== > At various times over the years, Baker and her associates pointedly > asked me why I would not come out and support her account. I replied that > I thought we should all wait to see what evidence was presented in the > book. =============================================== I must admit that I said I hoped you would support me privately. I NEVER pointedly asked my friend Mr. Blackburst to "come out"and "support" me. I DID ask my friend Mr. Blackburst to CONFIRM certain points that we had discussed that showed I knew Dave Ferrie. I never asked that you do this publicly, and if I ever did, I would ask you to show me the emails, because I recall nothing of the kind. I have indeed asked for confirmation of certain points, but not in public. I am surprised that you have stated this. ====================more below=================== > A few years back, I thought about setting up a meeting. As it was > hard to get time off from work and home, I asked if I could do a one-day > turn around: Fly into Moisant, meet her at the airport for a few hours, > and fly home that night. Her emails at the time, which I saved, indicate > that she wanted to meet but did not have a vehicle available to travel > from her home to Moisant on my prospective date. I did not end up meeting > her, but I did give her my home phone number in the process ======================================= What Mr. Roy fails to mention here is that I was offered this opportunity in a very short window of time. I did offer to fly to HIM and called him to try to make an appointment. He never called me back. I wrote to him several times and asked him to call me. He failed to reply. Finally, he wrote an email saying I had refused to meet him. He graciously accepted a correction later and said we just couldn't get our schedules to mesh, but this was not true. I could not obtain his address, though I tried. Dr. Platzman also tried to get an address. I have support for these statements. By now, I was beginning to think maybe Mr. Blackburst wasn't really my friend, after all. ======================more below=============== > As noted, I was long troubled by some of the assertions in Haslam's > book, so I kept an eye out for anything to confirm or deny them. One > assertion made by others (but not specifically by Haslam) is that Ferrie > had many white mice and did medical research in his last apartment at 3330 > Louisiana Avenue Parkway. ============================================== Haslam of course indicated that this work was done nearby, and that included mice being housed nearby, not at Dave's. In fact, that was more or less the case. However, concerning mice, I'm not certain if he removed them on weekends. I know he removed them when he had two parties, telling me he didn't want anybody messing with his mice. Mice: my main bone of contention with Mr. Roy. =================more below=============== The documents I found suggested that he did have > such mice in 1957, six years and 3 living spaces perviously, but not in > 1963. As I interviewed people who knew Ferrie, I would ask about this, and > I was unable to find anyone who saw them in that period. This includes > several very close friends. Ferrie's landlord did not see mice or a lab > there. Pictures taken at at 1963 birthday party do not appear to show > them. Coroner's pictures from Ferrie's 1967 death do not show them. ================================================= I believe when the book comes out that everything Mr. Roy does not understand will become clear. However, in private I explained a lot of these matters, but then again, I explained them to my friend, Mr. Blackburst, and we are now talking to Mr. Roy. ========================more below============== > I communicated the above PRIVATELY to Baker and her associates. At > some point, I was asked in the newsgroups if there was any indication of > mice in that apartment at that time. I decided to give a carefully phrased > and honest answer that none of those I spoke with recalled them. This > apparently angered Baker. ============================================ Not angry. Surprised. And upset. What upset me is that Mr. Blackburst would not reveal the names of the friends, nor when he interviewed them, nor their quotations. The readers were supposed to take Mr. Blackburst's word for it. HE was the expert. But I was a living witness. I had also the statements of at least two other persons who saw mice in Dave's apartment that summer. But to Mr. Blackburst, neither I, nor my two witnesses, counted. But yet he said "all"Dave;s friends said otherwise. When I asked, he would not reveal ANY names of the people he said had a different opinion. Not all of them demanded secrecy. I know this because I was in contact with one of Dave's friends, who has since died. My friend, David Blackburst, would not give me the names of ANY of the people he had interviewed who declared there were no mice present. He would not give me any interview dates. He would not give me any quotations. But he was content to publish on the newsgroups that "everybody" he had interviewed, without exception, ALL said there were no mice, etc. And people accepted that on faith. Was I angry? No. I was frustrated. I was concerned. I was saddened that in five years of correspondence, Mr. Blackburst never gave me a single name or direct quote. I was very patient, too, when he published what he did. I did not contradict him. I asked him in private why he had said that. =======================more below================= > Baker also raised some question about "research technique", saying > that I was wrong to bring witnesses together. Let me clarify: In most > cases, I contacted them by "cold-calling", or cold email or snail mail. =================================== "In most cases"i s not good enough. ONE case of an investigator bringing witnesses together is ruinous. Imagine allowing two people who had murdered somebody being allowed to talk together before they were interviewed in jail. Similarly, in important matters such as Dave Ferrie's past, witnesses must be kept apart so their stories will not merge. Mr. Blackburst/Roy failed to do this, on more than one occasion, as he did admit to me. =====================more below=========== > The interviews would be either via telephone or one-on-one. On a few > occasions, I would meet someone I had only spoken with on the phone for > lunch or some such thing. In several cases, one Ferrie acquaintence would > introduce me to another, and so on. And on two occasions while I was in > New Orleans, a couple of acquaintences who ALREADY KNEW other Ferrie > friends would ask if they could join the friends and I for dinner. ============================================= It makes no difference if these people already knew each other. Important differences in testimony can emerge if they are interviewed separately and if they are not allowed to meet the investigator except in a research situation. Not only can researchers be conned by a group, any individual in a group who is dominated will then be afraid to offer a differing opinion later, for the investigator has not insulated himself or herself from known others. The investigator should never allow witnesses to know who has been interviewed and who has not. The events described by Mr. Blackburst are unfortunate and promote team agreement. =======================more below================ I did > NOT ever bring together people who did not already know each other. =============================================== Illustration: Michael and Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald already knew each other. Obviously, it was important that they were interviewed separately. It would be outrageous to have allowed them to mingle with each other prior to being interviewed. The fact that Mr. Roy cannot see what he has done, and how he said "I did not EVER bring together people who did not already know each other" proves that he DID bring them together, and that he does not understand how this contaminates witnesses, is most unfortunate. Just such practices have given the Kennedy assassination research community a non-professional patina. =======================more below========== > And she has asked why I do not name some of these people. The first > obvious reason is that some of these interviews were hard to get, and I > want exclusivity for future publication. ============================================ I only waited five years. How about even ONE name? Interestingly, I freely gave the names of my witnesses to my friend, Mr. Blackburst, in the interest of wishing to solve the case. I also freely offered additional evidence and access to my materials. =======================more below=============== Another factor is privacy. Some > were very reluctant to talk, and only did so on a pledge of privacy. ================================================ But not all of them felt that way. I know this for a fact, since I knew one of them myself. ========================more below================ One > is an elected official. Another is a community watch leader. Another is a > successful attorney. They don't want more publicity about "that Ferrie > thing." And still another factor: Ferrie was at least bisexual, and had > relationships with a few of these people, some as underage boys. One can > easily understand why I just "don't want to go there." ================================================== Of course, others did not feel that way. We are talking about NOT ONE quotation. Not ONE name. Not ONE interview date. Not ONE attempt to help me meet any of them. We are talking, then, about a blanket statement given to the newsgroups that "all" the people Mr. Blackburst interviewed "agreed" that there were "no mice" in Dave's apartment in 1963. The entire research community is expected to take Mr. Blackburst's statement as gospel, as the unvarnished truth, but we are allowed no names, no interview dates, and no quotations. And he knew this statement was in direct opposition to my onw. In addition, several times, my friend Mr. Blackburst said he would look up a quote for me. He never managed to locate a single one in five years. I have emails proving this. =========================more below================ > Then in recent months, there was a flap over a complicated story > involving Lee Harvey Oswald's tooth. Baker apparently incorporated into > her account some information I had either emailed or posted concerning the > date Ferrie first left the New Orleans Cadet Squadron of the Civil Air > Patrol. ============================================== Foolishly,as does the rest of the research community, I blindly believed what Mr. Blackburst published, and used his chronology to try to pin down when Lee's tooth was knocked out. Or loosened. Or whatever. Lee never gave me a date. Mr. Blackburst apologized that the information he had provided in an archive was incorrect. By then, I had Dave Reitzes on my case over it, because I said I had pinned down the date, thanks to Mr. Blackburst. ========================more below=============== At one time, I had fragmentary dates and reported them in that > way. ============================================= And he published those "fragmentary dates"for the use of the research community. After some thirty-odd years I couldn't remember Moisant from Lakefront. Lee talked about both sites. I took Mr. Blackburst's word for the dates when Dave Ferrie was at Moisant, or when he was not, or when he was at Lakefront, or when he was not. The dates were in some cases wrong. ==========================more below============== I subsequently located and spoke with some who had first-hand > knowledge of that event, and obtained news clippings which indicated that > a new commander was in place by January 1955. Baker then blamed the flap > on me, first privately, then publicly. ================================================== Yes, because the information that was inaccurate REMAINED up for everyone to use, and it was wrong. 'Last time I looked, it was STILL there, and STILL wrong. Bet it gets fixed now.... it doesn't matter, because what Lee told me about, as Mr. Blackburst is aware, occurred, he said, before Thanksgiving, if I recall correctly, which is November, not December. Mr. Blackburst in fact wrote an email to me saying it was posssible Lee and Dave Ferrie could have met in November 1954, which was my original estimated date. But I trusted the erroneous date supplied by Mr. Blackburst originally, and defended the date to Dave reitzes based on my trust of Blackbursts data.' I learned my lesson about blind trust in his data. When the erroneous date and other errors rermained unchanged in the archives for weeks to come, without Mr. Blackburst correcting them, I began to search for other inconsistencies in his reports. After I collected a few, with little trouble, I realized that people were blindly accepting everything Mr. Blackburst was writing, and I did not want anybody else to rely on incorrect data and then be skewered as I had been. As I looked deeper into the matter, I realized Mr. Roy had to be Mr. Blackburst. I could hardly believe that my supposed friend, Mr. Blackburst, had never told me a word about the convention that he had attended, and which had caused me so much concern. By 2004, my friend, Mr. Blackburst, had now published on the internet that "all"Dave's friends never saw any mice in his apartment when I had TWO witnesses, plus myself, who stated otherwise. BY expressing "all" David Blackburst excluded ME from the list of witnesses who claimed to have known Dave Ferrie. then he gave me the final blow, saying he was on the fence about me and would have to wait to see if I were credible or not. The many things I related about Dave, never printed untul years later or still not in print=-these counted for nothing with him. I have since had my information checked with another person who knew Dave Ferrie, and I gave him information I had not given Mr. Blackburst, mainly because Mr. Blackbuurst never interviewed me personally. This person KNOWS I knew Dave Ferrie and is willing to say so. Not Mr. Blackburst. And that was the end of allowing people to rely with blind faith on Mr. Blackburst. ======================more below========== > In a private email, I noted that she should be careful about > incorporating published materials about Ferrie into her account, because > 90% of those published materials are of questionable accuracy, and I noted > that I thought she was buying into things she was reading. She somehow > quoted this back to me in a private email as me saying her account was 90% > gleaned from published materials, which is not what I said. ==================================================== I do stand corrected in this matter. I was upset that Mr. Blackburst said I was "buying into things" I "was reading," he was saying that my memories of the friendship, or my testimony concerning Dave Ferrie, were being affected by the inaccurate accounts I was reading, and 90% of these were of questionable accuracy. He had now moved to the position of saying I was a contaminated witness.. It was now that I did become upset with Mr. Blackburst. He was acting as if evidence I had provided him in the past, proving I knew Dave, was worthless. He never presented a single word to the newsgroups and research community that I had provided him with proof that I did know Dave Ferrie. He kept that to himself and to a very small group. Despite what he has written here, I never demanded that he make his opinion public. I asked that he give it to selected people in private. ==============================see below============= I > Until recently, I considered Baker a friend. We had many pleasant > exchanges and I offered private support as best I could. ================================================= I will let the readers judge if Mr.Blackburst has treated me as a friend. I certainly treated him as one. ========================see below================ For some reason, > she has decided to take this into a public forum and violate several > confidences. She has quoted private emails. More important, she has given > out my real name and personal info against my stated desires. =============================================== If anyone doubts why I have brought these matters up-- and it is for the sake of openness in the research community, I suggest that he or she re-read this post. I do not want anyone to go through what I have gone through at the hands of "two" people who turned out to be the same person. ==========================more below============ I TOLD HER > several times that Blackburst was not my real name. I sent her a photo of > my family. I gave her my phone number, which would display my name on > callerID. Now she has let the toothpaste out of tube, and it can't be > pushed back in. I don't know what I've done to deserve this, but Baker > judgmentally emailed me that it was best for the research community, and I > would thank her someday. =================================================== Well, maybe Mr. Blackburst/Mr. Roy will not thank me, but I believe all of us should know with whom we are dealing. I DID NOT KNOW MR, ROY, ON THE PANEL, WAS MR., BLACKBURST, MY FRIEND. AND MR. BLACKBURST, MY FRIEND, LET ME AGONIZE OVER WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT LANCER, as I can prove from emails. Was Mr. Blackburst, then, acting in an ethical manner? I cannot express in words how miserable I am at having to write these words. Mr. Blackburst/Roy has given a lot of information to the research community. I do not know why he has investigated Mr. ferrie for at least the past twenty years, but he has, and that work must not be considered woirthless. However, under the circumstances, the testimony he has gathered cannot be considered untainted. And though I have always liked Mr. Blackburst, I have to confess that I do not like Mr. Roy very much at all. ===============================more below========== > She even indicated that she expects me to attack her. THIS is not an > attack, but a careful worded defense, which still leaves some things > private. I have no desire or reason to attack her. But the friendship, if > there was one, is over. ================================================= I knew there would be a price to pay. I take no pleasure in making Mr. Roy angry. I remember when I was a child abuse investigator. I began with a certain number of friends, but every week I made more enemies as I rescued battered children, neglected childreb, sexually abused children. In this case, I want to see honest men and women and honest interviewing and reliable methodology. I hate making enemies, darn it. Hate it! I like people. I like having friends. This makes Mr. Roy feel badly, it makes me feel badly, but I see no help for it. No more fake names, please. No more poor research techniques ruining witnesses. No more proclamations without quotations, dates and names backing up the proclamations. No more declaring one is an expert while using a fake name. No more, please, of all such behavior. =====================more below============ I have asked, if she included a particuar exchange > in her book, to delete it. I regret that she has come under bad influences > and has made some bad decisions. ================================================ Why in the world should information that Mr. Blackburst/Mr. Roy gave me about Dave Ferrie be deleted? What is Mr. Roy's point? Is this to punish me? Will this help the research community to understand the case better? Mr. Roy/Blackburst gave me written permission, and now I am somehow to stop the spread of this information wherever it is now located -- especially from my book --and remove it ---because he has changed his mind. Needless to say, considerable time has passed and the permission given was believed to be "real" permission. Was it not real? Mr.Roy gave his permission for this information to be revealed --- but now he wants it removed? Is this the kind of researcher we are asked to trust blindly and fully? There has to be responsibility taken for what we say and do. And once we give permission to use information, it is released, how can it be reeled back in? Imagine if I gave permission to one of you readers to use something I had told you, and a year later say no, now you cannot use it., But by then others have seen it and used it, because you freely gave it to others. Would I have a right to be angry at you then? In this case, Mr. Blackburst\/Roy already gave permission for the materials about Dave which he said I could use to be published. He acts as if I can somehow rip it out of the past, wher et has gone to others, and where it has been incorporated here and there in my writings, now that he has suddenly changed his mind. I leave it to the good sense of the readers here to decide if Mr. Roy is helping or hindering the truth by making this demand. ========================more below============ > (BTW, I had the "Coke Syndrome" with my computer, spilling a partial > can of Coke onto the keys. It works OK, but I have very sticky keys, > requiring me to keep going back to see if I have miskeyed. Apologies for > any typos!) ================================================== use pipe cleaners with lemon juice and try that! :- ) JVB ================================================

Please remember that my book will be coming out this year. I want to thank people who have been sending me private emails. I see that some of this material is going to be useful to researchers and students. That makes it worth the effort. Meanwhile, back to the topic. This is the final article in the Dave Reitzes thread that I wish to present for the time being. Within this article, below, I attempt to distinguish among the main players in the assassination research community. °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° THE COMPOSITION OF THE 'RESEARCH COMMUNITY' , WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO MR. DAVY´S COMMENTS ABOUT MR. DAVE REITZES°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° We are discussinG Dave Reitzes' rhetoric and research methods, since he puiblishes a great deal on the Internet which affects those scholars and students who read it. The websites look professional, AND there are many citations, and Mr. reitzes seems to be presenting information correctly. But he does He? Mr. Reitzes is not known as a man who seeks to interview witnesses. He usually relies, as do most researchers in this case, on quotes from others. SECONDARY SOURCES: "48 Chromosome Knowledge" I am reminded how for many years people thought the human nucleus had 48 chromosomes --because the male chromosome XY type was shown in the first photo of the elicted chromosomal materials, ALONG with the female XX type. Everybody quoted it that way for some two decades, as I recall, until somebody noticed that the first quote stating humans had 48 chromosomes was wrong. Somebody should have asked the scientist who posted the photo how many chromosomes were in the typical human cell's nucleus. Nobody interviewed HIM. They relied on the photo that was published, they counted the chromosomes, and came up with 48. Personal interviews CAN often bring out the truth-- sometimes even if the person interviewed lies, for their statements might contrast with what they said previously. Now, I am talking about live interviews, depositions, audio and video tapes, and statements made in the presence of an additional witness who can vouch that the statement was not coerced and is accurately transcribed (even then transcribed statements are occasionally redacted). The quality of the interview of course rests on knowing the situation at the time of the interview. People tended to lie about Lee Oswald right after the assassination. The same people, years later, often moderated their statements or even said they had not been quoted correctly. orest Pena told The warren Commission nothing about the relationship between Warren DeBrueys and Lee Oswald. Later, several sources confirmed that Pena had been threatened. Eventually, Pena told everything, and his progress toward telling the truth is understandable and he is to be admired for finally telling the truth. Such a witness should not be discredited since there is proof that the witness was afraid to begin with. These matters must be taken into consideration. In the case of WILLIAM DAVY AND DAVE REITZES, an example of how failing to interview subjects can turn even Mr. Reitzes' "good" research awry is presented here (remember, I am not trying to say that Mr. Reitzes is a poor investigator. He digs into things. But I am trying to say that he is selective, and reports as it suits him to support his personal beliefs, often using rhetorical devices, and rarely conducting live interviews. That means he is not really a researcher. He is, instead, a spokesman.). William Davy realized that Mr. Reitzes had a propensity for making statements without getting interviews from living witnesses. A good example is what happened to me. Mr. Reitzes never spoke to me one moment 'live.' He never visited me. Mr. Davy wrote `Let Justice Be done`, which is filled with the results of many live witness interviews, and he is sensitive when Mr. Reitzes ´corrects´him based on " 48 chromosome" knowledge: Concerning Mr. Reitzes'methodology, Davy wrote this (among many other complaints, after Reitzes attacked his book): "Reitzes’ ...claims I "attempt to rehabilitate nutball witness Charles Spiesel (Davy 173-4)." In fact, I do no such thing. On the very pages Reitzes cites I list all of Spiesel’s wild, paranoid claims. I criticize his story as being too pat and describe his testimony as "lunatic." Is this Reitzes’ idea of rehabilitation? It was Judge Haggerty himself who thought Spiesel may have been dismissed too easily and I note that in the book. Reitzes then writes "Davy also presents a dubious new theory of his own when he attempts to link the mental hospital in Jackson, where Oswald allegedly was seeking a job, to the CIA’s infamous MK/ULTRA mind control experiments." No, this was recalled to us by Dr. Alfred Butterworth, one of the East Louisiana State Hospital’s physicians and corroborated by other hospital employees. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many of the Jackson hospital employees did you interview?` Of course I also report on secret goings-on at Jackson. In my book, I include the supporting statement of a living witness who himself was a subject of medical testing at Jackson almost at the same time of the experiences i recount at Jackson. Davy complains, justifiably, that he interviewed a witness to support his statement, knowing that Reitzes interviewed nobody, and that reitzes relies on secondary materials. Wrote Davy next: `But less commendable, according to Reitzes, is my "acceptance of Daniel Campbell’s assertions that Banister was a "bagman for the CIA" and "was running guns to Alpha 66 in Miami (There is no evidence to support either claim)." I guess Reitzes naively expects a CIA document to appear affirming something like that. While he’s waiting, he may be interested to know that this was confirmed by Dan Campbell’s brother, Allen as well as close Banister associate, Joe Newbrough. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many of Banister’s operatives did you interview?" In fact, Mr. Reitzes rarely interviews anyone, but will refute the claims of writers such as Davy who can back up their statements with live interviews, relying himself on secondary sources. So, we now point out that living witness statements are preferable to secondary sources, especially where the conditions of the interviews are known. Such statements can be lies. I have seen interviews by the FBI and Secret Service where the person being interviewed stated the interviews were not correctly reported. Therefore direct quotes should be part of the report of an interview. The direct quote must also be IN CONTEXT. If a person said in a live interview, `I have always believed Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy until I Mr. X told me his side of the story.` If this is reported as `I have always believed Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy...`then the ´live+´interview has been distorted. needless to say, I have seen my own quotes similarly distorted from their original context. All these factors must be taken into account. In the end, judging the quality of a researcher´s work includes these considerations: 1) live interviews reported in context whenever possible 2) quotations not taken out of context 3) balanced presentation where conflicts exist (cannot ignore important arguments `on the other side´) 4) willingness to post corrections when shown to be in error 5) avoidance of use of pejorative or prejudicial statements (I removed, for example, a statement made by Davy against Reitzes that was overly prejudiced against Reitzes, where the three dots are located in the quote). 6) the use of footnotes or end notes to back up statemenhts... and when checked, that these notes actually exist and are accurate (errors may happen, but they should not be chronic) ... and avoiding using ONESELF as the `source`of a statement (I was astonished to find one researcher quoting his earlier works over and over again as his ´source´of information) 7) if a ´researcher´ constantly publishes material only supporting one side of a theory, unless that person is a WITNESS, he or she is displaying an AGENDA. A witness has the right to seek supporting evidence, though every witness should know what is out there against him or her in matters of controversy such as the Kennedy assasssination, especailly since lying occurs (sadly, by officials, too). A researcher has to seek evidence for and against his or her thesis. If only one side is presented, the person is not a researcher. A witness can legitimately defend only his or her side, because that witness is speaking from experience. researchers must decide if what the witness says is true, distorted, or false. Honest researchers take care and time to do live interviews and to present both sides of the picture in witness testimony sitruations. Otherwise, they are said to have an AGENDA and are being SELECTIVE in presenting their evidence. °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° Final comment: There is so much evidence ---and there are so many conflicting statements in the Kennedy assassination materials---- that most people are overwhelmed. I´ve been more fortunate, because, as a witness, I know what Lee Oswald, for example, really was doing on certain days. I knew him as a living, breathing person. This helps me to quickly sort through conflicting stories. Therefore, I am also in a position to know who has been lying. It is a distressing position to be in, but one I take with humility and dedication. I also know whom to respect among present `researchers´in the JFK research community. And who should be rebuked for muddying the waters fore their own purposes. Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald

RESPONSE FROM JUDYTH TO BERNICE: Well, Bernice, you have said the same elsewhere about me, and you are welcome to your opinion. ============================================== RETURNING TO THE THREAD ABOUT MR. REITZES' RHETORICAL DEVICES, ETC: Meanwhile, back to the matter of Dave Reitzes. This will be the last material I intend to publish in this thread. I will be happy to respond to persons who begin a different thread instead of derailing this one, as I have already said several times now. Tthread, I repeat, is dedicated to understanding how the rhetorical tactics of Mr. Reitzes might affect the opinions and understandings of scholars and students who come across his elaborate and very nice looking websites. In fact, his websites are full of a lot of important information. It is what he says about his information, and, sometimes, the highly selective nature of the information presented, that is of concern. It is to be understood that Mr. Reitzes is actually a SPOKESMAN, not a RESEARCHER. There are some facts in research that must not be forgotten. Some concern late witness testimony: 1) Earliest witness testimony is usually the most accurate EXCEPT IF IT WAS COERCED OR INFLUENCED. 2) If a witness radically changes his or her testimony many years later, care must be taken to determine WHY. 3) If the witness does not radically change his or her testimony, but much later adds new information, care must be taken to learn why the new information was not released earlier. Sometimes, one learns that it was, but selective reportage obscured the fact. Sometimes, a person simply forgot. Other times, the person wanted to wait until the other person died so that they would not have to worry about a lawsuit (this was my reason for waiting). 4) If the witness did not speak out for many years, and is a new witness, care must be taken to learn why the information was not released earlier, and why the new witness did not stand forth. In most cases, fear of not being believed, of losing one's job, of being accused of supporting an unpopular cause or position, of losing security or approval from employers, family members, and so on, influence the timing of the release of new information. Rarely, a person was never asked a certain question and/or refused to volunteer information unless confronted. Now, let's look at an example of late testimony, and how Mr. Reitzes treats it. The following is an example of late testimony that Mr. Reitzes stated he rejected. He also stated here that he rejects all late testimony: The exchange below concerns Dave Reitzes' attitude toward late information elicited from a credible witness, Lou Ivon, by a credible researcher, Bill Davy (whose writings and research, however, had been previously attacked by Dave Reitzes): -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In 1995, Lou Ivon, an investigator for Garrison, told Davy that in February 1967 he had met with a frightened David Ferrie, who admitted doing contract work for the CIA and who knew Oswald and Shaw." REITZES: Even granting the hearsay is true, where's it say that Garrison got any leads from Ferrie? It doesn't. You expect everyone to just assume that's what is meant? [...] And had you ever bothered to interview Ivon yourself, slacker? No? Then appreciate the fact that Davy did your legwork for you. Davy's interview of anyone, nearly 3 decades after the event, is meaningless. It proves zilch, which is just one of the reasons I found the citation meaningless. I really don't care what Ivon says today about the case. Nor do I care what Peterson says Davy says Ivon says. What is pertinent is what Ivon and Garrison were saying back then about the case. Do you have anything along those lines?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Reitzes says he will not accept information given so late: "Davy's interview of anyone, nearly 3 decades after the event, is meaningless." But in February, 2001, Mr. Reitzes has to explain why he was going to accept late testimony from Patricia Lambert, who supports his theories. Now he says something very interesting about Davy's new material from Ivon that he formerly rejected: "Regarding Patricia Lambert's "False Witness"...We can argue about the theme of her book, but until I see some reason to doubt the accuracy of the factual material, I will accept her citations of documents and interviews as accurate. So in this matter, I accept that Alcock said what she related that he said. Before you go comparing this to my feelings about Bill Davy's book, I did the same comparison with primary sources. Davy was likewise careful to present factual material substantially accurately, although I quibble with some of his interpretations. For the same reason, I am willing to accept that Lou Ivon did say the things Davy quotes him as saying." ================================================= A spokesman will say one thing and later say another as it suits him to promote his viewpoint. A researcher will present the facts and, if mistaken, will make a point of making a retraction that is not buried deep within another message somewhere. In just this one example (there are more) I have shown that Mr. Reitzes says he will not accept late testimony from Mr. Davy given him by Mr. Ivon, but later he WILL accept late testimony (that he agrees with) from Patricia Lambert, and oh, by the way, now he DOES accept the testimony of Ivon as reported by Davy. Students and scholars relying on Reitzes' former opinion would hardly be expected to have to search for his change of mind (a change of mind necessary to be able to accept new testimony from Patricia Lambert). Finally, (and perhaps we can now end this thread now on Mr. Reitzes'being a SPOKESMAN rather than a researcher), we should look at a theory that Mr. Reitzes presented on his website about the Clinton, LA witnesses who say they saw Lee Oswald, Dave Ferrie, and Clay Shaw together. The witnesses were very different from each other, composed of KKK members, for example, and CORE members (blacks who were trying to get blacks in Clinton to register to vote.). These were odd bedfellows, and they would not be expected to be in collusion about anything, since the KKK people were putting the CORE people in jail that same year. Now let's look at the argument Mr. Reitzes, in his attempts to discredit the Clinton witnesses, offers to explain why they might have been in conspiracy with each other. Researcher Robert Harris speaks to Mr. Reitzes about a theory Reitzes proposed to 'prove' the Clinton witnesses were lying: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "David, In your article, *impeaching clinton* you suggest that CORE members Corrie Collins and William Dunn conspired with the KKK to falsely place Oswald and his friends in Clinton La. In order to make them go along with their scheme, you suggest that the Klan threatened to connect Oswald to CORE, and that such a connection might destroy the organization." Mr. Reitzes replied: "You're making all this up, Bob. Nowhere do I say that Collins or Dunn conspired with the KKK, and nowhere do I say that they were threatened in the manner you suggest." HARRIS: ...Lets go directly to your article (some of this appeared in my original post, but David snipped it), and perhaps you will tell us what you *really* meant to say: >****************************************************** The question that keeps arising, however, is how the Ku Klux Klan could benefit from the claim that Lee Oswald merely stood in line at a CORE voter registration drive. Since Jim Garrison's death in 1992, a number of previously unknown documents have turned up amidst his private papers, and one such document may well be the "smoking gun" that answers that question. In a memorandum of January 22, 1968, Andrew Sciambra writes, "Mr. Palmer informed me that John Manchester has recently told him that right around the time the black Cadillac was in Clinton, he remembers seeing a boy who fit Oswald's description coming out of a CORE meeting in Clinton and when he left the CORE meeting, Manchester followed him and the car went in the direction of Jackson, Louisiana."(56) Recall how quickly the Fair Play for Cuba Committee folded -- in only a matter of weeks -- once it had been linked, however superficially, with the alleged assassin of President Kennedy. >****************************************************** David, your claim or implication, or whatever you wish to now call it, is patently absurd, which I presume you have known all along, and is the reason you are now denying you even said it. If the Klan really thought they could destroy CORE by connecting it with Oswald, they certainly would not have used that to blackmail the organization. They would have gone ahead and tried to publicize their claim." Mr. Reitzes then replied: "I agree with you, Mr. Harris. Of course, I don't make any such claim, so I'm not sure what your point is. My question remains: Why not deal with the facts, hmm?" HARRIS: "David, I have cited the actual words from your article. What other "facts" are at issue here?" Mr. Reitzes then dodges the question, saying: "Do you have any credible evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone or otherwise, was in East Feliciana Parish, Mr. Harris? If so, now would be a good time to present it. Lurkers, find out why Mr. Harris dwells solely upon the unverifiable issue of motive and refuses to discuss the documented facts that the Clinton story is a fraud." Mr. Harris then returns the reader to the matter in question: "Of course you didn't (make such a claim) David. So when can we expect you to correct your article by inserting some kind of statement which makes it clear, how idiotic it would be to believe such a thing? (When will you)...make it clear that there is not even a shred of evidence to support the notion that these men lied?? I have an even better idea, David. Just in case some other poor soul misunderstands you the way I did, why don't you put all these recent denials you are now posting, right into the article?! Why don't you make it crystal clear to your readers, how preposterous it would be for them to think that the Klan intimidated Collins and/or Dunn to make them perjure themselves? Are you going to do that David? Robert Harris ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A scholar or a student who goes to Dave Reitzes'website and reads about the Clinton Witnesses will find that Mr. Reitzes did not change his article, even though he admitted, here, that "I agree with you, Mr. Harris. Of course, I don't make any such claim..." I do not take pleasure in pointing out these problems with Mr. Reitzes'writings. My concern is that students and scholars will believe that his statements are that of a Researcher, when in fact, Mr. Reitzes places information in the light that best supports what he stands for as a Spokesman. How does one identity a Spokesman? Usually, it's hard, unkless one is a witness who knows the truth. Also, if one has been misquoted, or is a researcher who realizes, as Mr, Harris did, what is going on. Hence, to understand what is going on, distinctions must be made among the sets of people most active in the Kennedy Assassination information network: (1) Spokesmen -- such as Mr. Reitzes and Dr. John McAdams, who may present information in the same style as researchers, but guide students and readers, inevitably, to preconceived conclusions. A common characteristic, as shown above: will not retract or change misleading statements unless forced or shamed into doing so. May present hearsay as fact. May include judgmental terms such as "claims to be" and "wants us to believe" and "tries to convince..."etc. as if the reader has a different opinion which is now being challenged by an untruth. (2) Researchers, such as Peter Dale Scott, Harrison Livingstone, Edward Haslam, Jerry Rose, Greg Parker, James Olmstead, Martin Shackelford, and Clark Wilkins. Present facts. Attempt to present both sides of an argument fairly. When presenting theories, clearly indicate same. Try to obtain all possible material. Try not to select only material supporting the theories they present. Will retract and change statements when errors are discovered. (3) Information gatherers-- include such persons as Jerry P. Shinley, and Stephen Roy (AKA Blackburst) who provide important information to the research community and who function best when they present all, not a portion, of what is available to them. (4) Witnesses -- of every sort, honest and dishonest, important or obscure, whose statements are selected by members of the other groups according to their functions, and whose statements are sometimes gathered independently by reporters-- such as Marina Oswald Porter, Dave Ferrie, Robert Oswald, Al Maddox, Mrs. Garner, Lou Ivon, William Livesay, and myself. (5) reporters -- who hap (or are ordered) upon information, witnesses, researchers, and spokesmen, bringing out stories, and sometimes conclusions based on their interviews and records made available to them (unless they are, in secret, a Spokesman... note the recent scandal of government ads posing as "news"-- a prime example of the function of a "spokesman"posing as a "researcher"or, in that case, as a "reporter"). (6) Recruits: who will join any of the above groups according to their desire or premeditated function. they may or may not be ignorant. They may or may not be honest, independent, or real people. Recruits may turn into any of the above, but typically drop out after a short time. They often provide temporary support to a Spokesman. (7) NayDisJokers: Naysayers, Disrupters, and Jokers: Those who, in forums and newsgroups, and in chatrooms, etc. insert jokes, attacks, disrupt threads, derail arguments, and in other ways stop the arguments from progressing by deflecting to another subject. NayDisJokers generally support Spokemen. They may be recruits or they may simply want to support their favorite Spokesmen. Such persons rarely supply new facts. They can usually be identified as NayDisJokers because the thread or argument gets derailed or turns into a bunch of jokes. Siometimes personal attacks are used, and if the person being attacked does not respond, the NayDisJoker will say that they are avoiding the attacker and must, therefore have a reason for doing so. In fact, many very prodcutive research threads end with the comments of NayDisJokers, and the work is then lost. This is the last material I wish to publish at this time concerning Mr. Reitzes and his function as a Spokesman. My intention is not to harm him, but only to point out the inconsistencies, position, rhetorical devices, and agenda promulgated by Mr. Reitzes, particularly since he has misrepresented my statements and my testimony in what seems to be several attempts to seem to be presenting "research"-- though he has never interviewed me. I have presented this material not only to point out the problems Mr. Reitzes has in presenting himself as a researcher, but also to provide a guide and a warning to students and scholars in their search for the truth regarding the Kennedy Assasssination. An understanding of the above categories will help, I hope, to clear the smoke and fumes so that students and scholars might find their way through the disaster zone of disinformation and false leads to the true smoking guns. Anyone who wishes to talk to me about my status as witness is welcome to do so, as I have stated several times now, by starting a new thread. Demanding me to post evidence in this thread, especially when I have stated my book will soon be coming out (-- and these are very general and broad demands-- ) will not be answered. I consider them to be NayDisJoker interferences. Any particular question, such as some aspect of my relationship to Lee Oswald, I will be happy to answer and may also provide evidence for same, in a different thread. I repeat again that I have provided evidence in private to well known investigators who are satisfied with my status as a witness who intimately knew Lee Harvey Oswald. I wish to protect my own living witnesses, as well as some evidence we are still trying to find. Some of my living witnesses have already experienced intimidation and threats. In private, much is being accomplished. I wish to thank the many people who are sending me private emails of encouragement. God bless you all! Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald

Dixie... I am sorry if I upset you. ==j==

Well, Dixie, now you have written Nancy and she has mentioned it immediately. You wrote all of that about Lancer 2000 ---and at the bottom apologized, for it was Lancer 1999 that you were really talking about. I would appreciate your going back and editing your post to say 1999, and I hope, as you do so, to remove statements about my situqation. By the eway, I have emails from Mary offering me to stay in her suite with her in 2000. She was going to pay all my bills, including transportation. She wanted me to use a fake name. that is why I turned down her offer and rented a suite on my own nickel. I canceled it after realizing that people would not have time to make decnet/lengthed interviews. More on that is below, for it is important that a witness be interviewed properly. I do hope you will edit your post for the reasons I´ve stated. Thanks very much. I hope you will enjoy your correspondence with Nancy Eldreth. She demands things now, or else, even when repreatedly told that the book is coming out this year. She also will eventually show your emails to everybody, so be careful what you write. meanwhile, back to the topic. °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° INTERVIEWS AND RHETORIC BY RESEARCHERS, WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO MR. DAVY´S COMMENTS ABOUT MR. DAVE REITZES°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° We are discussinG Dave Reitzes' rhetoric and research methods, since he puiblishes a great deal on the Internet which affects those scholars and students who read it. The websites look professional, AND there are many citations, and Mr. reitzes seems to be presenting information correctly. But he does He? Mr. Reitzes is not known as a man who seeks to interview witnesses. He usually relies, as do most researchers in this case, on quotes from others. SECONDARY SOURCES: "48 Chromosome Knowledge" I am reminded how for many years people thought the human nucleus had 48 chromosomes --because the male chromosome XY type was shown in the first photo of the elicted chromosomal materials, ALONG with the female XX type. Everybody quoted it that way for some two decades, as I recall, until somebody noticed that the first quote stating humans had 48 chromosomes was wrong. Somebody should have asked the scientist who posted the photo how many chromosomes were in the typical human cell's nucleus. Nobody interviewed HIM. They relied on the photo that was published, they counted the chromosomes, and came up with 48. Personal interviews CAN often bring out the truth-- sometimes even if the person interviewed lies, for their statements might contrast with what they said previously. Now, I am talking about live interviews, depositions, audio and video tapes, and statements made in the presence of an additional witness who can vouch that the statement was not coerced and is accurately transcribed (even then transcribed statements are occasionally redacted). The quality of the interview of course rests on knowing the situation at the time of the interview. People tended to lie about Lee Oswald right after the assassination. The same people, years later, often moderated their statements or even said they had not been quoted correctly. orest Pena told The warren Commission nothing about the relationship between Warren DeBrueys and Lee Oswald. Later, several sources confirmed that Pena had been threatened. Eventually, Pena told everything, and his progress toward telling the truth is understandable and he is to be admired for finally telling the truth. Such a witness should not be discredited since there is proof that the witness was afraid to begin with. These matters must be taken into consideration. In the case of WILLIAM DAVY AND DAVE REITZES, an example of how failing to interview subjects can turn even Mr. Reitzes' "good" research awry is presented here (remember, I am not trying to say that Mr. Reitzes is a poor investigator. He digs into things. But I am trying to say that he is selective, and reports as it suits him to support his personal beliefs, often using rhetorical devices, and rarely conducting live interviews. That means he is not really a researcher. He is, instead, a spokesman.). William Davy realized that Mr. Reitzes had a propensity for making statements without getting interviews from living witnesses. A good example is what happened to me. Mr. Reitzes never spoke to me one moment 'live.' He never visited me. Mr. Davy wrote `Let Justice Be done`, which is filled with the results of many live witness interviews, and he is sensitive when Mr. Reitzes ´corrects´him based on " 48 chromosome" knowledge: Concerning Mr. Reitzes'methodology, Davy wrote this (among many other complaints, after Reitzes attacked his book): "Reitzes’ ...claims I "attempt to rehabilitate nutball witness Charles Spiesel (Davy 173-4)." In fact, I do no such thing. On the very pages Reitzes cites I list all of Spiesel’s wild, paranoid claims. I criticize his story as being too pat and describe his testimony as "lunatic." Is this Reitzes’ idea of rehabilitation? It was Judge Haggerty himself who thought Spiesel may have been dismissed too easily and I note that in the book. Reitzes then writes "Davy also presents a dubious new theory of his own when he attempts to link the mental hospital in Jackson, where Oswald allegedly was seeking a job, to the CIA’s infamous MK/ULTRA mind control experiments." No, this was recalled to us by Dr. Alfred Butterworth, one of the East Louisiana State Hospital’s physicians and corroborated by other hospital employees. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many of the Jackson hospital employees did you interview?` Of course I also report on secret goings-on at Jackson. In my book, I include the supporting statement of a living witness who himself was a subject of medical testing at Jackson almost at the same time of the experiences i recount at Jackson. Davy complains, justifiably, that he interviewed a witness to support his statement, knowing that Reitzes interviewed nobody, and that reitzes relies on secondary materials. Wrote Davy next: `But less commendable, according to Reitzes, is my "acceptance of Daniel Campbell’s assertions that Banister was a "bagman for the CIA" and "was running guns to Alpha 66 in Miami (There is no evidence to support either claim)." I guess Reitzes naively expects a CIA document to appear affirming something like that. While he’s waiting, he may be interested to know that this was confirmed by Dan Campbell’s brother, Allen as well as close Banister associate, Joe Newbrough. Tell us Mr. Reitzes, how many of Banister’s operatives did you interview?" In fact, Mr. Reitzes rarely interviews anyone, but will refute the claims of writers such as Davy who can back up their statements with live interviews, relying himself on secondary sources. So, we now point out that living witness statements are preferable to secondary sources, especially where the conditions of the interviews are known. Such statements can be lies. I have seen interviews by the FBI and Secret Service where the person being interviewed stated the interviews were not correctly reported. Therefore direct quotes should be part of the report of an interview. The direct quote must also be IN CONTEXT. If a person said in a live interview, `I have always believed Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy until I Mr. X told me his side of the story.` If this is reported as `I have always believed Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy...`then the ´live+´interview has been distorted. needless to say, I have seen my own quotes similarly distorted from their original context. All these factors must be taken into account. In the end, judging the quality of a researcher´s work includes these considerations: 1) live interviews reported in context whenever possible 2) quotations not taken out of context 3) balanced presentation where conflicts exist (cannot ignore important arguments `on the other side´) 4) willingness to post corrections when shown to be in error 5) avoidance of use of pejorative or prejudicial statements (I removed, for example, a statement made by Davy against Reitzes that was overly prejudiced against Reitzes, where the three dots are located in the quote). 6) the use of footnotes or end notes to back up statemenhts... and when checked, that these notes actually exist and are accurate (errors may happen, but they should not be chronic) ... and avoiding using ONESELF as the `source`of a statement (I was astonished to find one researcher quoting his earlier works over and over again as his ´source´of information) 7) if a ´researcher´ constantly publishes material only supporting one side of a theory, unless that person is a WITNESS, he or she is displaying an AGENDA. A witness has the right to seek supporting evidence, though every witness should know what is out there against him or her in matters of controversy such as the Kennedy assasssination, especailly since lying occurs (sadly, by officials, too). A researcher has to seek evidence for and against his or her thesis. If only one side is presented, the person is not a researcher. A witness can legitimately defend only his or her side, because that witness is speaking from experience. researchers must decide if what the witness says is true, distorted, or false. Honest researchers take care and time to do live interviews and to present both sides of the picture in witness testimony sitruations. Otherwise, they are said to have an AGENDA and are being SELECTIVE in presenting their evidence. °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° Final comment: There is so much evidence ---and there are so many conflicting statements in the Kennedy assassination materials---- that most people are overwhelmed. I´ve been more fortunate, because, as a witness, I know what Lee Oswald, for example, really was doing on certain days. I knew him as a living, breathing person. This helps me to quickly sort through conflicting stories. Therefore, I am also in a position to know who has been lying. It is a distressing position to be in, but one I take with humility and dedication. I also know whom to respect among present `researchers´in the JFK research community. And who should be rebuked for muddying the waters fore their own purposes. Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald

ELDRETH WROTE>>>>Judyth you lied to me about your address and your email address. Uwe told me if you moved out of the country you will not be able to have the same address. YOU LIED TO ME. Uwe (David Weaver) hasn't told you the truth, if that's what he told you. I moved, but I pay for a server to keep my old Holland email address. I have my mail forwarded to me from my old address as a friend lives there now. I kept my Holland bank account but that doesn't mean I live there any more than my Dallas bank account means I live there. People have been getting my emails quite awhile describing the country I now live in, and that includes the weird food. I have had to eat a LOT of squash and pumpkin here. You call me a xxxx as easily as you blow your nose. Go ahead and believe what you like. My REAL friends know I am not lying when I said I moved. Find somebody else to accuse of lying. I am surprised John is allowing you to carry on like this. ==j==

ELDRETH WROTE: IS to go to a private investigator with the information and as much proof as you could show him and turned this inside out yourself. YOU DID NOT EVER DO THAT. I went to Sixty Minutes, they hired private investigators, I have emails proving they did not walk away from the story. Enemies arose, they were blocked from higher up. I am still on good terms with Sixty Minutes, who also paid me for lost wages, I have the check copies, something they would never have done if I had been the slightest thought dishonest. They knew i was telling the truth. Don Hewitt said so on C-Span. Nigel Turner took 38 hours of film and condensed it into 44 minutes. He interviewed dozens of supporting witnesses. He interviewed me for two weeks, every day, all day. He ended up for the first time ever devoting an entire MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY to ONLY my story. Because he saw the evidence. He also understood why it should not be published. Do you know how many people's lives have been ruined over this? Mine has been, yet you demand what you do not understand, and over which blood has been shed. You have not gained my trust or you would have seen why it has to be protected, why the witnesses need protection. People were scared spitless to be seen as witnesses. One received a threat from the Mafia. any more ideas? You still have a job. I lost mine speaking out. An FBI employee complained and after 17 years of teaching, my teaching career was wrecked because now I am a 'notorious' character who 'had a love affair with an accused assasssin.' You still have a car. Mine was totalled in an 'accident' in Dallas that destroyed my health. A second 'ACCIDENT' ruined any chance of being healthy again. Two car in cidents. Two brain concussions. By the grace of God, I'm still alive. I had to sell my third car because I rec'd a death threat and left the country. Overseas, I wasn't harrassed, followed, pestered, hounded, but I am very lonely and miss my family. You have your daughter and family and a job. Be grateful and leave me alone. I have had to sell everything, just to pay rent in a foreign country. And at my age and now in poor health, I have to look on with amazement as you demand that you will not ait for the book coming out this year, but demand everything NOW. I know you have a car, a job, family nearby, you can walk well, you can see well, you do not have daily headaches and memory problems, and you have opportunities to go to the Archives that I never had. I had to leave the country after being harrassed and threatened and terribly miss my friends and children and grandchildren. I'm paying a price. Demand away, you'll get no more trust or answers from me. I have already placed everything in the hands of TRUSTED people. That is NOT you. It is not meant at this time for publication on the internet, so go ahead, carry on because I'm not doing as you want. David Weaver, John McAdams, Dave Reitzes, and Bob Vernon. Those are your friends, I hope they treat you well. You have not earned my trust, on the contrary, you handed over emails I wrote to you to Bob Vernon, and just recently, you sent out some more. God knows why. You are your own worst enemy. Judyth Vary Baker

To anyone who accuses me of not having evidence: Besides the documents and materials proving my proximity to Lee Oswald, I have statements (made before witnesses) of several persons, not related to me, who say on film and on audiotape that they observed me and Lee together as lovers. I also have supporting statements from my sister, yes. These films and audiotapes in the hands of several honest researchers now. They have been released to be made available to researchers everywhere at no financial gain whatsoever to me. I gave them freely, just as I also gave up the deMohrenschildt tapes after selling one set to make enough money to send the tapes to be copied and then to send them out free to researchers everywhere, after they had been kept from the public by a selfish person for thirty years. As I said, I am working to get the truth out. My book will be out this year, with quotations from these living witnesses and supporting witnesses, as well. People can consult Martin Shackelford on how to obtain tapes and films of my witnesses. Best regards to all, Judyth Vary Baker

Nancy, I feel sorry for you. I foolishly befriended you when everybody over at Lancer was picking on you. have often felt sorry for underdogs. I was a mental health counselor for years and was certified by the State of Florida, District VI, in 1988. I recognized that you had some serious problems and wanted to help you. I offered a friendly hand. But it was hopeless. You often misunderstood what you heard and read and believed things happened to you that were impossible. You've gotten worse this past year. Now you are trying to make people believe additional impossible things about me. For example, you told Bob Vernon that I sent you an email (which you conveniently could not find) that I said I had been placed in a mental hospital and had gone through electroshock and tortured to forget Lee Oswald's name. You gave Mr. Vernon some shocking details. You gave him some "quotations"even. I told you that I had worked for a psychiatrist, Dr. James Stuart of Hauser Clinic, and had WITNESSED electroshocks. I suppose I should not have used the word 'witnessed." That did NOT mean 'experienced them.' You have some problems and need help, nancy. I tried to help, and eventually, you resented that. You make up a lot of things. I do not wish to embarrass you any more than I have. Tonight you exploded with similar junk on other newsgroups. You want me to answer Mr. Vernon's questions. the man deserves nothing but to be ignored. I privately gave my answers to several others to prove I knew the answers to his questions. I don not respect Mr. Vernon enough to answer him. You posted tonight on another newsgroup that I lied to you. I could send people copies of your emails where you accused me of lying, and the emails to which you were responding to. They are ridiculous. You have problems understanding what you read, Nancy. I befriended you because everybody picked on you and I felt sorry for you. Do not force me to say more to defend myself. Please see a doctor. Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker

To all: "David Weaver" calling me names and objecting that he can go ahead and use a fake name on this forum doesn't impress me. Let's get back to the subject thjat I hope will help scholars and students understand why rhetorical devices are being used by Warren Commission apologists to hide the truth about the Kennedy Assassination, and why their arguments are still being listened to after all this time. Basically, people need a coherent STORY that makes sense about the JFK assassination. The Warrren Commission materials do not, when examined closely, make much sense. For example, there is no real motive for the young father of two little girls he adored, who was only 24 and NOT the loneer OR the total failure he was puirported to be, who stated he admired Kennedy, to shoot the President. It doesn't make sense and I, as a living witness, remain to tell you it's simply not true. Therefore every possible means must be taken to discredit the living witness. This is done by reminding people that any "story"given by an eyewitness "must"be based on "evidence"or it cannot be believed. Of course we know that many people have gone to prison based on eyewitness testimony, where nothing but the testimony was involved. Witnesses rarely can produce "all"the evidence needed to back up their story. However, if a witness can prove proximity to Oswald, as I can, it is important to at least listen to the report. Then comes the rhetoric. A report by a witness is always a 'story"compared to the 'facts.' What people do not realize at times is that The Warren Commission has also presented 'a story"-- and the facts it uses to uphold its story have been discovered in many cases to be flawed. The Warren Commission apologists can attack a witness such as me as often as they please, but they, themselves are wide open to criticism for: (1) witholdng thousands of files still classified secret or, if released, filled with blacked out sections, often covgering the entire document. (2) sending Joannides to represent the CIA to the HSCA is an example of deliberately hampering even official government inquiries into the truth (3) a stubborn refusal to adjust to reality after the public has been made aware of a cover-up, even if the cover-up was for national security forty-some years ago -- it's time the truth came out. Most witnesses still alive try to keep low. I did. I knew what was ahead if I opened my mouth. I'm presently jobless and have lost all my possessions and even my health after four years of harrassment and character assassination. Living witnesses are a big pain to the Official Version. Rhetorical devices against witnesses are easy to use. "PROVE IT" is easy to say. Ten years from now a survivor of the Tsunami, living in Sweden, who has lost passports and all remnants of 'evidence" might mention his or her experiences and not be believed. People involved with major figures in the Kennedy assassination rarely kept incriminating evidence. Evcen today I am threatened with arrest by some people for 'failing to contact the authorities' when of course my interference would have increased the danger of the informants and only put off Kennedy's execution to another spot. I do not think that anybody who knew of Kennedy's assassination in advance ever told anybody, except for such lost souls as Rose Cherami-- who wasn't believed. I was twenty years old, living in Florida, under the watchful eye of Santo Trafficante, who would have stomped me out had I said a word. The only way to discredit a witness-- who after all provides a framework, a narrative-- is to destroy the reputation of the witness or to say he or she simply is mistaken. Conally was WRONG about not being shot at the same time as JFK. His wife was WRONG, too. End of story. Historian Michael Kurtz was WRONG reporting he was in the same room with Lee Oswald and former FBI chief Guy Banister, who were working together. Orest Pena was WRONG when he reported Lee oswald and FBI agent Warren Debrueys meeting and speaking togetheron several occasions. I am WRONG that I met Guy Banister and was introduced to him by Lee Oswald, even though two secretaries there reported a "Mrs. Oswald"who was "lovelÿ"had been introduced to them by Lee Oswald in the presence of Guy Banister. "Mrs. Oswald"-- Marina-- said she had never been there. "Mrs. Oswald"Lee's mother was not 'lovely.' When I stand forth and explain that this was me-- that I am the missing link -- I am "LYING." Where is the evidence that I'm lying? If this were all that I could say, it would be different. But I have proven Lee and I were hired by the same small sub company of a small company , ON THE SAME DAY, then transferred together one week later to the larger Reily organization, and that my last day of work was Aug. 9, the day Lee was arrested. I was terminated because a Reily employee saw me speaking to Lee just before his demonstration. I kept many records proving other contacts with Lee that a number of researchers have seen. Tellingly, Reitzes, Weaver, McAdams, and others who attack me have not seen these documents. Nor, with the exception of one person, have they ever met me more than a moment. BELOW, FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS AND SCHOLARS, I PRESENT THE PROBLEM THAT FACES THOSE TRYING TO GET TO THE TRUTH AS IT IS SEEN BY AN ACADEMIC WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT RHETORIC IS JUST A TOOL. WITNESSES CAN BE BATTERED AND HARMED BY RHETORIC. I remain steadfast in my testimony, and as time passes and more repuutable and honest researchers contact me and investigate me, the dishonest attackers must rely more and more on name calling and invective. With patience and consistency, I will present not only the facts, but the true story, of Lee Harvey Oswald. People need to know the truth-- and the framework. I can give them that, and in my book-- which people have desperately tried to stop from getting published--the entire framework of facts and the true story-- will be presented. There will ALWAYS be rhetorical objections to my story. But the only objections that critics can make of me as a witness will be attempts to defame my character-- because there is no doubt, for those who have investigated me thoroughly, that I was Lee Oswald's lover. There will always be those who will deny it. But the logic and the way I can show how all the loose ends really come together will make sense. Documents can always be forged. But I, as a witness, cannot be duplicated. Nor can they intimidate me to change my story. Hence, the name calling, the rudeness, and the lack of evidence against me being what it is, the character assassination that must take its place. Below--for scholars and thoughtful readers-- a goopd analysis of rhetoric as used in the kennedy assassination chronicles. I hope this will help the more intelligent readers to assess the nature of the problem. Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald =================== reference material for students below======== from: Sophistic Synthesis in JFK Assassination Rhetoric Roger Gilles, Grand Valley State University 1994 Presented at CCCC San Diego, 1993 (ED 400 532) http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/higher_critic..._Synthesis.html WHAT WE "KNOW" ABOUT THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION Why are people still writing about the Kennedy assassination? We might reasonably assume that professional historians have by now sifted through the evidence and established beyond a reasonable doubt who killed Kennedy-and how and why. But this is not the case; indeed, as several historians have themselves pointed out, academic historians have been nearly silent on the Kennedy assassination (Kurtz, "Assassination" 1; Kurtz, Crime ix; Lesar 469; Wrone 332). One historian who has written extensively on the assassination, Michael L. Kurtz, has received little support from his peers. Critics-even those who share his belief in a conspiracy- question everything from his accuracy and his use of sources to the degree of his speculation and his overall conclusions. David R. Wrone, for example, points out that Kurtz relies too much on Warren Commission documents. According to Wrone, Kurtz "accepts many key documents with little question" (332). Wrone also accuses Kurtz of breaking "the cardinal rule of history never to speculate but to remain faithful to evidence even if it leaves perpetual blanks in the narrative" (333). These and other criticisms point to two key dilemmas facing all assassination researchers in their quest for "knowledge" about the case: they are attempting to construct a credible reality based on a vast yet clearly incomplete world of evidence, so any reconstruction that remains "faithful to evidence" will surely include unsatisfying "blanks" that may threaten the overall plausibility of the whole; and they are basing their reconstructions on official documents, eyewitness testimonies, and photographic records that have in one way or another been filtered through the government and questioned by one critic or another over the course of three decades, so virtually any "theory" that draws on some records while ignoring or discounting others stands subject to a wide range of questions and criticisms. The first dilemma may explain the lack of academic theorizing about the assassination. There are plenty of records about the assassination, but the amount of "admissable evidence" is open to debate. In academic terms, nothing in the twenty-six Warren Commission volumes and 360 cubic feet of related records or the twelve House volumes and 400 cubic feet of related records can be accepted uncritically. And because of well-publicized hints of government involvement in the assassination or in some kind of post-assassination cover-up, many critical readers find it difficult to accept any assassination records that have passed through government filters. Indeed, Wrone insists very plainly in The Journal of Southern History that even the most basic facts of the case remain elusive to those looking for legal or academic certainty: "No credible evidence connects any group or individual, including Oswald, to the murder" (333). Without a body of generally accepted evidence to draw upon, historians find it difficult to put together anything but a patchy picture indeed of the assassination. The second dilemma is equally silencing. Everyone involved in moving beyond the paucity of generally accepted evidence and theorizing about the Kennedy assassination must accept some data while discounting other data; this is necessarily the case, just as it is necessarily the case in all theorizing, all historicizing, all arguing. Yet academic reviewers criticize Kurtz for being selective about accepting and omitting certain evidence from the Warren Commission and House Select Committee investigations (Garrow 304; Lesar 469). Both inside and outside of academia, most theories about the assassination are met with charges of faulty selection of evidence. As I've mentioned, almost no evidence in the case can be viewed with any degree of certainty. Those who argue against a conspiracy select a certain subset of evidence and interpret it in a particular way; those who argue for a conspiracy select a different subset of evidence and interpret it in a particular way. Both sides are, in their way, dealing with "probable truth," but the probability of their truths is dependent on that very unscientific process of selection. Because every theorist is by necessity selecting only a very small subset of possible records on which to base his or her theory, every theorist is open to easy criticism: "Your theory merely matches the evidence you've deliberately chosen to consider. Now, if you consider this document...." The reasoning almost inevitably becomes circular. Not too surprisingly, the majority of conspiracy theories are in fact not positive theories at all-arguments drawing on specific records to build a full and coherent theory-but criticisms of the official theory put forth by the Warren Commission in 1964. Some of the major, best-selling conspiracy books-Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment, Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After the Fact, and Anthony Summers' Conspiracy, for example-are little more than critiques of the official version. The writers admit quite openly that there isn't enough evidence to put together any kind of positive theory; their argument is simply that the one positive theory put forth by the government is wrong. Most such conspiracists end their volumes by calling on the government to declassify the records and even to reopen the investigation so that an alternative theory might be constructed. When writers do put forth a positive theory-as Kurtz the historian does, as David Lifton does in Best Evidence, and as Jim Garrison does in On the Trail of the Assassins-critics on all sides leap to question and refute evidence and conclusions alike. Perhaps more historical research would overcome these problems. But to conduct primary research on leads suggested by the Warren Commission and subsequent investigations, including Jim Garrison's, is now next to impossible given the dwindling number of eyewitnesses, the continuing passage of time, and the continuing inaccessibility of certain records related to the assassination (as late as April 1992, 2% of the archived Warren Commission records and all 400 cubic feet of the archived House records remained classified [McReynolds 384, 387-88]; since then, a good number of selected records have been released, but literally millions of pages remain unavailable [Kurtz, Crime lvi]). Plenty of independent information-much of it wildly conflicting-has been uncovered by a variety of private researchers and public agencies in the thirty years since the assassination, but this has simply added to the vast database from which any theory must be constructed. In any event, taking on a project of these proportions would be, as James H. Lesar notes in connection to Kurtz's effort, a "gargantuan task" (469). These are serious, and silencing, dilemmas for researchers tied in general to what Kathleen E. Welch calls the Heritage School of rhetoric-and in particular to the Aristotelian, "logic-dominant" framework for valid argumentation as presented by rhetoricians in the Heritage School (Welch 53). Despite thirty years' time and an overwhelming amount of potential evidence in the case, academic historians still "know" nothing about who killed Kennedy. Their own logic, cautious and even admirable as it is, prevents them from drawing conclusions. As long as assassination theorists and critics subscribe to what Welch calls "exaggerated reason, hyperrationalism, and a procedural way of thinking that not only excludes emotion but in fact looks down on it" (37), no JFK assassination theory is likely to generate consensus. Ironically, Kurtz himself offers little hope that historians will ever agree, "even if all the evidence currently withheld by the government were released" ("Assassination" 19). This is why I am convinced that the Kennedy assassination must be treated as a rhetorical, rather than a historical, entity. If any public consensus is to be reached, it will be reached through rhetoric in all its guises, not merely through the Aristotelian version of Heritage School rhetoric. <snip> The fact that conspiracists seek to turn the Kennedy assassination into "story" by positioning it in terms of larger forces is at once the key to their rhetorical success and the main reason for their critical failure in a culture still dominated by an Aristotelian analytical lens. Early assassination accounts-the Warren Report, Jim Bishop's The Day Kennedy Was Shot, and Manchester's The Death of a President-all recount an essentially nonsensical assassination, a random event which disrupted the altogether different, Arthurian narrative of Kennedy's presidency. Then, as conspiracists such as Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, and Jim Garrison began to "make sense" of the assassination, media pundits and politicians attacked them for using evidence selectively, for speculating, for seeing more in the assassination than there actually was, and so on. It wasn't right to make sense, or story, where officially there was none. "Framing" the assassination was, to those subscribing to the official version of events, either delusional or irresponsible-certainly irrational, and irrationality is one quality a traditional Aristotelian worldview cannot accept. The criticisms have gone the other way, too. Conspiracists themselves seek to "explain away" the Warren Commission Report as a deliberate political attempt to manipulate the American public. In Rush to Judgment, conspiracist Mark Lane states flatly that "[t]he Commission's responsibility to maintain public confidence in the American institutions overshadowed its mandate to secure and report the facts" (368-69). At least two academic historians agree that the Warren Commission had such motives. Michael Kurtz states that "the evidence makes it clear that [the Commission's] primary purpose was to put an end to the rumors and speculations and to convince the American public that no conspiracy existed" ("Assassination" 4). Marcus Raskin claims that the Commission was primarily concerned with "using the language and structure of conservative authority to move the nation from dis-ease to ease about the events of the Kennedy assassination" (487). In general, conspiracists view the Commission's findings as protective of its own particular worldview. The theories--and criticisms--of conspiracists and nonconspiracists suggest the contrasting worldviews that guide their thinking. Conspiracists tend to offer up "structural" analyses of the assassination, suggesting in broad terms that history is the result of deliberate attempts by competing forces to gain or maintain control. Nonconspiracists tend to offer up "instrumental" analyses of the assassination that suggest that history is dominated by individuals-some acting with the force of legitimate power and some seizing power for brief, often terrifying, moments. At stake is more than just the factual "truth" about who killed John F. Kennedy. At stake is a larger, less fact-based cultural and even mythical "truth" about politics and government. Ultimately, then, perhaps the most successful assassination theories will be the ones that can not only argue for an Aristotelian "probable truth," but also appeal to or construct a larger cultural mythology that helps a majority of Americans understand the world they live in. This is the sort of rhetorical feat Susan Jarratt ascribes to sophists Protagoras and Gorgias, and indeed both Protagoras and Gorgias have suffered the kinds of criticisms that modern-day sophists Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone have received. Then as now, critics demanding Aristotelian or "rational" arguments are not pleased when they witness the popular success of sophistic forms of rhetoric. for the entire article, see the website indicated at top=======jvb====please fiorgive typos, I have eye problems

To each his own, Dixie. I am not happy to make Stephen Roy angry at me. I appreciate the research he does on Dave Ferrie. But I believe the time is long past for people to stop hiding behind fake names. We need to know who is who. How about you, Dixie? Is 'Dixie Dea"your real name? Wpuld you be upset if we placed your real name and information about you on the internet? Would you like to see lies written about you as 'facts'by somebody hiding behind a fake name? Some of us have experienced that. It's time for 100% honesty in this research field. No professional uses a fake name when writing in a medical journal or a paper for a professional conference. We are dealing here with research, and it is time the authors were identified just as they are expected to be identified in any other research field. We need the same standards that any other area of research has. Sorry you think it's just fine to hide behind a fake name if you feel like it. Standards need to be raised. Researchers must be accountable and their identities known to all. No more spin doctors, propagandists, disinfo artists. I've suffered at their hands and they are going to be unveiled. Want to help? Is "Dixie Dea" YOUR real name? Can we believe you if you say it is? Just a thought. Best Regards, Judyth Vary Baker

These “warnings” have given me the impression that I have been on the right track and has had the reverse effect on what my correspondent wanted. It might interest you to know the areas that people don’t want me writing about: Interpen, the events surrounding the Bobby Baker scandal, Grant Stockdale and Clint Murchison. Me, too, John. Bobby Baker, Clint Murchison, and David Atlee Phillips, plus Ochsner, have generated the most problems. They are real. That's why I left the US. I did not have problems until recently when Mr. Vernon began posting. Since then, I have had my mail blocked, a threatening phone call, and a research grant canceled, leaving me in bad financial shape and, frankly, frightened. As if that is going to stop me, though. I regret making an enemy of David Blackburst (Stephen Roy) who is very angry at me for telling people his real name. Dixie Dea rebuked me for it, predictably. But it's time everyone knows who everyone is. That helps us learn who is associated with whom so that therse people can be traced. I v\believe we should compare notes and see if we can discover a pattern or maybe pinpoint the times these threats, etvc. occur. I am especially interested in others who have their mail, packages, etc. "lost"constantly. I have had only one insured package (with some items missing) reaching me in three months, with no cards, letters or even bills reaching me -- this ever since I moved from Holland. I already know the names of most the people who are my enemies. And they always get on my case when I reveal one of their secrets. This 'secret'stuff has got to be exposed. Thanks for showing people that these situations do exist. ===Judyth Vary Baker====

To try to answer Mr. Crowe's question about taking a polygraph, three things come to mind. I will list them below. But I primarily wish to make the statement that I am on record not once but twice about agreeing to take polygraphs 1. I asked Sixty Mintutes to give me a polygraph to prove I was telling the truth. This was before I understood that false positives can occur, and in emotional matters such as with me (I saw Lee shot before my eyes), the ability to repress emotions about the loved one may be impossible when asked questions. Polygraph basically says if you are telling the truth, there will be no reaction. But I was reacting to questions about Lee emotionally. This is because I had not spoken about him for over three decades. Sixty Minutes refused to polygraph me when I requested it. They said they had recently done a special on polygraph testing and they advised me that polygraphs can have false positives. They proved innocent people were being accused of stealing. They also told me that even if I passed a piolygraph, the very act of taking a polygraph means there are serious concerns that the story is not true, and that they had proved that prepped individuals, such as spies, know how to pass a polygraph. They had proven that guilty people can pass polygraphs, while innocent ones can fail them. They advised me NEVER to submit to a polygraph, citing the fact that would I get on a plane with a two to ten percent chance of crashing? 2. Nevertheless, I again agreed to take polygraph, if there were three of them given, soon after my first brain concussion, and just after I got out of the hospital, when approached by a film-maker (bot Turner). I believed that if one test might be a false positive, it would be impossible, statistically, for all three to turn up that way. This I wished to do and went on record. But then my doctor refused to allow me to travel because of fear of subdural hematoma spreading (brain bleed). In the end, I had a second brain concussion and was ordered to see how much brain damage was done. I was subjected to an enormous battery of tests, including the MMPI II, which is routinely used to detect criminal and evasive behavior. I was given a letter which has been shown to key individuals. I am not prone to story telling. I am not delusional. I have no mental problems. I have a printout of all the tests. I have shown these to selected individuals. I am, however, a victim of traumatic stress syndrome because of what I have been through. I have been advised that the MMPI II is a document even more reliable than a polygraph, and since it says I am not delusional, and that I am an honest person, all within normal bounds in all axes except for physical damage to my brain, I do not have to go through a polygraph, and its stigma, and its potential to provide a false positive, to prove I am a truthful person. Do not believe Mr. Weaver--who uses a different name other places---that I do not have evidence. I attempted to tell him that I do not have Lee's DNA on a dress somewhere. But I have enough evidcence. He must wait for the book. He acts as if he has not heard this before. And, once more, he throws everything off track. We will get back on track (if there are other things you want to say, sytart a new thread). We have just finished talking about Mr. Blackburst--who is really Mr. Roy. We are looking into the methods and rhetoric of Mr. Reitzes, but we brought up the identity matter of prominent researchers in the case, because they influence the general public, especially on the internet. The biggest and flashiest websites proclaim Lee Oswald DID IT. wel;l, he didn't do it. And anyone without prejudice knows how the evidence was stacked against Lee Oswald. Therefore we need to look carefully at the identities and motives of these people with their big, fqancy websites. And why, in fact, they have devoted so much time and effort to attacking me, a newly emerged witness. Others about my age are also now speaking up. We are a group of people who waited until our primary enemies were dead so we wouldn;t be hurt. Sadly, I've been plenty hurt. If friends hadn;t sent me money recently, I would have been homeless. I've lost EVERYTHING for speaking out. You woukld not lioke to be in my shoes. But back to the problem: WHO are these researchers, what are the rhetorical tactics that they use to obscure the truth, and shoulkd they be allowed to hide behind fake names? For example, David Weaver is NOT David Weaver. That's a fake name. He lives in germany and he should use his real name on this forum where the real name has been requested. Mr. David Weaver has ignored that rule. We need to know where our sources of information come from, especially when they report interviews and then post conclusions made from those interviews. To return, then, to Mr. Reitzes' identity, methods and rhetoric, is my primary concern in this thread. Mr. Reitzes' "research"on me comcerns me-- this man who has written so many pages about me has never met me. He has never met my primary witnesses. He has never met my primary defenders. He has never, to my knowledge, met any of the people who have met me. He has never spoken to me on the phone. He has never seen anything but stolen and, in some cases, faked documents. Concerning who Mr. Reitzes is, does anyone know how he makes his living? I know he owns sharpeis and likes music and perhaps writes poetrty. His websites are extensive and expensive. They have become elaborate and linked with John McAdams primarily. Mr. Reitzes has used other names, and I will post them here. He does not seem to have a job, for he never mentions a personal life. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but he seems to exist solely to run these websites. As we seek to understand what good research is, it is imperative, too, that we know something about the life and agenda, if it exists, of the researcher. The TRUTH MUST BE RESPECTED. We all know that disinfo, spin doctoring, and propaganda exists. Mr. reitzes must be cleared of any accusation that he doctors the truth. In this thread, we will inspect what he has written and make our decision. We will tyr to find out who he is, and if he can be trusted. Thousands of people read what he writes every day. We know that history can be bent out of shape. Josephus was a very famous historian at the very time his people were wiped out in Jerusalem and Medina. Is there anyone who knows Josephus' life well who would take-- without a grain of salt-- Josephus' written opinions about his Roman masters as accurate? Was he just a tiny bit influenced by the fact that he will get his head cut off if he says something naughty? Who is Reitzes' master? He is the protege of John McAdams. There is an old thread here about McAdams that I will also eventually revive. We must know who the researcher is. If the researcher's name is false,why? Who is the master of the researcher who hides his name from view? I am not hiding evidence. I am preserving it from harm, as those who have personally interrogated me know full well. I have seen my witnesses threatened and coerced, I have had my home entered and selected items destroyed, so I now exert great caution. I am speaking out at great cost. As Mr. Weaver denounces me for not placing my entire book, it seems, online, I have paid my dues. I've lost my job, my health, and, obviously, Mr. Weaver's respect. My dear God, it's been hard. He just impedes. He knows very well all this must wait for the book. . In the next post, I will try to address additional examples of Mr. Reitzes'use of rhetoric. I think it will be educational. NOTE: IF YOU WISH TO ASK ME QUESTIONS, ETC. OFF TOPIC, START A NEW THREAD. I WILL IGNORE QUESTIONS OFF-TOPIC ON THIS THREAD. To Uwe (David Weaver): I suggest you present real questions to me instead of shouting objections that I do not have evidence. That is not what this thread is about. Wait for the book. It won't be that much longer. And start using your REAL NAME here, as you have been asked to do. Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker

Dear Greg, I stand corrected about your 'outing ' Mr. David Blackburst ---who is actually Mr. Stephen Roy --- I am the one Mr. Roy should blame for making this information public, not you. I will take that responsibility. I am grateful for the excellent research you do. I have found you to be consistently honest and reliable. We needed you back in 1964! I have been told by Mr. Roy that I had better have an 'epiphany"and remove the information posted here. I have also been ordered to remove his name from any mention in my book. He has also told me to apologize. It is important that we be aboveboard here. As a witness, I had to speak out. I do apologize for making Mr. Roy feel that he has in some way been harmed. Mr. Roy wrote to me that he intends to publish his book under his real name and also that a number of people already knew his real name. If this is so, why is he so upset? I am here to get to the truth. I am concerned with Mr. Roy's data gathering methods. He has broken rules that ethnologists understand should remain intact, e.g. where taboos are concerned, such as information handed out by a former sexual partner. Such witnesses should be interviewed without other witnesses knowing it. Mr. Roy has attended social functions with multiple witnesses involved with Dave Ferrie, and they all knew he had come to interview them. Such an approach contaminates the interviews.. As for why we should know his real name, it is because this person is offering special information to students and scholars on the Internet about Dave Ferrie. His information is quoted constantly. "David Blackburst says..." Well, we need to know who ave ferrie is in the business of the Kennedy Asassination and its periphery. I know his information may be biased, because of how he has treated me. For example (and this is just ONE example) I have said I was Dave Ferrie's friend. Yet Mr. Roy writes that "all" of Dave's friends say there were no mice in Dave's apartment in 1963. When I protested that both I and Perry Russo have said otherwise, he discounted Russo, saying he wasn't a close friend. And I do not count, I must conclude. Perry Russo brought up mice and rats in cages in Dave's apartment in September, 1963 as a side statement while describing (correctly) the interior of Dave's apartment. Nobody asked him, he did it spontaneously. But Perry Russo doesn't count. And I do not count. There is much, much more to say. At the very least, we must know who this "Ferrie expert" whom everyone quotes REALLY is. I regret making him angry--I apologize for making him feel uncomfortable --- and I realize that he is angry with me and he will now no doubt attack me. But despite the attacks to come, I will not erase the truth from these pages. The research community has the right to know who is who. Best regards, judyth Vary Baker

If you have 100% proof about points 1-3, than your "claims" become facts. If you have not 100% proof, than your "claims" are just that, unproven claims. ============================================== One more comment about rhetoric. I use David Weaver's query, pos6ted above, as an example of rhetorical sophistry. 1) he places his question in a ytes or no, either/or situation. Look at this question, as an example of why this can be a faulty form: If you have 100% proof that I, David Weaver, exists, then your 'claim"becomes a fact. If you have not 100% proof that I, David Weaver exists, then your çlaim'is just that, an unproven claim. He leaves no middle ground whatsoever. I bring this up because David Weaver also calls himself Uwe. ASnd as a matter of fact, he is from germany. And as a matter of fact, David Weaver is not Uwe's real name. I believe it is Uwe Ubold or some similar last name (can;t quite recall thje spelling). Can I prove these two men are the same people, 100% Of course not--not without photos and going to Germany and getting birth certificates, and the whole nine yards. Can i, however, make a good, logical case that these two men are one and the same? (AND ARE WE NOT TIRED OF FAKE NAMES BEING USED HERE, WHEN JOHN SIMKINS HAS ASKED US TO USE OUR REAL NAMES HERE? SEE WHAT I MEAN ABOUT CLEANING UP THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY AND HAVING OUR REAL NAMES USED? ) Of course, David weaver might be the 'real'name and Uwe ubolde or whatever the fake name. But am I not to be believed because i cannot come up with birth certificates? What level of evidenc eis needed to prove this matter? Dio we, in fact, need DNA testing (100% proof, well, 99% proof) in order to get you, the reader, to accept the fact that they are most likely one and the same person? Similarly, it is a fallacy to say that siomply because I have a big revelation to make that i MUST produce MORE than theusual amountof evidenc enecessary to be believed. That is mere rhetoric. if in fact, Uwe were accused of killing Kennedy, and I had proof that Uwe was most likely David, to a veyr high degree, and should not be executed, would a jury need 100% proof to decide not to give the death penalty? No... if there is reasonable doubt, the man does not go to the electric chair. Similarly, a WITNESS may not be able to prove with dcuments, etc what in fact he oir she EXPERIENCED. But if enough evidence--and the testimonies of supporting witnesses (I have that) are presented to produce reasonable belief that the person is telling the truth, then the testimony of that person deserves a closer look, more scrutiny. And if a closer look shows that even more evidence keeps popping up that supports the testimony-- which keeps happening in my case-- and that after years of attacks, that testimony cannot be shaken, then 100% evidence may not be necessary to provide basis for belief. For a last example: One of my sons has darker skin than his other four siblings, and he always wondered if his father was his real father. Answer, Yes. Does he believe it? He finds it hard to believe. I have shown him that his grandfather had darker skin, and that he had a 25% chance, statistically, of getting darker skin. Is he 100% convionced that his father was my husband? No. A DNA test would prove it 100%. But 100 years ago, DNA tests didn't exist. 200 years ago, genetic tables were little known. I could have been accused 200 years ago of cheating on my husband having this darker skinned son. Abd yet I know who the father is. The fact is, rhetoric may make unreasonable demands while looking reasonable. Do not ask me to produce 100% evidence or otherwise I have a mere claim. What I can produce is a lot of circumstantial evidence that is linked together in an unbroken chain, plus the testimonies of living witnesses, plus the fasct that new evidence has been found because of my testi9mony. In the book, it will be made clear. The next post will return to the rhetoric and methods used by Dave Reitzes. It is my hope that my efforts will help uncover the problems I see, of distorting facts with rhetoric devices, of fallacious thinking such as I have just shown regarding David weaver's either/or --100% -or -nothing demands, and so on. Thoughtful, intelligent readers should demand the following: 1) the real identity of the researcher and their real biography 2) quotes that are not snipped in order to change their meanings 3) balanced and fair reportage 4) restraint so that name calling and tags such as "team Judyth" for supporters or calling somebody a xxxx doesn't enter a research article 5) that fallacies, logical snafus, and rhetorical devices be discouraged as potentially dishonest 6) that accuracy of reportage be the goal, despite personal feelings best ragards, Judyth Vary Baker (yes, it is my real name)

To all: I noticed Mr, Weaver also wrote: Or can you "only" prove that in a way that "honest researcher's =those who have chosen to not question you and your story ?" will be satisfied with the evidence you present(ed). ============== I wish to state that I do not mind questions. But the qwuestions need to be specific. Nancy Eldreth, for example, asked me what Lee thought of Robert. I answered her -- and can write a lot more if she emails me. There is a lot to say. Of course I do not mind people questioning my story. WHY would I be here, trying to help out, if I minded? But I am not happy to see hostility directed at me. And Mr. Weaver, your first three questions demand proof that literally takes a book to bring forth. The book will be out this year. yet you persist once again in asking questions that are equivalent to demanding of John Simkin, "prove to me that you have a Forum that presents everything honestly and allows preople to express their opinions honestly, and it had better be 100% proof." In other words, your questions, as I have told you before, are too huge to answer without presenting a book. And your questions are worded in a way that pretends interest but demands hundreds of pages of replies. ================================================ I would like to remind people that if this case had been easy to solve, it would have been solved by now. If what I have to say was easy to relate, I wouldn't need to have it in a book. The book would have been out by now had I not been threatened with lawsuits. ==================================================== Was I Lee's girlfriend? read the book, it will be coming out. Did I know about the assassination ahead of time? Yes. How in the name of God could I prove that now? Was I supposed to have gone to a notary public and had a statement written out on Nov. 21 in order to be believed? Is it not enough that my own sister vouches for this, having been told in 1964? Anybody who sees a photo of me from 1963 and then the sad portrait of me, about to burst into tears, in 1964, would see what a profound change had occured to me. No more cancer research. No college degree for twenty-five years. My whole life was ruined. ANYbody who knew me before and saw me after could hardfly believe I was the same person, it affected me so much. ============================================== THE BLACKBURST PROBLEM My primary concern about David Blackburst, who is really Stephen Roy, stems from the fact that none of us should hide our real names. I firmly believe that when a fake name is used, it should be consistent or it should not be used. For example, Bob Dylan's real name is... heck, I can;t remember, but he is Bob Dylan to all of us and uses the name all the time. That's just fine. But what if Bob Dylan appeared elsewhere and critiqued his own singing career by pretending to be somebody else, who was an expert on Bob Dylan, and liked him? When Mr. Blackburst was Mr. Blackburst and criticizing me (or not) I had no objections. He had been Mr. Blackburst for years. But when he apppeared on a Lancer panel called "Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans"as n expert on New Orleans, he was not appearing as an expert on David Ferrie (that is what he is when he is Mr. Blackburst). Instead, he suddenly had become an expert on Lee Oswald in New Orleans. The other "experts"were Carol Hewlitt (who lived in Florida and knew a lot, but was especially a Mary Sherman expert), Jim Olivier (he qualified, IMHO, as a Louisiana native with years of interest in Lee Oswald), and finally, Steve Tyler (who IMHO qualified as a Clay Shaw expert, but he lives in New Orleans and knew a lot). In other words, Mr. Stephen Roy, whom nbody had ever heard of, was sitting empaneled with three known experts. Had he used the name "Blackiburst"it would have been a fake name, so I assume this is why he used his real name. But nbody was told this was David Blackburst, the Dave Ferrie expert. Nobody. And yes, I regret that I have made an enemy, because long after all of you forget I wrote this, Mr. Blackburst will never forget I have said here, that this was dishonest of him and concerned me. Would like to add that Mr. Blackburst...Roy... has accomplished a lot in obtaining important information about Dave Ferrie. But as Mr. Roy, not telling the people who paid their dollars that he was really Blackburst, he showed himself capable of playing a part, an act. When he wrote to me that he believed I fell for 90% of the stuff out there that showed Dave Ferrie was a bad fellow, I realized that he did not understand my testimony at all after all this time. I have defended Dave Ferrie, almost alone except for Mr. Blackburst, as an innocent man. Why should we care if Mr. Blackburst and Mr. Roy are the same people? We should care because this case is filled with such duplicity, falsehood and faked evidence and testimonies that we MUST know who our researchers are that we are supposed to trust. Mr. Blackburst has presented himself as THE authority on Dave Ferrie. One problem. there is NO David Blackburst. Mr. Blackburst made a statement that in his opinion it remained to be seen whether or not I was credible. This, after I had given Mr. Blackburst inside information that he finally did admit was not published anywhere. He was waiting to see about me, he said, after all that I had told hi. I have witnesses, i thank God, who know I told Mr. Roy/Blackburst things about Dave Ferrie that were never part of the record. Tonight I received an email from Mr. Roy saying how upset he was because he had asked that his identity be kept a secret, and I had not kept my promise. I explained to him that Greg Parker had already revealed who he was. Mr. Roy has stated in an email to me that Dave Ferrie had NO mice whatsoever in his apartment, that there was nobody who ever said this, since 1957. He never names the names of thes epeople. Though Perry Russo's testimony has been discounted by many, Perry described Dave, his apartment, and many of Dave's friends correctly, and NOBODY doubted that Perry Russo knew Dave and had bene inside his apartment. Perry Russo described Dave as having mice and rats in his apartment in September, 1963. But Blackburst/Roy says NOBODY ever reported any mice after 1957. I have run into so many such statements from Blackburst/Roy, and I have seen the slavish acceptance of everything that researcher has announced about Dave Ferrie, to the point that I have had to speak out. Blackburst/Roy HAS made errors, whether accidentally or on purpose. I want to make it clear that Mr. Roy is a gentleman. Polite. Unlike many others, he is not verbally abusive. He is an intellectual, intelligent, and he indeed has spent countless hours amassing evidence in the case about Dave. I also know that he failed to properly vet me, has never even spoken to me once by phone, declined my invitation to send him evidence, and in his email tonight to me contends that our schedules made it impossible for us to meet when I was willing to make an overnight flight to see him. I have been aware for some time that his interview methods in my case were non-existent, and that means there is at least one witness that he did not properly handle. I am also aware, thrugh his emails, that he has photos of himself with multiple witnesses. The first obligation of a good researcher is to keep your witnesses from seeing or knowing each other so they do not contaminate each other. When I admonished Mr. Blackburst/Mr. Roy concerning the fact that his owning a photo of hinmself with several Ferrie witnesses was proof of sloppy investigative techn ique, and indeed, could corrupt the witnesses, he said he did not agree. A few months later, Blackburst/Roy then said he never DID cinduct his investigation with witnesses tiogether, but unfortunately for him, he had already told me in prior emails how they all got together for a good time, etc. Thus thew collective memories of these witnesses have blended through being corrupted by placement, late in their lives as witnesses, with each other. Memories blend and become similar under these circumstances. I no longer am perplexed that Blackburst/Roy keeps repeating how "all"his witnesses agree on this or that. I am bringing up these matters because we MUST know who are researchers are and if they can be trusted. Mr. Blackburst/Roy also brought up in his email that I seemed to be discrediting Patricia Lambert and George Lardner. Indeed I do. I find both of these researchers/reports to lack objectivity in some areas of investigation into the assassination. Lambert hates Garrison with palpable passion. I was raised in the same town as Lardner and I also know what kind of feloow he is (God help me, I am making more enemies with every sentence I write!). In my opinion, loaded down with the onus of Ring Lardner, accused communist, as his uncle, dear old George would do anything to prove he was anything but, including whatever it took in the matter of handling Ferrie, and, later, Jim Garrison. In short, telling me I should respect lambert and Lardner did little to raise my opinion of where Mr. Blackburst/Roy was really coming from. I hope I am wrong. I hope when Mr. Blackburst/Roy's book comes out about Dave, that it will be a fair and honest reportage of the complex, weird, talented, and fascinating near-genius that I considered Dave to v=be -- as well as my friend. I do consider Blackburst more amiable and decent than many other researchers who often have enormous egos standing in the way. I do not detect any of that in Blackburst/Roy. But alas, I do detect an aim to make Dave Ferrie into what he was not, showing him as weaker, more stupud, without a goal in life, without drive or ambition or almost any saving grace. Dave had B.O. But he also had charisma, and brains. Blackburst./Roy's Dave Ferrie is not the man I knew. Of course, he never met Dave Ferrie, and one wonders HOW he ever got interested in him. As I gaze over the terrain I now know so much better-- the researchers who are out to prove their theory for or against poor Lee Oswald-- the researchers who are out to 'get'each other--- we simply do not need fake names and identities in this volatile mix. I apologize for upsetting Mr. Roy, but I feel it is for the health of the research community that everybody face the music here together. I have not published under a fake name, and I have paid a price, too, for that. Mr. Stephgen Rpy needs to face the fact that there is no room in the research community for fake names. I hid under fake names for years and I am aware of the kind of mentality that goes with using fake names. I swore to myself that I would not hide under a fake name when telling the truth about Lee Harvey Oswaldm, no matter what the consequences. I even use my maiden name as my middle name. I am a witness, and I feel a responsibility to speak out. There are somethings I will never be able to prove 100%. Witnesses rarely can obtain documents for whole days spent with a person of interest. HOW can I prove I was with Lee on August 9th? In fact, I do have considerable circumstantial evidence to prove this, but you will not find a photo. Give me a break! Lovers having an affair who are both married will not create evidence of their affair. But nevertheless, read the bgook when it comes out. Then decide for yourself. Meanwhile, I am interested in cleaning up the research community. I brought up the fake name of a "Dave Ferrie"expert because we must have the truth at every level. It would be sad to see "Mr. Roy"praising "Mr. Blackburst's"book on Dave Ferrie. Not that he would ever do such a thing. But now he will never have to worry about the temptation. People can decide for themselves if Mr. Roy deserves to be trusted as much as Mr. Blackburst. That is the way it should be. I will now return to to the matter of Mr. Reitzes and his rhetoric and methodology. REITZES' RHETORIC: FEATURE NUMBER ONE: Present an objection in a sneering manner so that all dignity is stripped from it. Make sure that no element of respect can be found in any statement made about the person being criticized. SAtay consistent. FEATURE NUMBER TWO: Create as much confusion as possible by producing big blocks of text so that people will get tired of reading it and will simply accept the big block of text as 'evidence'. Describe this biog block of text as supporting Feature Nukmber One. FEATURE NUMBER THREE: Present a conclusion based on the two above-named features that states unequivocally that the two features 'prove' the point -- even if they do not. FEATURE NUMBER FOUR: Go on to another objecdtion and repeat the above. The etire piece will be enormous and the person being attacked, if they attempt to answer, will just make the whole mass of junk even BIGGER than before, guaranteeing that NOBODY in their right mind will actually read the material. AND, FINALLY: put it all together on a slick-looking web page with bells and whistles so that people will be impressed. I will use the above-named features and show you how Mr. Reitzes used them on not only me, but on Mr. Shackelford, Jim garrison, and others. Then we will look at John McAdams, because he, too, has slick websites that can fool people into believing that everything therein can be trusted, just becauise a lot of it can be trusted. I am doing this not to defend myself-- for heaven knows this is just making me more enemies ...but because these people, who use sophistry and rhetoric to slant things, need to be shamed and exposed. I am doing this because I CARE about the research community and the truth. I have been mocked and libeled, yes, by these people. But more than that, the truth gets killed if these people get away with it. These tricks and tricksters and methods need unmasking. And so, sadly to say, do all those fake names out there...from Tempty Pockets to -- David Blackburst. Sorry, David. I have done what is right. Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker reference material: Judyth wrote.... By this time, I had learned, to my distress, that David Blackburst was not David Blackburst. The man praised on the internet by John McAdams, Dave Reitzes, and Jerry McNally -- all of them ardent Lone Nutters-- wasn't named Blackburst at all. I had some clues about him. He was teaching classes, because he told me he had to go run teach. He had married rather late in life. And, most important, he used to be a security or police or other kind of law enforecment officer. Greg Parker learned from Lancer Forum the following: Stephen Roy - Massachusetts based University Director of Television and Radio and teach Television Production. Roy obtained the Report and Hearings and Exhibits in 1965, and read all the early critical literature. He followed the Garrison probe very closely. In the 70s, began lecturing on the assassination and visiting the National Archives. In the late 70s, became a New Orleans specialist. TOPIC: Oswald in New Orleans Panel I learned this: David Blackburst wrote: [When it's published]. See my book "Magic Box: Specialized Techniques for Television Production" by David Blackburst Newsgroups: rec.video.production From: blackbu...@aol.com (Blackburst) - Find messages by this author Date: 10 Feb 2004 16:08:15 GMT David told me he changed his name online because of an incident that occurred that upset his wife. The fact is, David Blackburst seems to be the same person as Stephen Roy. And Roy sat on the Lancer panel in Dallas in 2000, knowing all about my existence. The name of the panel, again? OSWALD IN NEW ORLEANS. Debra Conway asked former panel members to speak up as to whether they had been instructed-- or not-- to not mention my name.

In answer to you, Nancy, Lee told me he loved his brother, but he considered him pedestrian in his thoughts, a conventional thinker. Robert betrayed his brother, as I have previously posted. Nevertheless, your question is off-topic. I am attempting to keep this thread focused on the rhetoric of Dave Reitzes, and his methods of obscuring the truth by changing just one word, or by overwhelming the reader with a lot of extraneous material the reader will not bother to read and just miught assume is important material that supports what Reitzes says. Similarly, David Weaver, Uwe, who has attacked me over at Lancer, has now landed here in this thread, and instead of devoting one word to the topic, once again makes his list of demands, which I already told him would be asnswered in my book. If Mr. Weaver has a comment about Dave Reitzes' rhetoric and methodology and whether or not he think Mr. Reitzes is being honest in the way he has mounted his attacks, I will be happy to reply. I am not pursuing this thread simply because of what Mr. Reitzes has done to me. He has also subtly presented information about Jim Garrison's case, and other subjects, where the same little tricks of rhetoric are used to create disinformation. In order to be able to distinguish where Reitzes' direct quotes stop and where his opinions start is not always easy in his essays. I hope to be able to present examples of these little tricks so that the student or researcher will not be sidetracked, confused, or led astray. I will be presenting these soon. Meanwhile, I have a comment to make in the next post about Mr. David Blackburst's research and activities, after receiving some emails from him. Best Regards, Judyth Vary Baker

Dear Dawn, thank you for your observations. I continue here to show how Dave Reitzes uses rhetoric and sophistry to create contradictions in my history where little or none exist. The man actually literally took my words "I can prove everything I am saying here" down to the tiniest possible bit of minutia. Anyway, I will certainly look at "Yellow Roses," etc. Linguistically speaking, a "voiceprint" can be made on written materials to prove the author. Such a study can be done. In the meantime, here is material that was just posted at Lancer about Mr. reitzes Wrongs, Continued.: I have decided, looking at Mr. Reitzes' long, long list of stuff, to begin answering some of his various points here. Thbis is just a beginning, and we will start at the beginning, of Mr. Reitzes'lavish and extensive attempt to discfedit me as a witness. To begin, Mr. Reitzes wrote this: This is a rough draft. Comments are welcome. (He has since refined his 'rough draft'and has published it as yet another website attack against me-- but let us press on...) ************************* John McAdams's article on Judyth Baker <http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm> highlights many of the problems with those portions of Judyth's story that have been made publicly available; but I'd like to also take a minute to emphasize a few more of the contradictions inherent in Judyth's accounts to date." ========================================================== JUDYTH: (I assume Mr. Reitzes is quoting from John McAdams'website about me here) ===================================================== JUDYTH VARY BAKER: THE STORY SO FAR (According to Judyth Vary Baker, Martin Shackelford, and Howard Platzman, Ph.D.) Note: Howard Platzman is co-author (with Judyth) of "Deadly Alliance: Outline of the Conspiracy," various drafts of which Judyth has submitted to assassination researchers and prospective publishers. Martin Shackelford has been described by Platzman as Judyth's lead researcher. ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUDYTH: Mr. Reitzes seems to be referring here to an outline which he says I co-authored with Dr. Platzman. Technically speaking, Dr. Platzman authored this outline, which I then corrected. Several versions were written over time as I responded to additional questioning and more information was deemed important enough to add to the outline. JVB: NOTE: this outline is not my book, and never was. It is an "Outline." Of course various researchers and a couple of prospective publishers saw the outline. Mr. Reitzes also takes the time to reproduce a message intended only for my high school classmates, but he does not show you Dr. Platzman's outline. Why? In fact, it is very informative. Well, let's go on and see what's next.....ah, how could I forget? Mr. Reitzes now takes information which I wrote to my classmates, and hijacks my letter to my friends to make the following statement: =========================================================== REITZES: Judyth Vary Baker worked for the CIA on an anti-Castro assassination project, and she can prove it. (1) =========================================================== JUDYTH: Mr. Reitzes then produces examples, especially from the confidential emails that I sent him that he promised never to publish. But here they are: quote #1: (1) "Lee Oswald and I worked together for the CIA in an anti-Castro project which included delivery of live biological weapons into Cuba, one of them aimed to kill Castro." REITZES ASKED ME QUESTIONS AND I ANSWERED HIM. HE PROMISED TO KEEP OUR CORRESPONDENCE CONFIDENTIAL, BUT BROKE HIS PROMISE. ================================================================== (quote #2: 2) Judyth Vary Baker, e-mail to Dave Reitzes, October 6, 2000: "I knew important people, and in indianapolis (sic) got conscripted into the CIA though (I) was just a minor." REITZES ASKED ME QUESTIONS AND I ANSWERED HIM. HE PROMISED TO KEEP OUR CORRESPONDENCE CONFIDENTIAL, BUT BROKE HIS PROMISE. =============================================== quote #3: (3) Judyth Vary Baker, e-mail to Dave Reitzes, October 7, 2000: ". . . (Dr. Canute) Michaelson gave my name to the CIA as one of the bright brains in the country, and from that time on, I had access to equipment, funds, you name it, as well as special training involving doctors who got trained at Oak Ridge. . . . In short--and i (sic) can fill in many details--I had gone through projects starting in indianapolis (sic) with my being, apparently, conscripted into service of the CIA. I sa(y) apparently because i (sic) was a minor, and my father may have signed papers for me. =============================================== REITZES ASKED ME QUESTIONS AND I ANSWERED HIM. HE PROMISED TO KEEP OUR CORRESPONDENCE CONFIDENTIAL, BUT BROKE HIS PROMISE. =================================================== JUDYTH: What I state, above, is (1)that Lee and I worked for the CIA in a project to kill Castro (2)I was conscripted into the CIA though I was just a minor... if you look up the word 'conscripted' you will learn that I had no choice... this happened to me... I became a CIA asset. Did I know it at the time? Not at all. (3) how did it happen? Dr. Canute Michaelson was responsible. I did not understand any of it at the time and my father might have helped... for me, it was just a matter of getting supplies. I have stated that I can prove this (to the satisfaction of researchers who are honest). My book will provide the structure and the evidence to back up what I've said. Mr. Reitzes has never seen those materials, nor the evidence. Interestingly, those who have seen ALL my evidence, and had the details explained, have never ceased to defend me. These researchers are very different people, often at odds with each other over other issues. Since Mr. Reitzes hasn't seen the evidence, but those who have seen the evidence defend me, it seems that Mr. Reitzes would have done well to have seen the evidence before decrying me. ============================================================= He entraps the reader by rhetoric, just as Pamela and others have noted. He says I state I can prove everything I am saying...but he applies this even to statements that I have made that I clearly said were conjecture or guesses. He makes a grandiloquent remark: "Judyth has stated numerous times that she has evidence to support all she says." ==================== he writes: For example: Judyth Vary Baker, biographical blurb posted at Manatee High School alumni website. Online at <http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sanitize.htm>:"I'>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sanitize.htm>:"I really don't expect you to believe any of this without documentation and proof. Don't be concerned: I’ve got the proof. . . . I have my defenders and I've been able to prove everything I’m saying." Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, May 7, 2004 JUDYTH: ============in the context of what I had said, Mr. Reitzes applied an iron-bound definition to a remark made meaning I had the evidence for my tstimony. He applies this to every dot and jot. JUDYTH: ===nowhere in what I wrote to my high school classmate did I say I was an agent or employee of the CIA, as Mr. Reitzes tried to imply.===================== <http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?act=ST&f=126&t=696&hl=&view=findpost&p=4498>: ". . . WHEN ONE HAS BEEN TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST, AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN AND REVIEWED AND READ MANY PAPERS, GENERALLY THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF THEY MAKE A STATEMENT, THERE HAD BETTER BE BACK-UP. SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAY NOT REALIZE THIS RESPONSIBILITY. I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR BACK-UP FOR MY STATEMENTS SERIOUSLY. MU (sic) HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MEANS THAT I AM PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE OF PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 2, 2002: ". . . I can prove every word i (sic) am writing here--- i (sic) can assure you that what we were doing was trying to create a biological weapon to get castro (sic) inn (sic) what would seem to be a natural death." JUDYTH:======================== What I wrote there (at a time when I was very ill, just out of hospital, and suffering from after-effects of a brain concussion)of course was an expression that I have the evidence. I had to write in caps because I was seeing double. Mr. Reitzes does not show you any of my evidence. Why? He hasn't seen it, and he wants you to assume that it does not exist. I have refused to post most of my evidence on the internet to protect my witnesses and related evidence. I was wise to do so, since one of my witnesses reported she was threatened by Mafia after her name was posted. I have posted related materials useful to support my story, however. Some can be seen at The Education Forum, Spartacus. I have benunable to post materials here of the same type. I am told the situation will improve in the future. ==================================== But, back to the present difficulties. MR. REITZES TAKES THE MESS HE MADE OF MY STATEMENTS, ABOVE, AND PRETENDS THAT I CONTRADICTED MYSELF BY SAYING: =========================================================== Reitzes: Judyth (contends she)was never an employee or agent of the CIA, and never said she was. ============================================================== JUDYTH: Mr. Reitzes uses his rhetoric to change things around. He does this all the time. WHERE, in the above quotes, etc. is there anything about my BEING AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CIA? AN AGENT? I was never an employee of the CIA. It is Mr. Reitzes' word, not mine. I was never an agent. Thatbis Mr. Reitzes at it again, not I. ====================== I repeat: of course I was never a CIA agent or employee and never said I was, though Mr. Reitzes tries to imply this, and that NOW I am changing my story. This is dishonest of him, and it's merely a rhetorical exercise. It is one thing to be used by the CIA, to be conscripted, to be working for the CIA as an untraceable asset, as I was for the majority of the time in question. It is quite another to then have that morphed into my claiming I had been an EMPLOYEE or an AGENT. Mr. Reitzes perhaps counts on the poor reading skills of his readers. I have more faith in their intelligence. He also is being dishonest by shifting what I said in this matter. He continues his dishonesty by then posting my objection to being called an AGENT...see below... as "proof" that I am now changing my story. Mr. Reitzes should be ashamed of himself, but he isn't. Below is his shameless 'evidence" that I changed my story, where I protest that I never was a CIA agent, and had been called one by Jack White. I have no bone to pick with Mr. White. I corrected the matter here (note that the word RECRUITED is different from the word CONSCRIPTED. I was never RECRUITED,as accused below. I said I had been conscripted, my will was not involved, my knowledge was not even necessary. A recruit knows what is going on. ) It is important to read carefully what Martin Shackelford says. I was never HIRED by the CIA. never recruited. : =============================================== (2)REITZES repost: 2. Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 14, 2002 (5:59 AM): "I am VERY upset that jack (sic) White has been posting a message to my high school classmates saying my story is 'bizarre' and asking their opinion, including the erroneous statement that I claimed to be a CIA agent--I NEVER EVER CLAIMED SUCH A THING." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 12, 2002: ". . . YOU SENT AN EMAIL (sic) MESSAGE . . . STATING THAT I SAID I WAS A CIA AGENT. THAT IS SOMETHING I HAVE N- E- V- E- R SAID!!!!" Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 14, 2002 (6:43 AM): "I was introduced to people I suspected were working for the CIA. I was never, myself, 'recruited' to my knowledge. I did sign loyalty oaths---three of them." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 14, 2002 (7:56 AM): "When somebody first suggested i (sic) was CIA connected, I was shocked, it had not been that way in my experience. lee (sic) never said so in so many words." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 15, 2002: "Was it a CIA project? I am not certain even of that, i (sic) assume it because CIA people I now know were involved." Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, July 9, 2003: "There has never been a claim that she was hired 'by the CIA.' You repeat this claim twice, totally without foundation. You also falsely suggest that Judyth claims the cancer project was a direct CIA project." Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, October 28, 2001: "There is no claim that Judyth was a CIA employee." Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, December 17, 2000: "You keep assuming CIA employment is claimed. On what basis?" In a JFKresearch.com post of November 2, 2002, Judyth describes herself as "an untraceable asset." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 20, 2002: "Please, I have been told I was a CIA asset, that my time and labor was used by the CIA. To me, that is working for the CIA, but not as a member of the CIA, and some work I did before New oleans (sic) was also under the table. I will be happy to modify the terminology if it is manifestly misleading people, never my intention." Martin Shackelford, alt.assassination.jfk post, August 5, 2004: "Dave, once again you compare your interpretations in order to find a contradiction that isn't really there. In 1 and 2, she indicates she was 'apparently' conscripted into the service of the CIA, and also that she wasn't a CIA agent or employee--no contradiction at all there." 1. Judyth Vary Baker, biographical blurb posted at Manatee High School alumni website. Online at <http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sanitize.htm>: "Lee Oswald and I worked together for the CIA in an anti-Castro project which included delivery of live biological weapons into Cuba, one of them aimed to kill Castro." act=ST&f=126&t=696&hl=&view=findpost&p=4498>: ". . . WHEN ONE HAS BEEN TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST, AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN AND REVIEWED AND READ MANY PAPERS, GENERALLY THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF THEY MAKE A STATEMENT, THERE HAD BETTER BE BACK-UP. SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAY NOT REALIZE THIS RESPONSIBILITY. I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR BACK-UP FOR MY STATEMENTS SERIOUSLY. MU (sic) HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MEANS THAT I AM PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE OF PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 2, 2002: ". . . I can prove every word i (sic) am writing here--- i (sic) can assure you that what we were doing was trying to create a biological weapon to get castro (sic) inn (sic) what would seem to be a natural death." =JUDYTH: ============ I urge you to carefully read this rebuttal and ask yourself why Mr. Reitzes is being dishonest. There is always hope that Mr. Reitzes will do a better job presenting the rest of his "objections"-- but there's precious little. Mr. Reitzes has tried to bury real discussion of the issues I raise under a mountain of disinfo. Atop that, he created this very strange and convoluted mass of questions, with enormous "footnote references" nobody in his or her right mind would want to take the time to read. That doesn't mean the mass of stuff he put there was even applicable to his argument. Decide for yourself, if you have the energy to plow through it. Mr. Reitzes is counting on your believing him-- just because he says so. I am counting on the good sense and intelligence of readers to see what Mr. Reitzes' methodology and rhetoric is all about. I doubt they'll bother to look at much more. Al, they have to do is look carefully at his beginning arguments to realize that he's practicing sophistry. I invite honest researchers and readers to go next to The Education Forum, where this material and additional material on Mr. Reitzes' Wrongs can be accessed. Best Regards to all, Judyth Vary Baker sorry about any typos...my eyes are not very good. I thank God I am still alive to defend myself against these misrepresentations. JVB

This post is to place the thread back on topic. Thank you! I intend to provide information about Mr. Reitzes next, so that a firm foundation about him will be available. I have decided these steps were necessary because many students and neophytes in the assassination debates rely upon Reitzes' highly visible websites about Lee Oswald, and they are also reading his websites (yes, plural) about me, and about the highly regarded researcher, Martin Shackelford. People need to know who is trustworthy in these matters, and who is not. I will devote time and energy to this matter in the next few weeks. Since my health is fragile, I ask your patience. Best Regards, Judyth Vary Baker repost: Judyth wrote.... By this time, I had learned, to my distress, that David Blackburst was not David Blackburst. The man praised on the internet by John McAdams, Dave Reitzes, and Jerry McNally -- all of them ardent Lone Nutters-- wasn't named Blackburst at all. I had some clues about him. He was teaching classes, because he told me he had to go run teach. He had married rather late in life. And, most important, he used to be a security or police or other kind of law enforecment officer. Greg Parker learned from Lancer Forum the following: Stephen Roy - Massachusetts based University Director of Television and Radio and teach Television Production. Roy obtained the Report and Hearings and Exhibits in 1965, and read all the early critical literature. He followed the Garrison probe very closely. In the 70s, began lecturing on the assassination and visiting the National Archives. In the late 70s, became a New Orleans specialist. TOPIC: Oswald in New Orleans Panel I learned this: David Blackburst wrote: [When it's published]. See my book "Magic Box: Specialized Techniques for Television Production" by David Blackburst Newsgroups: rec.video.production From: blackbu...@aol.com (Blackburst) - Find messages by this author Date: 10 Feb 2004 16:08:15 GMT David told me he changed his name online because of an incident that occurred that upset his wife. The fact is, David Blackburst seems to be the same person as Stephen Roy. And Roy sat on the Lancer panel in Dallas in 2000, knowing all about my existence. The name of the panel, again? OSWALD IN NEW ORLEANS. Debra Conway asked former panel members to speak up as to whether they had been instructed-- or not-- to not mention my name. The members of the panel, in fact, included Steve Tyler, who knew about me and had posted. Then there was Jim Olivier, who had been told about me by Dr. Joseph Riehl, but who declined to meet me though we lived in the same city for six years. I did try to meet with him. He never responded. Carol Hewitt was on the panel, too. We had spoken once by telephone. She was very supportive and positive on the phone and had a good report to give of me. This changed after meeting with others. From the Lancer site: Carol Hewett, Florida based attorney and JFK researcher specializing in the study of Michael and Ruth Paine. TOPIC: The Paines, Oswald in New Orleans Panel: A Legal Review of the Clay Shaw Trial From the Lancer site: Jim Olivier, Louisiana based television journalist and JFK researcher. Jim has been researching and studying the assassination of John F. Kennedy for over 30 years. He has produced numerous television segments on various aspects of the assassination including several interviews with Jim Garrison. TOPIC: Oswald in New Orleans, Jim Garrison From the Lancer site: Stephen Tyler, New Orleans based film maker of "He Must Have Something" about the Jim Garrison/Clay Shaw case. He also produced "Dega In New Orleans," winner of numerous awards, and "Our Heritage Is At Stake," a documentary on the controversial politician David Duke. Tyler has also produced segments for the "Ophra" show and "Access Hollywood." He is now in the process of producing a new documentary on David Ferrie. TOPIC: Oswald in New Orleans Panel Now, Debra Conway stated she never instructed any of these people not to bring up my name. Tyler knew about me. Hewitt knew about me. Roy knew about me. Olivier knew something about me. People paid Lancer good hard cash to attend the conference 2000 in Dallas. They paid good, hard cash to attend this panel. Two of the participants confirmed they had never been instructed to talk about me. One was Carol Hewitt. The other was Roy (Blackburst). The weird part is, if they confirm they had noy been instructed not to bring up my name, then they made this decision by themselves. To understand Reitzes'arguments, we must understand that something is going on here, first, before we look to at all this enormous effort to discredit me. I am making this effort, though I am not very well, because I was saddened to learn that John Simkin said he saw no real evidence to believe me. That has to change. First, though, this background information is necessary to show that Reitzes' materials are written not as some afterthought, but as a dedicated effort to destroy my credibility, and that there has been a consistent pattern that has emerged to discredit or ignore me. As for my evidence, it was freely shown to Nigel Turner, who forbore to present it in the documentary The Love Affair (also called The Love Story by some). And I presume that John and others have not been able to make much of various materials such as newspaper articles about my cancer research, Reily check stubs that prove I was hired the dsame day as Lee to a small subcompany run by Reily, etc., etc. So I will have to try again to present these materials in a way that will make sense. Meanwhile, to finish, I would like to show what Pamela McElwain-Brown had to say recently, after Barb Junkarenin stated that my star witness, Anna Lewis, had recanted. Martin Shackelford responded that this was not true, and Pamela added additional comments, including this one: 60 Minutes is fascinated by Judyth's statements, invests 18 months of research and personnel, and then has the door 'slammed in their faces' by some unknown person. Even Don Hewitt has puzzled ever since as to why that 'story of our lifetimes was unbreakable'. Why? Next, apparently all 'reputable' American publishers, who were initially blown away by Judyth's story and fascinated by her 'teaser' mini-book, have suddently become uninterested. Why? Then we have Lancer 2000, where everyone knows of Judyth's existence; there is a panel on LHO in New Orleans, and, for some reason, there is NO mention made of Judyth's name or statements during the panel. As Judyth represents new research, I find this a staggering omission, however it happened. Remember, I attended 98 NID where Weldon's presentation was center-stage -- the entire thing consisted of the statements of someone whose name was never given, nor his job description. There had been absolutely no vetting of this story prior to presentation -- NONE. But it was new research, and it was welcomed with open arms for that reason. Why was Weldon's nameless witness (at that time) given a red carpet, and Judyth, who had not only a name, job title, proof that she worked with LHO in NO, but a personal story to tell ignored? Why? . Last but hardly least we have TLS, with an hour devoted to Judyth's story. All the other participants in the new episodes are furious -- why is Nigel spending so much time on Judyth and so little time on them? Their feelings are understandable, especially when the entire hour about Judyth excludes witnesses that were available and willing to talk, included statements and photographs that had not been approved, and omitted anything about Anna Lewis. Why would Nigel spend so much time with Judyth's statements and yet omit the very things that would seem to clinch them? Why? What I am perceiving is that there may be specific people at key places putting pressure on for reasons that they don't want understood. The public is supposed to believe that Judyth is just not credible; but if that is the case, why have there been so many odd and unexplained things going on? Why after 4 years is Judyth more talked about than most anything else? I find it odd to the point of being sinister. ========comments that remain on topic are invited! ====Happy New Year! Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker Seeking the Exoneration of Lee Harvey Oswald

I believe these people are quite aware that you are entirely correct, Richard. I believe that you might have oversimplified the matter. These people were responding not so much to the fact that I was being attacked as a measure of my credibility, but by WHOM I was being attacked. I have received many emails stating that my credibility is enhanced because of both the nature and composition of the attacks, and because of who is attacking me: Mr. Vernon, Mr. Reitzes, and Dr. McAdams and his retainers. I think you would be surprised who is backing me. People will know in 2005, when the book comes out, why the attackers are all of a feather who flock together. I have to note that you are taking this thread off-track. We're not talking about a credibility matter here, which you have dragged into this thread. We are talking about the fact I am insisting that Mr. Reitzes has created a mass of disinformation about me, as has McAdams and Vernon. I am laying a foundation to show why this might be occurring, before entering the fray. I wonder how YOU would react if YOU had been attacked by these individuals in the same manner that I have been? Are you aware that outright lies are being perpetuated and repeated? That email were stolen and altered? That witnesses have been intimidated? That filmed evidence has been held back from researchers? In order to keep this thread on track, my goal is to first show some of the actions behind the scenes, so to speak, of those who are attempting to discredit me. And then we will look directly at the attacks themselves after understanding the nature of the beast, Therefore, the next post will be to place this thread back on topic. I appreciate your interest and hope you will use your time and effort to keep this thread on a research level. I am not trying simply to defend myself in this thread about Mr. Reitzes. My goal is to ultimately to show how his websites about Lee Oswald, me, and researcher Martin Shackelford obscure and distort the truth. That is important because many researchers, especially students, hap upon Reitzes'website to answer their research questions. I invite others who have noticed distortions of the truth on Mr. Reitzes' website to add their observations to this thread. I have seen many revealing distortions, errata, and omissions. Therefore, being criticized by Mr. Reitzes, while it of course cannot enhance my cfredibility, I offer that a close look at his own writings will destroy his, when we are finished with him. Then his slanted data and observations will not have their present effect on students and others seeking the impartial and unadorned truth. Best regards, Judyth Vary Baker