Doug Weldon

Bernice:

Tom Wilson had also done a tremendous amount of work on the Cancellaire photograph. I was hoping this would have been explored in far more depth in the book about him.

Best,

Doug

This may be the other south knoll link, i recall.....not positive though.......b

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15587&st=0 SOUTH KNOLL PHOTO Tosh..

I do not know how to delete my last two posts which I did not finish.

Robert:

If you have followed this at all you would know that the Cancellaire photo of the south knoll was taken immediately after the assassination. In addition, despite what is suggested here it is not difficult to walk up the small hill by the south knoll.

Doug Weldon

my understanding is that he walked down from where he stood along a path about halfway up the slope diagonally up to the tracks around the abutment across the rails and to the carpark beyond.

When I was watching Tosh Plumlee in a documentary he said that same thing. After the JFK assassination, he walked back up the slope diagonally to - I think a small fence? - then up to the tracks then over to his car.

I do believe Tosh Plumlee's story, but it would be interesting to see if there are any photos in real time of the South Knoll as the 1963 Coup d'Etat was occurring. It also makes me really think that Johnny Roselli was not involved in an *abort mission* but rather involved in the JFK assassination itself, possibly as a shooter.

my understanding is that he walked down from where he stood along a path about halfway up the slope diagonally up to the tracks around the abutment across the rails and to the carpark beyond.

When I was watching Tosh Plumlee in a documentary he said that same thing. After the JFK assassination, he walked back up the slope diagonally to - I think a small fence? - then up to the tracks then over to his car.

I do believe Tosh Plumlee's story, but it would be interesting to see if there are any photos in real time of the South Knoll as the 1963 Coup d'Etat was occurring. It also makes me really think that Johnny Roselli was not involved in an *abort mission* but rather involved in the JFK assassination itself, possibly as a shooter.

Dawn:

The picture is in the next posting. I am computer-challenged. I do not believe there is credible evidence that Judyth ever met Oswald.

With all due respect, that comes across as an equivalent to Gary Mack's infamous statement, "I have not seen any hard evidence of conspiracy."

Doug: She has proof that they worked together. What about Anna Lewis? Anna did not even like Judyth so why would she lie?

Have you read Ed Haslam's book? Judyth's? I do not think it is fair to pass judgement on someone withouth reading the person's book first. In fact you and I are in agreement on Armstrong's work on another thread.

Dawn

Dawn:

Your point is fair. Yes, I have Haslam's book and have read it. I have followed Judyth for over a decade and carefully followed the monumental thread here.I have seen Judyth change so many things to conform to the tough questions asked of her. I don't want to raise questions here because I don't want to tip Judyth off. If her story is legitimate then she can enhance her credibility in a number of ways: produce the physical evidence, i.e., the Oswald handwriting, the Mary Ferrell tape recording, etc. and submit herself to questions that she doesn't have a chance to ponder and choose which one's to ignore and answer. The truth can defend itself. If she does not produce the evidence she claims to have do you not agree the failure to do so should construe that evidence against her. Judyth had stated she wasn't going to subject herself to any further questions but she has appeared on the radio, etc. It is easy to fool the unknowing. There were , as I mentioned before, aspects of her story that at first intriqued me, i.e., where would she get the idea that she and Oswald were going to write a science fiction book? I discovered how she was able to do that. I am always reticent with witnesses who embrace their own celebrity. Judyth has motive to fabricate and I believe that could be exposed. Do you really believe she could remember all the dialogue she writes? I certainly could not. Whoever Oswald was I do not believe any evidence establishes he was a James Bond-Renaissance man character. As far as Armstrong, you can see I was one of the many people he dedicated the book to, so many things were run by me directly. I do believe there are stronger aspects of his book than others and I have questions but most people do not know the right questions to ask. I am curious. Did Judyth contact you or did you contact her?

My best,

Doug Weldon

Doug: I am pretty sure that I contacted her. I was asked to help by another forum member. This was to try to get the Anna Lewis video. But I am not in touch with Ms. Conway so I had no way to accomplish that, other than enlist others to assist.

I have not followed her every word. Just do not have the time. As far as the dialogue goes in her book I am assuming this is mostly made up. No one could remember ACTUAL dialoge from that long ago. So it has to be paraphrased.

I do not know what celebrity she has embraced or what motive she would have for ruining her life and not being able to be in this country with her children and grandchildren.

That part of the Love Affair that jumped out at me as false was when they "accidentally" met. But in reading her book it became clear that this meeting was no accident. I would indeed like to see the handwriting tested and any other recordings she claims to have. But would even this satisify people?

Even her detractors agree that they worked at Reily together.

Dawn

Dawn:

Lo and behold. JVB is not claiming to paraphrase anything. She is indicating that her quotes are there for a reason. She remembers all of the conversations. Do you honestly believe that?

Best,

Doug Weldon

And after ten years of fact checking, vetting and evaluation many people have come to the conclusion that Judyth Baker

has concocted her story. She has written two books and there is a seemingly endless supply of information promulgated

by her and her supporters on the internet. Ed Haslam, one of her most ardent supporters, has consistently avoided and

deflected questions about her story. He often urged people to wait for her new book, as if it was going to provide new

revelations. Deep down, Haslam must realize that there is an underwhelming amount of evidence that indicates that Judyth

Baker and Lee Oswald were lovers. His continual refusal to answer meaningful questions about his conclusions and speculations

really speaks volumes, as far as I'm concerned. And I don't think I'm alone in drawing conclusions from his approach.

[....]

If one reaches the conclusion that Judyth Baker's story never happened the way she claims it did, it is only natural to feel resentment for what

she has done. So many people have invested so much blood, sweat and tears researching President Kennedy's murder and what role Lee

Oswald played. Baker and her supporters have seemingly always refused to understand this irritation at what many people honestly believe

is an affront to both history and the truth.

These researchers have seen more than enough healthy debate and robust discussion. At some point in time they had enough

information to make up their minds. And at some point in time they have decided that it is not incumbent on them to continue

to give Baker their unconditional respect, or continue to keep an "open mind" about an issue that has already been decided.

At some point in time, for them the benefit of doubt for Baker's story became unsupportable.

If Judyth Baker's claims are not true, in the eyes of many her story is a repugnant one.

Well said, Mike. And I absolutely agree.

Haslam seems to me to be trying to latch onto the witness his own story desperately needs but at the same time be tip-toeing around something he himself sees as underwhelming evidence and, perhaps, over the top claims.

Let me clarify my other remarks. As you know, I am one of those who has invested a great deal of time and energy in researching her claims, which I found preposterous on the face (especially given that she has managed to connect herself to knowing virtually every major name connected to the case)and, after learning that not even her supporters had done even basic fact checking on some of her claims, I was appalled ... and decided to do some. For me, and for others who have undertaken this sort of thing, the "agenda" behind it has never been to "attack" Judyth personally, but to expose, clarify, document ... whatever ... something that, if not true, is completely repulsive to me .... the very idea of leading research into this case down false rabbit trails, of muddying the already contentious and often confusing evidence issues in this case is bad enough .... but the very idea that the truth of our history could be even further removed from the truth is just unconscionable to me.

The vitriol I was speaking of is the personal jibes and schoolyard taunts that I have to admit Judyth has endured from time to time .... but she and her supporters do not have clean hands in that respect either. Why anyone who calls them self a researcher, and who supposedly wants nothing more than the truth in this case, refers to people who are trying to fact check her claims as "attackers" and other names, and casts aspersions on the characters and motives of those people is beyond me.

In my opinion, research in this case should be a no tolerance zone for such antics, mindsets and such a woeful lack of scholarship and methodology serves not only to impede progress in the case, but to muddy the waters even further. I like your word "repugnant" ... that's exactly it.

Hope that's clearer than mud.<g>

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb and Mike:

This eloquently expresses the sentiments of very many people. As I have stated many times I have no animosity towards Judyth. it would not surprise me if she does believe these things happened but such thoughts are not grounded in reality. As to Haslam it is much more difficult to analyze why this is so important to him but I suspect that Mike's analysis may be accurate. Both you and Mike have expressed this very well.

Best,

Doug Weldon

The agent was definitely Doyle Williams. Also note: Williams was the one who was the stand in for Governor Connally in the photo reconstruction of the assassination. FYI: I have an excellent, detailed, an professionally filmed interview of Williams, which I conducted around July, 1990. As I recall, Williams was either a black belt or a judo expert, was armed, and if he had not reacted (relatively calmly) as he did, the situation could have escalated completely out of control.

If anyone has specific questions, this film can be consulted for answers. (I also have a very fine interview of Vince Drain). In any event, please do note that the FBI agent who was attacked, in this manner, was Doyle Williams.

DSL

12/9/10; 6:40 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

David:

Where can one view these interviews?

Best,

Doug Weldon

Absolutely. They were both young and in New Orleans. Judyth Vary Baker was under the wings of a big time player Dr. Ochsner. When a big time intelligence player is your mentor things just seem to happen your way. Or not your way if you offend them as Judyth did when she rebelled against putting cancer in the inmates of LA prisons.

Just because LHO might have been run by James Angleton or David Atlee Phillips does not mean that Judyth was being run by anyone or treated the same way as LHO. Judyth was the golden girl cancer researcher until Ochsner's wings and she and LHO probably got hooked up because they were in proximity, not because of some grand CIA scheme or master plan.

I think that Judyth Vary Baker is an incredibly important witness to truth in the JFK assassintion. Not that one should believe EVERYTHING she says ... but that is true of anyone.

Robert:

What do you believe she is not telling the truth about?

Doug Weldon

I think the handwriting and recordings would go a long way towards establishing her credibility, especially the handwriting. The failure to do so speaks loudly against her veracity as does her refusal to answer tough questions.. Absent those things, because of the obvious contradictions and provable falsehoods she is more than highly suspect.

Agreed, Doug. Interestingly, the claim about having anything with Oswald's handwriting on it seems to have emerged late. The first mention I can find is mid-2003 in a couple of newsgroup posts ... and then just what the writing is supposedly in/on is not mentioned. It only came up then because someone had once asked if she didn't have a love letter or something Oswald had written as part of her evidence.

Martin Shackelford posted July 8, 2003, alt.assassination.jfk:

"As for materials in Oswald's handwriting, you can see that in the book."

In a further exchange on July 20, 2003, McAdams posted:

"OIC. Harris asked something like "do you have a love letter in

Oswald's handwriting," and she said "no," failing to mention that she

has something *else* in Oswald's handwriting.

Question for Martin, and for lurkers too: when is the absolute

*first* time that Judyth or Team Judyth ever claimed to have something

in Oswald's handwriting?

This sounds like very recent-appearing evidence to me."

It was an interesting question, one for which I see no response. The first time I find (via google) that "Pocket Aristotle" was mentioned on that newsgroup was not until August 2006. Her first book came out in 2006 and contains a photo of the pages as well as the story about LHO having written in it.

The "Harris" referred to in John's post is Robert Harris .... who had many long conversations with Judyth early on ... in 1999. He had asked her if she had anything with LHO's writing on it, and she had said "no."

DEADLY ALLIANCE, the early outline penned by Judyth with Howard Platzman contains no mention of her having Oswald's handwriting on anything that I can find, and there is no mention of the Pocket Aristotle.

I don't know about you, Doug, but if I was claiming to have known Oswald personally, and had his handwriting in the margins of a book, I would first have it certified by a professional examiner, and then it would be the first thing I would shout from the roof tops.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

Absolutely. Very interesting but not a surprise. This seems to be very consistent with everything.

Best,

Doug

Dawn:

The picture is in the next posting. I am computer-challenged. I do not believe there is credible evidence that Judyth ever met Oswald.

With all due respect, that comes across as an equivalent to Gary Mack's infamous statement, "I have not seen any hard evidence of conspiracy."

Doug: She has proof that they worked together. What about Anna Lewis? Anna did not even like Judyth so why would she lie?

Have you read Ed Haslam's book? Judyth's? I do not think it is fair to pass judgement on someone withouth reading the person's book first. In fact you and I are in agreement on Armstrong's work on another thread.

Dawn

Dawn:

Your point is fair. Yes, I have Haslam's book and have read it. I have followed Judyth for over a decade and carefully followed the monumental thread here.I have seen Judyth change so many things to conform to the tough questions asked of her. I don't want to raise questions here because I don't want to tip Judyth off. If her story is legitimate then she can enhance her credibility in a number of ways: produce the physical evidence, i.e., the Oswald handwriting, the Mary Ferrell tape recording, etc. and submit herself to questions that she doesn't have a chance to ponder and choose which one's to ignore and answer. The truth can defend itself. If she does not produce the evidence she claims to have do you not agree the failure to do so should construe that evidence against her. Judyth had stated she wasn't going to subject herself to any further questions but she has appeared on the radio, etc. It is easy to fool the unknowing. There were , as I mentioned before, aspects of her story that at first intriqued me, i.e., where would she get the idea that she and Oswald were going to write a science fiction book? I discovered how she was able to do that. I am always reticent with witnesses who embrace their own celebrity. Judyth has motive to fabricate and I believe that could be exposed. Do you really believe she could remember all the dialogue she writes? I certainly could not. Whoever Oswald was I do not believe any evidence establishes he was a James Bond-Renaissance man character. As far as Armstrong, you can see I was one of the many people he dedicated the book to, so many things were run by me directly. I do believe there are stronger aspects of his book than others and I have questions but most people do not know the right questions to ask. I am curious. Did Judyth contact you or did you contact her?

My best,

Doug Weldon

Doug: I am pretty sure that I contacted her. I was asked to help by another forum member. This was to try to get the Anna Lewis video. But I am not in touch with Ms. Conway so I had no way to accomplish that, other than enlist others to assist.

I have not followed her every word. Just do not have the time. As far as the dialogue goes in her book I am assuming this is mostly made up. No one could remember ACTUAL dialoge from that long ago. So it has to be paraphrased.

I do not know what celebrity she has embraced or what motive she would have for ruining her life and not being able to be in this country with her children and grandchildren.

That part of the Love Affair that jumped out at me as false was when they "accidentally" met. But in reading her book it became clear that this meeting was no accident. I would indeed like to see the handwriting tested and any other recordings she claims to have. But would even this satisify people?

Even her detractors agree that they worked at Reily together.

Dawn

Dawn:

Thanks for the reply. I do not dispute they worked at Reilly at the same time but that in of itself means nothing. According to Judyth's former husband Judyth, upon seeing Oswald on television, exclaimed something to the effect, that Oswald looked like someone she used to work with. I don't know about all of Judyth's motives but she has written to people from her high school class that there could be movie rights, etc. and she has certainly drawn attention to herself. I think the handwriting and recordings would go a long way towards establishing her credibility, especially the handwriting. The failure to do so speaks loudly against her veracity as does her refusal to answer tough questions.. Absent those things, because of the obvious contradictions and provable falsehoods she is more than highly suspect. BTW, I also believe that Arfstrong does a nice job in his public speaking and to the contrary I now believe his book makes JVB less plausible.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Dawn:

The picture is in the next posting. I am computer-challenged. I do not believe there is credible evidence that Judyth ever met Oswald.

With all due respect, that comes across as an equivalent to Gary Mack's infamous statement, "I have not seen any hard evidence of conspiracy."

It looks like a very straightforward statement to me, Pamela, saying that he does not believe there is credible evidence that Judyth ever met Oswald. Well, by golly, that is exactly what he said! It doesn't have anything to do with someone else's assessment about any other part of the case,so I am a bit confused by your comment. :-)

Since you are a known Judyth believer, this would be a perfect opportunity for you to share with all of us just what "credible evidence" exists that she did personally know Oswald.

We know they worked at Reily at the same time in the summer of 1963, even starting work on the same day. She worked in the office, he greased machines. Other than a common nodding knowledge of one another, like many of the 100-ish employees at Reily could very likely have had with one another, what "credible evidence" have you seen that Judyth and Oswald actually knew one another?

I will be very interested in your response, and look forward to what specific credible evidence you will present, because thus far, I have never seen any credible evidence of them having known one another at all.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

I've learned a lot about the decade old debate about Judyth Baker's story from reading Barb's posts here and on the

Exile thread started by Jim Fetzer. Barb almost invariably provides links and/or documentation for her posts, making it easy

to see the source for what she is discussing. Most people interested in making up their own minds appreciate this approach to

research. Barb has had to listen to some people accuse her of attacking Judyth or nitpicking. They find this preferable to actually

discussing what Barb has written. That's my impression.

Judyth Baker has no bigger supporter than Ed Haslam. In Dr Mary's Monkey (page 291), Haslam asks "did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in

New Orleans in 1963?" Haslam offers only two items to support such a contention: Baker's W-2 from Reily and the 2003 video recording of Anna Lewis.

These are the "two critical pieces of evidence" that Haslam uses to wonder if it is time "to reconsider our history" of the Kennedy murder.

That's it. That's Haslam's evidence that Baker and Oswald knew each other. The rest of his faith is based on his belief in her "as a person."

Barb has written that the devil is often in the details and I agree with that. But often there are large questions, which Baker and her supporters

almost never address. I find this 2005 comment by James Richards worth considering:

One thing about Judyth's story I have never been able to figure out. If she was indeed working on some cancer inducing virus which was

to be used to kill Castro, then there is no way she would have been told who the victim was going to be. She would have worked with no

information as to the weapon's ultimate use. This type of activity is definitely conducted on a 'need to know'. That's just the way it is.

There is a seemingly endless list of improbabilities and implausibilies like this that help explain why JVB has so many doubters.

If there was credible evidence linking Baker and Oswald, why did Douglass and Horne choose not to mention it in their recent books?

There were scores of journalists and investigative reporters in New Orleans in the 60's and 70's that had their ears

very close to the ground. There have been many researchers that have written extensively about Oswald in New Orleans.

None of them have ever found any credible evidence of an association between Baker and Oswald, to my knowledge.

Michael:

Outstanding post.

Doug Weldon

Dawn:

The picture is in the next posting. I am computer-challenged. I do not believe there is credible evidence that Judyth ever met Oswald.

With all due respect, that comes across as an equivalent to Gary Mack's infamous statement, "I have not seen any hard evidence of conspiracy."

Doug: She has proof that they worked together. What about Anna Lewis? Anna did not even like Judyth so why would she lie?

Have you read Ed Haslam's book? Judyth's? I do not think it is fair to pass judgement on someone withouth reading the person's book first. In fact you and I are in agreement on Armstrong's work on another thread.

Dawn

Dawn:

Your point is fair. Yes, I have Haslam's book and have read it. I have followed Judyth for over a decade and carefully followed the monumental thread here.I have seen Judyth change so many things to conform to the tough questions asked of her. I don't want to raise questions here because I don't want to tip Judyth off. If her story is legitimate then she can enhance her credibility in a number of ways: produce the physical evidence, i.e., the Oswald handwriting, the Mary Ferrell tape recording, etc. and submit herself to questions that she doesn't have a chance to ponder and choose which one's to ignore and answer. The truth can defend itself. If she does not produce the evidence she claims to have do you not agree the failure to do so should construe that evidence against her. Judyth had stated she wasn't going to subject herself to any further questions but she has appeared on the radio, etc. It is easy to fool the unknowing. There were , as I mentioned before, aspects of her story that at first intriqued me, i.e., where would she get the idea that she and Oswald were going to write a science fiction book? I discovered how she was able to do that. I am always reticent with witnesses who embrace their own celebrity. Judyth has motive to fabricate and I believe that could be exposed. Do you really believe she could remember all the dialogue she writes? I certainly could not. Whoever Oswald was I do not believe any evidence establishes he was a James Bond-Renaissance man character. As far as Armstrong, you can see I was one of the many people he dedicated the book to, so many things were run by me directly. I do believe there are stronger aspects of his book than others and I have questions but most people do not know the right questions to ask. I am curious. Did Judyth contact you or did you contact her?

My best,

Doug Weldon

Martin Blank:

Marina once said she had two husbands. ("I had two husbands: Lee, the father of my children, an affectionate and kind man; and Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President Kennedy") Did she get them mixed up innocently? Or was it purposeful. Who was the other in addition to Harvey? Was she with both Harvey and Lee?

This quote was supposedly made to a French journalist. A quick google tells me the only people who mention this alleged quote are pushing the two Oswald theory. Two alarm bells right there. The jourmalist is unnamed and no one but Armstrong and his supporters use the "quote".

Greg, can you tell me where Armstrong used that quote?

Michael:

In fairness, Armstrong did use this quote, p.946. Marina apparently made this quote to Nerin Gunn, the author of "Red Roses From Texas." She did this four months after Oswald's autopsy and has never explained her statement.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Thank you, Doug. It is always good to be reminded that one must flag when one is being fair to the undeserving. I have just done a search of "Red Roses From Texas" in google books and cannot find the quote. Nor is Gunn French as claimed by some who use the quote.

Greg:

Are you certain about Gunn? "Red Roses From Texas" was written in French and was then translated to English. I had the English version for several years before selling it but still see the French version pop up on e-bay occassionaly.

Doug

Greg:

You are correct. The book was written in French before being translated.

Nerin E. Gun, a free-lance journalist and writer, was born in Rome of Turkish and Italian parents. Educated in France and Germany, he entered the newspaper field in Berlin when WW II started, As a neutral, be became a correspondent for Swiss newspapers and the Turkish press service. For his reports to the world about the Warsaw ghetto and predictions of the defeat of the German armies in Russia, he was arrested by the Nazis and sent to eleven prisons and three concentrations camps, ending at Dachau. He was one of two foreign correspondents accredited to Berlin to have been arrested and put into a concentration camp solely because of journalistic activities.

Mr. Gun shown above during a recent visit to Dachau, is now an American citizen who lives in New York with his American wife and child. He makes frequent trips throughout the world as a foreign correspondent for American and European magazines.

No American publisher would touch his book Red Roses from Texas, so the book was published in London. A used copy, if you can find it, will cost you $750.00. It was the FIRST book on the assassination of President Kennedy.

Best:

Doug Weldon

Martin Blank:

This quote was supposedly made to a French journalist. A quick google tells me the only people who mention this alleged quote are pushing the two Oswald theory. Two alarm bells right there. The jourmalist is unnamed and no one but Armstrong and his supporters use the "quote".

Greg, can you tell me where Armstrong used that quote?

Michael:

In fairness, Armstrong did use this quote, p.946. Marina apparently made this quote to Nerin Gunn, the author of "Red Roses From Texas." She did this four months after Oswald's autopsy and has never explained her statement.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Dawn:

I am totally puzzled. As a defense Attorney how can you evaluate a case with only hearing half of the evidence? Does it not bother you that JVB refuses to be questioned by myself or Greg Burnham? Isn't cross examination the most ueseful tool to determine the veracity of a witness? Does it not bother you that there are inconsistencies in nearly any statement Judyth has ever made? Does it not bother you that Judyth claims to have physical evidence,i.e., Oswald's handwriting on a book but refuses to allow an expert to examine that handwriting? Does it not bother you that Judyth has deeply researched the assassination but even then makes errors about Oswald? Are you aware that Judyth has identified herself in pictures of Oswald handling out handbills in New Orleans and even claims to have the dress from that photo but those photos have been positively identified as other people? Do you know that she claimed one person in the photo was her and when that person was identified she claimed it to be the other? Do you really honestly believe a high school student who was probably dissecting worms and frogs was one of the top researchers in the world on cancer along with those scientists and physicians who had been studying at the highest level for years? It goes on and on. Do you really believe any trier of fact could reach a verdict without her being questioned, without credible corroboration, and by thcn claiming that she has physical evidence but refusing to submit it for examination? Would you really place your legal reputation on the line based on such absence and inconsistency of evidence? If so, I am truly amazed and disappointed that a member of the bar would be willing to do this. I believe a start would be to establish whether Judyth ever even met Oswald. I do not believe that any credible evidence exists to establish even that fact. As a criminal defense attorney, you , of anyone, have to appreciate the necessity for skepticism in evaluating any client's story. How many of your clients have told you that they are guilty. My experience is that it is very few. I find it incredulous that you would not demand that those inconsistencies be resolved before you could even begin to evaluate the evidence and the veracity of JVB. I would welcome the opportunity to question Judyth and my offer remains open. You and I both know it is an offer she will never accept.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Doug: I am not staking my legal reputation on anything. I have said now since 2004 that I believe Judyth. We used to email frequestnly and she always my questions. We were corresponding first when whe could not get her video that Deb Conway had taken with Anna Lewis. Now why would a researcher refuse to part with a witnesses' proof?

I know that Judyth has answered so many questions for so many over these years. The various allegations you make are not known to me. And I did not just decide based on your so called "half the evidence". I have read much information critical to her on these pages. Most of it was nit picking. She HAS corroboration but for some no matter how much evidence she presents it won't be enough. Given how secret the entire "project" was it is amazing to me that she has any evidence.

How could I possible know that she would never accept your offer to ask her questions? You make a amazing amount of assumptions that I cannot address as I don't know anything about their truh or falsity. If I were Judyth I would be tired of being attacked and certainly avoid answering questions by someone with an agenda. She has done much of that already.

I would like to see LHO's handwriting tested.

Best

Dawn

Dawn:

I wrote a very long reply which disappeared after I previewed it. This will be much more succinct. I agree with you about the video with Anna Lewis but I believe that is now a moot point. I would welcome the opportunity to question Anna Lewis. I have to ask you, in that same light, why will Judyth not produce her proof, the Oswald writing or the tape she claimed to have on this forum which would uphold her version of the Mary Ferrell incident? How can you draw a conclusion in the absence of any such evidence? She could easily make a copy of the tape for you or Fetzer and submit the writing to expert analysis. How can you form an opinion in the absence of such.

What is nit-picking? Even the most legitimate questions raised such as Judyth's claim for asylum where she now resides has not had a reasoned reply other than character assassination of the person raising the question who raises prooof to the contrary. I have found a pattern in those who have become strong supporters of Judyth and perhaps your case is the exception. I have found it common that Judyth finds people who are known as prominent researchers and/or often post on forums. She then initiates contact with them, usually via e-mail, rather than them contacting her. She appears to have a remarkale ability to acquire their support for her and they become very committed to her. When she posts, as she did here, she does so through a third party, rather than directly which she is obviously able to do so. It gives her deniability.

I have attached the picture in New Orleans. Judyth claimed to be the woman in the striped dress and when that person was discovered to have been positively identified she claimed to be the apparently pregnant woman with the explanation that she sometimes became bloated. She also claimed to still have the dress from then. Which dress is it and where is it? It is another example of a claim made by her with no substantiation.

I have no agenda. Despite what Fetzer says I have no vendetta against Judyth. I, like many here,have followed her postings for many years, and have seen one inconsistency after another, statements which have been provably false, and her story change again and again. Is this what you call being attacked or nit-picking? In the past couple of weeks I have discovered where her extensive research of Oswald has allowed her to take something that would allow her to weave herself into a story. An example is her surprising claim that she and Oswald were going to write a science fiction book together. At first, I was taken aback and wondered where she would have got that from, but I was able to discover what anyone would be able to do if they extensively researched Oswald. Dawn, do you really believe that a teenager had the education and skills to be on par with the top scientists and physicians in the world to fight some of the most complicated diseases of that time and today's time and pair her with the reknown "Dr." David Ferrie? Appparently, they spared no expense in equipping them with a state of the art laboratory. If I questioned Judyth I would do professionally and with respect. I know Greg Burnham would do the same. Fetzer supported the idea of her being questioned until Judyth rejected it. Should she only be subject to "softall" questions by those who support her? If the truth is on your side what should it matter who questions you?

Judyth has made the claims. It is she who claims to be in possession of the physical evidence that would support those claims. Don't you agree that the burden of proof should be on her? If she is truthful I sincerely believe she would be one of the most valuable witnesses ever in the history of the case. Ironically, if she is fabricating her involvement she is doing the opposite of what she claims to seek. By doing such, she diminishes Oswald, casts dispersion upon the entire research community who believes that the true story of 1963 has not been told by the government bodies,and distorts whathappened that day in 1963. I absolutely have no bad feelings towards Judyth but I cannot ignore the evidence that has been presented or ignore the evidence she refuses to produce. I do believe it is possible that even if this is fabricated, that she may believe it. People have the right to believe whatever they want, either because of or despite the evidence. I am simply surprised that a criminal defense attorney would reach a verdict until so many more questions are answered. If Judyth was accused of telling the truth, do you really believe that you would have enough evidence to convict her? Even many of her ardent supporters have disappeared. Where are Howard Platzman or Martin Shackelford now? Perhaps embarassed? They appear to have been easily replaced by a new crop of supporters who have not followed her over the past 10 years. Read Barb's latest post. How do you respond to that or the hundreds of questions that were raised in prior posts? Good luck.

My best,

Doug

Dawn:

I am totally puzzled. As a defense Attorney how can you evaluate a case with only hearing half of the evidence? Does it not bother you that JVB refuses to be questioned by myself or Greg Burnham? Isn't cross examination the most ueseful tool to determine the veracity of a witness? Does it not bother you that there are inconsistencies in nearly any statement Judyth has ever made? Does it not bother you that Judyth claims to have physical evidence,i.e., Oswald's handwriting on a book but refuses to allow an expert to examine that handwriting? Does it not bother you that Judyth has deeply researched the assassination but even then makes errors about Oswald? Are you aware that Judyth has identified herself in pictures of Oswald handling out handbills in New Orleans and even claims to have the dress from that photo but those photos have been positively identified as other people? Do you know that she claimed one person in the photo was her and when that person was identified she claimed it to be the other? Do you really honestly believe a high school student who was probably dissecting worms and frogs was one of the top researchers in the world on cancer along with those scientists and physicians who had been studying at the highest level for years? It goes on and on. Do you really believe any trier of fact could reach a verdict without her being questioned, without credible corroboration, and by thcn claiming that she has physical evidence but refusing to submit it for examination? Would you really place your legal reputation on the line based on such absence and inconsistency of evidence? If so, I am truly amazed and disappointed that a member of the bar would be willing to do this. I believe a start would be to establish whether Judyth ever even met Oswald. I do not believe that any credible evidence exists to establish even that fact. As a criminal defense attorney, you , of anyone, have to appreciate the necessity for skepticism in evaluating any client's story. How many of your clients have told you that they are guilty. My experience is that it is very few. I find it incredulous that you would not demand that those inconsistencies be resolved before you could even begin to evaluate the evidence and the veracity of JVB. I would welcome the opportunity to question Judyth and my offer remains open. You and I both know it is an offer she will never accept.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Doug: I am not staking my legal reputation on anything. I have said now since 2004 that I believe Judyth. We used to email frequestnly and she always my questions. We were corresponding first when whe could not get her video that Deb Conway had taken with Anna Lewis. Now why would a researcher refuse to part with a witnesses' proof?

I know that Judyth has answered so many questions for so many over these years. The various allegations you make are not known to me. And I did not just decide based on your so called "half the evidence". I have read much information critical to her on these pages. Most of it was nit picking. She HAS corroboration but for some no matter how much evidence she presents it won't be enough. Given how secret the entire "project" was it is amazing to me that she has any evidence.

How could I possible know that she would never accept your offer to ask her questions? You make a amazing amount of assumptions that I cannot address as I don't know anything about their truh or falsity. If I were Judyth I would be tired of being attacked and certainly avoid answering questions by someone with an agenda. She has done much of that already.

I would like to see LHO's handwriting tested.

Best

Dawn

Dawn:

I wrote a very long reply which disappeared after I previewed it. This will be much more succinct. I agree with you about the video with Anna Lewis but I believe that is now a moot point. I would welcome the opportunity to question Anna Lewis. I have to ask you, in that same light, why will Judyth not produce her proof, the Oswald writing or the tape she claimed to have on this forum which would uphold her version of the Mary Ferrell incident? How can you draw a conclusion in the absence of any such evidence? She could easily make a copy of the tape for you or Fetzer and submit the writing to expert analysis. How can you form an opinion in the absence of such.

What is nit-picking? Even the most legitimate questions raised such as Judyth's claim for asylum where she now resides has not had a reasoned reply other than character assassination of the person raising the question who raises prooof to the contrary. I have found a pattern in those who have become strong supporters of Judyth and perhaps your case is the exception. I have found it common that Judyth finds people who are known as prominent researchers and/or often post on forums. She then initiates contact with them, usually via e-mail, rather than them contacting her. She appears to have a remarkale ability to acquire their support for her and they become very committed to her. When she posts, as she did here, she does so through a third party, rather than directly which she is obviously able to do so. It gives her deniability.

I have attached the picture in New Orleans. Judyth claimed to be the woman in the striped dress and when that person was discovered to have been positively identified she claimed to be the apparently pregnant woman with the explanation that she sometimes became bloated. She also claimed to still have the dress from then. Which dress is it and where is it? It is another example of a claim made by her with no substantiation.

I have no agenda. Despite what Fetzer says I have no vendetta against Judyth. I, like many here,have followed her postings for many years, and have seen one inconsistency after another, statements which have been provably false, and her story change again and again. Is this what you call being attacked or nit-picking? In the past couple of weeks I have discovered where her extensive research of Oswald has allowed her to take something that would allow her to weave herself into a story. An example is her surprising claim that she and Oswald were going to write a science fiction book together. At first, I was taken aback and wondered where she would have got that from, but I was able to discover what anyone would be able to do if they extensively researched Oswald. Dawn, do you really believe that a teenager had the education and skills to be on par with the top scientists and physicians in the world to fight some of the most complicated diseases of that time and today's time and pair her with the reknown "Dr." David Ferrie? Appparently, they spared no expense in equipping them with a state of the art laboratory. If I questioned Judyth I would do professionally and with respect. I know Greg Burnham would do the same. Fetzer supported the idea of her being questioned until Judyth rejected it. Should she only be subject to "softall" questions by those who support her? If the truth is on your side what should it matter who questions you?

Judyth has made the claims. It is she who claims to be in possession of the physical evidence that would support those claims. Don't you agree that the burden of proof should be on her? If she is truthful I sincerely believe she would be one of the most valuable witnesses ever in the history of the case. Ironically, if she is fabricating her involvement she is doing the opposite of what she claims to seek. By doing such, she diminishes Oswald, casts dispersion upon the entire research community who believes that the true story of 1963 has not been told by the government bodies,and distorts whathappened that day in 1963. I absolutely have no bad feelings towards Judyth but I cannot ignore the evidence that has been presented or ignore the evidence she refuses to produce. I do believe it is possible that even if this is fabricated, that she may believe it. People have the right to believe whatever they want, either because of or despite the evidence. I am simply surprised that a criminal defense attorney would reach a verdict until so many more questions are answered. If Judyth was accused of telling the truth, do you really believe that you would have enough evidence to convict her? Even many of her ardent supporters have disappeared. Where are Howard Platzman or Martin Shackelford now? Perhaps embarassed? They appear to have been easily replaced by a new crop of supporters who have not followed her over the past 10 years. Read Barb's latest post. How do you respond to that or the hundreds of questions that were raised in prior posts? Good luck.

My best,

Doug

The picture is in the next posting. I am computer-challenged. I do not believe there is credible evidence that Judyth ever met Oswald.

Sorry Dawn, Judyth is trying to "sell" the stories of Lewis and his ex-wife. She has very few witnesses. The stories of Lewis and his ex-wife are a tough sell. This is Judyth's problem. She chose them. They are not credible, they diminish Judyth's credibility, not increase it. If she had better witnesses, it would increase her credibility. She doesn't, so she isn't credible.

I think I am reasonably open to new information, but I'm not going to give it the benefit of the doubt if the

source of it cannot even discern how to help herself. If Judyth knew she had to rely so heavily on the recollections of Anna Lewis, she should have maintained her silence.

The first two minutes, fifteen seconds of the Anna Lewis interview, linked below, rely totally on hearsay, with David Lewis as her source. I wouldn't trust David Lewis to walk my dog.

http://judythvarybaker.com/documents.htm

Documents

...Are there any witnesses who saw Judy and Lee together in New Orleans?

Click here to watch an interview with Anna Lewis, a friend who knew Judyth and Lee in New Orleans in 1963

Anna Lewis was a waitress and the wife of David Lewis who worked for Guy Banister in 1963.

Lee took Judyth, Anna and David to meet Carlos Marcello at the 500 Club, his downtown headquarters.

To see the JFK researchers that were present during the interview of Anna Lewis, click here.

http://judythbaker.blogspot.com/2010_04_01_archive.html

Several years after the Warren Commission “investigation,” the investigators working for New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison tracked down another young woman named Anna Lewis, a waitress who worked at Thompson’s Restaurant - a favorite gathering spot for the anti-Castro crowd around Lafayette Square in downtown New Orleans. At the time, Anna was married to David Lewis, who had worked for another “ex-FBI” agent Guy Banister. Today we have video testimony from Anna Lewis recorded in 2003 and made available on the internet by Dutch JFK

researcher Wim Dankbaar. In this interview, Anna clearly states that she knew Lee Oswald and that Oswald was a regular customer at Thompson’s in 1963. Further, she states that she and her husband socialized with Lee and Judyth together on a number of occasions. More importantly Anna Lewis admits that she lied to District Attorney Garrison and his investigators when they asked her about Oswald. Had Anna Lewis told Garrison the truth, Garrison could have easily tracked down Judyth. Garrison was already suspicious of Ochsner and his role in the media exposure of Oswald. If Garrison had had access to Judyth, and if Judyth told Garrison what she now tells us - that she and Lee were working on a biological weapon project under the direction of Dr. Alton Ochsner, Garrison’s investigation (and his whole life) might have turned out very differently. But she didn’t. Anna Lewis lied to Garrison because she was afraid. Meanwhile, Judyth hid silently because she was afraid. Two critical pieces of evidence were unavailable to the American people and their elected representatives (like Garrison) at the time they were pondering who killed their President. Now that we know differently, is it time to reconsider our history?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9231

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-2140352666545542746# ...

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=bks:1&q=%22Gurvich+urged+caution%E2%80%94+and+a+lie+detector+test+for+Lewis.++*%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=12222e274e2b1ccf

The Garrison case: a study in the abuse of power

Miltón E. Brener - 1969 - 278 pages - Page 74

..On January 12th, David Lewis reported to Jim Garrison that while standing by the Royal Orleans Hotel he was shot at by a Cuban in a passing auto.

The Cuban "could have been Quiroga," but there was no identity of the man or the car by Lewis.

DA assistants were sent to the scene to scour the area for the spent pellet— without success. Garrison ordered Quiroga and "anyone with him" arrested on sight.

Gurvich urged caution— and a lie detector test for Lewis. Garrison shrugged, but did not object. Following the test, Lewis was asked by the investigator why he had lied. Lewis explained that he thought the story would please the boss...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEMQxQEwBg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fviewer%3Fa%3Dv%26q%3Dcache%3A_QTDrM8lC6IJ%3Aajweberman.com%2FnoduleX30-THE%252520WARREN%252520COMMISSION%2C%252520GARRISON%252520INVESTIGATION%252520AND%252520ROCKEFELLER%252520COMMISSION.pdf%2B%2522david%2Blewis%2522%2Bhotel%2Bjim%2Bgarrison%26hl%3Den%26gl%3Dus%26pid%3Dbl%26srcid%3DADGEESjki8VFds_lA66jkvkseumZsgkuIgeaxpkKGgkD8jtbCZEC6ls8sAMIOwIP5u6ZoGqDJhwmauZD_4AKI5gO3ywcikSqiJoDj6_EEcF8fMvL7A4StAxmw31XhLWlt480nDPH1OGy%26sig%3DAHIEtbQRIHUU8B7fzvsy__hQiWImPVb9YQ&rct=j&q=%22david%20lewis%22%20hotel%20jim%20garrison&ei=itjvTIvlB8GqlAf7reW6DA&usg=AFQjCNEwY89ghprGgkV_ZhY9Yo1UCJ_rIw&sig2=nWywe0Q4Ziuf10dYZ90E4A&cad=rja

NODULE X30 THE WARREN COMMISSION THE ROCKEFELLER COMMISSION AND...

Pg. 45

The FBI (1995) withheld information on David F. Lewis. Reports of television broadcasts

of David F. Lewis were deleted. [FBI 62-109060-4527; New Orleans Times Picayune

2.67 p4] In 1968 David F. Lewis applied for a job with Avis Rent-a-Car. The interviewer

felt that Lewis was either a mental case or on narcotics. David Lewis told the interviewer

he was married in April 1962 and presently has four children but their whereabouts are

unknown. [NO FBI 89-43-5737; FBI 62-109060-4504 2.20.67 teletype re: Lewis mostly

w/h; NARA FBI 124-10249-10027]

Review of Judyth Vary Baker Thread Members Give Impressions as to Logic in Debate

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15870

Dean, I am one who owes you a reply on Anna Lewis in the other thread ... but it is so far back, I will just do it here in response to your post. I apologize for being so tardy, the thread was galloping along and I lost it in the shuffle as I was searching for a quote. My responses are in blue.

Hi Stephen, my replies are in CAPS:

Do we agree that JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald?

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

First, we don't know much about Anna Lewis. Is this the Anna Lewis who was married to David Lewis? Under what circumstances was the interview taped? Did anybody discuss evidenciary matters with her prior to the interview? Why has Anna Lewis not been interviewed in any other venue (testimony, TMWKK, etc.)?

THE VIDEO INTERVIEW LETS US LEARN MORE ABOUT ANNA LEWIS, WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE LATE DAVID LEWIS. IT WAS TAPED IN 2003 AND BROUGHT TO THE INTERNET BY WIM DANKBAAR. ACCORDING TO DANKBAAR IN A 2007 POST http://jfkmurdersolved.com/phpBB3/viewtopi...bff5af704433b39 DEBRA CONWAY INTERVIEWED LEWIS.

Yes, it was Debra Conway who taped this, and I believe this was done in 2000, not 2003. Others present ... I will probably miss someone ... included Martin Shackelford, Judyth Vary Baker, Joe Riehl ... and I am not sure if Howard Platzman was there or not. And I cannot find the exact quote, but Debra has commented that Anna Lewis told her something along the lines of her not remembering Judyth as the girl she remembered, that she wasn't sure/didn't think this (Judyth) was the woman she knew. Will continue looking for that quote.

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

Judyth found and spoke to Anna Lewis previously, before this trip to NO. Even Martin Shackelford acknowledged that. I find that troubling for a couple of reasons, not the least of which being how Judyth went about interviewing McGehee ... early on, at least according to a "highlights" transcript that Judyth emailed around, saying, when he spoke about seeing a big black cadillac pull out down the street just after Oswald left his barbershop, "I suggested that perhaps others had tried to influence him about the incident, prompting a false memory, but he said no, he had not been influenced by anyone." Extremely inappropriate. And, as far as we know, there is no actual transcript of her interview with McGehee. If there is, that would be important to see.

ANNA LEWIS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAS NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED IN ANOTHER VENUE. SHE DID NOT TELL GARRISON THE TRUTH ABOUT KNOWING JVB. SHE SAID DAVID HAD TOLD HER TO KEEP HER MOUTH SHUT.

Anna Lewis, according to the old team Judyth, acknowledged that Anna Lewis refused to go on camera and repeat her story for the TMWKK "Love Affair" segment. And where did Anna Lewis get this thing about Oswald firing a warning shot? That came from Judyth's early story/draft. Just how exposed to Judyth's story was she before this interview? Poor thing looked scared to death, it was like she was going by a script .... and forgetting and getting lost some times, mouthing things to someone and getting some prompts.

Second, what are we to make of that fact that David Lewis had a great deal of contact with NODA Jim Garrison's probe in its first few months, but described his alleged contacts with Oswald in way that did not include double-dating with Oswald and Baker? What are we to make of Garrison himself dropping Lewis as a witness after apparently falsely reporting that he was shot at by exile Carlos Quiroga?

I DO NOT KNOW WHY DAVID LEWIS DID NOT MENTION THE DOUBLE-DATING OR HIS STATEMENTS ABOUT QUIROGA. HE DOES NOT APPEAR ON THIS TAPE.

Third, it is not unheard of for peripheral witnesses to be influenced by the comments of other claimed witnesses. I have seen a transcript of Baker's interview with Edwin Lea McGehee, wherein she tells him right off the top (of the transcript, at least) that she was the woman in the car near his barbershop in 1963, and makes a few other statements I consider inappropriate for a formal interview. This causes me to have less than full confidence in the Lewis interview.

YOU MENTION JVB'S STATEMENTS AS A WAY TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN THE LEWIS INTERVIEW. I AM NOT SURE WHY YOU SAY THIS.

Sounds like Stephen has a copy of the same document I do. Judyth's interview technique with McGehee was wholly inappropriate based on her partial transcript she sent around. Anna Lewis's script like telling, forgetting and getting lost, looking (and sometimes mouthing) to someone for prompts .... none of that bolsters confidence in a witness. Judyth having found and talked to this "witness" first is troubling .... and then in this taped statement said witness mentions Oswald firing a warning shot .... which is straight out of an early draft of Judyth's and rather sets off the uh-oh alarms even louder. Lewis says she met Oswald in April 1962 ... then says sometime between January and April 1962. Aside from having the year wrong, her memory doesn't seem that good on this.

I do not know Anna Lewis, and I in no way accuse her of anything or impugn her character, but there is another troubling aspect that was revealed over the course of many posts discussed on the mod group years ago. And that is an allegation that Anna Lewis was promised compensation. I understand Ms Lewis is of meager means, and sadly, caring for a severely ill/disabled child ... who is now an adult. I don't recall who first made the allegation, but it was hotly and loudly denied. Then a member of then team Judyth admitted that there was talk of trying to help her out, but that that came about only after her interview had been taped. I can't make any judgment, or even an opinion on that, other than to say that it is one more thing that feels very uncomfortable about this woman's statement overall.

And, Dean, it is a *statement* ... it is not "testimony" as you referred to it in the other thread. This was not sworn testimony ... it was a statement. And a statement can carry weight .... but this one, factoring in all the things I mentioned, and David Lewis *not* mentioning any of it to the Garrison investigation when he was interviewed, just doesn't come across to me as credible evidence.

Barb :-)

Of course Anna Lewis lied back then. People were still dropping like flies. Most would have lied. Even to Garrison.

Sorry, I have now read most of this book and I find it totally convincing. And there are many I did not find compelling like James Files, or E. Howard's "deathbed" comments,for example.

Really, given all the secrecy surrounding what both Judyth and Lee were involved in back in 1963 in NO, how many of us could prove any of it? Judyth saved a lot of documentation, her memory is incredible and her story has that ring of authenticity. As a criminal defene atty. for now more than twenty five years I have become fairly good at assessing a person's credibility and Judyth, for me, passes the test.

Dawn

Dawn:

I am totally puzzled. As a defense Attorney how can you evaluate a case with only hearing half of the evidence? Does it not bother you that JVB refuses to be questioned by myself or Greg Burnham? Isn't cross examination the most ueseful tool to determine the veracity of a witness? Does it not bother you that there are inconsistencies in nearly any statement Judyth has ever made? Does it not bother you that Judyth claims to have physical evidence,i.e., Oswald's handwriting on a book but refuses to allow an expert to examine that handwriting? Does it not bother you that Judyth has deeply researched the assassination but even then makes errors about Oswald? Are you aware that Judyth has identified herself in pictures of Oswald handling out handbills in New Orleans and even claims to have the dress from that photo but those photos have been positively identified as other people? Do you know that she claimed one person in the photo was her and when that person was identified she claimed it to be the other? Do you really honestly believe a high school student who was probably dissecting worms and frogs was one of the top researchers in the world on cancer along with those scientists and physicians who had been studying at the highest level for years? It goes on and on. Do you really believe any trier of fact could reach a verdict without her being questioned, without credible corroboration, and by thcn claiming that she has physical evidence but refusing to submit it for examination? Would you really place your legal reputation on the line based on such absence and inconsistency of evidence? If so, I am truly amazed and disappointed that a member of the bar would be willing to do this. I believe a start would be to establish whether Judyth ever even met Oswald. I do not believe that any credible evidence exists to establish even that fact. As a criminal defense attorney, you , of anyone, have to appreciate the necessity for skepticism in evaluating any client's story. How many of your clients have told you that they are guilty. My experience is that it is very few. I find it incredulous that you would not demand that those inconsistencies be resolved before you could even begin to evaluate the evidence and the veracity of JVB. I would welcome the opportunity to question Judyth and my offer remains open. You and I both know it is an offer she will never accept.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Greg is trying to play both ends of this argument:

Armstrong's original research should not be given its due simply because he had the money to do what no one else had done.

To me this is completely too categorical and indiscriminate. And ultimately unfair. It somehow implies that what John did was worthless because it was expensive to do.

John's research is original in two ways.

First, John purposely avoided some of the standard bearers who came before him since he did not think their reputations measured up against their output. Therefore he did not want to be unduly influenced by them. And, in fact, if you read his book, you will see a remarkable dearth of references to any of the standard books in the field.

Second, because of his wealth, he had the time and money to talk to people who others did not: e.g. the Ziger sisters, Kudlaty, Dr. Kurian.

These were new witnesses that, to my knowledge, no private researcher had ever interviewed before. These people had new information to offer.

Now whatever one thinks of John's main thesis, his book is largely original. In the sense that it relies mostly on primary sources. That is documents and interviews. John's wealth allowed him to write that kind of book. So, for example, he could actually visit NARA and handle much of the first day evidence himself. And he could go through the comparison of the DPD list versus the FBI list and make interesting discoveries of how they differed. Again, to my knowledge, no one had ever done that before. It is a significant achievement. And John did an article for Probe in that regard. And he later included it in his book.

But this is what I mean about Harvey and Lee. It is full of stuff like that because of John's avoidance of previous staples in the field and his ability to achieve things others did not. As I mentioned specifically above. And you can add that to the other things i mentioned: his work on the alleged rifle transaction, the alleged revolver transaction and his chapter on Mexico City.

Let me comment on the last further. This chapter, and the adjunct matters John covers in relation to it, amount to over a hundred pages. In my discussion of this matter in relation to Bugliosi's book, I used much of this material. I consider John's work on this crucial subject to be of real importance in the field. In fact, I listed it as one of the four most important sources on Mexico, along with the Lopez Report, and John Newman's book and his Probe essay. And there are things you will not find in Lopez or Newman in John's work e.g. the mystery of how Oswald got there and how he returned are not dealt with in Lopez or Newman. John deals with them at length and in depth and in a way that no on else ever has.

That is what I mean by originality. And that is one reason why his work is valuable and I recommend it to all.

Jim:

I am reading the book again and I am coming away even more impressed with what John did. An example is Oswlad applying to Albert Schweitzer college. John actually went to this small, remote town in Switzerland, found out everything about the school, went through land and title records, finding out who owned the property, who was on the board of directors, any information relating to Oswald, etc.,etc. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his premise, I cannnot imagine anyone, no matter their financial resources, being as thorough as one coulld possibly be. No government agency was this thorough.

Doug Weldon

Jim,

when someone here starts referring to themselves in the third person, it usually indicates a problem with their ego. I'll giver you one guess who does that when under pressure...

When someone starts addressing the peanut gallery instead of the other participant in the debate, it usually indicates they are feeling threatened and insecure and totally incapable of responding directly back to points directly made.

For instance, I have said repeatedly that I have made no allegations or insinuations. Those are YOUR invntions. I have merely stated as fact that there was a conflict of interest and a failure to address that conflict. Above and beyond that, I have pointed out Jack's self-serving and contradictory statements in regard to his friendship with Kudlaty and also when Armstrong first became aware of that friendship.

You avoid those issues and repeatedly prattle on in attempts to put allegations of impropriety in my mouth, lecturing that I should research information in the book (which this has nothing to do with this at all), challenging me to prove allegations I have not made (and even if I had made them, Jack's refusal to answer questions kind of limits options on investigating further), and you even jump on Doug's bandwagon ridiculing Wiki. Easy to do. I've done it. But the fact is that wiki is generally reliable on non-controvertial matters.

You also wrongly assume I have done zero research on the Kudlaty matter.

I posted this on Feb 27, 2007

Refer to CE 1384 which indicates formal request for NYC school records through the Mayors office and NYC Board of Education and that legal advice was sought on handing over court records. See 1373-A which shows that the request for Fort Worth school records was made through the Texas Attorney General to Fort Worth police who then went through the Fort Worth School District offices.

the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was enacted in 1974. Under this Act, school records can be released without consent only to:

The current school district

A school district to which the student is transferring

State or federal education authorities

State or federal financial aid programs

Law enforcement officials for "child welfare" protection

Or upon a judge's order for release

Handing over school records was not done willy nilly - even when it's the FBI and it's the investigation of an assassinated president. Though the law I quote is from 1974, it probably only updated similar laws already in place. It sure looks like New York and Fort Worth followed what it says.

What school district was Stripling in again? Fort Worth?

If Kudlaty handed over any records, it appears to have been an illegal act.

None of the theory's supporters replied to the above. How strange

As for Pfisterer - at the time Oswald worked there, the company employed 5 runners including Oswald. Three said Oswald was there in '56 and one said '57.

Did Armstrong interview any of the three who said '56? If not, why not?

Don and others before him are always keen to mention how much money Armstrong spent like that equates to quality. Only in America...

Greg keeps on avoiding the point, and he does this deliberately.

He also avoids another point about his own sloth.

The only way his ridiculous insinuation has any import is if Jack had any influence at all over Kudlaty prior to John talking to him.

What evidence does he have for this?

Zilch.

And he doesn' t understand or refuses to understand that he bears the burden of proof here. In fact, he does not want to bear the burden of proof because it will show that his insinuation is nothing but hot air. He does not want that to happen because then he can't bandy it about any more.

The worst part of this was when he tried to say that Doug somehow agreed with him on this point. When this was not the case, he started attacking Doug.

Now he actually brings up some oh so brief FBI reports to counter, not the astronomy club stuff I brought up, but the Pfisterer employment. But what he does not say is two things:

1. John has even more witnesses who place Oswald at Pfisterer at that time, witnesses i did not name.

2. The FBI and the WC understood this was a real problem for them, so they arbitrarily slid this back. Not because of these brief and shallow reports Greg cites, or any real investigation, but simply because they did not want to deal with it. Which of course, is what they always did in these kinds of situations.

So far from his own self promoted stance of "draining the swamp" , or as a self appointed ombudsman, what Greg is really doing is unabashedly siding with the FBI and Hoover. Sort of like what Bob Harris did with those Secret Service reports to counter VInce P.

If one was really interested in finding out the truth of the situation, one would not just sit there and search MFF to find what fits one's own agenda. He would do the kind of work that John did--a real field investigation. But alas, Greg won't even pick up the phone to call someone. He would rather trash Jack over what amounts to a big fat zero in evidentiary terms. Which he then tries to obfuscate by quoting Wikipedia on "Conflict of interest", which can only apply when one represents two people at once. Yet it has been established that John did not know about Jack's acquaintance with Kudlaty when he talked to the latter. And further,there is no evidence that Jack even knew Kudlaty was at Stripling at the time or later. If so, Greg would have produced it.

This all smacks of cheap lawyer tricks, the kind of thing Specter was famous for. And that Posner and Bugliosi used. And at the same time, it avoids confronting all the other witnesses that support Kudlaty. Like say, his boss, Calindo, the teachers, and the students. And also the fact taht Kudlaty has a reputation for character purity that is well known in his field. A reputation so exalted that even the Texas Monthly editor--who was out to wreck John-- could not touch it. If this reputation was not so sterling, he probably could not have become superintendent, or been in a handpicked group of 25 to go to China to observe their educaton system.

The idea that somehow he would forfeit all that for a guy he once was acquainted with at TCU in the forties is so off the wall, that one has to really wonder. But then one adds in this: for what benefit? To be mentioned in a JFK book that maybe seven hundred people will read?

Sure Greg. And you are saying you never thought of all this right?

Greg:

I have not followed this and any other Armstrong threads very much because it is not something I have wanted to devote much time to, Again, I know nothing about you but it is YOU who asked my opiniion about the ethical issue involved in this matter. You specifically asked my opinion, not anyone else's. I am uncertain why you sought my opinion rather than from others but when I responded with an answer you did not like your response was to childishly take some personal cheap shots. Again, I don't know you and you certainly do not know me. In subsequent posts you have complained how people attack you personally. Personally, I could care less about your cheap attack on me, but in my mind this is what casts a bad light on the whole research community.

Besides not wanting to focus time on issues such as this as I am frustratingly trying to finish writing my book. I especially have no desire to discuss Armstrong with someone who has not even bothered to read what Armstrong wrote. I have some criticisms of the book but you are not even close in determining where the book is weak and where it is strong. Futhermore, there are others on this forum who are far more equipped than I to discuss his book. As to the FBI reports it is legitimate to raise them and try to resolve which accounts are likely accurate but to accept these minor reports as gospel is foolish. My guess, as so often happened in interviews by the FBI and in testimony is that they were probably asked the questions predicated by something such as "When you worked with Oswald in 1956, did you.....? The statements are not even signed by the witnesses and the record is replete with witnesses who state what was presented is not what they said and sometimes where there are signatures witnesses have later said that it was not their signature on a statement. All statements, from both sides, should be weighed very carefully. It is a con if you are suggesting the whole issue is simply one of ethics. You are trying to discredit Armstrong. As both Jim and I have noted, with someone like Kudlaty, why don't you just pick up the phone and call him. Ask him how well he knew Jack White, ask him what he did when the FBI came to him.Read the book and phone the witnesses. You ask if Armstrong called the witnesses you raised as contradicting Armstrong. My response would be "Did you?"

You do not know me or my background. One of the things you do not know is that I taught school law at a university at the graduate level for 12 years to masters and PHD students. You state " Though the law I quote is from 1974, it probably only updated similar laws already in place. It sure looks like New York and Fort Worth followed what it says..." Actually you are way off base. That and subsequent laws have progessively tightened access to records and protected the privacy of students. Even parents are now limited in accessing their child's records once they have reached age 18. Before this time and in 1963 it was much easier for anyone, including newspapers and reporters to access those records. They certainly would NOT have been denied to law enforcement agencies. Things have changed much. If Oswald had confessed while being denied an attorney his case could have gone up to the Supreme Court with Miranda v Arizona. The Miranda case actually happened before Oswald was arrested and the case law could have now be known as Oswald v Texas, the Oswald case instead of the Miranda case.

It is a shame how you have blindly pursued this in attacking Jack and recklessly gone after Armstrong. If you want to attack him do so and hang your cap on the correct issues. There was NO conflict of interest and nothing ethically wrong here. Not one person has yet supported you on this issue. When can you let it go? You are only diminishing your own credibility.

Doug Weldon

My post #89, page 6, of this thread was a response showing examples of inconsistencies in Judyth's story over the years. I cited and e-mail Judyth had written to her supporters in 2000, and a file she had attached to it ... the file being part of her manuscript she had just worked on. She called it the "END OF LINE.doc" .... and it can be seen it its entirety here:

Judyth attachment 2000

One part of that same file that I did not quote at the time, was this, Judyth wrote:

Indeed, when the kids brought home the movie JFK to see, i did not see it with them. I

couldn’t bear it, and i was afraid i’d give way to my emotions.

Only in 1998, on the 35th anniversary of the event, did i finally watch the movie,

which had a

lot of errors, of course. Still,

I was much moved by the challenge Oliver Stone made. He said that

to remain silent was to be a coward.

That hit home.

When Lee said goodbye to me, it was the last time i ever heard his voice,

In her recent book, Me & Lee,2010,page 552, Judyth writes:

In

December 1998, my youngest daughter married and went on her honeymoon. Finally, I was alone. The next day I rented

JFK

and sat down to watch it in earnest........

But what struck me most deeply that day was the inscription at the beginning of the film. The words were seared into my brain:

"To lie by silence when we should protest makes cowards of men."

I knew that I had been "lying by silence." If I did not speak up, then I was a coward.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

Excellent post.This is very interesting. How does JVB get around the fact that SHE sent this to her supporters or change her story about the circumstances she watched JFK, the movie? How can she blame "Cancun" or many other things here on unapproved editing? Thanks.

Doug Weldon

Let me use another example of John's work that I think gives some insight into his book.

When John was taking Jim Marrs' JFK class at Texas Arlington, students were encouraged to find a piece of evidence that they found interesting and present it to the class.

John used the famous Palmer McBride statement to the FBI. McBride claimed that he worked with Oswald at Pfisterer's dental lab in New Orleans in late 1957. The problem here is that the WC says Oswald enlist d in the Marines about a year before. ( see p. 681 of the WR) John found this quite interesting. When he asked Gary Mack about it after the class, Mack said that the guy was obviously mistaken. John felt that this was an unwarranted, arrogant response since Mack had done no inquiry into the matter at all. He just dismissed it outright.

So John decided to do what Mack did not do. He actually got in contact with McBride who was living in California at the time. McBride vividly recalled Oswald to John. He liked Oswald and invited him to hi house two or three times to listen to classical music. He and Oswald even went to the opera Boris Godunov together. John actually found the program for this performance. It was in 1957. McBride also recalled he and Oswald discussing Russia's space success. Sputnik was launched in 1957.

Oswald actually showed McBride communist inspired books, like Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto.

John sent McBride two differing photos of Oswald's mother: the short, dumpy, unattractive one and the tall, rather nice looking woman. McBride recognized the former only.

Palmer once introduced Jim Vance to Oswald. Vance was his best friend and a member of the New Orleans astronomy club. Ralph Hartwell was a former member of the club who later joined the AIr Force. He told the FBI that in his correspondence with the astronomy club, he recalled McBride mentioning Oswald, as did another member William Wulf. McBride also took Oswald to meetings of the club held at the home of one Walter Gehrke. Gehrke told the FBI he recalled the meetings and meeting Oswald in 1958 at his home in Metairie. At a meeting there presided over by Wulf, Oswald praised Russia and communism. Wulf yelled at him that if he liked russia so much, he should go there. Wulf recalled this incident to Armstrong as being in late 1957 or early 1958. When Wulf talked to the commission he said it may have been earlier, but he would like to consult his records. He was not allowed to and the WC never secured the minutes. John allowed him to collect his thoughts and use landmarks in his memory, like a year he spent out of school..He was sure it was in late 57 or early 58. Which jibes with Gehrke, McBride and Hartwell.

Now during this time period, the WC has Oswald in the pacific at Atsugi, or on maneuvers in the Philippines.

What John did here is what he did with the Robert Oswald testimony. He noticed a dichotomy that others dismissed. He then tracked it down in person. It turns out that Palmer McBride was credible on his own. But then Palmer led him to other landmark and time stamp evidence like the opera performance, like Sputnik. But then Palmer led him to other corroborating witnesses: Jim Vance, Ralph Hartwell, Wiliam Wulf, Walter Gehrke.

That is pretty impressive in my book. And BTW, John's book is full of stuff like this. But it is also full of great info that is not related to his two Oswald thesis. In my opinion, the book is worth buying just for the Mexico City chapter and the work on the alleged ordering of the rifle and handgun--which you will never look at the same way again after you read his work on them.

So, I urge everyone to read the book instead of listening to summaries or slams of it. You can't put 950 pages of real and new information in any summary.

http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=994010

John Fioello stated Oswald worked there for a "for not more than a few months" in "about 1956"

http://www.maryferre...22&relPageId=22

Lionel Slater stated Oswald worked there for "several weeks" in "about 1956"

http://www.maryferre...22&relPageId=29

John Ulmer stated photo of Oswald "resembles a messenger who was employed for just a few weeks in 1956"

Greg:

This is legitimate. When there is a conflict in the evidence I am sure you would agree you have to examinine it in its totality to resolve the conflict. I have no idea whether the FBI was pushing the 1956 date or if it was independent recall. They tried to do that with Palmer McBride. Sometimes a conflict cannot be resolved and no conclusions can be reached. However, I believe it is important to at least examine how the Armstrong witnesses established the date.

Doug Weldon

Greg:

I do not know you in any way, have never met you, and know absolutely nothing about you, but you come across as exceedingly rude and immature. I assure you that I do not need "ethics" lessons from you and your immature and childish behavior makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously. I answered your question responsibly

Only if you call non-responsiveness in order to avoid reality your "responsibility".

and respectfully.

"Good manners" are no substiute for honest and responsive replies. Nor will it deflect from your attempts to change this into a debate over plots never mentioned nor hinted at by me.

I suggest you look elsewhere in the future to people who will simply parrot your confusing views.

The only "confusion" is being deliberately created by you and others by introducing irrelevancies e.g your false dichotomy. In reality, it could not be more straightforward.

My response does not change.

No, it doesn't. You have persisted again and again with talk of "coincidences" vs "plots" despite many times being told it has nothing to do with either.

Your response represents the worst of what I detest about the research community.

No doubt. It's difficult having your illusions shattered,

This appears to be nothing more than a game to you.

Nope. I take ethical issues very seriously. You and others on this thread, appear not to be bothered by them at all. I find that rather disturbing.

It is very obvious that you have not read Armstrong's book

Which is yet another irrelevancy. This is not about his book. It is not about the quality of his reserach. It is about an ethical issue, pure and simple.

and have no understanding of what it entails but yet you cannot refrain from responding with insults and "shoot from the hip" remarks.

What can I say? I use up all my patience on my kids.

Anyone can have an "uninformed opinion" about anything.

Your responses to the ethical issue prove that, unfortunately.

I hope this is not indicative of your total understanding of the assassination. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Please solicit their opinions in the future. Maybe, but it is not likely, someone will agree with you.

Why would any of them stick their heads out of the trenches and risk being subjected to the barrage of propagandising and obfuscation I have had to deal with on this issue?

Good luck with your research, whatever it is.

Yeah. Sure. "Sincere" to the bitter end.

Doug Weldon

Greg:

This is even more strange than I thought. As I understand your rant now it has nothing to do with whether you believe there is validity or not to Armstrong's book, which you have not read but choose to isolate bits and pieces from the internet, but your concern is that there is some ethical violation or lack of duty by Armstrong to disclose in his book that Kudlaty and Jack White had some sort of relationship as either acquaintances or friends in the past, something Jack says Armstrong could not have known when he interviewed Kudlaty. Since Armstrong did not disclose this in his book then this "ethical" violation casts dispersion on the veracity of his book and Kudlaty's crediility as a witness. Should Armstrong have brought a list of names of everyone he knew when he talked with any witness and inquire of the witness whether he/she recognizes any of the names on that list? Do you believe that should detract from Kudlaty's credibility as a witness though Kudlaty would not have had any way of knowing that Armstrong knew White? Is that what this is about? I have no idea when Armstrong found out about the Kudlaty-White "relationship." Let's assume it was after the book went to the publisher? What do you believe Armstrong should have done? It may be my shortcoming, but I don't see any connection with Jack knowing Kudlaty unless you somehow believe that there was some concerted effort by the three of them to contrive a story. As I mentioned before, if this bothers you so much then throw out Kudlaty's whole account. It is such a very small piece of the book. Armstrong's intent has always been to present his findings and allows one to reach their own conclusions. He does not like confrontation. He doesn't "argue" for his position but simply presents the evidence. It does not bother or upset him if somewhat rejects that evidence. On its face it is a very bizarre story and should be approached with skepticism. Unfortunately, my understanding of ethics is not based on the scholarly works of "wikepedia" so I may seriously be out of touch. However cheated I am by that lack of a broad education I simply do not see any ethical duty or breach, but obviously I am not going to persuade you otherwise. Perhaps some other people reading this thread will have a broader perspective than I do and may post their support for your posi.... Whoops, I think I just heard a fire engine. Gotta go.

Doug Weldon

Greg:

You asked me for my opinion than reject it which is certainly your right. Are you saying that Armstrong knew that Kudlaty and Jack had once been friends and he should not have followed up on questioning Kudlaty? Are you suggesting that Jack gave Armstrong the lead that "eventually" led to Kudlaty? If so, what proof do you have and how would it be unethical if Jack even had given him the lead? What do you think Armstrong should have done? If it does bother you, why don't you simply do as I suggest, forget Kudlaty, read the book, and contact any witnesses you desire? Most are not that difficult to find. I don't understand that there is a concern about any "plot" between Jack and Armstrong. I know both of them and to me, the character of each is beyond reproach. There are remarkable coincidences in life. It seems to me the longer I speak with almost any person that the name of a common acquaintance will emerge. The phrase "six degrees of separation" has a basis in fact. Are you suggesting that there was no independent way that things led to Kudlaty? Rather than create a mystery that I believe you will find leads nowhere why don't you humor people, read the book, contact who you desire and are able to, and form any opinion that you wish. There is nothing personal in this. Some of the people who disagree with me vehemently I consider to be good friends. Good luck.

Best,

Doug

Doug, I asked for your opinion based on the misunderstanding that you knew at least as much about ethics and conflicts of interest as even a third rate ambulance chaser would know. My apologies for over-rating your professional skills.

You also seem to have difficulty in comprehending my posts. I'll take responsibility for that and try again. This time, I'll simply quote from wiki: "A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results"

I will add that the ethical consideration is in eliminating or minimising such conflicts. Here, I believe that could have been done simply by noting the relationship in the book.

That you continue to plough ahead with the false dichotomy of "coincidence" vs "plot" in disregard of all that I've said, tells me all I need to know.

regards,

greg

Greg:

I do not know you in any way, have never met you, and know absolutely nothing about you, but you come across as exceedingly rude and immature. I assure you that I do not need "ethics" lessons from you and your immature and childish behavior makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously. I answered your question responsibly and respectfully. I suggest you look elsewhere in the future to people who will simply parrot your confusing views. My response does not change. Your response represents the worst of what I detest about the research community. This appears to be nothing more than a game to you. It is very obvious that you have not read Armstrong's book and have no understanding of what it entails but yet you cannot refrain from responding with insults and "shoot from the hip" remarks. Anyone can have an "uninformed opinion" about anything.I hope this is not indicative of your total understanding of the assassination. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Please solicit their opinions in the future. Maybe, but it is not likely, someone will agree with you. Good luck with your research, whatever it is.

Doug Weldon

Greg:

Let us put this to bed once and for all.

Because in your post above you seize upon one word that has multiple meanings and, a la Arlen Specter and Anita Hill, you build upon it to put together a plot involving Armstrong, Kudlaty and Jack.

Now, when I questioned this logic before, I commented on people who attack Armstrong without ever reading his book or making any phone calls. Which you did not.

So I got in contact with John today and I asked him about what got him interested in Stripling in the first place. And he told me a progressive narrative that pretty much echoes his book. This was it:

1. Robert Oswald's pronouncements at three intervals over five years. Again, that is THREE TIMES in five years Robert said it.

2. John then wrote a letter to the contemporary principal of the school.

3. Then he got in contact with the principal via phone, and he then went there in person.

4. The principal then referred him to the district HQ to get a roster of teachers there at the time.

5. John called the teachers. The teachers then told him to call Kudlaty.

6. John did so and Kudlaty told him the story about the FBI. But he also told him that his own boss, the principal at the time, told him to meet the FBI at Stripling.

Now, please show me the insidious, nefarious cover up and conspiracy involved here that you are suggesting. Where and when did it start? How did it work? Because John did not even know Kudlaty went to TCU in the forties when he called him.

Greg, if you are going to suggest these kind of dark allegations, the burden of proof is on you.

Please show me your evidence for witness manipulation.

Thanks, Jim. That is one hundred percent accurate. It is what a good researcher would do, without making

untrue character assassinations and conspiracy theories. And I repeat...Kudlaty was a friend of mine since

he was a fellow classmate more than 60 years ago. I hope he still enjoys good health. If so, he will confirm

John's story.

Jack

Jack and Greg:

Jack, You make a very good point. I began to look at the issue of the hole in the windshield back in 1993 because of a fluke circumstance. A friend of mine who is both a physician and an attorney saw me one day with a book on the assassination. He told me that his father used to talk about something unusual about the Kennedy assassination shortly after it happened. He could not remember what it was. It took months to set up a meeting with his father and the dam seemed to break. It was a remarkable fluke. If I not just happened to have a book with me that day I would never even had any interest in pursuing this line of inquiry and investigation . Does it sound strange or unusual that the father of a friend of mine would have this incredible account? Yes, it does, but it is what happened. Was it unethical or did it taint things that I talked with my friends father? I don't think so because he, like Kudlaty, is only a very small piece of the puzzle. Many of the people I talked with are now deceased but a number of them still survive. I know that many of the people in Armstrong's book are still alive. My ultimate point is rather than just engage in an academic discussion why do these critics never contact these people. The people I talked with were very friendly and open. It was frustrating to me that "experts" on the assassination never talked with them. The coincidences in life are amazing. When I interviewed Dr. Evalea Glanges on the phone after writing her how could anyone have known that she would die at age 59 within a month of our talk. I can't explain how odd it is. If I had waited four weeks the opportunity would have been lost forever. I talked with Crenshaw and he was very open but did not live for a long time afterwards. (The focus of many of my questions to him had not been asked before and do not relate to the limo.) I, like, Armstrong, found out about people by reviewing the records and then contacting these people. Yes, I find it unusual and coincidental that Jack once knew Kudlaty but as I have found ,the unusual is not so uncommon as one would think. Jack did not give the lead to Armstrong. You asked my opinion and no, I don't believe any ethical issue is involved. As I have expressed before and even with John I am impressed with some evidence more than others, (I would have tried very hard to talk with John Pic) but the overall volume of evidence is overwhelming. John is very unique in that he had the resources to put life on hold and literally contact people worldwide. It is unbelieveable how thorough he was. One cannot imagine the travel and time and expense that John incurred. As Jack states, Kudlaty's involvement was done well before John ever became interested in the matter.The teachers referred people to Kudlaty. Do you believe that Kudlaty had this story stashed away so that in the unlikely event that during his lifetime someone would contact him about it? The lead was provided by Robert Oswald, not Jack. I will admit that John actually phoned some of these people when I was on the phone line and people did not know that I was listening. There was nothing contrived at all. Everyone has the right to analyze evidence and accept or reject whatever they want. However, to earn that right with Armstrongs's work, one has to read the book and then, if they desire. go ahead, contact some of the witnesses. Call Kudlaty. I believe he is still alive. If Kudlaty bothers someone so much then disregard him. If people have problems with any of the witnesses I discovered I tell them to do the same. It will not affect anything. Armstrong's work is an amazing account and whatever one believes after reading it one cannot escape the conclusion that something very unusual and complex was going on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Thanks for (finally) giving your opinion, Doug.

But this has no more to do with coincidence than it has to do with any actual acts of "plotting".

That you guys want to make it about "coincidences" versus "plots" is just setting up a false dichotomy.

I strongly suggest you brush up on your ethics. Conflicts of interest stand alone and apart from any and all other considerations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

Greg:

You asked me for my opinion than reject it which is certainly your right. Are you saying that Armstrong knew that Kudlaty and Jack had once been friends and he should not have followed up on questioning Kudlaty? Are you suggesting that Jack gave Armstrong the lead that "eventually" led to Kudlaty? If so, what proof do you have and how would it be unethical if Jack even had given him the lead? What do you think Armstrong should have done? If it does bother you, why don't you simply do as I suggest, forget Kudlaty, read the book, and contact any witnesses you desire? Most are not that difficult to find. I don't understand that there is a concern about any "plot" between Jack and Armstrong. I know both of them and to me, the character of each is beyond reproach. There are remarkable coincidences in life. It seems to me the longer I speak with almost any person that the name of a common acquaintance will emerge. The phrase "six degrees of separation" has a basis in fact. Are you suggesting that there was no independent way that things led to Kudlaty? Rather than create a mystery that I believe you will find leads nowhere why don't you humor people, read the book, contact who you desire and are able to, and form any opinion that you wish. There is nothing personal in this. Some of the people who disagree with me vehemently I consider to be good friends. Good luck.

Best,

Doug