Doug Weldon

Glenn: Thanks so much. Best, Doug Weldon

Where is the article? Doug Weldon

Bill: I am not aware that there were "lots" of folks who saw another film. The ones who have claimed to see it have been remarkably consistent. What variations are you making reference to? The Zapruder film does not show any "near stop" so what is it that you believe that these people saw? The witness (police officer) who relayed his account to me was and is well respected. Good luck. Doug Weldon

Kathy: He was on Houston. He will be in my book. Best, Doug Weldon

I have the highest respect for William Reymond and the late Rich DellaRosa. I believe they saw a filmas they described and I cannot conceive that someone could have "added" to the film so I believe their accounts are truthful. I have another first hand account from an officer in the motorcade who saw the limo stop. I do not believe he has been named before. Doug Weldon

Jim: I don't know what Jerry's response might be but I believe it is clear that Oswald asked for an attorney but was not provided one as they(DPD) continued to interrogate him. I am not aware of a Texas statute but if there was one it was not being followed. Many people have been critical of the DPD not recording their conversations with Oswald. However, it remains a common police practice in many jurisdictions today NOT to record interrogations. Best, Doug Weldon Even so, it's intriguing to know that a stenographer was present at the original interviews of Leon Czolgosz (McKinley's assassin) in 1901. That the DPD failed to use one in 1963, and relied instead on Fritz's notes scribbled sometime later, is an embarrassment beyond words. According to Manchester, the WC's staff--mostly big city prosecutors--considered the DPD the "keystone cops". I think this reflected their bias, and that many of the DPD's purported screw-ups, e.g. its failure to photograph the brown paper "gun case"in the building, were not so innocent. Pat: You know where I stand on the conspiracy issue. However, I can only reply again that it is NOT an uncommon police practice today to not record OR have a stenographer present during a police interrogation. If a confession is made it would be common to write down the essence of the confession and have the defendant review and sign it. Unless there is a state statute mandating the recording or transcription of a confession it is a very risky process to do so. The first test for the admissibility of a confession is voluntariness and to record or transcribe something can only be beneficial to a defense attorney to dissect it and tear it aprt. The other difficulty is that it is rare that a person can tell the same story twice in the exact same manner and if there are multiple defendants, etc. their stories are going to differ, at least slightly.This can usually be used by a sharp defense attorney for tthe benefit of their client. I have both prosecuted and defended serious crimes. I have been present during police interrogations that you or any citizen might find appalling. We do often see cameras on a defendant on television reality news shows as they are questioned or waiting to be questioned so yes, it does happen in many instances. However, this is often done during a polygraph examination so that the actions of the defendant can be observed when noone is there, i.e., is he/she trying to practice their answers, control their breathing, etc. Since polygraphs are not admissible in any state, most people do not realize that a polygraph is simply an interrogation tool. The person is Mirandized, questioned, attacked with inconsistencies, and any admissions can be used. It is very artful but to sit through the hours of watching a polygraph is one of the most laborious things I have ever done. As critical as I am of many of the procedures I am not critical that there was no recording or transcript. However, I have always been bothered that a transcription was, in fact done, and may have disappeared. Only my opinion, Doug Weldon DOUG, FELLAS I AM ATTACHING A PHOTO COPY OF THE DPD OFFICES, IT WAS POSTED AND CREDIT TO TOMLIN, YOU WILL NOTE THERE WAS A RECORDING ROOM, WHICH I BELIEVE MEANS THEY MAY HAVE OR DID HAVE TAPE RECORDERS AVAILABLE AND THAT THERE IS WAS MORE THAN LIKELY TAPES OF HIS INTERROGATIONS, BUT BY NOW MORE THAN LIKELY HAVE BEEN DESTROYED OR BURIED WITHIN A VAULT SOMEWHERE NEVER TO BE HEARD, HEAVEN FORBID...THANKS FELLAS FOR THE LEGAL INFORMATION APPRECIATED...BEST B PLEASE EXCUSE CAPS, THANKS..SEE' Y' ON PHOTO COPY///. Bernice: This is great information.The fact that DPD had a special recording room also makes me believe it is more likely that Oswald's interrogation would have been recorded and that the evidence has been hidden or destroyed. Doug Weldon

Jack: I do not believe there is any credible evidence that JVB ever "knew" LHO at all, yet for any period of time. As has been recounted there is evidence that JVB saw LHO on television and said toi her husband that he looks like a man she used to work with. Best, Doug Weldon

Doug Weldon, after I read about the background of a federal judge's decision to free Ed Wilson several years ago, it strains belief that any of the federal lawyers who remained silent all those years Wilson was imprisoned, could still be members of the bar in good standing, let alone promoted by a U.S. president to sit as a judge on a federal appeals court, By the way, the OPR seems to have avoided dealing with this, although it was reported to be investigating. (see article images at the bottom of this post.) Tom: I totally agree with you. These prosecutors should be imprisoned, not only disbarred. The true objective of a prosecutor, here the federal prosecutors would be representing the people of the United States, is simple. It is to find truth, in a legally permissible manner. It is not about winning or losing a case or advancing one's career.. I did not know Trott was involved with this case. I had the same concern as to why Cheney and Rove were not indicted on the Valerie Plame case. This is very disturbing. Doug Weldon

Jim: Thank you so much. I will read the article. As always, you provide very cogent criticisms and observations. I believe there is some value in the book and not everything should be dismissed. I will make some observations on LBJ in my book based on the evidence and some direct conversations with some people close to the White House at that time and there is a book on LBJ being written by a very competent and respected researcher. Best, Doug Weldon

Robert: The Dark Side of Camelot is trash. PLEASE read Jim D's fine piece on all the disinfo about JFK's sex life. JFK's SEX LIFE had zero to do with his murder. I realize you're still a newbie on all this and eager to learn, so please do some further study before making such absurd pronouncements. Merci, Dawn Dawn: Where is Jim D's piece on JFK's sex life? I do believe it played a factor, though perhaps a small piece of the puszzle. I also believe there is value in Sy Hershes's and Barr McClennen's books. There are parts in each that I find significant. I also believe there is evidence to support that LBJ likely knew of the assassination plans and was a major figure in orchestratinng the cover-up. Hopefully, my book will be out in the next year and I am aware of another book being written by a very reputable researcher on LBJ. Again, whether we agree on everything or not, I have the highesr respect for Jim D. and I would like to read his article on JFK's sex life. Thank you, Doug Weldon

Jim: I don't know what Jerry's response might be but I believe it is clear that Oswald asked for an attorney but was not provided one as they(DPD) continued to interrogate him. I am not aware of a Texas statute but if there was one it was not being followed. Many people have been critical of the DPD not recording their conversations with Oswald. However, it remains a common police practice in many jurisdictions today NOT to record interrogations. Best, Doug Weldon Even so, it's intriguing to know that a stenographer was present at the original interviews of Leon Czolgosz (McKinley's assassin) in 1901. That the DPD failed to use one in 1963, and relied instead on Fritz's notes scribbled sometime later, is an embarrassment beyond words. According to Manchester, the WC's staff--mostly big city prosecutors--considered the DPD the "keystone cops". I think this reflected their bias, and that many of the DPD's purported screw-ups, e.g. its failure to photograph the brown paper "gun case"in the building, were not so innocent. Pat: You know where I stand on the conspiracy issue. However, I can only reply again that it is NOT an uncommon police practice today to not record OR have a stenographer present during a police interrogation. If a confession is made it would be common to write down the essence of the confession and have the defendant review and sign it. Unless there is a state statute mandating the recording or transcription of a confession it is a very risky process to do so. The first test for the admissibility of a confession is voluntariness and to record or transcribe something can only be beneficial to a defense attorney to dissect it and tear it aprt. The other difficulty is that it is rare that a person can tell the same story twice in the exact same manner and if there are multiple defendants, etc. their stories are going to differ, at least slightly.This can usually be used by a sharp defense attorney for tthe benefit of their client. I have both prosecuted and defended serious crimes. I have been present during police interrogations that you or any citizen might find appalling. We do often see cameras on a defendant on television reality news shows as they are questioned or waiting to be questioned so yes, it does happen in many instances. However, this is often done during a polygraph examination so that the actions of the defendant can be observed when noone is there, i.e., is he/she trying to practice their answers, control their breathing, etc. Since polygraphs are not admissible in any state, most people do not realize that a polygraph is simply an interrogation tool. The person is Mirandized, questioned, attacked with inconsistencies, and any admissions can be used. It is very artful but to sit through the hours of watching a polygraph is one of the most laborious things I have ever done. As critical as I am of many of the procedures I am not critical that there was no recording or transcript. However, I have always been bothered that a transcription was, in fact done, and may have disappeared. Only my opinion, Doug Weldon Doug, I have no doubt that what you say is true. But the point I was making was not about SOP. This was the murder of the president. If Buffalo's officials in 1901 had the foresight to bring in a stenographer, why didn't Dallas' officials in 1963? They weren't just trying to capture a bad guy, after all; they were trying to identify a conspiracy. Anything Oswald said might help them ascertain who else was involved. So why wouldn't they want a transcription of the suspect's statements as they were made? Equally as puzzling, or troubling, should one propose the DPD and the LBJ Administration innocent of any collusion is that the autopsies of Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley were announced within a day or two of their assassination, and the results of these autopsies discussed in the newspaper. So why did it take the LBJ Administration 5 days to ADMIT there'd been an autopsy, and why was it more than SIX MONTHS before the results of the autopsy were leaked? Pat: DPD, of course, had nothing to do with the autopsy but I am not proposing that LBJ was not complicit in the assassination or the coverup. In fact, I believe that the overwhelming evidence shows that LBJ was involved in orchestrating the coverup and I believe he knew the assassination was going to happen. Your assertions are correct. Interestingly, though the federal government usurped Texas jurisdiction in the investigation of the case and illegally removing evidence and the body for autopsy, the one way in 1963 the federal government would have had jurisdiction is if the killing of Kennedy had been a conspiracy. Doug Weldon

Jim: I don't know what Jerry's response might be but I believe it is clear that Oswald asked for an attorney but was not provided one as they(DPD) continued to interrogate him. I am not aware of a Texas statute but if there was one it was not being followed. Many people have been critical of the DPD not recording their conversations with Oswald. However, it remains a common police practice in many jurisdictions today NOT to record interrogations. Best, Doug Weldon Even so, it's intriguing to know that a stenographer was present at the original interviews of Leon Czolgosz (McKinley's assassin) in 1901. That the DPD failed to use one in 1963, and relied instead on Fritz's notes scribbled sometime later, is an embarrassment beyond words. According to Manchester, the WC's staff--mostly big city prosecutors--considered the DPD the "keystone cops". I think this reflected their bias, and that many of the DPD's purported screw-ups, e.g. its failure to photograph the brown paper "gun case"in the building, were not so innocent. Pat: You know where I stand on the conspiracy issue. However, I can only reply again that it is NOT an uncommon police practice today to not record OR have a stenographer present during a police interrogation. If a confession is made it would be common to write down the essence of the confession and have the defendant review and sign it. Unless there is a state statute mandating the recording or transcription of a confession it is a very risky process to do so. The first test for the admissibility of a confession is voluntariness and to record or transcribe something can only be beneficial to a defense attorney to dissect it and tear it aprt. The other difficulty is that it is rare that a person can tell the same story twice in the exact same manner and if there are multiple defendants, etc. their stories are going to differ, at least slightly.This can usually be used by a sharp defense attorney for tthe benefit of their client. I have both prosecuted and defended serious crimes. I have been present during police interrogations that you or any citizen might find appalling. We do often see cameras on a defendant on television reality news shows as they are questioned or waiting to be questioned so yes, it does happen in many instances. However, this is often done during a polygraph examination so that the actions of the defendant can be observed when noone is there, i.e., is he/she trying to practice their answers, control their breathing, etc. Since polygraphs are not admissible in any state, most people do not realize that a polygraph is simply an interrogation tool. The person is Mirandized, questioned, attacked with inconsistencies, and any admissions can be used. It is very artful but to sit through the hours of watching a polygraph is one of the most laborious things I have ever done. As critical as I am of many of the procedures I am not critical that there was no recording or transcript. However, I have always been bothered that a transcription was, in fact done, and may have disappeared. Only my opinion, Doug Weldon In may ways we are becoming "less civilized" as constitutional protections, and especially Miranda is being diluted and police are being given far more leeway. It is to the point now where even if significant evidence of a defendant's innocence emerges, the court will say, too bad, you have exhausted your appeals, and many of these people are even put to death. Doug Weldon

Jim: I don't know what Jerry's response might be but I believe it is clear that Oswald asked for an attorney but was not provided one as they(DPD) continued to interrogate him. I am not aware of a Texas statute but if there was one it was not being followed. Many people have been critical of the DPD not recording their conversations with Oswald. However, it remains a common police practice in many jurisdictions today NOT to record interrogations. Best, Doug Weldon Even so, it's intriguing to know that a stenographer was present at the original interviews of Leon Czolgosz (McKinley's assassin) in 1901. That the DPD failed to use one in 1963, and relied instead on Fritz's notes scribbled sometime later, is an embarrassment beyond words. According to Manchester, the WC's staff--mostly big city prosecutors--considered the DPD the "keystone cops". I think this reflected their bias, and that many of the DPD's purported screw-ups, e.g. its failure to photograph the brown paper "gun case"in the building, were not so innocent. Pat: You know where I stand on the conspiracy issue. However, I can only reply again that it is NOT an uncommon police practice today to not record OR have a stenographer present during a police interrogation. If a confession is made it would be common to write down the essence of the confession and have the defendant review and sign it. Unless there is a state statute mandating the recording or transcription of a confession it is a very risky process to do so. The first test for the admissibility of a confession is voluntariness and to record or transcribe something can only be beneficial to a defense attorney to dissect it and tear it aprt. The other difficulty is that it is rare that a person can tell the same story twice in the exact same manner and if there are multiple defendants, etc. their stories are going to differ, at least slightly.This can usually be used by a sharp defense attorney for tthe benefit of their client. I have both prosecuted and defended serious crimes. I have been present during police interrogations that you or any citizen might find appalling. We do often see cameras on a defendant on television reality news shows as they are questioned or waiting to be questioned so yes, it does happen in many instances. However, this is often done during a polygraph examination so that the actions of the defendant can be observed when noone is there, i.e., is he/she trying to practice their answers, control their breathing, etc. Since polygraphs are not admissible in any state, most people do not realize that a polygraph is simply an interrogation tool. The person is Mirandized, questioned, attacked with inconsistencies, and any admissions can be used. It is very artful but to sit through the hours of watching a polygraph is one of the most laborious things I have ever done. As critical as I am of many of the procedures I am not critical that there was no recording or transcript. However, I have always been bothered that a transcription was, in fact done, and may have disappeared. Only my opinion, Doug Weldon

Hello Jim, I never practiced criminal law in Texas and I haven't done an in-depth study so take what I'm writing with a little extra salt. At the time I believe Texas had a two stage process following arrest. First, in a relatively short time after arrest, the police were required to present the detainee before a magistrate who would inform the person of the reason for their detention, usually the reason was they were being charged with a crime. At this proceeding no response was expected or required of the detained - it was simply a formal notice of the reasons for detention and the charges (if any) against them. Later, the defendant would be arraigned - that is required to appear before a judge to hear charges and enter a plea to the charges against them. There's a lot of confusion around Oswald because (I think) the media and Oswald himself did not understand the distinction between arraignment and notice. Oswald thought he had to go to court and appear before a judge to be arraigned and that was correct. But what he got at the jail with a magistrate wasn't an arraignment - it was the notice proceeding. Similarly, lots of reporters wrote or said that Oswald had been arraigned but he hadn't - only notified of the reason for his detention which was the criminal charge against him. So my understanding is that Texas law required a fairly prompt notice of charges. Once charged then prevailing law at the time would have required the assistance of an attorney if the defendant requested one. At this time US Constitutional law was in flux and there was some question about exactly when someone had the right to an attorney. Established law was the right only existed after someone had been formally charged, but the 1964 Escobedo decision extended the right to anyone who had become a suspect - whether or not they had been formally charged. I haven't found anything in Texas law that required Miranda like warnings but, as I said, I haven't conducted an exhaustive search. I hope this helps. Best to you, Jerry Jerry: Do you know if the first step involved a court magistrate or a justice of the peace? Thanks, Doug

Jim: I don't know what Jerry's response might be but I believe it is clear that Oswald asked for an attorney but was not provided one as they(DPD) continued to interrogate him. I am not aware of a Texas statute but if there was one it was not being followed. Many people have been critical of the DPD not recording their conversations with Oswald. However, it remains a common police practice in many jurisdictions today NOT to record interrogations. Best, Doug Weldon

Jerry: What is interesting is that Miranda actually occurred before the assassination and Oswald would have been affected by the decision. People today might well have been read their "Oswald rights." What would have been interesting is whether if Oswald had been tried if it would have influenced the Supreme Court in their ruling. Best, Doug Doug! It's nice to see you're still checking the Forum. I hope the book is going well. I'm really looking forward to its publication. You're right - using a strictly rational/legal approach, Miranda should have applied retrospectively. However, in what I think was a bow to the political realities of the Miranda decision, the Supreme court decided in Johnson v New Jersey (1966) that the Miranda rules would only apply to cases in which the trial began after the Miranda decision was announced. So no luck for LHO there. My very best to you, Jerry Added comment: Following your thoughts I think there's a real possibility that Escobedo might have been very different as a result of the DPD procedures with Oswald. Jerry: I agree with your thoughts on Escobedo and you are correct about Miranda. My thoughts were that the Oswald case might have been attached to the Miranda case as it weaved its way through the courts. I hope all is well. Best, Doug Miranda later carried around small cards with the "Miranda rights" written on them and would autograph them for money. Doug Weldon

Jerry: What is interesting is that Miranda actually occurred before the assassination and Oswald would have been affected by the decision. People today might well have been read their "Oswald rights." What would have been interesting is whether if Oswald had been tried if it would have influenced the Supreme Court in their ruling. Best, Doug Doug! It's nice to see you're still checking the Forum. I hope the book is going well. I'm really looking forward to its publication. You're right - using a strictly rational/legal approach, Miranda should have applied retrospectively. However, in what I think was a bow to the political realities of the Miranda decision, the Supreme court decided in Johnson v New Jersey (1966) that the Miranda rules would only apply to cases in which the trial began after the Miranda decision was announced. So no luck for LHO there. My very best to you, Jerry Added comment: Following your thoughts I think there's a real possibility that Escobedo might have been very different as a result of the DPD procedures with Oswald. Jerry: I agree with your thoughts on Escobedo and you are correct about Miranda. My thoughts were that the Oswald case might have been attached to the Miranda case as it weaved its way through the courts. I hope all is well. Best, Doug

Jerry: What is interesting is that Miranda actually occurred before the assassination and Oswald would have been affected by the decision. People today might well have been read their "Oswald rights." What would have been interesting is whether if Oswald had been tried if it would have influenced the Supreme Court in their ruling. Best, Doug

How do I view all the posts in a thread without clicking each one individually? Doug Weldon

There is a huge difference between saying that Nobel Prize winners "worked with you" and "IT DOES NOT SAY I MET THEM. IT SAYS I WAS WITH THEM, ATTENDED THE EVENT WITH THEM, NOT IN THE AUDIENCE. I SAT IN THEIR MIDST, RIGHT NEXT TO THE VICE PRESIDENT OF CANCER RESEARCH FOR THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, DR. DIEHL. I ATE LUNCHES WITH THEM, WAS TUTORED BY THEM, THEY WERE FASCINATED WITH MY WORK AND ACTUALLY WENT TO MY HIGH SCHOOL TO CHECK MY WORK 9ALSO IN A NEWSPAPER OR YEARBOOK ARTICLE." Is Judyth suggesting that these Nobel Prize winners were so fascinated with her work that they took a special trip to her high school for the sole purpose of checking out her work in a newspaper and her year book article? I have a picture (honestly) of me hitting Muhammed Ali in the jaw. Is it fair for me to tell people that he went down to the ground as if he were shot, he begged me not to hurt him, and that I am the greatest boxer who ever lived? I also ran a race where I ran step for step with Frank Shorter for over a mile.(again true) Does that mean I can tell people I could have won the Olympic marathon? Judyth would. Doug Weldon Doug, It was at this cancer writer's seminar that Judyth met Dr. George Moore from Roswell Park. Dr. Moore along with Dr. Mirand (then the dean at RP) had created the RP summer program for students a few years prior. Dr.Moore was impressed enough to invite Judyth to be the student he would mentor at the summer program later that year. (Each student who attended the summer program was chosen by one of the dept heads to be their mentored student). Dr. Moore was a major cancer researcher at RP and he did invite Judyth. She claims that Moore and others went to her high school to look at her experiment/set up/logs etc. Moore at least would seem feasible, as well as Diehl, who was local, with ACS. She also claims she was not allowed to be present when they checked out her stuff ... that does not sound likely to me. Whether anyone went and looked or not ... she did attend the writer's seminar and Moore did invite her to be his mentored student in the summer program later that year. There is a news clipping that notes that Robinson offered to pay her transportation costs. But Judyth leaves out something important here ... perhaps this is yet another change in her story. In her book, Judyth claims that she "crashed" the seminar ... and was nearly escorted from the seminar by security ... until she wowed and zowed them of course, then she was invited to attend the remaining days. In her book, page 11, under a section she titles "I CRASH THE SCIENCE WRITER'S SEMINAR," she writes: "I was informed the nation's foremost cancer research scientists and top medical reporters were about to convene for the 4th Annual Science Writer's Seminar. Col. Doyle (one of her teachers) said I could attend if he could get me in. He tried, stressing my contacts with Walter Reed and Oak Ridge, but was told only famous doctors and scientists in cancer research and reporters from the major worldwide newspapers were allowed to attend. I thanked Col Doyle for trying to help me, asked my sister and a few friends to take care of my mice, dumped my books into my school locker, and set out to crash the Seminar." She goes onto to relate that it was 22 miles away and says that, "Since I was playing hooky, I had to walk it, armed with my research files and my worthless high school newspaper press pass." A long way to go with causeways and a big bridge to cross, she saw a Trailways bus come "roaring up" and goes on to say, "I displayed a length of leg, the driver stopped, and I got on, no harm done." She relates that in the chaos in the lobby, she flashed her high school press pass and was waved inside. Once inside, she found a seat and though the lights were down, "...I was quickly noticed. Whispering and pointing began ..... I refused to look at them, keeping my head down ....Just then, a distinguished doctor at the front of the conference hall opened the Seminar.These science writers who should have been paying attention to the slides that began flashing across the screen up front, continued whispering among themselves and turning around to peer at me. Suddenly there was a pause in the doctor's talk. The slide show came to a halt. I looked up cautiously and saw why: several grumpy-looking men in nice suits were coming toward me , with a policeman. They had decided to evict me. I was being literally lifted from my seat by a security guard when I was spotted by Dr. Harold Diehl, the Vice President of Research for the entire American Cancer Society." Kind of leaves you breathless with excitement and suspense, doesn't it!? Long story short, Dr. Diehl and one of the Nobel winners ... Robinson, were so astonished at her pluck for crashing the thing, she was allowed to stay and became the apple of everyone's eye. For the next 3 days of the seminar, she claims, "...reporters arrived every morning at my high school to take me to the Seminar, and doctors or reporters drove me home." The newspaper article, saying she was one of two Floridians invited to attend, is much more plausible in my opinion...and she had this amazing crashing the seminar adventure, one would think the newspaper would have seized the moment ... for it would have made for a much more interesting story. So, several lillies seem to have been gilded here, in my opinion ... including her claims of having been "tutored" by Nobel prize winners. Being at the same conference, meeting and greeting and having lunch, even having her work looked at, etc., is not the same as being under their tutelage. What she was doing as high school student was impressive ... no doubt about that. And some, like Dr. Moore, Robinson and Dr. Diehl, took notice. It opened the door for Judyth to go to the Roswell Park summer program. But her crashing story is a bit much to take, in my opinion. There had already been newspaper articles and photos about Judyth's cancer experiments ... I find it much more plausible that Col. Doyle was able to get her invited to attend ... but that doesn't make for nearly as exciting of a story where she becomes the center of attention from the get-go ... and that is a theme we see over and over again in her story. Bests, Barb :-) Barb: Thank you. This is very interesting! Best. Doug Weldon

She did NOT refuse. She agreed with stipulations. I am quite qualified, as you conceded, to conduct such an examination. Although you are probably more qualified, she does not "trust" you. She does not trust that you will be fair. She is concerned that she will be unfairly "ambushed" by you, if I am understanding her concerns correctly. I am not convinced that her concerns are well founded, but--I am also not convinced that her stipulations are motivated to deceive. I do not believe that she has provided adequate proof for many of her claims. However, I also do not understand how those who choose to disbelieve her, can claim that her lack of providing proof is tantamount to proof that she is lying, disingenuous, delusional, or psycho! That is NOT rational. Let me be clear...it is not rational for Judyth's supporters to REQUIRE that anyone accept her story else be labeled poor researchers, cognitively impaired, disingenuous, less than honest, or of nefarious intentions, etc, as that is tantamount to an ad hominem attack and is, therefore, fallacious, by definition. It is similarly irrational for her detractors to claim that they have PROVEN a negative, in this case--namely, proven that she is a fraud. They clearly have not. The most that can be claimed is that she has not provided definitive PROOF supporting her claims. Additionally, it could be argued that she has (or her supporters have) claimed "proof exists" where, upon careful scrutiny, no such "proof" has been demonstrated. However, the lack of "proof" being offered in support of an assertion does not PROVE the assertion is false--it merely is an unsupported assertion. While the offering of multiple unsupported assertions does not enhance one's credibility, it does NOT prove prevarication. Claiming otherwise is likewise "less than credible" -- Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is a fallacy that we have seen repeatedly employed in an attempt to impugn Judyth's bona fides. There are several issues in question. The first, usually includes the assumption that a previous claim she has made has been proven to be false. I am unaware of any of her claims having been definitively disproved, but even IF they were it is fallacious to conclude that same is proof that any subsequent claims have been disproved. In court, a judge may advise a jury to feel free to reject testimony from a witness that has committed perjury, but that does NOT mean that the testimony is necessarily false! Judyth has not been proved to have committed perjury, so that does not apply. Monk: You are unquestionably qualified to question Judyth. However, Judyth is unlikely to allow you to ask hard questions in any forum. She has indicated as much. What Judyth has essentially done is said here is my story, however, I will not answer any questions about it or subject myself to any cross-examination, an essential element of determining truth as Dean notes. In taking this tact, she technically has not proven herself to be a fraud, but she has proven NOTHING. The end result is the SAME. She has failed to establish her credibility. By stating she does not trust me or that Len Osanic slanders her, it is simply a smokescreen. We both know Len would enforce the rules, that if lines were crossed, it would be very easy to excise anything inappropriate prior to airing. What Judyth has said and done is to allow only people who totally believe her to ask her "softball" questions and fawn over her. There is a total lack of proof. I will be glad to interview any of her corroborators so I also consider them useless until they can be examined. What any objective person must conclude is that absent subjecting herself to examination her story is meaningless. What is disconcerting is that this becomes an embarassment to anyone who believes in truth. Judyth has stated that she understood evidence and scientific method and that she would be forthcoming with proofs. Well, it appears we have come to the end of the tunnel on her story and there is no light. There exists only her own contradictory statements, implausibilities, and patent absurdities. It would be amusing except this is a person who is seeking to financially benefit from this account which has no testable proofs. There is always a "Team Judyth." She must have a magnetic power to influence certain people. It is sad. Her being such an intelligent woman makes it even more sad because she knows what she is doing. I don't know what to think because I do suspect she may believe her stories. She may not be a fraud but she is perpetrating a fraud. It is an esoteric distinction. It is analagous to people in my career who would tell me that they were not criminals and I would tell them that may be true but that they committed a crime. I made my points. She should want someone like me to test her account in order to prove her legitimacy. However, it is an academic point. Not you, me, or anyone is ever going to be able to ask her the hard questions in any forum where she can't sit back and choose what questions to answer and how to answer them and filter them through a third party. Nobody can bluster their way through this. You, Len, and Jim agreed that my questioning her would have merit. What is Jim's response to that? I guess I can only be amused by Judyth. Her book may be interesting historical fiction but that is all that it will be. Yes, there will be some who will believe her story but those will be people who simply want to believe it is true but will not hold her feet to the fire. She has not agreed with STIPULATIONS. She has said she would only appear on a forum where there cannot be a third party interviewer and hard questions and followup are not part of the show's format. That is stipulating to nothing. I wish her well but I have only pity for her. Doug Weldon These two statements are attributed to Judyth: Within weeks or days of the reunion this matter will come to light before the public. My book (will be called “JUDYTH AND LEE”) will deal with these events, and of my love affair with Lee. (Name Deleted*) and can verify my history. I suggest you order his book from Amazon.com. We expect movie and television productions, etc. I am sorry I cannot attend the reunion, and felt an explanation was in order. If any attendees remember my science research project, etc., please give them my email address. I think now you know why the email address is so named. WHEN ONE HAS BEEN TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST, AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN AND REVIEWED AND READ MANY PAPERS, GENERALLY THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF THEY MAKE A STATEMENT, THERE HAD BETTER BE BACK-UP. SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAY NOT REALIZE THIS RESPONSIBILITY. I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR BACK-UP FOR MY STATEMENTS SERIOUSLY. MU (sic) HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MEANS THAT I AM PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE OF PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 2, 2002 Doug Weldon Judyth also claims to have a masters degree, in of all things, CREATIVE WRITING. Doug Weldon

She did NOT refuse. She agreed with stipulations. I am quite qualified, as you conceded, to conduct such an examination. Although you are probably more qualified, she does not "trust" you. She does not trust that you will be fair. She is concerned that she will be unfairly "ambushed" by you, if I am understanding her concerns correctly. I am not convinced that her concerns are well founded, but--I am also not convinced that her stipulations are motivated to deceive. I do not believe that she has provided adequate proof for many of her claims. However, I also do not understand how those who choose to disbelieve her, can claim that her lack of providing proof is tantamount to proof that she is lying, disingenuous, delusional, or psycho! That is NOT rational. Let me be clear...it is not rational for Judyth's supporters to REQUIRE that anyone accept her story else be labeled poor researchers, cognitively impaired, disingenuous, less than honest, or of nefarious intentions, etc, as that is tantamount to an ad hominem attack and is, therefore, fallacious, by definition. It is similarly irrational for her detractors to claim that they have PROVEN a negative, in this case--namely, proven that she is a fraud. They clearly have not. The most that can be claimed is that she has not provided definitive PROOF supporting her claims. Additionally, it could be argued that she has (or her supporters have) claimed "proof exists" where, upon careful scrutiny, no such "proof" has been demonstrated. However, the lack of "proof" being offered in support of an assertion does not PROVE the assertion is false--it merely is an unsupported assertion. While the offering of multiple unsupported assertions does not enhance one's credibility, it does NOT prove prevarication. Claiming otherwise is likewise "less than credible" -- Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is a fallacy that we have seen repeatedly employed in an attempt to impugn Judyth's bona fides. There are several issues in question. The first, usually includes the assumption that a previous claim she has made has been proven to be false. I am unaware of any of her claims having been definitively disproved, but even IF they were it is fallacious to conclude that same is proof that any subsequent claims have been disproved. In court, a judge may advise a jury to feel free to reject testimony from a witness that has committed perjury, but that does NOT mean that the testimony is necessarily false! Judyth has not been proved to have committed perjury, so that does not apply. Monk: You are unquestionably qualified to question Judyth. However, Judyth is unlikely to allow you to ask hard questions in any forum. She has indicated as much. What Judyth has essentially done is said here is my story, however, I will not answer any questions about it or subject myself to any cross-examination, an essential element of determining truth as Dean notes. In taking this tact, she technically has not proven herself to be a fraud, but she has proven NOTHING. The end result is the SAME. She has failed to establish her credibility. By stating she does not trust me or that Len Osanic slanders her, it is simply a smokescreen. We both know Len would enforce the rules, that if lines were crossed, it would be very easy to excise anything inappropriate prior to airing. What Judyth has said and done is to allow only people who totally believe her to ask her "softball" questions and fawn over her. There is a total lack of proof. I will be glad to interview any of her corroborators so I also consider them useless until they can be examined. What any objective person must conclude is that absent subjecting herself to examination her story is meaningless. What is disconcerting is that this becomes an embarassment to anyone who believes in truth. Judyth has stated that she understood evidence and scientific method and that she would be forthcoming with proofs. Well, it appears we have come to the end of the tunnel on her story and there is no light. There exists only her own contradictory statements, implausibilities, and patent absurdities. It would be amusing except this is a person who is seeking to financially benefit from this account which has no testable proofs. There is always a "Team Judyth." She must have a magnetic power to influence certain people. It is sad. Her being such an intelligent woman makes it even more sad because she knows what she is doing. I don't know what to think because I do suspect she may believe her stories. She may not be a fraud but she is perpetrating a fraud. It is an esoteric distinction. It is analagous to people in my career who would tell me that they were not criminals and I would tell them that may be true but that they committed a crime. I made my points. She should want someone like me to test her account in order to prove her legitimacy. However, it is an academic point. Not you, me, or anyone is ever going to be able to ask her the hard questions in any forum where she can't sit back and choose what questions to answer and how to answer them and filter them through a third party. Nobody can bluster their way through this. You, Len, and Jim agreed that my questioning her would have merit. What is Jim's response to that? I guess I can only be amused by Judyth. Her book may be interesting historical fiction but that is all that it will be. Yes, there will be some who will believe her story but those will be people who simply want to believe it is true but will not hold her feet to the fire. She has not agreed with STIPULATIONS. She has said she would only appear on a forum where there cannot be a third party interviewer and hard questions and followup are not part of the show's format. That is stipulating to nothing. I wish her well but I have only pity for her. Doug Weldon These two statements are attributed to Judyth: Within weeks or days of the reunion this matter will come to light before the public. My book (will be called “JUDYTH AND LEE”) will deal with these events, and of my love affair with Lee. (Name Deleted*) and can verify my history. I suggest you order his book from Amazon.com. We expect movie and television productions, etc. I am sorry I cannot attend the reunion, and felt an explanation was in order. If any attendees remember my science research project, etc., please give them my email address. I think now you know why the email address is so named. WHEN ONE HAS BEEN TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST, AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN AND REVIEWED AND READ MANY PAPERS, GENERALLY THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF THEY MAKE A STATEMENT, THERE HAD BETTER BE BACK-UP. SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAY NOT REALIZE THIS RESPONSIBILITY. I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR BACK-UP FOR MY STATEMENTS SERIOUSLY. MU (sic) HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MEANS THAT I AM PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE OF PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 2, 2002 Doug Weldon

She did NOT refuse. She agreed with stipulations. I am quite qualified, as you conceded, to conduct such an examination. Although you are probably more qualified, she does not "trust" you. She does not trust that you will be fair. She is concerned that she will be unfairly "ambushed" by you, if I am understanding her concerns correctly. I am not convinced that her concerns are well founded, but--I am also not convinced that her stipulations are motivated to deceive. I do not believe that she has provided adequate proof for many of her claims. However, I also do not understand how those who choose to disbelieve her, can claim that her lack of providing proof is tantamount to proof that she is lying, disingenuous, delusional, or psycho! That is NOT rational. Let me be clear...it is not rational for Judyth's supporters to REQUIRE that anyone accept her story else be labeled poor researchers, cognitively impaired, disingenuous, less than honest, or of nefarious intentions, etc, as that is tantamount to an ad hominem attack and is, therefore, fallacious, by definition. It is similarly irrational for her detractors to claim that they have PROVEN a negative, in this case--namely, proven that she is a fraud. They clearly have not. The most that can be claimed is that she has not provided definitive PROOF supporting her claims. Additionally, it could be argued that she has (or her supporters have) claimed "proof exists" where, upon careful scrutiny, no such "proof" has been demonstrated. However, the lack of "proof" being offered in support of an assertion does not PROVE the assertion is false--it merely is an unsupported assertion. While the offering of multiple unsupported assertions does not enhance one's credibility, it does NOT prove prevarication. Claiming otherwise is likewise "less than credible" -- Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is a fallacy that we have seen repeatedly employed in an attempt to impugn Judyth's bona fides. There are several issues in question. The first, usually includes the assumption that a previous claim she has made has been proven to be false. I am unaware of any of her claims having been definitively disproved, but even IF they were it is fallacious to conclude that same is proof that any subsequent claims have been disproved. In court, a judge may advise a jury to feel free to reject testimony from a witness that has committed perjury, but that does NOT mean that the testimony is necessarily false! Judyth has not been proved to have committed perjury, so that does not apply. Monk: You are unquestionably qualified to question Judyth. However, Judyth is unlikely to allow you to ask hard questions in any forum. She has indicated as much. What Judyth has essentially done is said here is my story, however, I will not answer any questions about it or subject myself to any cross-examination, an essential element of determining truth as Dean notes. In taking this tact, she technically has not proven herself to be a fraud, but she has proven NOTHING. The end result is the SAME. She has failed to establish her credibility. By stating she does not trust me or that Len Osanic slanders her, it is simply a smokescreen. We both know Len would enforce the rules, that if lines were crossed, it would be very easy to excise anything inappropriate prior to airing. What Judyth has said and done is to allow only people who totally believe her to ask her "softball" questions and fawn over her. There is a total lack of proof. I will be glad to interview any of her corroborators so I also consider them useless until they can be examined. What any objective person must conclude is that absent subjecting herself to examination her story is meaningless. What is disconcerting is that this becomes an embarassment to anyone who believes in truth. Judyth has stated that she understood evidence and scientific method and that she would be forthcoming with proofs. Well, it appears we have come to the end of the tunnel on her story and there is no light. There exists only her own contradictory statements, implausibilities, and patent absurdities. It would be amusing except this is a person who is seeking to financially benefit from this account which has no testable proofs. There is always a "Team Judyth." She must have a magnetic power to influence certain people. It is sad. Her being such an intelligent woman makes it even more sad because she knows what she is doing. I don't know what to think because I do suspect she may believe her stories. She may not be a fraud but she is perpetrating a fraud. It is an esoteric distinction. It is analagous to people in my career who would tell me that they were not criminals and I would tell them that may be true but that they committed a crime. I made my points. She should want someone like me to test her account in order to prove her legitimacy. However, it is an academic point. Not you, me, or anyone is ever going to be able to ask her the hard questions in any forum where she can't sit back and choose what questions to answer and how to answer them and filter them through a third party. Nobody can bluster their way through this. You, Len, and Jim agreed that my questioning her would have merit. What is Jim's response to that? I guess I can only be amused by Judyth. Her book may be interesting historical fiction but that is all that it will be. Yes, there will be some who will believe her story but those will be people who simply want to believe it is true but will not hold her feet to the fire. She has not agreed with STIPULATIONS. She has said she would only appear on a forum where there cannot be a third party interviewer and hard questions and followup are not part of the show's format. That is stipulating to nothing. I wish her well but I have only pity for her. Doug Weldon

Oh boy, here we go again! First off, Doug--to what are you referring? Like I said, I think it is "possible" that the designated "patsy" was misled by his "handlers" --don't you? And, if so, it is possible that this was his impression. I have NO PROBLEM WITH THAT--and neither should you. However, I'm not saying that--if true--it corroberates Judyth's claims! It does nothing of the sort! It is POSSIBLE--and, in a sense, it is consistent with a patsy's role and (mis)understanding of their own misguided role. This story could have been easily invented by Judyth--no doubt--because it is entirely consistent with events that would be expected to have occured, IMO. I did not say "I am sold" or that it confirms anything about her story though! I said, "It is possible, but not necessarily probable." I think that is close enough, since I don't claim to have "super human" powers of prescience, I suppose. ) I agree, she is again making claims that cannot be (or at least have not yet been) substantiated. I am not claiming these are true, Doug. I am claiming that I DO NOT KNOW--one way or the other. I am similar to you, in my thinking, though. Normally, given just the hard evidence (or lack thereof), and without any direct interaction with the individual, I almost certainly would respond as you have to her. I no longer have that option...but I do respect your position--more than you may know. Objection. Does counsel wish to testify as to the intentions of the witness? You don't need to speculate, Doug. Look, Doug--it isn't my personal business to care when you denigrate Judyth's character--have at it, although that is beneath you. But, do not attempt to paint me as one who would be easily duped and used as "Captain Dunsel" as that role is beneath me --and I don't like the implication. This would be a fallacious argument if it had a point or conclusion, but it has no point. If you were to complete your book, appear on Coast to Coast, and subsequently enjoyed increased book sales as a result, which led to a movie deal--would those things have any bearing on the veracity of the content of your book/story? Obviously not. I get your frustration, Doug, but resorting to .... isn't worth it. Whatever. Monk: I am tryng to inject some humor into this mess. I am not suggesting you would be duped by anyone. I do not believe that anyone could dupe you. I am not trying to denigrate Judyth's character but I am simply pointing out after all this time that it is difficult to believe anything. If "denigrating" is saying that she has not offered any substantial proofs for her story I will admit to such. The burden is on her. Any speculation is based on her statements. She does not want to face legitimate questions. Coast to Coast is not a confrontational program. As to: I said, "It is possible, but not necessarily probable." I think that is close enough, since I don't claim to have "super human" powers of prescience, I suppose. ) I agree, she is again making claims that cannot be (or at least have not yet been) substantiated. I am not claiming these are true, Doug. I am claiming that I DO NOT KNOW--one way or the other. I am similar to you, in my thinking, though. Normally, given just the hard evidence (or lack thereof), and without any direct interaction with the individual, I almost certainly would respond as you have to her. I no longer have that option...but I do respect your position--more than you may know. You and I are on the same page. Doug Weldon

Dean: Your effort is appreciated. I especially agree with your last statement. Judyth's story, most of all, should be subject to cross-examination. The offer was extended and she refused. Best, Doug Weldon