Jump to content
The Education Forum

Doug Weldon

Members
  • Posts

    326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Doug Weldon

  1. Those who do not know our history may be the least bit perplexed by Josiah Thompson's intervention here, since he obviously has no interest in ME & LEE and is only taking the opportunity for a few personal smears. What he leaves out about Lifton is that I lent him $300 to help him out and another $1,000 when his laptop was stolen, which he has tried to deny but where I have produced the canceled checks for $300 and $1,000 that make the legal point. He argues that I may still owe him royalties, because I have not produced a complete royalty record for HOAX (2003) because I don't yet have one, where the whole matter is found on a thread about Lifton having attacked me for being "anti-Semitic". No one has explained why, if I were anti-Semitic, I would be lending money to Lifton. My position is that these are two entirely separate matters, where he should repay me now, since I need the money now, just as I lent it to him then when he needed it then. I have stated that, if I owe him money over royalties, I will pay him, but he has not even stated that he would repay me if it turned out that I had overpaid him. The matter remains unresolved to this day, alas.

    With regard to Tink, at one point, I admired him greatly. I eventually changed my opinion about him and feel quite differently today. Anyone who would like the background can read a remarkable piece in CITY PAGES, a Minneapolis public newspaper

    Where is the article?

    Doug Weldon

  2. I cannot believe there are those who continue to claim the limo came to a complete stop. That is not to say that depending on where one was in relation to the limo ... they could have seen it this way. However, there are many more people who said the limo slowed or came to a near stop or what some people call a rolling stop.

    As far as this other film ... I am reminded that there were a lot of folks claiming to have seen it, but their versions varied quite a bit. So which other film was the correct one?

    Bill

    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

  3. 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

  4. Doug and Jerry:

    Did Oswald have his rights read to him? When? Where?

    IN VB's book ALexander says that Texas already had a statute similar to Miranda on the books. Did they?

    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

  5. Apparently JVB knew LHO for a very brief period. Period.

    Apparently JVB was an above average high school science student.

    She was from whatever Florida town Manatee High School is in.

    These are not "core questions". They are accepted "givens" by all.

    Why make a big deal about something not in dispute?

    Jack

    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

  6. ....One final comment not directly related to your review but suggestive of Johnson's complicity: the Douglas Caddy letter to Stephen Trott on behalf of his client Billie Sol Estes implicating LBJ in nine murders. This letter was presented in exchange for immunity for his client. I have not seen the orignal letter that Trott wrote to Caddy. As a former prosecutor it strains belief that the letter was categorically rejected without some negotiation. Obviously LBJ was long deceased but it could have targeted others. Trott was later appointed to be a federal judge.

    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.)

    http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=708779&page=3

    'The Most Dangerous Man in America'

    Conviction of Former CIA Agent Overturned on False Affidavit (page 3)

    April 27, 2005

    ...Government Lawyers

    Hughes, in his ruling, singled out Greenberg, about whom he wrote, "deliberately, knowing the facts, Greenberg ignored the CIA attorneys' requests and used it."

    In a statement to Nightline, Greenberg says he was never warned by the CIA that the affidavit was false, that the concerns were about tactics.

    Greenberg said he would never file "with the court an affidavit or other document which I knew to be inaccurate or false."

    The supervising prosecutor on the case, Larry Barcella, says he cannot recall seeing the affidavit before it was introduced and denies doing anything improper when the issue was raised later. But according to Adler, Barcella participated in the meetings when it was discussed that something might have to be corrected about the affidavit.

    Wilson has filed complaints with the Washington, D.C., bar association about Barcella.

    "Evil, that's a word I like. Evil," Wilson said about the prosecutors. "They were not just doing their jobs. They were doing it for themselves."

    After the guilty verdict, the CIA general counsel, Stanley Sporkin, who had told prosecutors prior to introduction of the affidavit in the trail that it should be amended or not used, again raised a red flag, according to one of the documents Adler and Wilson discovered.

    "The CIA drafted up a letter that the agency proposed be sent to Wilson's attorneys disclosing the problem with the affidavit," Adler said. "And again the Justice Department rejected the CIA's suggestion that the letter be sent to Mr. Wilson's lawyer, and so it was never disclosed at that juncture either."

    page 4

    D. Lowell Jensen was in charge of the criminal division of the Justice Department when the decision was first made. He declined to comment on his role in the Wilson case. Adler said he "found a fair number of memos that were addressed to him, or from him, talking about the problem, talking about the decision to keep quiet about this."

    Stephen Trott replaced Jensen as the top Justice Department official at the time. Trott says he recalls a meeting on the Wilson case but none of the details.

    The Justice Department has now admitted the affidavit used to convict Wilson was false, an innocent error, its lawyers told Hughes.

    As for the CIA, they will only say, "It was Mr. Wilson's decision to sell explosives to Libya, and that's why he was sent to jail."

    However, Hughes put it another way. "America will not defeat Libyan terrorism by double-crossing a part-time, informal government agent," he wrote.

    Wilson says he lost all he had, his family and his wealth, over the 22 years he was in prison. Now living with his brother in Seattle, he says he simply wants to clear his name.

    Vic Walter, Avni Patel and Jessica Wang contributed to this report.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/story?id=708779&page=1

    'The Most Dangerous Man in America'

    Conviction of Former CIA Agent Overturned on False Affidavit

    by Brian Ross ABC News Chief In vestigative Correspondent

    April 27, 2005 — This is the story of a man, a one-time CIA officer, who spent 22 years in prison after being branded a traitor and a threat to the country.

    "That was me," Ed Wilson said. "The most dangerous man in America, which is ridiculous."

    Wilson, at age 54, was sentenced in 1983 to 52 years in prison. He was convicted on selling weapons and 20 tons of C-4 plastic explosives to Moammar Gadhafi's Libya. He was also convicted of trying to arrange a contract hit on the prosecutors.

    Wilson's defense was that he was still working with the CIA and that the agency knew and approved of everything he was doing with Libya, including the shipment of the explosives.

    Prosecutor Ted Greenberg said at the time that Wilson was making up his connection to the CIA. "Mr. Wilson did not work for the CIA or any other part of the intelligence community," he said.

    In Houston, Texas, Wilson's conviction was overturned by a federal judge, Lynn Hughes, who identified about two dozen government lawyers, including Greenberg, who participated in the use of a false CIA affidavit that sent Wilson to prison and the silence about the affidavit after serious questions were raised about its accuracy. And Hughes minced no words in his opinion.

    "In the course of American justice, one would have to work hard to conceive of a more fundamentally unfair process," wrote Hughes, "than the fabrication of false data by the government, under oath by a government official, presented knowingly by the prosecutor in the courtroom with the express approval of his superiors in Washington."

    Wilson is a free man now.

    The Affidavit

    The CIA would not disclose its records but did provide an affidavit in the final days of the trial from a top CIA official that said, with one minor exception, Wilson "was not asked or requested, directly or indirectly, to perform or provide any services, directly or indirectly, for CIA."

    It was the lynchpin of the government's case, according to Wilson's current lawyer, David Adler.

    "It was read into evidence during the trial," Adler said. "The jury went back to deliberate. After a short time of deliberations, the jurors asked to hear this affidavit again. It was re-read to them, and an hour later they voted guilty on all counts for Mr. Wilson. So I think it was critical to the jury's decision." ....

    ...It would take 20 years for Wilson to prove that the affidavit was false. From his cell in Marion, Wilson began to seek government documents using the Freedom of Information Act. It was 14 years later that the government turned over an internal Justice Department memo, buried in a large stack of other documents, in which Justice Department officials acknowledge the CIA affidavit was possibly false and discuss what to do about it.

    "Somebody slipped up and never intended for Mr. Wilson to see this document," Adler said. "I think they forgot that if you put someone in solitary confinement, that they don't have a lot to do all day other than to pore through these documents, and I think Mr. Wilson paid a lot more attention to the materials than the people who were responsible for releasing them at the Justice Department."

    Since then, Adler, a former CIA officer himself who was at first skeptical when assigned the case, has discovered dozens of Justice Department and CIA documents that prove the key affidavit in the Wilson case was false and that many in the government knew it. He said one document revealed at least 80 instances of contact between Wilson providing and the CIA.

    "I'm not skeptical anymore," Adler said. "I think the documents are about as clear as they could be that this was an intentional, purposeful effort to conceal the truth from the judge, from the jury, from Mr. Wilson and his defense lawyers and from the public."

    And some of those involved in the Wilson case went on to become some of the most prominent men in legal circles today.

    "Many careers were greatly enhanced by the successful prosecution of Mr. Wilson back in 1983," Adler said. "I think I've uncovered something that, at the very least, should question whether or not they deserve to have those types of positions."

    Government Lawyers

    Hughes, in his ruling, singled out Greenberg, about whom he wrote, "deliberately, knowing the facts, Greenberg ignored the CIA attorneys' requests and used it."

    In a statement to Nightline, Greenberg says he was never warned by the CIA that the affidavit was false, that their concerns were about tactics.

    Greenberg said he would never file "with the court an affidavit or other document which I knew to be inaccurate or false."

    The supervising prosecutor on the case, Larry Barcella, says he cannot recall seeing the affidavit before it was introduced and denies doing anything improper when the issue was raised later. But according to Adler, Barcella participated in the meetings when it was discussed that something might have to be corrected about the affidavit.

    Wilson has filed complaints with the Washington, D.C., bar association about Barcella.

    "Evil, that's a word I like. Evil," Wilson said about the prosecutors. "They were not just doing their jobs. They were doing it for themselves."

    After the guilty verdict, the CIA general counsel, Stanley Sporkin, who had told prosecutors prior to introduction of the affidavit in the trail that it should be amended or not used, again raised a red flag, according to one of the documents Adler and Wilson discovered.

    "The CIA drafted up a letter that the agency proposed be sent to Wilson's attorneys disclosing the problem with the affidavit," Adler said. "And again the Justice Department rejected the CIA's suggestion that the letter be sent to Mr. Wilson's lawyer, and so it was never disclosed at that juncture either."

    D. Lowell Jensen was in charge of the criminal division of the Justice Department when the decision was first made. He declined to comment on his role in the Wilson case. Adler said he "found a fair number of memos that were addressed to him, or from him, talking about the problem, talking about the decision to keep quiet about this."

    Documents Related to the Case: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Nightline/wilson3.pdf

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/309675_spy30.html

    Last updated March 29, 2007 11:21 p.m. PT

    Ex-spy dealt setback in fight to clear name

    By TRACY JOHNSON

    P-I REPORTER

    A notorious former spy living in the Seattle area was dealt a blow Thursday in his efforts to show he was unfairly labeled a traitor, though he will keep fighting to clear his name.

    A judge in Houston dismissed Edwin Wilson's lawsuit against seven former federal prosecutors -- including two who are now federal judges -- and a former executive director of the CIA. U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal found that even if the officials' behavior was improper when Wilson was sent to prison in the early 1980s, all eight legally have immunity from Wilson's claims of wrongdoing.

    "I'm not giving up at all. I'm going all-out to win this thing," Wilson, 78, said Thursday. "This is just a minor setback."

    An attorney for former prosecutor Lawrence Barcella, who spent years working to put Wilson in prison and was a target of his lawsuit, said she was pleased.

    "The judge did absolutely the right thing," attorney Melinda Sarafa said. "We have felt from the beginning that the claims against the prosecutors would not hold up."

    Wilson's attorney, Steve Berman, said he was disappointed for Wilson and will appeal.

    "There were lies told before, during and after his trial, and the judge basically said, 'too bad,' " Berman said. "We don't believe they have immunity."...

    http://fas.org/sgp/jud/wilson102703.pdf

    (page 15)

    The court has identified about two dozen government lawyers who actively participated in the original non-disclosure to the defense, the false rebuttal testimony, and the refusal to correct it.

    Governmental regularity—due process—requires personal and institutional

    integrity. CIA attorneys told Assistant U.S. Attorney Ted Greenberg that the Briggs affidavit should not be used as evidence, as then written, and asked him not introduce it. He did.

    CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin advised that, at minimum,the word

    “indirectly” should be removed from paragraph four. Deliberately, knowing the

    facts, Greenberg ignored the CIA attorneys' requests and used it. (Wilson Mot. to

    Vacate, Ex. 98 ¶¶ 3-5.)

    Although it admits that it presented false evidence at Wilson’s trial and

    now lists solicitations and services he performed post-termination, the

    governmentsaysthat Wilson has not proved that the prosecutors knew that it was false. Persistence in this contention reveals that consistency is valued higher than fidelity at the Department of Justice.

    First, the government says that the prosecutors meant “taskings related to

    the gathering of intelligence” where Briggs’s affidavit reads, “asked or requested directly or indirectly to perform or provide services.” (Gov't Answer at 54.)...

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1139812,00.html

    Monday, Dec. 12, 2005

    A Rogue's Revenge

    Disavowed by the CIA and jailed for 22 years, an ex-spy now wants someone to pay

    By ADAM ZAGORIN

    ...Largely using the Freedom of Information Act to compel the government to turn over papers, Wilson has dug up official records of more than 80 contacts he had with CIA officials--many of them high ranking--during the period in question. Those documents show that prosecutors and the CIA officials assisting them were aware of the contacts. The foreman of the jury that found Wilson guilty of selling C-4 to Libya, which was subject to a total U.S. arms embargo at the time, told ABC News earlier this year, "If we had known [of Wilson's CIA links], I could say unequivocally that there would not have been a guilty verdict." It was on the basis of the newfound evidence that District Court Judge Lynn Hughes threw out Wilson's conviction, saying from the bench, "One would have to work hard to conceive of a more fundamentally unfair process ... than the fabrication of false data by the government ... presented knowingly by the prosecutor in the courtroom with the express approval of his superiors in Washington."

    That same day a UPI wire service story described the deliberations. "Juror Betty Metzler said the panel was divided 11-1 almost from the start, and one juror was not convinced until Saturday morning by rereading of Briggs' affidavit denying Wilson's actions had anything to do with the CIA."

    A week later, on February 10, 1983, Attorney Kim E. Rosenfield in the Attorney General's office sent a memorandum to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mark Richard who ran DoJ's Criminal Division. The title of the memorandum was "Duty to Disclose Possibly False Testimony" and the memorandum pulled no punches. It went straight to prevailing case law (then and now) as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and cited two cases known as Brady and Napue. The Napue case held that, "Failure of prosecutor to correct testimony which he knows to be false violates due process, whether the falsehood bears on credibility of witness or guilt of defendant, if it is in any way relevant to the case." In Brady the court ruled that "Suppression of material evidence by the government requires a new trial, irrespective of good or bad faith."

    The memorandum continued, "Prosecutor has duty to correct false testimony even if falsehood was inadvertent or caused by another government officer. New trial required if the false testimony could "in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgement of the jury." ..........

    ......From the documents in the filing it is apparent that through November of 1983, long after Edwin Wilson had been sentenced to 17 years on the C-4 violations, every lawyer from the Justice Department who became aware of the "inaccuracy" of the Briggs affidavit kept their mouth shut about it. A reading of the law and an easily understandable sense of fair play suggest that this was wrong. That many people were worried about the use of the memorandum is clear. Both Stanley Sporkin and Mark Richard can be seen, in a variety of memoranda and meetings, arguing for disclosure or some remedy. It is apparent that either their consciences or their fears of exposure were very "sensitized."

    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/Ed_Wilson_1.html

    Ed Wilson's Revenge

    The Biggest CIA Scandal in History Has Its Feet in the Starting Blocks in a Houston Court House

    by Michael C. Ruppert

    .....The Briggs Declaration

    Charles A. Briggs was, on February 3, 1983, the third highest-ranking official at the Central Intelligence Agency. He was one of few men at CIA who could break through the compartments and search anywhere for records. He was the man to solve the problem in Houston. In Langley, Virginia, at 2:23 P.M., Houston time (according to a government teletype), Charles Briggs signed a declaration stating that on November 8th of 1982 he had authorized a search of all records of the CIA "for any material that in any way pertains to Edwin P. Wilson or the various allegations concerning his activities after 28 February 1971, when he resigned from the CIA."

    Paragraph 4 of the Briggs Declaration states, "According to CIA records, with one exception while he was employed by Naval Intelligence in 1972, Mr. Edwin P. Wilson was not asked or requested, directly or indirectly, to perform or provide any services, directly or indirectly, for CIA."

    At 2:30 P.M., Houston time, CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin certified the affidavit and affixed the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency to it. It was also notarized by a notary public licensed in Fairfax County, Virginia. Harold Fahringer, one of Wilson's attorneys was served with a copy of the affidavit at 3:55 P.M. Houston time - presumably in Houston. According to a partially declassified CIA memorandum, included in Wilson's filings, dated March 15, 1983 (40 days after Wilson's conviction), on the day and evening of February 3, 1983 "CIA attorneys stated to Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Ted Greenberg that the Briggs affidavit should not be admitted into evidence as then written, and requested that Greenberg not introduce the affidavit.

    "The signers of the affidavit further state that CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin stated that, at minimum, the word 'indirectly' should be removed from paragraph four of the Briggs affidavit.

    The signers of the document further state in the document that AUSA Greenberg decided against complying with the CIA attorneys' requests described above."

    Apparently, through the evening of February 3rd, the phone lines between Langley and Houston were smoking. FTW has interviewed a number of people close to the trial and none indicate that Ted Greenberg left Houston to retrieve the declaration. Stanley Sporkin knew that the affidavit was incorrect and so did a great many people at CIA. The Houston time apparently indicates that a copy was telexed to Wilson's lawyer and another copy was placed in the master DoJ case files in Houston. Larry Barcella has "no recollection" of being involved in those phone conversations. No phone logs listing participants in them have, as yet, been disclosed....

    ...And, on close scrutiny, the remedy that was found does not sit well either. From exhibits filed by Adler on Wilson's behalf it is apparent that Assistant Attorney General Steven Trott, now a Judge on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, gave permission to the worried lawyers to disclose some "inaccuracies" in the Briggs affidavit in an obscure paragraph in filings to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. This was long after the conviction. If the Appeals court said to do something they would, if not, they were off the hook. Adler's response on this point is clear and compelling. "The problem with the logic is, at least, twofold. The 'disclosure' was made to the appeals court, not the trial court. I don't believe the Supreme Court's prohibition on the government's knowing use of false testimony is rectified by admitting the truth to an entirely different court. The second problem is that telling the truth and admitting a lie has been told are two different statementsÉ It [DoJ's attempt to satisfy disclosure requirements] simply mentioned (in a document only a few select people had access to) that Wilson had provided 'a few services'. The trial court and, more importantly, the jury were never told."

    Barcella's position is that a lot of honorable people engaged in a lot of mental effort, that may have "gotten too technical" to protect the integrity of a conviction that doesn't need to be undermined.....

    WP11-1-03pg1.jpg

    WP11-1-03pg2.jpg

    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

  7. An excerpt from my review of Horne Vol 4 and 5:

    "Why Horne would source Barr McClellan’s book Blood, Money and Power is a complete puzzle to me. Seamus Coogan was criticized by George Bailey who runs the “Oswald’s Mother” site about his reference to the McClellan book as the worst in the last 15 years. Bailey said that no, Case Closed was the worst. Since the Posner book was published more than 15 years ago, Bailey was off base. Perhaps Reclaiming History could then qualify. But then, how many people have read that whole book? The McClellan book did get some publicity. This is unfortunate since it really is a very bad book. (One must differentiate between the book and the annex by the late Nathan Darby on the fingerprint evidence.)

    One of the problems with it is that there is very little annotation to all of the most sensational charges. For instance, the author states that LBJ went into psychotherapy toward the end of his life and confessed to his doctor that he was behind the murder of President Kennedy. (McClellan, p. 3) What is his source for this? Not the doctor himself, nor any written report. It’s a conversation he said he had with a partner in Johnson’s law firm, Don Thomas. The obvious questions are twofold 1.) Why would the partner reveal this to McClellan? And 2.) Why would LBJ tell the partner? If you can believe it, the author says that Johnson wanted to somehow elevate his reputation out of the Vietnam gutter, and this is why he claimed credit for Kennedy’s murder. (ibid, pgs. 283-84)

    The entire text of the book is like this. One gets these sensational disclosures, and then one searches in vain for the backing in the End Notes. We are to believe that LBJ learned about the art of assassination from the attempt on FDR. (ibid p. 39) Thomas told McClellan that he was involved in the famous stealing of the 1948 senatorial election by LBJ from Coke Stevenson. Then you go to the sourcing. This is what it says: “The information came in many ways. Over drinks after work, during the firm parties, at early Saturday morning coffee, and just the daily office talk.” (ibid ,p. 350) Sorry, not good enough.

    McClellan later says that his boss, attorney Ed Clark, brokered a deal with Joe Kennedy to put LBJ on the 1960 ticket. When one looks for the sourcing on this, you will find: “The deal was advertised to clients on several occasions…” (ibid, p. 356)

    But this is nothing compared to how McClellan deals with the actual facts of the assassination. He says that Clark started the plot going in 1962 by looking for a second sniper—the first of course being Mac Wallace. And he called Leon Jaworksi for help. When one goes to the footnote for this, you will find: “”Despite several solid leads and close ties to Clark, the better course for the present is to withhold judgment pending further research and strong corroborating evidence. At this time our leads are through Jaworksi and Cofield, and our key suspects fit into the Clark modus operandi. The accomplices may never be identified with certainty.” (ibid, p. 358) In other words, he has nothing to back up this assumption.

    Later on McClellan writes that he doesn’t know how Wallace met Oswald, but they did meet, “and that they were together on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository when Kennedy was shot.” (ibid, p. 179) There is next to no evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor that day. But further, the author then makes up a scenario for Wallace meeting Oswald. The problem is that it takes place at a print shop in Dallas in late 1962. Yet, Oswald did not print any flyers at that time! So how could it happen? (ibid, p. 267)

    Further, in defiance of the ballistics evidence, the author has Oswald firing at Edwin Walker and killing Tippit. (ibid, pgs. 211, 267) And in further defiance of the puzzling postal records, the author says Oswald ordered the murder weapons. (ibid, p. 267)

    Backing up the whole Penn Jones/Madeleine Brown scenario, McClellan goes with the Murchison murder gathering on the eve of the assassination. (ibid, p. 271) During which the infamous ads that ran in the papers were on poster on the walls. And Mr. Clark predicted that very soon LBJ would be the new president. Cheers broke out among the partygoers. So now, even more details have been added to this ever-evolving story about the gathering.

    McClellan says he has found out how Clark was paid for the operation. (p. 234) To say his evidence is unconvincing is to give it too much credit. He then says that although Mac Wallace died in a car accident, he was actually killed by people associated with Clark. (p. 242) This is his evidence: “The medical report shows extensive physical injuries that are not consistent with the damages to the auto.” (ibid, p. 362) This is weird because McClellan says that Wallace was in a weakened state by attempted carbon monoxide poisoning, and this is what caused the accident. How could that attempted poisoning cause “extensive physical injuries”.

    Maybe someday someone will write a convincing and scholarly book on Johnson’s involvement in the JFK murder. But these two fall far short of that mark. And Horne should not have used them, since by doing so he implicitly recommends them. They are not worth recommending. Not by a longshot. In fact, once analyzed, they are the kinds of books that can be used to caricature researchers."

    Here is a link to the whole review: http://www.ctka.net/reviews/horn_jd_pt4-5.html

    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

  8. 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

  9. Doug and Jerry:

    Did Oswald have his rights read to him? When? Where?

    IN VB's book ALexander says that Texas already had a statute similar to Miranda on the books. Did they?

    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

  10. Doug and Jerry:

    Did Oswald have his rights read to him? When? Where?

    IN VB's book ALexander says that Texas already had a statute similar to Miranda on the books. Did they?

    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

  11. Doug and Jerry:

    Did Oswald have his rights read to him? When? Where?

    IN VB's book ALexander says that Texas already had a statute similar to Miranda on the books. Did they?

    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

  12. Doug and Jerry:

    Did Oswald have his rights read to him? When? Where?

    IN VB's book ALexander says that Texas already had a statute similar to Miranda on the books. Did they?

    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

  13. Doug and Jerry:

    Did Oswald have his rights read to him? When? Where?

    IN VB's book ALexander says that Texas already had a statute similar to Miranda on the books. Did they?

    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

  14. Pat,

    There are errors but so far I like the Thomas book - he's willing to go beyond accepted conspiracy dogma to make a strong case for conspiracy on his own ground.

    Lots of food for thought.

    Lawyer nit pick alert - the discussion of Oswald's Miranda warning is odd since the Miranda decision was rendered in 1966.

    Best to you,

    Jerry

    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

  15. Pat,

    There are errors but so far I like the Thomas book - he's willing to go beyond accepted conspiracy dogma to make a strong case for conspiracy on his own ground.

    Lots of food for thought.

    Lawyer nit pick alert - the discussion of Oswald's Miranda warning is odd since the Miranda decision was rendered in 1966.

    Best to you,

    Jerry

    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

  16. Pat,

    There are errors but so far I like the Thomas book - he's willing to go beyond accepted conspiracy dogma to make a strong case for conspiracy on his own ground.

    Lots of food for thought.

    Lawyer nit pick alert - the discussion of Oswald's Miranda warning is odd since the Miranda decision was rendered in 1966.

    Best to you,

    Jerry

    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

  17. JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK ABOUT IQs AND NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS

    JUDYTH RESPONDS:

    RE THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS WORKING WITH ME: THESE MATERIALS WERE VETTED

    EARLY ON. I NO LONGER EVEN OWN THEM, HERE OVERSEAS. BUT THE ONE ARTICLE I

    CAN PROVIDE FROM HERE, I HAVE THE QUOTE--WHICH IS BELOW--FROM THE ARTICLE.

    THE 4TH SCIENCE WRITER'S SEMINAR, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH I ATTENDED, IS MENTIONED

    ON THE INTERNET. BUT TRY TO FIND SOME OF THE OTHERS. THEY WERE HELD EVERY YEAR,

    BUT MANY ARE MISSING FROM THE INTERNET RECORD.

    THE QUOTATION OF THE ARTICLE I HAPPEN TO HAVE AT HAND (THERE WERE OTHERS), SAYS,

    "WITH TWO NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS, AND LEADERS IN CANCER RESEARCH, JUDY VARY...

    RECENTLY ATTENDED..."

    5dovh3.jpg

    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).

    THE ROBINSONS --HUSBAND AND WIFE-- ARE IN ANOTHER ARTICLE AS PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION

    MONEY FOR ME TO GO TO ROSWELL PARK IN BUFFALO, WHERE, BY THE WAY, HIS SECOND WIFE AND

    HE OWNED A HOME: .

    "In 1912 Sir Robert married Gertrude Maud Walsh, a fellow student at Manchester University. They

    collaborated in several fields of chemical research, notably in a survey of anthocyanins. She died in

    1954; they had one son and one daughter. In 1957, he married Stearn Sylvia Hillstrom (née Hershey)

    of New York REF: nobelprize.org/.../1947/robinson-bio.html

    THIS WAS BUFFALO, NEW YORK. I LIVE OVERSEAS AND DO NOT HAVE THESE ARTICLES WITH ME, BUT

    THE EDITORS OF MY BOOK TRACKED DOWN EVERY DETAIL AND ARTICLE.

    The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1947 was awarded to Sir Robert Robinson "for his investigations on plant

    products of biological importance, especially the alkaloids".

    NEWSPAPER ARTICLES MENTION THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS AND ONE TELLS US THE ROBINSONS

    PAID FOR MY TRIP TO BUFFALO, NEW YORK.

    JVB

    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

  18. 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

    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

  19. 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

    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

  20. 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

    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

  21. Monk:

    For many reasons I don't want to detail here (as I do not want Judyth to modify her story) there is virtually little or no chance that this happened or could have happened.

    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!

    If you had stated that it has some remote plausibility I could accept that.

    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. :o)

    However, again, the only suggestion for this remote possibility is Judyth alone, whose account now and claim that she even knew Oswald is far from even remotely plausible.

    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.

    Judyth wants only to go on Coast to Coast and have everyone yuk it up with her as she tells her heartwrenching account with Jim and Ed on another line saying "amen" in chorus...

    Objection. Does counsel wish to testify as to the intentions of the witness? You don't need to speculate, Doug.

    ...only to have you come in for levity before the commercial breaks to provide some humor with your JFK impressions.

    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.

    She then hopes her book will sell, she'll get some national attention and then, as she suggested earlier, she will be able to sell the movie rights.

    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.

    I would suggest Daniel Craig (the new James Bond actor) for the role of Oswald but he lacks the charm, sex appeal. and sophistication to play the part in a realistic manner.

    Doug Weldon

    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. :o)

    However, again, the only suggestion for this remote possibility is Judyth alone, whose account now and claim that she even knew Oswald is far from even remotely plausible.

    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

  22. JVB EVIDENCE AND CROSS-EXAMINATION

    Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I have nothing further to add to it except to post an explanation of what it was designed to accomplish.

    This thread spun off the main thread on JVB. I wanted to accomplish two things the other thread could not:

    1) An uninterrupted showing of JVB's main points.

    2) A cross-examination of those points.

    I have placed evidence on this thread, both with independent corroboration and without. People can decide for themselves how to weigh the evidence.

    I disallowed some evidence on the grounds I did not find it relevant. Perhaps my bias in favor of JVB influenced me, perhaps it did not.

    Like other threads, people can read previous posts and review how I have done at organizing evidence here. Constructive criticism does not bother me.

    Whatever the reader's thoughts are on this subject, I hope that we can agree that all stories should be subject to cross-examination.

    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

×
×
  • Create New...