Doug Weldon

Doug, Since you insist on using examples from the justice system to make your point, I will too. The fact that prejudices are part of the human experience is the reason that jury selection is an art form. As you know, if a potential juror were to reveal such prejudice, as understandable as it might be under his or her unique circumstances, such a potential juror will be dismissed or released from duty. They will be deemed unfit for jury service due to that prejudice. Are you inadvertantly making a judgment call as to the fitness of Dean as a "dispassionate" juror? I'd like to move on as well. Monk: It is not that simplistic. There are challenges for cause, which are not so broad, and preemptory challenges. What do you call a person with an I.Q. of 60, barely got into law school, finished at the bottom of their class, failed the bar exam 4 times before barely passing it? Answer: Your Honor. Doug Weldon

Doug, correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Jim Fetzer indicated his desire to not continue on this thread? I don't see what is accomplished by beating up on Jim and Judyth any further. Wouldn't it be better to allow the man to withdraw as gracefully as possible? I think it a service to all to let this thread be hijacked. Cliff: I was not aware of that. Jim posted three times yesterday and did not mention anything. The last thing I knew was that Jim stated that Judyth was going to answer the questions I and others raised. Best, Doug Weldon

I did not and have not criticized Dean. I called a spade a spade. [my emphasis]Doug -- "probably" ? You know better than that. It is not a "probably" situation--! It is absolutely wrong. If you are appealing to an argument of "human frailty or the human condition" that is all fine and good as a mitigating circumstance by which to justify Dean's perspective--but it fails to justify the lack of logic in the argument. Monk: Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on. Best, Doug Weldon

MonK: Your point is well taken but I think these criticisms of Dean are exaggerated. Any of us, rightly or wrongly and probably wrongly, would be more skeptical of the testimony of a homeless person. A common jury instruction is that the jury can consider the demeanor of the witnesses and the manner in which they testify. This started with Jim criticizing that Dean was not impressed with the demeanor of watching Judyth. Jim attacked him and Dean then became defensive. He can judge things as he wishes and he would not be alone in his observations of Judyth or his skepticism of homeless people being the sole substantiation of points made by Judyth. Dean has been a valuable contributor and participant in the forum. I believe this is a diversion from the isues and we should move on. Doug Weldon

Jack, there was no IQ test when most of these people were alive, so whoever made this list was just guesstimating. 100 is by definition average. 200 is the highest score possible. The tests are not standard from year to year. It could very well be, therefore, that a 100 in 1963 would translate to a 105 in 2010, etc. FWIW, when I was 7 years old my mother was told I had a very high IQ, and was asked if they could skip me ahead in school. She said no, afraid I would be mocked by the older kids. In fifth grade I was put into an experimental program, whereby the kids with the highest IQs from grades 5, 4, and 3, were put in a single class, the "gifted" class. The minimum IQ was 130. if I recall. We put out a school newspaper, for which I was the editor. Later, in sixth grade, my home room teacher pulled me aside to tell me that I was the most respected kid in the school and was a natural born leader, etc. Now, all of this could have led me to have a big head. But three things got in the way. One, my best friend Dirk was, to my estimation, just as smart as me, and his IQ was not high enough to crash the "gifted" club. (He later proved his smarts by forming a tech company, Xircom, and then selling it to Intel for hundreds of millions of dollars just before the bubble burst.) Two was that, as smart as I was, I would occasionally have brain farts where I couldn't remember simple things. Three was that I realized having great potential did not necessarily translate to having a great outcome, and that what to others might appear to be blessing could in fact be quite a burden. One day after school I had a talk with one of the class stoners--a guy who was already smoking pot in grade school. He told me that Mrs. Olivier, who'd kept me after class to tell me how respected I was, had kept HIM after class one day to tell him he had the highest IQ in the class, and to tell him he should try harder. Now, most of the kids in school would have called him a xxxx for making such a claim, but I instinctively knew he was right. At no time in my conversation with Mrs. Olivier had she ever discussed my IQ. Anyhow, years later, on the David Letterman show, if I recall, I saw an interview with the woman with the highest recorded IQ. She wrote stories. And flirted. And was funny... Her intelligence didn't drive her to science, as one might think, but to other endeavors. (Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers discusses the under-performance of geniuses as compared to near-geniuses in detail.) So...how does this relate to Judyth's story? It relates in that I have no problem believing she has an IQ of 160. She may very well have. But that by no means supports that 1) she is telling the truth, or 2) she was brought on board some top secret science project at an early age. Pat: I was placed in a "special" group throughout school where we barked at cars all day. Doug Weldon

Obama 126 Nixon 164 George Bush 40 Thanks Doug Weldon

Dean: This is a fair analysis. She could argue coercion more successfully than duress but the problem was that , if her account is true, not only did she not do anything to stop the killing of the innocent victim(s) she later went back and observed the effects of what was done, but then again did nothing. You are correct that you must have a "mens rea" but Judyth knew this was designed to kill and was being used as such. There is a reason there is no statute of limitations on murder. As I mentioned I defended a 26 year old murder two years ago. The reason they are often not prosecuted so many years later is that the witnesses and perpetrators are often dead after such a length of time. I do not believe a jury would ever hear that this was designed to kill Castro. It is irrelevant. If scientists were involved in developing a weapon to kill Osama Bun Laden, would they be immune from prosecution because they came and tested it on and eliminated your whole family. Thanks for the response.i Doug Weldon Thanks, Doug! The last question you presented is crucial to the whole problem of prosecution. If I did not learn that scientists had tested on and killed my family until 47 years later, how would I prove who exactly did the crime? Key evidence and witnesses would likely be missing. This lack of certainty over who did what to whom is at the heart of the key principal of identifying those who have done wrong. If someone did come forward after watching the videotape of Judyth, how could they be certain it was their relative or friend? (There may well have been other experiments, victim families, if they were told anything, were not likely told the truth, etc.) What she did later - or failed to do - may well tie into the problem of coercion or duress. If she had not gone to observe the effects, the person in charge of the crime may have tracked her down on suspicion she would turn over information to another party. Which brings up another question: should she have told the proper authorities? Her life may have been at stake. Thank you for your response. Dean Dean: If someone came forward 47 years later (Judyth) and you could tie the confession to the killing of your family you don't really need other witnesses. You have a corpus and a confession. Many murders are committed without witnesses. The law does not consider fear of life as a defense to murder. The law requires that someone do something to abandon the crime. Otherwise, any mafia killer could be excused and could even take it a step further and say "well, if I didn't murder all of those people they would have killed me." Your questions are good and your point is well taken that it would take a remarkable convergence of circumstances for it to be practical for such a crime to be prosecuted. However. your point is legitimate but there is no question that if there were a convergence of circumstances, i.e., identifiable victiim(s) and a sufffient and detailed confession then it certainly could be pursued. Good points. Doug Weldon

Dean: This is a fair analysis. She could argue coercion more successfully than duress but the problem was that , if her account is true, not only did she not do anything to stop the killing of the innocent victim(s) she later went back and observed the effects of what was done, but then again did nothing. You are correct that you must have a "mens rea" but Judyth knew this was designed to kill and was being used as such. There is a reason there is no statute of limitations on murder. As I mentioned I defended a 26 year old murder two years ago. The reason they are often not prosecuted so many years later is that the witnesses and perpetrators are often dead after such a length of time. I do not believe a jury would ever hear that this was designed to kill Castro. It is irrelevant. If scientists were involved in developing a weapon to kill Osama Bun Laden, would they be immune from prosecution because they came and tested it on and eliminated your whole family. Thanks for the response.i Doug Weldon Dean: Nazis are still being prosecuted for war crimes (political) 65 years later. Doug Weldon

Dean: This is a fair analysis. She could argue coercion more successfully than duress but the problem was that , if her account is true, not only did she not do anything to stop the killing of the innocent victim(s) she later went back and observed the effects of what was done, but then again did nothing. You are correct that you must have a "mens rea" but Judyth knew this was designed to kill and was being used as such. There is a reason there is no statute of limitations on murder. As I mentioned I defended a 26 year old murder two years ago. The reason they are often not prosecuted so many years later is that the witnesses and perpetrators are often dead after such a length of time. I do not believe a jury would ever hear that this was designed to kill Castro. It is irrelevant. If scientists were involved in developing a weapon to kill Osama Bun Laden, would they be immune from prosecution because they came and tested it on and eliminated your whole family. Thanks for the response.i Doug Weldon

Jim: A hysterical response does not change reality. The simple facts are Judyth, if she is truthful, participated in creating a substance to kill Castro. Judyth became awre that the substance was going to be used on person(s) who lacked the capacity to know what was going to happen to them. She objected, knew that tests were being done, but did nothing. She visited one of the subjects who was dying in agony and again did nothing. Tell me why this is not muurder. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Dean Hartwell has stated that he is a law school graduate and he is a supporter of you and Judyth. I am open to analysis but you, with no experience in the law, are not in a position to simply ignore or dismiss such. Let the attorneys come forward and tell me where my analysis is faulty. I was very careful in charging people with crimes because I knew that decision I would make would forever change the life of the person I accused no matter what the final outcome would be. I took the responsibility very seriously. This case would need a corpus, an identifiable victim(s), but if that could be established it would be a very powerful case for murder. Whether that legal obstacle could be overcome the fact is, again if Judyth is telling the truth and its a big if unless more bona fide evidence for her veracity can be presented, this is a woman who would be morally guilty of murder. I have watched to the you-tube videos. Judyth has certain things correct but they are things that can be researched or things that can be fabricated. Apparently there is even a research team that is assissting the preparation of her book. When I watch the you-tube videos I see someone being tossed softballs and the interviewer clapping for her without pursuing the inconsistencies that are known to exist in her changing of stories. Judyth elaborated on the fine hotel in Kankun in this thread but her stories go all over the place. I have been to Chichen Itza and throughout Mexico. Chichen Itza was very remote in 1963 and in many ways it still is in that it is still a long drive from Cancun today. I am open to the hard facts that would enhance her credibility. They are very simple but you continue to ignore them. 1. Have a professional analysis of the supposed writing of Oswald. 2. Have Judyth produce the tape she says she has that she claims gives a totally different account of her encounter with Mary Ferrell. 3. Tell how they were going to get these quickie divorces and find crooked priests in Mexico when she was not even sure they were going. 4. Where did Oswald learn Russian and why did Marina say he could not read it very well? What evidence is there that he read Pushkin. Listening to an opera does not qualify. Where are the books? How did Oswald get books from New York to Marina when he was never in New York in 1963? 5. Where is the evidence of the science fiction book Judyth and Oswald were writing together? What evidence is there that Oswald was interested in science fiction? There are many more questions but this would be a good place to start. These are very fair. Do you realize what a competent attorney could do in shredding Judyth right now. Bugliousi, despite his despicable book, would salivate at the chance to cross examine Judyth. How many people on this forum do you believe are convinced by Judyth so far? My guess would be less than 10 and all the rhetoric is not going to change that until she and you begin to address the hard evidence as noted above. If I am wrong submit a list of people on this forum whom you believe support your position with the evidence presented to date. Monk is very analytical but I have to believe that even he has questions before he would totally commit to his support for her veracity. I am willing to weigh the evidence but until such issues can be addressed this is nothing more than historical fiction. Name calling is not going to change these fundamental issues. Judyth would be far better served by simply addressing them. Doug Weldon Jim: I am not prosecuting anyone. James Files' story has many of the same holes that I see inJudyth's story. Files is blatantly admitting to murder. The question is whether it is a false confession thus anyones statements have to be qualified by, "if true." I didn't "track Judyth" but when you raised the legal, political, and moral questions if Judyth engaged in murder I watched her segment again from TMWKK. I gave my opinion and my offer remains to any attorney who may disagree with me. This is not a cult. It is certain that all of us disagree on different aspects of the assassination but I have never questioned the desire of Jack, David, Armstrong, Barb, Monk, myself, or you or anyone in wanting to determine the truth. As a friend I did look at this more carefully than I would have if it was someone I did not know. As a friend I would stand up with you and for you through most anything. It is about the character of life. However, I would cheapen a friendship if I responded less than honestly. As Jack, Dixie, and others have said, this is not new to us. We have walked this walk before. Judyth's account, if true, would be powerful. However, many of us have seen the stories change, questions go unanswered, and simply some things that make no sense. Judyth is not above being questioned. All of the questions and points, Viklund, Hogan, Hagerman, Barb, and others should not be dismissed with slurs but should be responded to with responsible answers. I have not been offended. I have no personal vendetta nor am I on a mission to destroy Judyth. I cannot set aside judgment or reason as she makes her claims. She has made the assertions, not any of us. It is supposedly her experience. It is her that needs to convince. For many of us, that has yet to happen. Doug Weldon

Jim: A hysterical response does not change reality. The simple facts are Judyth, if she is truthful, participated in creating a substance to kill Castro. Judyth became awre that the substance was going to be used on person(s) who lacked the capacity to know what was going to happen to them. She objected, knew that tests were being done, but did nothing. She visited one of the subjects who was dying in agony and again did nothing. Tell me why this is not muurder. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Dean Hartwell has stated that he is a law school graduate and he is a supporter of you and Judyth. I am open to analysis but you, with no experience in the law, are not in a position to simply ignore or dismiss such. Let the attorneys come forward and tell me where my analysis is faulty. I was very careful in charging people with crimes because I knew that decision I would make would forever change the life of the person I accused no matter what the final outcome would be. I took the responsibility very seriously. This case would need a corpus, an identifiable victim(s), but if that could be established it would be a very powerful case for murder. Whether that legal obstacle could be overcome the fact is, again if Judyth is telling the truth and its a big if unless more bona fide evidence for her veracity can be presented, this is a woman who would be morally guilty of murder. I have watched to the you-tube videos. Judyth has certain things correct but they are things that can be researched or things that can be fabricated. Apparently there is even a research team that is assissting the preparation of her book. When I watch the you-tube videos I see someone being tossed softballs and the interviewer clapping for her without pursuing the inconsistencies that are known to exist in her changing of stories. Judyth elaborated on the fine hotel in Kankun in this thread but her stories go all over the place. I have been to Chichen Itza and throughout Mexico. Chichen Itza was very remote in 1963 and in many ways it still is in that it is still a long drive from Cancun today. I am open to the hard facts that would enhance her credibility. They are very simple but you continue to ignore them. 1. Have a professional analysis of the supposed writing of Oswald. 2. Have Judyth produce the tape she says she has that she claims gives a totally different account of her encounter with Mary Ferrell. 3. Tell how they were going to get these quickie divorces and find crooked priests in Mexico when she was not even sure they were going. 4. Where did Oswald learn Russian and why did Marina say he could not read it very well? What evidence is there that he read Pushkin. Listening to an opera does not qualify. Where are the books? How did Oswald get books from New York to Marina when he was never in New York in 1963? 5. Where is the evidence of the science fiction book Judyth and Oswald were writing together? What evidence is there that Oswald was interested in science fiction? There are many more questions but this would be a good place to start. These are very fair. Do you realize what a competent attorney could do in shredding Judyth right now. Bugliousi, despite his despicable book, would salivate at the chance to cross examine Judyth. How many people on this forum do you believe are convinced by Judyth so far? My guess would be less than 10 and all the rhetoric is not going to change that until she and you begin to address the hard evidence as noted above. If I am wrong submit a list of people on this forum whom you believe support your position with the evidence presented to date. Monk is very analytical but I have to believe that even he has questions before he would totally commit to his support for her veracity. I am willing to weigh the evidence but until such issues can be addressed this is nothing more than historical fiction. Name calling is not going to change these fundamental issues. Judyth would be far better served by simply addressing them. Doug Weldon

It looks like we just disagree, Greg. Them having known one another is the base of virtually all her claims re New Orleans and the assassination. Thus, it is vital to her entire story that she can establish that she even knew Oswald. Everything else flows from that. I stand by what I said before ... The "least important" of her claims?? Helloooo? That she knew Oswald is the **base** ... the springboard ... for all of her claims about her adventures in New Orleans that summer and beyond! According to Judyth, Oswald introduced her to Ferrie and Ochsner and Mary Sherman .... lets not forget "Sparky" and Marcello and Thornley and most any other alleged assassination player you care to name. Oswald worked with her in Ferrie's kitchen, she trained him to handle the "bioweapon" for transport. He took her to the mental hospital in Jackson to make sure the "patient" there who had been injected with their little cocktail would die. She supposedly learned all about the assassination that was coming down from Oswald .... then throw in the love affair, plans to disappear together after the assassination, etc .... and you think her claim of LHO's handwriting in her book, which would establish that she even knew him, is the "least important"? I am not "acting" "clever" ... it is how I see it and I stated why. Are you trying to be "clever"? :-) I think I've answered this about 3 times now. If the handwriting is certified by an appropriate professional to be Oswald's handwriting, I would acknowledge that they knew one another. As noted above, I do not think that is the "least important" claim. And, of course, it would prove nothing about her other claims beyond that. How could it? And, as I recall, you agreed it would not. What Fetzer personally needs is not my problem. All he seems to need on anything is her sayso. What Judyth's claims need are verification. And this is one claim that could be confirmed or denied by having a professional, court approved documents examiner confirm or deny that the writing in her book is that of Lee Harvey Oswald. As I already noted before as well ...This is research. There is a claim. It is a claim that can be confirmed or denied by a professional. I believe you have stated more than once that you are on the fence regarding Judyth ... you just don't know, haven't had time to do research, verification, etc. Yet you don't seem to think verifying whether or not her claim that LHO wrote these notes in the margins of her book is true is important. Go figure. Bests to you, Greg Barb :-) I am not a graphologist (handwriting expert) but many years ago I spent months studying every sample alleged to be the writing of LHO reproduced in the 26 volumes. I xeroxed each sample in the 26 volumes, cut out his signature (I only studied his signature, not entire documents) and classified them according to printing (always all capitals) and cursive. I then broke these down by letter shapes and slants. My conclusion was that the LHO signatures were written by TWO OR MORE persons. I am not a graphologist...but these are things anyone can observe. Jack PS. I recall that once LHO even misspelled his own name, spelling it LE instead of LEE. Several times he misspelled the names of his mother and father, and once had the date of his father's birth wrong. He twice spelled his mother's name MARGRET instead of MARGUERITE. Jack: It would be appropriate to give all these examples to compare with Judyth's sample. Will it match any of them? If there was more than one person portraying themselves as Oswald any match would be beneficial to Judyth. I disagree with Monk that this is trying to prove a negative. It is simply an issue that goes to credibility. Judyth should be held to the same standard as anyone. As Jim has demanded Lifton's tape I would like to hear such things as Judyth's tape of the incident at Mary Ferrill's house that she asserts gives a totally different account of what others said happened. Again, for credibility purposes, I believe it would help anyone weighing the truth and veracity of what people are asserting to have Jim post these recordings.. Again, this is hard evidence and not the he said, she said that seems to exist many times throughout the thread. Doug Weldon

Monk: It's late here but I think I understand your point. I am always open to the evidence. As I noted before I believe she is a "tainted" witness as you eloquently put it for me. However, this is something she could not have researched and it would be a significant verification of her credibility. For many on the fence and wanting to believe her it would give them a significant excuse to do so. I did listen to the youtube on Cancun. One thing was not clear to me. If it was possible that Lee was going to get married within Cancun, Kancun, somewhere in the Yucatan peninsula, or Merida how were they going to find crooked priests everywhere or were they going to take one with them? Also the "quickie" Mexican" divorces are not so simple except in instances where there are no assets or children involved. Marina would have been entitled to child support. It is unlikely Texas would have recognized the divorce and Oswald would have been subjected to serious felony charges of bigamy if he ever returned to the United States unless Marina would have sought a divorce for abandonment and/or adultery in Texas. If that happened Oswald would still have been subject to arrest for failure to pay child support. I do not believe there were any no-fault divorces in 1963 in the United States. Bernice, if you look up Judyth Baker on you-tube you can find the videos. Monk, I always appreciate your reasoning. Let's demand that this get done. Doug Weldon

MonK: See my prior post. How can anyone suspect what the results would be? Judyth made the assertion. I would suspect she would not be so foolish to make a false assertion about something that can be proved or disproved so easily? What's to hide. Just do it. It can shut up a lot of people about this issue, including me. I cannot understand why this is so difficult or why there would be any resistance. Are we simply to believe her when it's something that can be independently addressed so easily? It's like saying I can tell if someone is guilty or not guilty just by looking at them. You are correct that it is not dispositive of everything but why not verify issues that can be addressed so concretely? Doug Weldon

It looks like we just disagree, Greg. Them having known one another is the base of virtually all her claims re New Orleans and the assassination. Thus, it is vital to her entire story that she can establish that she even knew Oswald. Everything else flows from that. I stand by what I said before ... The "least important" of her claims?? Helloooo? That she knew Oswald is the **base** ... the springboard ... for all of her claims about her adventures in New Orleans that summer and beyond! According to Judyth, Oswald introduced her to Ferrie and Ochsner and Mary Sherman .... lets not forget "Sparky" and Marcello and Thornley and most any other alleged assassination player you care to name. Oswald worked with her in Ferrie's kitchen, she trained him to handle the "bioweapon" for transport. He took her to the mental hospital in Jackson to make sure the "patient" there who had been injected with their little cocktail would die. She supposedly learned all about the assassination that was coming down from Oswald .... then throw in the love affair, plans to disappear together after the assassination, etc .... and you think her claim of LHO's handwriting in her book, which would establish that she even knew him, is the "least important"? I am not "acting" "clever" ... it is how I see it and I stated why. Are you trying to be "clever"? :-) I think I've answered this about 3 times now. If the handwriting is certified by an appropriate professional to be Oswald's handwriting, I would acknowledge that they knew one another. As noted above, I do not think that is the "least important" claim. And, of course, it would prove nothing about her other claims beyond that. How could it? And, as I recall, you agreed it would not. What Fetzer personally needs is not my problem. All he seems to need on anything is her sayso. What Judyth's claims need are verification. And this is one claim that could be confirmed or denied by having a professional, court approved documents examiner confirm or deny that the writing in her book is that of Lee Harvey Oswald. As I already noted before as well ...This is research. There is a claim. It is a claim that can be confirmed or denied by a professional. I believe you have stated more than once that you are on the fence regarding Judyth ... you just don't know, haven't had time to do research, verification, etc. Yet you don't seem to think verifying whether or not her claim that LHO wrote these notes in the margins of her book is true is important. Go figure. Bests to you, Greg Barb :-) Monk: I totally agree with Barb for the same reasons I explained before. What is the big deal? It appears that this should have been done long ago. This is not about Barb or anyone being clever.I read on the web that there had been preliminary studies that "looked good." This is nonsense.What preliminary studies could be done? What would it mean to you if it was not Oswald's writing? This would establish to me and should to anyone that she knew him. If she has lied then it also says a lot. People could still choose to believe other parts of her story but it would be damaging. I would think she would urgently want to get this analyzed. It is an independent document brought forth by Judyth. It would go a long way in establishing her credibility. If she cannot do this simple verification then she is truly just wasting everyone's time. I am open but it either is or isn't. I cannot understand the resistence. This should be step one. It is a concrete piece of information that has been authenticated by Judyth. It is not an account that cannot be verified or an item that could be researched. In a real court this would be subpoened and analyzed. In any court of public opinion no less should be expected. How can anyone demand to hear Lifton's tape when this hard piece of evidence is available? Doug Weldon Doug Weldon Doug Weldon

Doug, I'm not against getting it examined at all. But, let's be clear: Her "failure" to get it examined does not disprove any of her claims any more than confirmation of the writing would prove any of her claims beyond their having known each other. However, if the writing is shown to be inconsistent, that would seriously damage Judyth's credibility. I asked Barb if that was her aim--which is her prerogative, but she denied it. Given the above, could it possibly be anything else? Monk: I would agree with Barb. If it is not Oswald's signature it would and should damage Judyth's credibility. It is Judyth who is asserting that it is Oswald's writing. How would you explain it if the handwriting is not Oswald's? Yes, she has a lot to lose, but she has a lot to gain. You are correct, it is an issue of credibility. If Judyth was in court and testifying and the writing turns out not to be Oswald's then she would be confronted with it and it would weigh on her credibility about everything she states. She is in the court of public opinion. If it is not his writing Judyth would be far better served by saying it's not. It's simple. If it's legitimate let's prove it. If not, explain why she claimed it was. It's difficult to accept her legitimacy on anything if she cannot jump such a simple hurdle. Barb is absolutely correct. It would be proof that she knew him. I cannot fathom any other way that she could have obtained the writing. This is not smearing Judyth. It is giving her an opportunity to present solid evidence. Doug Weldon

Greg, What I said was that confirmation of LHO's writing in her book would establish that she knew him ... but it would not confirm any of her claims beyond that. And you have agreed. The "least important" of her claims?? Helloooo? That she knew Oswald is the **base** ... the springboard ... for all of her claims about her adventures in New Orleans that summer and beyond! According to Judyth, Oswald introduced her to Ferrie and Ochsner and Mary Sherman .... lets not forget "Sparky" and Marcello and Thornley and most any other alleged assassination player you care to name. Oswald worked with her in Ferrie's kitchen, she trained him to handle the "bioweapon" for transport. He took her to the mental hospital in Jackson to make sure the "patient" there who had been injected with their little cocktail would die. She supposedly learned all about the assassination that was coming down from Oswald .... then throw in the love affair, plans to disappear together after the assassination, etc .... and you think her claim of LHO's handwriting in her book, which would establish that she even knew him, is the "least important"? Her other claims regarding New Orleans and the assassination *all* rely on her having known Oswald. Thus far, there has been no verifiable evidence that she even knew him. Having this handwriting confirmed could do that for her. I didn't say it would prove very little. :-) It potentially can prove she at least knew him. Given she has no verifiable proof of that to date, yeah, I think that is important. And it is impossible to see why anyone who supports Judyth, who believes in her, wouldn't want to run right out and get this evidence verified. That is not my point. I believe I have made my point clear several times now. She has made a claim. This claim is the bedrock of her claims about her life and involvement in New Orleans and the assassination. There is a way to get this claim confirmed or denied (though it is possible that an examiner would not be able to confirm or deny, the results could be inconclusive). This is research. There is a claim. It is a claim that can be confirmed or denied by a professional. One wouldn't expect that concept to be like pulling teeth. :-) Barb :-) Barb, It is the least important of her claims if it does NOT establish anything beyond itself! Them having known each other, in and of itself, means nothing. It is unbelievable to me that you are acting this "clever". Let's assume for the sake of conversation that the handwriting expert confirmed it was Oswald's writing. At this point you would concede what exactly? Anything? Perhaps you'd concede "the least important" claim? I can hear you now: "Based on this analysis, yes, they probably knew each other, but so what? That still doesn't prove anything else!" IMO: Since Jim doesn't need that confirmation in order to believe her, he isn't compelled to pursue it. And, since her detractors still wouldn't be convinced even with the confirmation, he's again not compelled to pursue it. Monk: Jim may not need that confirmation to believe anything about her but others do to have some substantial evidence she knew Oswald. It is not dispositive of all her claims but it is important. Judyth is the one who proffers that it is Oswald's writing. Why not get it examined? She has had the ability to do this for years. What's the big deal? Her failure to do so only raises suspicion. Doug Weldon

Doug, I don't recall having ever libeled you or anyone else for raising questions or anything else, do you? Monk: Absolutely not. I should have attached this to a different post. Doug Weldon

Doug, I know I am beginning to speculate perhaps beyond the point of prudence, but if you don't mind indulging me for a moment more... This goes to a possible defense...in terms of mitigating circumstances. Is it reasonably conceivable that a judge might grant the defense a relatively wider latitude, when introducing evidence supporting a theory of mitigating circumstances, than would normally be expected due to the extraordinary nature of the case? Keep in mind, the DA wasn't "compelled" to prosecute this case as a result of it being a "hot homicide" garnering a lot of media coverage, nor was it a case that at one time drew tremendous attention to itself and would now still be considered "high profile" albeit in the "cold case" file. In other words, would any consideration be given to the fact that the main, if not sole, reason the DA pursued prosecution was due to the SUSPECT volunteering the information so that a broader justice might be done -- or a broader injustice might be averted? Thanks. Monk: My simple answer is no. Of course any judge is subject to their own idiosyncratic nature, and can admit what they want to but if things are, as she stated in TMWKK, I do not see any mitigating circumstanes. It would be admitted only over vehement objection. Doug, I think I see what you mean...but, TMWKK was a commercial television production that was subject to editing, etc. -- It is not tantamount to a confession, IMO--of course, I most certainly could be wrong. But, in any event, this story sure seems to be extremely challenging. I mean, wow--if we put ourselves in Jim's shoes! What a long haul this has been for him, so far, only to find out that--even if she is "the real deal" it won't matter because her testimony is tainted as a witness, and even if she's a murderer who went to trial she can't tell the truth about the circumstances that led up to it even there because no one would want to know! Moreover, even though she isn't "wanted" for anything now--if she turned herself in for KNOWLEDGE of a crime that nobody was even persuing--she could be in big trouble irrespective of the broader truth. The deaths probably weren't ruled homicides anyway--so it's all a moot point. Thanks for the feedback, Doug. Monk: Yes, they could subpoenae the unedited tapes and determine if the statement was misrepresented. I don't know if she ever said this in other writings or interviews. It was not a police interrogation so the only test is whether the statement was voluntary. They have to have a corpus whuch I agree is difficult. Technically, it is not a confession as much as a statement against interest but yes, they have the same effect. It is my observation that she is tainted as a witness because of her research. Perhaps you and others see it differently. Ifg she went to trial it again, is my legal opinion, that the other circumstances are irrelevant because nothing would mitigate the actual killings. It might have a mitigating factor on sentencing. Yes, she could turn herself in, and if she gave details of the crime she would be charged. As I mentioned before, if a relative or someone knew of the death of an individual and could link it to Judyth's statements it could reopen everything. Look at the grand jury with LBJ, Malcom Wallace, and Henry Marshall. It is really not moot. Two years ago I defended a cold case for murder that 26 years before a cause of death could not be determined. Do I think she's probably safe? Yes. If circumstances I noted emerge would they charge her? Likely. Judyth, because of her research, needs the "hard" evidence such as writings, documents naming her, etc. I am the expert "on" my own opion, not "in" my own opinion. Maybe I am in the minority but I am not convinced. I simply believe I, and others that raise questions, should not be libeled for doing so. Thanks. Doug Weldon

Jim: I am not intending to intimidate Judyth and there is no malice. There is no reason for me to have any such feelings towards her. In fact, I do not have "feelings" about Judyth either way. Again, I said I would give her much credibility if the writing in the book turns out to be Oswald. There is no question that an attempt to kiil Castro would be unlikely to subject Judyth to prosecution. However, being an accomplice to killing people innocent people is simply murder. If you wish to test my bias simply have Judyth name the people who were killed by creating cancer by injecting them. My guess is that it would not be overlooked and that charges would likely be issued today. The police would investigate and submit a warrant request for prosecution. There is no crime without a corpus but Judyth is running a risk that this might reach the ears of the relatives of someone she was involved in killing in Louisiana in 1963. You state that "Today, in another climate, I might be more accommodating, but I have to ask if you have taken any action to bring charges against the agents of the government responsible for these "extraordinary renditions" (kidnappings) and the incarceration and torture to which they have been subjected and which have often led to death? If you were more active regarding issues that matter in this day and age, I would be more open to supposing that your discussion of this alleged offense was sincere rather than grounded in malice." This is as ridiculous as suggesting I e-mailed Jack a psychological analysis of Judyth. It is a diversion. There is no one more than me that believes Bush, Cheney(especially), and Rumsfield should be criminally prosecuted not only for murder but for treason. My biggest fear was that Cheney would die and Bush would become President. Probably my greatest disappointment with Obama, second only to continuing the futile war in Afganistan, was his decision not to pursue criminal charges against these people. I emphatically believe in truth and justice. It cannot be disguised by political agendas. Are there times it is merited? Of course. It is a tragedy that Hitler was not murdered. One of my great heros is Dietrich Bonhoffer, who had to struggle with his religious beliefs and make the decision to kill evil, Hitler. He was executed after the failed attempt. It was you who asked what the political, moral, and legal ramifications of what Judyth did. Was everyone to ignore your question? I examined your question solely by Judyth's own words, nothing more. You cannot ask the question and then say you don't like the answer and then cast groundless dispersions about what my motivation might be. Don't take my word for it. Ask anyone who has been deeply involved withh the criminal justice system. I am confident you would get the same answer. Murder is murder. If Judyth is honest I hope this might be something that she exaggerated the truth about. It is very disturbing. Doug Weldon Jim: If I was representing Judyth I would advise her to keep her mouth shut about this. I would not put this in a book. If she was ever charged no attorney would advise her to testify. In the offices of many defense attorneys they often have a fish on a plaque on their walls. On that plaque there is some writing. It states, "I wouldn't be here either if I kept my mouth shut." The odds are in Judyth's favor that there is not going to be a corpus here for many reasons. However, if Judyth wishes to play Russian Roulette she is certainly free to do so. Next to the fish there might be another plaque with Judyth's picture. Doug Weldon Can you picture Judyth keeping her mouth shut? Jack: There are only two reasons Judyth would continue talking about this: 1. she is very foolish 2. It is not true so there is nothing to fear. Doug Weldon Jim: There is no reason to turn every observation into a personal attack. I sincerely and objectively examined the evidence. Feel free to solicit another experienced legal opinion. If Judyth is truthful I would disagree with Jack and I would welcome the evidence and I would find it critically important. This is not a game for me but I have to question accounts. I understand I am not immune from it. I never submitted anything without some form of corroboration. Barb and Jerry questioned Nick Prencipe's account. I was not personally offended as you appear to be here. In fact, I understood their points but in the totality of the evidence I disagreed. My response is fine, eliminate Nick then keep eliminating people as you see see fit but if you believe one of the many witnesses or cannot discredit them then you have a problem. Is Judyth above being questioned? Do you believe nobody is going to ask these questions after her book comes out? Is anyone who would ask a question despicable?Because I ask them now does that make me malicious. If it was me I would want to know where people see weaknesses in my account. There is no need to make wild accusations against the person raising questions. Do you think in a court trial the other attorney should have no right to question a witness or that even that person's attorney should only be entitled to throw softballs at the person? In TMWKK Judyth did not mention the film JFK as an impetus for coming forward. I simply do not know but I am going to be impressed by the hard evidence, not as Barb has raised, with Judyth being the verifying source for her own statements. I have always stated, May we come to know the truth. If you are going to personally attack me for every question I raise then it is productive for no one. It is a diversion to state such things as"it would be more credible if you questioned Judyth's cancer research if we knew where you stand on national health care." It is simply a clever diversion. Finally, yes, your third option is a possibility, but as I noted, Judyth is admitting to murder If revealing this truth is more important to her than perhaps facing the consequences of her actions, she has my admiration. I have no personal stake in this. I do not understand why this is so personal to you. Doug Weldon Jim: I am stating that ANYONE who admits to committing 1st degree murder would be foolish or know that it could not be proven. Did you somehow miss my last paragraph where I acknowledged your third alternative? What possible motive could I have in smearing Judyth? How does it benefit me. It is bizarre.I will let my posts speak for themselves. Does it go along with the psychological profile you claim I sent Jack? Why would Lifton send you the tape? Is it because of the nice way you requested it or the fact you accused him of criminally obtaining it? This unrelenting defense of Judyth no matter the cost is very puzzling. Doug Weldon

Doug, I know I am beginning to speculate perhaps beyond the point of prudence, but if you don't mind indulging me for a moment more... This goes to a possible defense...in terms of mitigating circumstances. Is it reasonably conceivable that a judge might grant the defense a relatively wider latitude, when introducing evidence supporting a theory of mitigating circumstances, than would normally be expected due to the extraordinary nature of the case? Keep in mind, the DA wasn't "compelled" to prosecute this case as a result of it being a "hot homicide" garnering a lot of media coverage, nor was it a case that at one time drew tremendous attention to itself and would now still be considered "high profile" albeit in the "cold case" file. In other words, would any consideration be given to the fact that the main, if not sole, reason the DA pursued prosecution was due to the SUSPECT volunteering the information so that a broader justice might be done -- or a broader injustice might be averted? Thanks. Monk: My simple answer is no. Of course any judge is subject to their own idiosyncratic nature, and can admit what they want to but if things are, as she stated in TMWKK, I do not see any mitigating circumstanes. It would be admitted only over vehement objection.

Doug, would it be fair to say this: In your opinion, even if Judyth is the "real deal" it may not matter even in the best of circumstances because nothing could ever come of it, particularly in a court of law, because her having conducted extensive research would necessarily taint her witness testimony beyond repair, rendering it useless? Monk: Yes, absolutely. I thought that was what I wrote though perhaps not so eloquently. Best, Doug Would it also be accurate to say that the same "handicap" would NOT exist if she were a defendant (as opposed to being a witness)? Please answer freely, counselor, as you do not represent her, nor are you offering her or us legal advice--just an opinion. Monk: I hope I am understanding the question. If she was on trial for murder the only issue would be "was a murder(s) committed and did Judyth participate in the commission of the murder(s). Her statement could be introduced from TMWKK or any other interview or writings.. She would have to explain why it was incorrect or misinterpreted. Everything else, incliuding the Castro information, would unlikely be admissible as being irrelevant. BTW, I agree that Mark Lane would be a good person to offer his opinion and see if or where he disagrees with me. Doug Weldon

Doug, would it be fair to say this: In your opinion, even if Judyth is the "real deal" it may not matter even in the best of circumstances because nothing could ever come of it, particularly in a court of law, because her having conducted extensive research would necessarily taint her witness testimony beyond repair, rendering it useless? Monk: Yes, absolutely. I thought that was what I wrote though perhaps not so eloquently. Best, Doug

Jim: I am not intending to intimidate Judyth and there is no malice. There is no reason for me to have any such feelings towards her. In fact, I do not have "feelings" about Judyth either way. Again, I said I would give her much credibility if the writing in the book turns out to be Oswald. There is no question that an attempt to kiil Castro would be unlikely to subject Judyth to prosecution. However, being an accomplice to killing people innocent people is simply murder. If you wish to test my bias simply have Judyth name the people who were killed by creating cancer by injecting them. My guess is that it would not be overlooked and that charges would likely be issued today. The police would investigate and submit a warrant request for prosecution. There is no crime without a corpus but Judyth is running a risk that this might reach the ears of the relatives of someone she was involved in killing in Louisiana in 1963. You state that "Today, in another climate, I might be more accommodating, but I have to ask if you have taken any action to bring charges against the agents of the government responsible for these "extraordinary renditions" (kidnappings) and the incarceration and torture to which they have been subjected and which have often led to death? If you were more active regarding issues that matter in this day and age, I would be more open to supposing that your discussion of this alleged offense was sincere rather than grounded in malice." This is as ridiculous as suggesting I e-mailed Jack a psychological analysis of Judyth. It is a diversion. There is no one more than me that believes Bush, Cheney(especially), and Rumsfield should be criminally prosecuted not only for murder but for treason. My biggest fear was that Cheney would die and Bush would become President. Probably my greatest disappointment with Obama, second only to continuing the futile war in Afganistan, was his decision not to pursue criminal charges against these people. I emphatically believe in truth and justice. It cannot be disguised by political agendas. Are there times it is merited? Of course. It is a tragedy that Hitler was not murdered. One of my great heros is Dietrich Bonhoffer, who had to struggle with his religious beliefs and make the decision to kill evil, Hitler. He was executed after the failed attempt. It was you who asked what the political, moral, and legal ramifications of what Judyth did. Was everyone to ignore your question? I examined your question solely by Judyth's own words, nothing more. You cannot ask the question and then say you don't like the answer and then cast groundless dispersions about what my motivation might be. Don't take my word for it. Ask anyone who has been deeply involved withh the criminal justice system. I am confident you would get the same answer. Murder is murder. If Judyth is honest I hope this might be something that she exaggerated the truth about. It is very disturbing. Doug Weldon Jim: If I was representing Judyth I would advise her to keep her mouth shut about this. I would not put this in a book. If she was ever charged no attorney would advise her to testify. In the offices of many defense attorneys they often have a fish on a plaque on their walls. On that plaque there is some writing. It states, "I wouldn't be here either if I kept my mouth shut." The odds are in Judyth's favor that there is not going to be a corpus here for many reasons. However, if Judyth wishes to play Russian Roulette she is certainly free to do so. Next to the fish there might be another plaque with Judyth's picture. Doug Weldon Can you picture Judyth keeping her mouth shut? Jack: There are only two reasons Judyth would continue talking about this: 1. she is very foolish 2. It is not true so there is nothing to fear. Doug Weldon Jim: There is no reason to turn every observation into a personal attack. I sincerely and objectively examined the evidence. Feel free to solicit another experienced legal opinion. If Judyth is truthful I would disagree with Jack and I would welcome the evidence and I would find it critically important. This is not a game for me but I have to question accounts. I understand I am not immune from it. I never submitted anything without some form of corroboration. Barb and Jerry questioned Nick Prencipe's account. I was not personally offended as you appear to be here. In fact, I understood their points but in the totality of the evidence I disagreed. My response is fine, eliminate Nick then keep eliminating people as you see see fit but if you believe one of the many witnesses or cannot discredit them then you have a problem. Is Judyth above being questioned? Do you believe nobody is going to ask these questions after her book comes out? Is anyone who would ask a question despicable?Because I ask them now does that make me malicious. If it was me I would want to know where people see weaknesses in my account. There is no need to make wild accusations against the person raising questions. Do you think in a court trial the other attorney should have no right to question a witness or that even that person's attorney should only be entitled to throw softballs at the person? In TMWKK Judyth did not mention the film JFK as an impetus for coming forward. I simply do not know but I am going to be impressed by the hard evidence, not as Barb has raised, with Judyth being the verifying source for her own statements. I have always stated, May we come to know the truth. If you are going to personally attack me for every question I raise then it is productive for no one. It is a diversion to state such things as"it would be more credible if you questioned Judyth's cancer research if we knew where you stand on national health care." It is simply a clever diversion. Finally, yes, your third option is a possibility, but as I noted, Judyth is admitting to murder If revealing this truth is more important to her than perhaps facing the consequences of her actions, she has my admiration. I have no personal stake in this. I do not understand why this is so personal to you. Doug Weldon

Yes Doug, I suppose that if you were representing her you would tell her to shut up because you would have a fiduciary to do just that, but you ARE NOT representing Judyth! You have no obligation to protect her. In fact, you don't think she is telling the truth to begin with. Why does she need your advice (to remain silent) if she is fabricating her story and therefore has nothing to fear? Did something about her presentation on TMWKK strike you as possibly true? I'm confused. Monk: You are correct. I am merely offering what a defense attorney would advise her. If you go back and read my original post I expressed concerns but concluded "These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness. " I don't know if Judyth is right or wrong or truthful on some things and embellishing other things. I noted on TMWKK that she never mentioned the house across the stree but as you and I know Nigel Turner may have edited things out. Judyth may ultimately be right. Obviously there are things that strike me as truthful but I cannot distinguish between if it was an event she experienced or something she researched. The shame is that if she is truthful her research will always cast doubt about her. Concrete evidence is the most impressive to me. I have not closed my mind to such evidence. It is simple to demonstrate if it is actually Oswald's writing in the book as she says. I would have to be impressed as I cannot fathom any other reason for her to have such. I don't believe the dialog she offers but I can overlook that in light of other compelling evidence. It would be very foolish of me not to keep an open mind to such evidence. Doug Weldon