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: 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

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

Upon establishing a corpus I would charge her with open murder which encompasses 1st and 2nd degree murder. It is a non bondable offense(s). Doug Weldon

Since this vaccine experiment probably has relevant similarities and differences to the test with the prisoner, I will ask Judyth to elaborate upon the facts of the matter, which you have indicated can make a significant difference. I would like to gain greater clarity on this case from moral, political, and legal points of view. Jim Jim: I watched Judyth again very carefully on TMWKK. I have a number of questions but in regards to the point of murder the answer is very clear. Consent is not even an issue that can be raised. Judyth's own statements indicate that none of the people had the capacity to voluntarily give consent. She describes going back and seeing one of the victims. The only thing that would have to be established is a corpus. A victim or victims would have to be identified and a cause of death determined. If that can be done then it is unequivocal that Judyth could be charged as an accessory to 1st degree murder. In 1963 she would have faced the death penalty for her involvement. Now, after Furman v Georgia, she would be facing life in prison. I am not certain about Louisiana but in many states it would be without possibility of parole. Once a corpus could be established, Judyth's confession on TMWKK or elsewhere would absolutely be admissible. In most instances a corpus and a confession (unless determined to be false) would be all that would be needed for a conviction. There is no statute of limitations on murder in any state. If she is telling the truth it is morally and legally murder. It is not even debateable. Politically, I cannot answer the question but if I was a district attorney in Louisiana and could establish a corpus I would issues charges and a warrant for her arrest. This is not an academic discussion. It is very serious. I am sincerely very disturbed after hearing her account. it is chilling. Doug Weldon

Jim: Did you look at the letter? It is dated April 27, 1963. It is a letter from Marina to aunt Valya and uncle Ilya. The pertinent part says: We at last got Ogonek and Soviet Belorussia so we know what is happening in Minsk and everything in the Union. I have Russian books. Alka (Oswald) buys them for me in New York. That is, they send them from there: Tolstoy, Chekhov, Pushkin. When we have more dough we will see; I will buy some more. I do not have complete collections. The obvious question is when is Oswald in New York in 1963 or how does he buy them in New York, with his American Express card? Furthermore, they are sent to Marina, not to Lee. It is easy to comprehend Marina reading them but unless someone has deep roots in the Soviet Union it would be very difficult. This observation is not from myself, a Midwestern attorney, but from a native of the Soviet Union. Also, note the books were sent to Marina. When did Oswald read them, while he was working, working for Bannister,doing the cancer research, preparing for his abort team, writing a science fiction book with Judyth, or during his trysts with Judyth when he was driving her around? I am curious. Where does JVB say it was Oswald learned Russian? I repeat:I do believe Judyth would take a giant step forward with her credibility if the book with Oswald's alleged handwriting would be analyed and verified. Though not dispositive of her entire story, it would be a concrete example of her veracity (or lack thereof). I was surprised by the response to Barb to this question. At first you agreed it was a good question and then you dismissed her. Did Judyth refuse to cooperate with this? The proof of such would enhance her credibility with me. Doug Weldon Jim: Everything you state is absolutely correct. Assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washingto, and Montana but it would be murder. if there was assistance in other states. The only other circumstance is that y could be so reckless that the death of x would be foreseeable. The facts would dictate everything and it is impossible to evaluate Judyth's situation without knowing all of the particular facts. Also see involuntary manslaughter The act of unlawfully killing another human being unintentionally. Most unintentional killings are not murder but involuntary manslaughter. The absence of the element of intent is the key distinguishing factor between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. In most states involuntary manslaughter results from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while performing a legal act, or while committing an act that is unlawful but not felonious. Many states do not define involuntary manslaughter, or define it vaguely in common-law terms. Some jurisdictions describe the amount of negligence necessary to constitute manslaughter with terms such as criminal negligence, gross negligence, and culpable negligence. The only certainty that can be attached to these terms is that they require more than the ordinary negligence standard in a civil case. With this approach the state does not have to prove that the defendant was aware of the risk. Other jurisdictions apply more subjective tests, such as "reckless" or "wanton," to describe the amount of negligence needed to constitute involuntary manslaughter. In this approach the defendant must have personally appreciated a risk and then chosen to take it anyway. There are two types of involuntary manslaughter statutes: criminally negligent manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter. Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs when death results from a high degree of negligence or recklessness. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk and under some codes the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide. An omission to act or a failure to perform a duty constitutes criminally negligent manslaughter. The existence of the duty is essential. Since the law does not recognize that an ordinary person has a duty to aid or rescue another in distress, a death resulting from an ordinary person's failure to act is not manslaughter. On the other hand, an omission by someone who has a duty, such as a failure to attempt to save a drowning person by a lifeguard, might constitute involuntary manslaughter. In many jurisdictions death that results from the operation of a vehicle in a criminally negligent manner is punishable as a separate offense. Usually it is considered a less severe offense than involuntary manslaughter. These jurisdictions usually call the offense reckless homicide, negligent homicide, or vehicular homicide. One reason for this lesser offense is the reluctance of juries to convict automobile drivers of manslaughter. Unlawful act manslaughter occurs when someone causes a death while committing or attempting to commit an unlawful act, usually a misdemeanor. Some states distinguish between conduct that is malum in se (bad in itself) and conduct that is malum prohibitum (bad because it is prohibited by law). Conduct that is malum in se is based on common-law definitions of crime; for example, an assault and battery could be classified as malum in se. Acts that are made illegal by legislation — for example, reckless driving — are malum prohibitum. In states that use this distinction, an act must be malum in se to constitute manslaughter. If an act is malum prohibitum, it is not manslaughter unless the person who committed it could have foreseen that death would be a direct result of the act. In other states this distinction is not made. If death results from an unlawful act, the person who committed the act may be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter even if the act was malum prohibitum. Courts will uphold unlawful act manslaughter where the statute was intended to prevent injury to another person. There is also voluntary manslaughter; MANSLAUGHTER, VOLUNTARY In order for someone to be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person acted in the heat of passion; and heat of passion was caused by adequate provocation. Heat of passion may be provoked by fear, rage, anger or terror. Provocation, in order to be adequate, must be such as might naturally cause a reasonable person in the passion of the moment to lose self-control and act on impulse and without reflection. An example might be finding your spouse in bed with someone. Doug Weldon

Jim: Did you look at the letter? It is dated April 27, 1963. It is a letter from Marina to aunt Valya and uncle Ilya. The pertinent part says: We at last got Ogonek and Soviet Belorussia so we know what is happening in Minsk and everything in the Union. I have Russian books. Alka (Oswald) buys them for me in New York. That is, they send them from there: Tolstoy, Chekhov, Pushkin. When we have more dough we will see; I will buy some more. I do not have complete collections. The obvious question is when is Oswald in New York in 1963 or how does he buy them in New York, with his American Express card? Furthermore, they are sent to Marina, not to Lee. It is easy to comprehend Marina reading them but unless someone has deep roots in the Soviet Union it would be very difficult. This observation is not from myself, a Midwestern attorney, but from a native of the Soviet Union. Also, note the books were sent to Marina. When did Oswald read them, while he was working, working for Bannister,doing the cancer research, preparing for his abort team, writing a science fiction book with Judyth, or during his trysts with Judyth when he was driving her around? I am curious. Where does JVB say it was Oswald learned Russian? I repeat:I do believe Judyth would take a giant step forward with her credibility if the book with Oswald's alleged handwriting would be analyed and verified. Though not dispositive of her entire story, it would be a concrete example of her veracity (or lack thereof). I was surprised by the response to Barb to this question. At first you agreed it was a good question and then you dismissed her. Did Judyth refuse to cooperate with this? The proof of such would enhance her credibility with me. Doug Weldon

Dean: I have both prosecuted and defended murders. If the person was injected with a substance that could foreseeably result in the death of that person then all people who participated in the process leading to the injection and knew that it would be injected into someone would be principals in the crime and intent could be implied and even first degree (premeditated) murder could be found. It would be if you started firing a machine gun into a crowd of people and afterwards saying you didn't mean to kill anyone. Even a reckless act without intent could result in manslaughter, or 2nd degree murder. The question is whether a person believed that such an act could lead to the death of the person. If JVB reasonably believed it could and participated then Jack is right. At the least, her failure to report the incident could make her an accessory after the fact. Doug Weldon Jim: Please note I have prosecuted and DEFENDED murders. It is, of course, dependent on all of the facts. If the people knew the substance could likely result in the death of a person and they cooperated in it being administered to a person it is totally irrelevant whether the person volunteered or not. If they did not know it was going to be administered to an individual(s) and they participated in the coverup of the death they could be found guilty of accessory after the fact, a lesser crime. This is NOT a debatable point. It simply is what it is. Doug Weldon Jim: Actually you are wrong about this. Without question, Oshner could and should have been charged with murder for his son and maiming his daughter. You cannot use people as guinea pigs without informing them of potential consequences. If the foreseeable consequence of an action is death or serious harm then it is a socially impermissable experiment. This is not Mengele and Nazi Germany. You cannot have informed consent for death or serious harm. That is why medical trials are often halted before their completion because of unforeseeable events. Here you are stating that JVB though death was the foreseeable outcome. Doug Weldon

Dean: I have both prosecuted and defended murders. If the person was injected with a substance that could foreseeably result in the death of that person then all people who participated in the process leading to the injection and knew that it would be injected into someone would be principals in the crime and intent could be implied and even first degree (premeditated) murder could be found. It would be if you started firing a machine gun into a crowd of people and afterwards saying you didn't mean to kill anyone. Even a reckless act without intent could result in manslaughter, or 2nd degree murder. The question is whether a person believed that such an act could lead to the death of the person. If JVB reasonably believed it could and participated then Jack is right. At the least, her failure to report the incident could make her an accessory after the fact. Doug Weldon Jim: Please note I have prosecuted and DEFENDED murders. It is, of course, dependent on all of the facts. If the people knew the substance could likely result in the death of a person and they cooperated in it being administered to a person it is totally irrelevant whether the person volunteered or not. If they did not know it was going to be administered to an individual(s) and they participated in the coverup of the death they could be found guilty of accessory after the fact, a lesser crime. This is NOT a debatable point. It simply is what it is. Doug Weldon

Dean: I have both prosecuted and defended murders. If the person was injected with a substance that could foreseeably result in the death of that person then all people who participated in the process leading to the injection and knew that it would be injected into someone would be principals in the crime and intent could be implied and even first degree (premeditated) murder could be found. It would be if you started firing a machine gun into a crowd of people and afterwards saying you didn't mean to kill anyone. Even a reckless act without intent could result in manslaughter, or 2nd degree murder. The question is whether a person believed that such an act could lead to the death of the person. If JVB reasonably believed it could and participated then Jack is right. At the least, her failure to report the incident could make her an accessory after the fact. Doug Weldon

I don't get this Jim. Why can't you have both? I've always found the question of what is "truth" fascinating. Fact is Jim, the truth doesn't need us all to believe in it for it still to be true. Agreed? If I don't believe that the sun rises each morning and sets each evening it doesn't make the fact that it does any less true does it? If I believe that sound is faster than light it doesn't make the fact that light is faster than sound any less true does it? Would you or Jack fall out with me and not treat me with respect because I believed that there is nothing after we die and you both believed in heaven? If your wife turned around and told you that she didn't believe a word Judyth said, would you divorce her? I think not... I'm awaiting some sanity to return and some further discussion of the issues if possible. Regards Lee Jim: If you read my post, you will note I did read Dr. Mary's Monkey. I did not e-mail Jack about you or Judyth, I did watch Judyth on TMWKK. I did listen to her interview on Black ops in 2004. I did follow the thread very carefully on Rich's forum. Judyth did not decline to speak with me. I have read everything here. My comments are specific to Judyth and not simply witnesses in general. Unless Judyth is an idiot savant I do not believe she can remember specific days, moments, and the exact dialog from so many years ago. I do not believe the Oswald we have tapes of sounded like that. He would make Obama sound like Gomer Pyle. I have acknowledged that Armstrong made errors. We all do. I have been attacked as a person and researcher , accused directly, and by innuendo of being dishonest. My intelligence and reasoning ability has been ridiculed by you. Whether Judyth is accurate about some things or all things her credibility as a witness has been destroyed, not by others or David or Jack, but by herself. Doug Weldon

Doug, your apology is accepted. Your carefully-crafted lawyerly response is not. Greg: i have been called worse than a lawyer. On second thought, I guess I haven't. Best, Doug

Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making: From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses]. From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"? From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty. From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her. Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her. I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years? THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOVE. ALL ARE TRUE. I STAND BY THEM. A false inference is being drawn that I was present when Kudlaty was interviewed by John and Robert Groden, who videotaped the interview. Kudlaty was interviewed in Waco Texas which is 90 miles south of me. I was even unaware of the taping, and had no knowledge of the interview till John showed me the tape. It is silly to infer that any of my statements are inconsistent. To quibble over "three" and "many" is dumb. I was present for several interviews and saw his videotapes of quite a few others. What is your definition of "many"? One definition is AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER MORE THAN ONE. Do you disagree? I was present when he interviewed three Stripling LHO classmates, all of whom verified many facts about LHO and Marguerite at Stripling. I viewed many (quite a few more than one) of John's interviews WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, but you of course would deny that looking at the video interview is not the same as "being there". The most impressive besides the Kudlaty interview is Myra LaRouche (spelled without looking it up)...but of course you know all about her, don't you? I never met nor influenced Myra. I was present for the interview of Georgia Bell...but I don't have to tell you about her, do I. You know she was wrong without knowing what she said. I am abandoning this nonsensical thread. You clearly have no knowledge of the book so cannot discuss it intelligently. I still say READ THE BOOK. You obviously have not. Jack I was part of a telephone conversation that Armstrong had with Kudlaty. Kudlaty is a very impressive witness who is clearly honest and has nothing to gain personally. I agree, people need to READ the book and examine the evidence. Doug Weldon Thank you Doug. This is not about Kudlaty's credibility. It is about the lack of judgement shown by Armstrong and White in not declaring that Jack was a friend of Kudlaty's. This creates a conflict of interests. Such a conflict is not dependant upon an actual act of impropriety. It is the appearance of possible impropriety that they should have had the horse sense to avoid. This has been compounded by White's ( a ) conflicting statements about his relationship with Kudlaty and ( b ) his utter refusal to admit he has made conflicting statements. Nothing more to add, Doug? Doug, When I posted that last comment, I was unaware that you are a lawyer. I fully understand now why you don't want to comment on a matter of conflict. Doug, when I made the above comment, I was being ironic (where did you learn irony btw, from Alanis Morrissette???). You inserted yourself into this thread, and into the general debate in another thread, dispensing your words of wisdom. Unfortunately, here at least, you completely misunderstood what you were walking into. Having walked into it and found an unpalatable truth, you are dealing with it by ignoring it, for surely, as a lawyer, you know full well that a conflict of interest was created; that the conflict was undeclared and; that Jack White has dealt with it by contradicting his original claims about his relationship to Kudlaty. And that is not even going into the fact that none of Armstrong's supporters have attempted to deal with the evidence I posted showing Oswald started work with another company, albeit in the same building, on Jan 17, 1956, and that DiBenedetto originally claimed he had no direct contact with Oswald in or out of working hours. Some supervisor! You have cast stones at others while ensconsing yourself in a house of glass. Interesting behavior. Greg: You are correct. I have not followed the thread. I do not mean to cast stones and hide behind anything. If I came across that way, I apologize. I have viewed a number of John's witnesses. I have tried to be clear that I don't agree with everything about John, some evidence I was not impressed by, but there were other things I found extremely interesting and important. I try to glance at a number of threads and sometimes it is easy to look at something out of context and perhaps make an observation that doesn't fit. Perhaps that is the case here. I have caught a lot of stones and I try to be very careful when throwing them, My best, Doug Weldon Greg: However it fits I was impressed by Kudlaty. If you know Jack his principles are very high. Again, I will try and read the whole post. Doug Weldon

Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making: From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses]. From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"? From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty. From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her. Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her. I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years? THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOVE. ALL ARE TRUE. I STAND BY THEM. A false inference is being drawn that I was present when Kudlaty was interviewed by John and Robert Groden, who videotaped the interview. Kudlaty was interviewed in Waco Texas which is 90 miles south of me. I was even unaware of the taping, and had no knowledge of the interview till John showed me the tape. It is silly to infer that any of my statements are inconsistent. To quibble over "three" and "many" is dumb. I was present for several interviews and saw his videotapes of quite a few others. What is your definition of "many"? One definition is AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER MORE THAN ONE. Do you disagree? I was present when he interviewed three Stripling LHO classmates, all of whom verified many facts about LHO and Marguerite at Stripling. I viewed many (quite a few more than one) of John's interviews WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, but you of course would deny that looking at the video interview is not the same as "being there". The most impressive besides the Kudlaty interview is Myra LaRouche (spelled without looking it up)...but of course you know all about her, don't you? I never met nor influenced Myra. I was present for the interview of Georgia Bell...but I don't have to tell you about her, do I. You know she was wrong without knowing what she said. I am abandoning this nonsensical thread. You clearly have no knowledge of the book so cannot discuss it intelligently. I still say READ THE BOOK. You obviously have not. Jack I was part of a telephone conversation that Armstrong had with Kudlaty. Kudlaty is a very impressive witness who is clearly honest and has nothing to gain personally. I agree, people need to READ the book and examine the evidence. Doug Weldon Thank you Doug. This is not about Kudlaty's credibility. It is about the lack of judgement shown by Armstrong and White in not declaring that Jack was a friend of Kudlaty's. This creates a conflict of interests. Such a conflict is not dependant upon an actual act of impropriety. It is the appearance of possible impropriety that they should have had the horse sense to avoid. This has been compounded by White's ( a ) conflicting statements about his relationship with Kudlaty and ( b ) his utter refusal to admit he has made conflicting statements. Nothing more to add, Doug? Doug, When I posted that last comment, I was unaware that you are a lawyer. I fully understand now why you don't want to comment on a matter of conflict. Doug, when I made the above comment, I was being ironic (where did you learn irony btw, from Alanis Morrissette???). You inserted yourself into this thread, and into the general debate in another thread, dispensing your words of wisdom. Unfortunately, here at least, you completely misunderstood what you were walking into. Having walked into it and found an unpalatable truth, you are dealing with it by ignoring it, for surely, as a lawyer, you know full well that a conflict of interest was created; that the conflict was undeclared and; that Jack White has dealt with it by contradicting his original claims about his relationship to Kudlaty. And that is not even going into the fact that none of Armstrong's supporters have attempted to deal with the evidence I posted showing Oswald started work with another company, albeit in the same building, on Jan 17, 1956, and that DiBenedetto originally claimed he had no direct contact with Oswald in or out of working hours. Some supervisor! You have cast stones at others while ensconsing yourself in a house of glass. Interesting behavior. Greg: You are correct. I have not followed the thread. I do not mean to cast stones and hide behind anything. If I came across that way, I apologize. I have viewed a number of John's witnesses. I have tried to be clear that I don't agree with everything about John, some evidence I was not impressed by, but there were other things I found extremely interesting and important. I try to glance at a number of threads and sometimes it is easy to look at something out of context and perhaps make an observation that doesn't fit. Perhaps that is the case here. I have caught a lot of stones and I try to be very careful when throwing them, My best, Doug Weldon

Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher opinion and respect for these people than I did at the beginning. If one has to agree with everything one posits then all of us are going to have a very short list of friends. Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's. I am going to make some personal references. I believe friendships and relationships are what is most important in life. If anyone on this forum believes that we are going to develop a total concensus on the death of JFK and bring people to justice then they are living in a fantasyland. To seek to find truth is not only noble it is imperative to defining the society in which we live and for those who will live after us. I use the rhetorical question of why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow? History will always be the myth that people choose to believe and I, as much as anyone, would like to remove much of the myth that exists about November 22, 1963. It is important but it is not so important that we destroy the friendships and relationships that are truly the essence of our lives. Again, I make a personal reference. It is easy to become obsessed in pursuing the truth in the JFK labrynith. I recall my ex-wife telling me that I seemed to pay more attention to a dead president than I did to her. Sadly, in retrospect, she was often correct. For any endeavor, there is a cost to be paid. The ultimate question is whether the cost was worth it. Sometimes it is. Many times it is not. To do it again, I would have made some different decisions. The most rewarding aspect of being involved with this for 32 years has been the wonderful people and witnesses I have gotten to know. For the witnesses who trusted me I want to keep my promise to tell their accounts for history but I am under no pretense that everyone is going to agree with me or them and I understand that even to get my book published is likely to be a difficult endeavor. I do, however, value that I got to know these witnesses as people, and in writing my book I often smile as I listen to the conversations I had with these people, many now deceased. I enjoy the researchers I have met, agree or disagree, and I respect everyone of them whom I believe has truth as their objective. It is the personal part of these people that endures for me. It is my privilege to get to know these people, even if it is only a voice on the phone or a posting on the internet. I have met Jack and Jim a number of times. I value that. They are passionate people. Some people walk into a room softly. Others come in driving a truck with horns blaring. We can respect people for who they are and the world needs all of these types. I cannot accept Judyth's account for a number of reasons. Jim, I have watched her on TMWKK. To be honest, when I copy the segments from 2003 and give them to people I often leave out her segment because I fear it detracts from the value of episode 7, on which both you and I appeared, and segment 9. The fact that Nigel Turner believes her really means nothing. I do not believe that there was an altruistic motive for Nigel in his productions but he was motivated by it being a commercial enterprise. I am not fooling myself. Nigel spent days at my house on several occasions. If my opinion was that Oswald did it alone I doubt that my charm would have captivated his time and attention. As Jim Garrison said about the Warren Commission and being told that they were important or distinquished people had no impact on his examination of the evidence. I have read Haslam's book with great interest. Again, I submit a personal reference. In 2001 I had non-hodgkin's lymphoma and on the Men Who Killed Kennedy I was bloated and my eyes were distorted from Chemo. What is interesting about this cancer is that it is one of the cancers that are increasing and they are finding that a large portion of the people with the cancer have evidence of the "Monkey Virus." It is that, not Judyth, which stirred my interest in the book. Ironically, Jackie Kennedy died of this cancer! There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did? Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her. He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything. How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her. If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records? Do you have yours from 45 years ago? Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan Universityyears ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all. Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous. Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated. Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies? Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show? When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was? How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth. Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164. Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so. He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books? It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil." I can go on and on. Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted. She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself. She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility. The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there. 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. In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed. Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine. All of us are only here for a moment. I respect everyone who has devoted themselves in an honest way to finding truth. It is thankless and often the best result is simply to be ridiculed. Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth? Did Armstrong give up 12 years of his life and the money and time for all of the "fame" this has now brought him. I think Barb, Jerry, and even Pamela care. Otherwise it's not worth it. People have become skiddish on this thread. Toi silence someone is not to convince them. How many people on this forum do you believe you have convinced that Judyth is the real deal? You know I am religious. Whether Judyth is truthful or not, may God bless her. I do hope truth will prevail, that right will triumph wrong, and as Garrison noted, that virtue shallbe its own reward. Warm regards, Doug Jim: I can accept whatever observations and criticisms made about me. In fact, I would rather they be directed at me than Jack or Lifton, both of who have more prominence in the JFK community and connections to you than I. Again, I do want to emphasize that I have had no contact with Jack about you or Judyth I have no problem with you being right about Judyth but I stand by what I wrote. I will not be buying her book. To Josiah, Yes, I believe the sprial nebulae is important, but I am not going to pretend to be a photographic expert. I await the work of Martin and others. Doug Jack White: I am giving you my permission to post all my e-mails to you or outline any communications to you about Jim or Judyth. This is becoming so absurd. Doug Weldon

Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher opinion and respect for these people than I did at the beginning. If one has to agree with everything one posits then all of us are going to have a very short list of friends. Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's. I am going to make some personal references. I believe friendships and relationships are what is most important in life. If anyone on this forum believes that we are going to develop a total concensus on the death of JFK and bring people to justice then they are living in a fantasyland. To seek to find truth is not only noble it is imperative to defining the society in which we live and for those who will live after us. I use the rhetorical question of why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow? History will always be the myth that people choose to believe and I, as much as anyone, would like to remove much of the myth that exists about November 22, 1963. It is important but it is not so important that we destroy the friendships and relationships that are truly the essence of our lives. Again, I make a personal reference. It is easy to become obsessed in pursuing the truth in the JFK labrynith. I recall my ex-wife telling me that I seemed to pay more attention to a dead president than I did to her. Sadly, in retrospect, she was often correct. For any endeavor, there is a cost to be paid. The ultimate question is whether the cost was worth it. Sometimes it is. Many times it is not. To do it again, I would have made some different decisions. The most rewarding aspect of being involved with this for 32 years has been the wonderful people and witnesses I have gotten to know. For the witnesses who trusted me I want to keep my promise to tell their accounts for history but I am under no pretense that everyone is going to agree with me or them and I understand that even to get my book published is likely to be a difficult endeavor. I do, however, value that I got to know these witnesses as people, and in writing my book I often smile as I listen to the conversations I had with these people, many now deceased. I enjoy the researchers I have met, agree or disagree, and I respect everyone of them whom I believe has truth as their objective. It is the personal part of these people that endures for me. It is my privilege to get to know these people, even if it is only a voice on the phone or a posting on the internet. I have met Jack and Jim a number of times. I value that. They are passionate people. Some people walk into a room softly. Others come in driving a truck with horns blaring. We can respect people for who they are and the world needs all of these types. I cannot accept Judyth's account for a number of reasons. Jim, I have watched her on TMWKK. To be honest, when I copy the segments from 2003 and give them to people I often leave out her segment because I fear it detracts from the value of episode 7, on which both you and I appeared, and segment 9. The fact that Nigel Turner believes her really means nothing. I do not believe that there was an altruistic motive for Nigel in his productions but he was motivated by it being a commercial enterprise. I am not fooling myself. Nigel spent days at my house on several occasions. If my opinion was that Oswald did it alone I doubt that my charm would have captivated his time and attention. As Jim Garrison said about the Warren Commission and being told that they were important or distinquished people had no impact on his examination of the evidence. I have read Haslam's book with great interest. Again, I submit a personal reference. In 2001 I had non-hodgkin's lymphoma and on the Men Who Killed Kennedy I was bloated and my eyes were distorted from Chemo. What is interesting about this cancer is that it is one of the cancers that are increasing and they are finding that a large portion of the people with the cancer have evidence of the "Monkey Virus." It is that, not Judyth, which stirred my interest in the book. Ironically, Jackie Kennedy died of this cancer! There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did? Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her. He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything. How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her. If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records? Do you have yours from 45 years ago? Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan Universityyears ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all. Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous. Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated. Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies? Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show? When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was? How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth. Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164. Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so. He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books? It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil." I can go on and on. Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted. She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself. She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility. The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there. 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. In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed. Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine. All of us are only here for a moment. I respect everyone who has devoted themselves in an honest way to finding truth. It is thankless and often the best result is simply to be ridiculed. Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth? Did Armstrong give up 12 years of his life and the money and time for all of the "fame" this has now brought him. I think Barb, Jerry, and even Pamela care. Otherwise it's not worth it. People have become skiddish on this thread. Toi silence someone is not to convince them. How many people on this forum do you believe you have convinced that Judyth is the real deal? You know I am religious. Whether Judyth is truthful or not, may God bless her. I do hope truth will prevail, that right will triumph wrong, and as Garrison noted, that virtue shallbe its own reward. Warm regards, Doug Jim: I can accept whatever observations and criticisms made about me. In fact, I would rather they be directed at me than Jack or Lifton, both of who have more prominence in the JFK community and connections to you than I. Again, I do want to emphasize that I have had no contact with Jack about you or Judyth I have no problem with you being right about Judyth but I stand by what I wrote. I will not be buying her book. To Josiah, Yes, I believe the sprial nebulae is important, but I am not going to pretend to be a photographic expert. I await the work of Martin and others. Doug

Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher opinion and respect for these people than I did at the beginning. If one has to agree with everything one posits then all of us are going to have a very short list of friends. Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's. I am going to make some personal references. I believe friendships and relationships are what is most important in life. If anyone on this forum believes that we are going to develop a total concensus on the death of JFK and bring people to justice then they are living in a fantasyland. To seek to find truth is not only noble it is imperative to defining the society in which we live and for those who will live after us. I use the rhetorical question of why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow? History will always be the myth that people choose to believe and I, as much as anyone, would like to remove much of the myth that exists about November 22, 1963. It is important but it is not so important that we destroy the friendships and relationships that are truly the essence of our lives. Again, I make a personal reference. It is easy to become obsessed in pursuing the truth in the JFK labrynith. I recall my ex-wife telling me that I seemed to pay more attention to a dead president than I did to her. Sadly, in retrospect, she was often correct. For any endeavor, there is a cost to be paid. The ultimate question is whether the cost was worth it. Sometimes it is. Many times it is not. To do it again, I would have made some different decisions. The most rewarding aspect of being involved with this for 32 years has been the wonderful people and witnesses I have gotten to know. For the witnesses who trusted me I want to keep my promise to tell their accounts for history but I am under no pretense that everyone is going to agree with me or them and I understand that even to get my book published is likely to be a difficult endeavor. I do, however, value that I got to know these witnesses as people, and in writing my book I often smile as I listen to the conversations I had with these people, many now deceased. I enjoy the researchers I have met, agree or disagree, and I respect everyone of them whom I believe has truth as their objective. It is the personal part of these people that endures for me. It is my privilege to get to know these people, even if it is only a voice on the phone or a posting on the internet. I have met Jack and Jim a number of times. I value that. They are passionate people. Some people walk into a room softly. Others come in driving a truck with horns blaring. We can respect people for who they are and the world needs all of these types. I cannot accept Judyth's account for a number of reasons. Jim, I have watched her on TMWKK. To be honest, when I copy the segments from 2003 and give them to people I often leave out her segment because I fear it detracts from the value of episode 7, on which both you and I appeared, and segment 9. The fact that Nigel Turner believes her really means nothing. I do not believe that there was an altruistic motive for Nigel in his productions but he was motivated by it being a commercial enterprise. I am not fooling myself. Nigel spent days at my house on several occasions. If my opinion was that Oswald did it alone I doubt that my charm would have captivated his time and attention. As Jim Garrison said about the Warren Commission and being told that they were important or distinquished people had no impact on his examination of the evidence. I have read Haslam's book with great interest. Again, I submit a personal reference. In 2001 I had non-hodgkin's lymphoma and on the Men Who Killed Kennedy I was bloated and my eyes were distorted from Chemo. What is interesting about this cancer is that it is one of the cancers that are increasing and they are finding that a large portion of the people with the cancer have evidence of the "Monkey Virus." It is that, not Judyth, which stirred my interest in the book. Ironically, Jackie Kennedy died of this cancer! There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did? Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her. He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything. How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her. If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records? Do you have yours from 45 years ago? Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan Universityyears ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all. Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous. Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated. Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies? Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show? When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was? How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth. Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164. Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so. He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books? It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil." I can go on and on. Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted. She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself. She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility. The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there. 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. In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed. Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine. All of us are only here for a moment. I respect everyone who has devoted themselves in an honest way to finding truth. It is thankless and often the best result is simply to be ridiculed. Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth? Did Armstrong give up 12 years of his life and the money and time for all of the "fame" this has now brought him. I think Barb, Jerry, and even Pamela care. Otherwise it's not worth it. People have become skiddish on this thread. Toi silence someone is not to convince them. How many people on this forum do you believe you have convinced that Judyth is the real deal? You know I am religious. Whether Judyth is truthful or not, may God bless her. I do hope truth will prevail, that right will triumph wrong, and as Garrison noted, that virtue shallbe its own reward. Warm regards, Doug

HI-LARIOUS! Worthy of Vaughan Meader! Applause. :) Is that Monk doing the audio? Comedy! Satire! History! and Double-talk too! You missed your true calling! Jack :clapping Monk: This is great!! Doug

Too bad the late Rich DellaRosa is no longer with us. He investigated the Judyth myths for about nine months nearly ten years ago (long before Jim ever heard of JVB). Rich finally had enough of her myths, evasiveness and ever-changing "facts", and told her so. She departed his forum when she realized she had gained no converts there. She will depart this forum eventually also, since the only supporter she has converted here is Jim. What Jim is unaware of, as you say, is that all of this is a rehash of what happened years before. It is new to Jim. It is deja vu all over again to most of us. Jack Mr White, It seems to me that many are those who have been blinded by JVB. Most notably those who have met her in person. Your description of "a moving target" is indeed exactly what this is about. The story keeps changing, and the attempts to discredit those who disagree, are becoming more outlandish day by day. DellaRosa, Ferrell and others who knew her, all seem to have come to the same conclusion. Mr Fetzer stated very early in this thread that "he didn't know her story". At best, this explains why he's now apparently surprised by the number of people now coming "out of the woodwork". Jack: Bundy actually got married while on trial for murder. In Florida all that was required was to say your vows before a judge. During a hearing Bundy asked his bride to be if she would marry him. When she replied yes, they werre legally married. I must now confess that I was engaged in a torrid love affair with Marilyn Monroe. Though I was only seven years old I was quite sophisticated and my second grade science class was doing different projects that caught the personal attention of Dwight Eisenhower. I was living in the D.C. area at the time and it made it easy to whisk me away during recess to work on weapons grade plutonium projects. I was assigned a handler and taught myself 12 languages, including Russian and Mandarin Chinese. I was then introduced to Miss Monroe and the mutual attraction was immediate. We knew the age discrepency would attract attention and we had to be very discreet. Many people noticed that Robert (Kennnedy) had seven letters in the first name and that "Douglas" had eight so we knew our time together would be brief. Two days before she died I actually composed the song "I will always love you" and she sang it for me and told me that if I ever met a female singer named "Whitney" with a Texas connection in her name I was to give the song to her to record. We agreed to meet again in Atlanta,Georgia upon the breakup of the Soviet Union. Some people confuse this with the state of Georgia which I do not know if it existed at that time as I was forced to be late to my geography classes. I will always wonder what happened to our "love child." Best, Doug " Whoops, Robert has six letters and Douglas has seven. The other version was taken from a stolen computer disc.

Too bad the late Rich DellaRosa is no longer with us. He investigated the Judyth myths for about nine months nearly ten years ago (long before Jim ever heard of JVB). Rich finally had enough of her myths, evasiveness and ever-changing "facts", and told her so. She departed his forum when she realized she had gained no converts there. She will depart this forum eventually also, since the only supporter she has converted here is Jim. What Jim is unaware of, as you say, is that all of this is a rehash of what happened years before. It is new to Jim. It is deja vu all over again to most of us. Jack Mr White, It seems to me that many are those who have been blinded by JVB. Most notably those who have met her in person. Your description of "a moving target" is indeed exactly what this is about. The story keeps changing, and the attempts to discredit those who disagree, are becoming more outlandish day by day. DellaRosa, Ferrell and others who knew her, all seem to have come to the same conclusion. Mr Fetzer stated very early in this thread that "he didn't know her story". At best, this explains why he's now apparently surprised by the number of people now coming "out of the woodwork". Jack: Bundy actually got married while on trial for murder. In Florida all that was required was to say your vows before a judge. During a hearing Bundy asked his bride to be if she would marry him. When she replied yes, they werre legally married. I must now confess that I was engaged in a torrid love affair with Marilyn Monroe. Though I was only seven years old I was quite sophisticated and my second grade science class was doing different projects that caught the personal attention of Dwight Eisenhower. I was living in the D.C. area at the time and it made it easy to whisk me away during recess to work on weapons grade plutonium projects. I was assigned a handler and taught myself 12 languages, including Russian and Mandarin Chinese. I was then introduced to Miss Monroe and the mutual attraction was immediate. We knew the age discrepency would attract attention and we had to be very discreet. Many people noticed that Robert (Kennnedy) had seven letters in the first name and that "Douglas" had eight so we knew our time together would be brief. Two days before she died I actually composed the song "I will always love you" and she sang it for me and told me that if I ever met a female singer named "Whitney" with a Texas connection in her name I was to give the song to her to record. We agreed to meet again in Atlanta,Georgia upon the breakup of the Soviet Union. Some people confuse this with the state of Georgia which I do not know if it existed at that time as I was forced to be late to my geography classes. I will always wonder what happened to our "love child." Best, Doug "

Jim: I agree that John made some errors (blunders) and I believe he would be the first to acknowledge such. He also had problems with the editing of his book because of being self-published though I am not utilizing this as an excuse for errors. I believe it was always John's intent to lay out all the evidence he gathered and could corroborate andvput it out there and let the reader reach their own conclusions. Again, I have found a number of things he wrote that I have thought innocuous, irrelevent, or explainable. John is quite modest and I have never seen him argue his position so much as rather simply present the evidence and contradictions he has discovered. He doesn't even like to take questions at his presentations or be confrontive about anything. He is truly a decent man. I have made errors but nothing which has changed the substance of what I have presented. None of us is perfect. If I am ever wrong about anything I hope I will be the first to acknowledge it. Best, Doug Jim: It is much like the old addage that the only two perfect people are you and me and I am not so sure about you. Doug

Jim: I agree that John made some errors (blunders) and I believe he would be the first to acknowledge such. He also had problems with the editing of his book because of being self-published though I am not utilizing this as an excuse for errors. I believe it was always John's intent to lay out all the evidence he gathered and could corroborate andvput it out there and let the reader reach their own conclusions. Again, I have found a number of things he wrote that I have thought innocuous, irrelevent, or explainable. John is quite modest and I have never seen him argue his position so much as rather simply present the evidence and contradictions he has discovered. He doesn't even like to take questions at his presentations or be confrontive about anything. He is truly a decent man. I have made errors but nothing which has changed the substance of what I have presented. None of us is perfect. If I am ever wrong about anything I hope I will be the first to acknowledge it. Best, Doug