Dean Hartwell

Hi Stephen, my replies are in CAPS: First, we don't know much about Anna Lewis. Is this the Anna Lewis who was married to David Lewis? Under what circumstances was the interview taped? Did anybody discuss evidenciary matters with her prior to the interview? Why has Anna Lewis not been interviewed in any other venue (testimony, TMWKK, etc.)? THE VIDEO INTERVIEW LETS US LEARN MORE ABOUT ANNA LEWIS, WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE LATE DAVID LEWIS. IT WAS TAPED IN 2003 AND BROUGHT TO THE INTERNET BY WIM DANKBAAR. ACCORDING TO DANKBAAR IN A 2007 POST http://jfkmurdersolved.com/phpBB3/viewtopi...bff5af704433b39 DEBRA CONWAY INTERVIEWED LEWIS. I DO NOT KNOW IF ANYONE DISCUSSED EVIDENTIARY MATTERS WITH LEWIS FIRST. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD QUESTION FOR ANY WITNESS. ANNA LEWIS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAS NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED IN ANOTHER VENUE. SHE DID NOT TELL GARRISON THE TRUTH ABOUT KNOWING JVB. SHE SAID DAVID HAD TOLD HER TO KEEP HER MOUTH SHUT. Second, what are we to make of that fact that David Lewis had a great deal of contact with NODA Jim Garrison's probe in its first few months, but described his alleged contacts with Oswald in way that did not include double-dating with Oswald and Baker? What are we to make of Garrison himself dropping Lewis as a witness after apparently falsely reporting that he was shot at by exile Carlos Quiroga? I DO NOT KNOW WHY DAVID LEWIS DID NOT MENTION THE DOUBLE-DATING OR HIS STATEMENTS ABOUT QUIROGA. HE DOES NOT APPEAR ON THIS TAPE. Third, it is not unheard of for peripheral witnesses to be influenced by the comments of other claimed witnesses. I have seen a transcript of Baker's interview with Edwin Lea McGehee, wherein she tells him right off the top (of the transcript, at least) that she was the woman in the car near his barbershop in 1963, and makes a few other statements I consider inappropriate for a formal interview. This causes me to have less than full confidence in the Lewis interview. YOU MENTION JVB'S STATEMENTS AS A WAY TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN THE LEWIS INTERVIEW. I AM NOT SURE WHY YOU SAY THIS.

Here are some questions, many of which I asked without reply on the main thread, of Judyth Vary Baker's (JVB) critics: Do we agree that JVB went to New Orleans during the time Lee Harvey Oswald is known to have been there? If not, please explain the work time card mentioned on the main thread and shown on previously named web sites. Do we agree that JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald? If not, explain Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee. Do we agree that JVB and Lee Harvey Oswald had an affair? If not, explain comments made by Anna Lewis on this topic on the video. Do we agree that JVB worked on a lab on a project to collect cancer cells to use to kill Fidel Castro? If not, explain a better reason for her to go to New Orleans. Explain the newspaper clippings shown on the thread that demonstrate her excellence as a science student. Explain her admission of participating in an experiment on a prisoner (if you only believe this one statement by her, explain why it is the only one.) Do you want better evidence? Explain what kind of evidence you wanted. Tell me what "independent corroborating evidence" is and what "bona fide witnesses" are. Did you disbelieve JVB from the start? Explain why you participated at all.

You are welcome, Glenn.

The link below connects to a YouTube video of an interview with Jim Fetzer and me. I give my impressions of the debate that has consumed over 2,000 posts about Judyth Vary Baker. I consider the hypothesis that Jim put forward, the sources he used to support it, the response of critics and whether crucial questions about the topic were answered.

Spot on, Jack. It's disconcerting that Fetzer does not know this in the first place, and still doesn't get it despite similar posts stating this earlier in the thread. Judyth cannot be part of the answer ... as long as she remains part of the question. She has no verifiable bonafides as a witness to anything regarding Oswald, the assassination ... or any of the commonly known suspected players, whom she claims to have known and/or worked with. Bests, Barb :-) Barb, What you say about "verifiable bonafides as a witness" may explain the different opinions on this thread about Judyth. Anna Lewis has testified on audiotapes and film that she and her husband, David, double-dated with Judyth and Lee. http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/14...udyth-vary.html Is there a reason you do not view her as a bonafide? It would help if those who criticize Judyth on these grounds tell the group what kind of witness they are looking for. Dean

Doug, The Nazis receive no sympathy for their actions in Israeli courts nor in legal system here. And there is no political push in the United States to bring in those who were part of plots to kill Castro. Dean

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

David, The first question asked about someone "brought to trial" almost 50 years later. Beckwith was twice brought to trial the YEAR AFTER he killed Evers with the mistrials you mentioned. So this doesn't answer the first question. Can anyone give me the name of someone who answers to ALL three questions: Can you think of a person who has been brought to trial almost fifty years after the alleged act of murder? If there is such a person, did they commit an act believing they were assisting their nation in a national security matter? Did this person agree to an act designed to kill a person other than the one who died? Dean Hartwell

John List --- Hi Dean, Is this who you meant? John Emil List (September 17, 1925 - March 21, 2008) was an American murderer. On November 9, 1971, he murdered his mother, wife and three children in Westfield, New Jersey, and then disappeared. He had planned everything so meticulously that nearly a month passed before anyone noticed that anything was amiss. A fugitive from justice for nearly 18 years, he was finally apprehended on June 1, 1989 after the story of his murders was broadcast on America's Most Wanted. List was found guilty and sentenced to five terms of life imprisonment, dying in prison custody in 2008 at age 82. (Source: Wikipedia) According to this source, John List was brought to justice 18 years after his murders. Also, his crimes had nothing to do with national security nor is there any doubt that he killed those he originally planned to kill. Dean Hartwell

Doug, you have said: Jim: I am not prosecuting anyone. James Files' story has many of the same holes that I see in Judyth'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... 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... --- Do you only want a response to your legal observations on murder from an attorney? I have more to offer on this subject and I do not believe it takes a license nor practice as a criminal attorney to have an informed opinion about it: Can you think of a person who has been brought to trial almost fifty years after the alleged act of murder? If there is such a person, did they commit an act believing they were assisting their nation in a national security matter? Did this person agree to an act designed to kill a person other than the one who died? I bring this up because Judyth participated in a plan to develop a cancer to kill Fidel Castro. When she was told she would have to use it on another person, a prisoner, she objected, which shows a lack of intent to killing the prisoner. It also goes to her state of mind. She has further stated that the leader of the plan to inject cancer in a prisoner threatened her life if she did not follow through. I realize the defense of duress typically does not work in homicide as a complete defense. However, even if a prosecutor brought Judyth to trial (which for reasons I have stated earlier, I do not believe will happen), a defense attorney could bring up these points to the jury. And a jury, considering the nation’s perceived gain of killing Castro, her sincere objection to the plan to use cancer cells on the prisoner, the duress as it affected her state of mind and the unusual allegation and length of time since the alleged crime, would acquit her.

Hi Jack, Thank you for your reply. For reasons that will become obvious, there is a question I have of you first: Do you believe that, even if true, Judyth's story is not relevant to our understanding of the JFK assassination? If that is the case, I do not think my response is going to matter to you. If that is not the case, I direct your attention to "James Fetzer: 14 Reasons to Believe in Judyth Vary Baker" http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/14...udyth-vary.html Impartial independent documentation for Judyth's story on this site includes: - A paycheck showing that Judyth Anne Baker worked for Wm. Reily & Co., Inc. in New Orleans in 1963 - Witnesses, including William “Mac” McCullough and Anna Lewis, who saw Judyth and Lee together. Lewis is on videotape saying she and her husband double-dated with them. - her identification of a Customs Agent whom Lee had introduced her to. Dean INDEPENDENT DOCUMENTATION is needed to verify claims. Self-serving claims are not evidence nor documentation. An impartial independent source is needed.

We keep going round and round on specific issues on this thread. We need to focus on a more general purpose. For those who do not believe Judyth, I have a question: What would it take to convince you she is telling the truth? You may say "more evidence" or "documentation" but I would like to know: What type of evidence or what kind of documentation? What kind of evidence could you reasonably expect that has not been shown to you? If there is no way to convince you, I am not sure what purpose this thread would serve you. Thank you, Dean

Jim has been quoted as saying: "you don't have the right to have an opinion about Judyth--at least, not one that qualifies as 'rational'" Jim has named the topic on this thread. It makes sense that he consider the foundation of the opinions given in response to what he says, including whether one has read his sources. Can anyone reasonably form a rational opinion about the Warren Report without having read it? I would say no. Other sources are welcome. It would help, though, if those who would draw from other sources to identify the significance of what they assert. For example, there has been a lot of talk about a book that may or may not have Oswald’s writing on it and I still don’t understand why it is important to our discussion. Dean

Jack, A CONFESSION takes place when a person acknowledges their guilt. An ADMISSION takes place when a person makes any statement. Proof that someone's ADMISSION is really a CONFESSION is determined by the trier of fact, the judge or jury, in assessing the facts of the crime and the person's knowledge of the crime. The legal effect of a CONFESSION is determined by the trier of fact when they decide how much weight to give it. A full confession would typically convince the jury of the person's guilt. If a person confessed before trial, they would, of course, likely plead guilty.

Hi Jack, I have a law degree though I do not have a license to practice law. Here is my opinion: Murder requires a number of elements, all of which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires the homicide rule that one life must be taken by another. [COMMENT: Here, you apparently believe it to be a person's injection or part of a plan to inject the prisoner] It requires that there be no valid excuse, justification or accident for the taking. It requires that the person taking the life have "malice aforethought" or the intent to kill [COMMENT: Intent may be shown by words or by conduct - Where is the evidence of conduct calculated to take a life?] Can you prove all of this beyond a reasonable doubt? There may be a taking (questionable), but no intent by anyone and instead the strong likelihood of accident. And as for "premeditation," without any proof of murder, there is no need to consider that. I do not see any prosecutor coming anywhere near the fulfillment of the evidencial requirements. Dean

I apologize to everyone for misspeaking about the extent to which Jim has read Harvey and Lee. Glenn, Here is what I believe has happened on this thread: Jim started this thread to discuss Judyth and her story as his topic. He stated his hypothesis that Judyth's story is true. He provided as evidence a number of sources, including Dr. Mary's Monkey, photographs and records regarding Judyth, interviews with Judyth, etc. Others have responded, sometimes to these sources and sometimes with other information. Jim has asked the critics to read these sources before making a judgment. Some have done so, some have not. It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who choose not to read the information that he bases his hypothesis on. It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who go off the subject. It should also be pointed out that he took the time to read Harvey and Lee to better understand some of the critics. If you believe you have done the "homework" called for in order to judge Judyth's story, great! If you don't think Jim has provided enough information for you after all these posts, or the right information, I may disagree, but I will simply leave it at that. Dean

Glenn, Here is what I believe has happened on this thread: Jim started this thread to discuss Judyth and her story as his topic. He stated his hypothesis that Judyth's story is true. He provided as evidence a number of sources, including Dr. Mary's Monkey, photographs and records regarding Judyth, interviews with Judyth, etc. Others have responded, sometimes to these sources and sometimes with other information. Jim has asked the critics to read these sources before making a judgment. Some have done so, some have not. It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who choose not to read the information that he bases his hypothesis on. It is reasonable for him to be frustrated with those who go off the subject. It should also be pointed out that he took the time to read Harvey and Lee to better understand some of the critics. If you believe you have done the "homework" called for in order to judge Judyth's story, great! If you don't think Jim has provided enough information for you after all these posts, or the right information, I may disagree, but I will simply leave it at that. Dean

Great idea, John! I wrote an article on OpEd News on this very topic recently: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Deadline-...100415-534.html

Hi Barb, You quoted yourself from a previous post: Hi Kathy, After his summer job in the Gulf was over, Judyth and her husband returned to Gainesville, Florida where he was completing his degree. This is when Judyth is purported to have worked as a lab assistant at PenChem. (Fetzer posted some check stubs from PenChem a few days ago.) The story about the co-workers and what they saw on TV is one of the things that underwent some changes over the years. 1.This from an early draft of her book posted on the net .... in 2006, as I recall: A television set perched over our heads showed the news. JFK and Jackie had arrived at Love Field in Dallas. I tried to maintain an outward calm. The TV programs then were in black and white, but I could imagine that the roses Jackie Kennedy was [sic] given probably complemented her dress. I prayed to a God I did not believe in that there would be a bubble top placed over the limousine. When I saw the President and his wife enter a vehicle without a bubble top, I felt sick. A major problem with this is that the Kennedy's arrival at Love Field was only televised live on Dallas/Ft. Worth TV stations. 2. In her book printed by Trafford, pg 626, it was this: A television set perched over our heads showed the news, sports and weather beginning at noon. I saw the news about JFK arriving in Dallas, trying to maintain outward calm. All the TV programs were then in black and white, but I could imagine that the roses Jackie Kennedy was given probably complemented her dress. The problem with this is that there was no hour long noon news show in Gainesville according to any of the TV stations, as well as someone I was referred to at the university, I contacted a few years ago. Even if there was even a half hour news show at noon in Gainesville, Florida ... that would only be 11am in Dallas ... and the Kennedy's arrived at 11:40am Dallas time. That would be 12:40pm in Gainesville. Not in time for any 1/2 hour noon news show. 3. In 2003,in a Dutch interview originally broadcast in streaming audio, Judyth said this: Oh, I knew what was going to happen. I was working at a lab where I had been placed making special chemicals for our project in Florida and they all got chairs out to watch the assassination on TV. . . . And I saw it happen on TV, and we had worked so hard to stop that from happening. The problems with that are obvious. The complete interview is here .... narrated in Dutch, but Judyth speaks in English, it's just a few seconds under 14 minutes in length. The quote above is from the beginning of the interview: Link to Judyth's 2003 Dutch Radio interview: CLICK HERE Bests, Barb :-) --- Barb, The statements you cite are, at best, ambiguous. In reading #1 and #2, I could interpret Judyth's comments to refer to the news coverage of the Kennedys' arrival at Love Field. Simply put, she may have spoken about watching the arrival some time later when the news station in Florida replayed the event. As for #3, I played the part of the clip you have provided and again believe her statement could refer to the playing of events at a later time. This would be a better choice because it is widely known that no one showed the assassination live. I have trouble reading or hearing any of these statements as lies or wilful distortions. Dean

Please detail ... briefly ... the "solid support" that renders "Judyth's statements" to be FACTS. In Fetzer's own words, as I posted recently, on what is or is not a FACT: It should be observed that no claim is a "fact" unless it happens to be true. Indeed, in its stronger sense, "facts" are claims whose truth has been verified. (James Fetzer, Sunday, Apr 5, 2009 8:37am Altgen's thread, yahoo group) We are familiar with Judyth's many statements and claims. Please post the verification for those 17 points that your are calling "facts." For instance, on point #1 .... Judyth claims she was invited to New Orleans by Dr. Ochsner. What have you or anyone been able to *verify* that confirms that claim is a "fact"? Thanks, Barb :-) Hi Barb, As I noted in my last post, different people have different standards in judging Judyth's statements. Who do you place the burden of proof upon? I believe that what one says is true unless proven otherwise. So here is how I view point #1: Source: "James Fetzer: 14 Reasons to Believe in Judyth Vary Baker": http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/14...udyth-vary.html Baker provides substantial reasons for why she should never have been employed at Reily’s as a Vice President’s secretary, when her expertise was in cancer research and medical technology: New Orleans’ Ochsner Clinic was world-renowned as a cancer research center. It’s reasonable to assume that Baker would not leave her studies, family, and friends in Florida simply to become a secretary in New Orleans. Her ease in obtaining a well-paying chemistry research position soon after her return to Florida proves she had no reason to leave unless it was originally, as she asserts, to work under the prestigious Doctors Ochsner and Sherman. Barb, if you are looking for a conversation between Dr. Ochsner and Judyth on videotape or evidence to that effect, obvioulsy you won't find it. I have never found many facts in the JFK assassination in this manner. Several facts pop up - her excellence in science has been noted. She participated in forums about science. There are newspaper clippings that have been cited here on this forum as to her skills in science at a young age. The inference that she did not go to New Orleans to be a secretary is more than reasonable. It connects with the rest of the story as well. She could have been a secretary anywhere, including her home in Florida. Each fact in #1 - #17 is a connection which makes the whole story integrated. If you decide you don't have the evidence and call one of them false, you may well call the whole story false. That would raise the question as to whether she make this story up. I answered that here at: http://judythbaker.blogspot.com/2010/03/wh...er-by-dean.html The presence of facts added to this one and that all have come from the same source strengthens the fact that the whole is true. If you choose to push an unreasonably high standard on this or any matter, your conclusion will be that the story is false. It is up to you. Dean

I had stopped posting on this thread because I thought that what had needed to be said here had been said. I was mistaken. Jim has provided us with 17 facts in support of the belief that Judyth Vary Baker has told us the truth. All of these facts have been derived from Judyth's statements and have solid support. There will always be those who contend that they need to hear more or they "hang their hat" on the idea that perhaps Judyth exaggerated something. It is to these critics who ignore relevant facts at their own peril that I can only offer my own story as an example of the imperfection of the human and the human memory: Three years ago, a judge removed me from a noteworthy case AFTER we had turned in our verdict. The judge said I had withheld a bias against one of the parties. This made the news on the Internet and embarassed me as I felt (and still feel) I did nothing wrong. My point is this: if there were a forum on jurors and I told my story on it, I am sure others would ask me questions about my experience. Some questions would be relevant and some would not. Though my memory is good and it has been only three years, I am sure I would give some incorrect information. I cannot name all of my fellow jurors, for example. Nor do I recall a whole lot about the case itself. And I would probably say I stood up to the judge in his chambers. Alas, the transcript does not support me there. (Maybe it is my pride) But I know this nightmare occurred and I know I was a part of it. If any critic of Judyth can honestly say they have held her to a fair standard, I am not going to sit here and question them. I can only ask that we consider what it is like to be questioned.

Jack, I would appreciate you addressing me directly on this forum. Courtesy, if not politeness, is the kind of thing that could help our community to work together to find the answers to the mysteries of the JFK assassination. Thank you, Dean Great question Dean. Thanks for clarifying. Simple answer. I don't know. I haven't made my mind up...how's that for some fence sitting? I'm gonna need these splinters removed. If you forced me to choose I would plump for number (2), but my mind swings around in circles and my questions for Judyth were to gain her insights on lots of confusing data. There is massive amounts of evidence that supports two Oswald's. I'd agree with Jim F and say that you need to keep an open mind on it all. The minute you make your mind up for certain then it can limit your thinking on other things. Wouldn't you agree? If I may merge this into Karl's reply too. I think there were people impersonating him who didn't have to specifically look like him in certain situations (Mexico - which resulted in post-assassination embarrassment when a photo of Mike Ditka is published) and there were times when the "double" was used. Hell, if I had the answer's Dean I'd be a wealthy man. Cheers Lee P.S. I think the question is "do I believe in a Harvey and Lee from such a young age?" There was, in my mind, a definitive "Harvey and Lee" in the assassination run-up and the Texas Theater incident is proof of that alone. I keep toying with the idea of Marguerite having twins and a separation process occurring as some sort of MKULTRA type experiment. Can I ask? What are your own thoughts on all of this? Lee, With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific. Also, the use of a permanent double would have incurred the risk of the "framed" person figuring out the scheme. Or the double could have revealed himself to the public after the assassination. It would seem a conspiracy would not want to bring about any unnecessary risks. Using several impersonators would likely mean telling each of them less about the plot than one would have to tell a permanent one. Because of the strong likelihood that this specific claim has been rebutted (ex: the assertion that the tooth supposedly belonging to LEE but having been paid for by Lee's aunt) and because of its impracticability, I do not believe HARVEY and LEE has been proven to be true. Dean

Doug, You had a question about my comment: With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific. Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I use CAPS to refer to HARVEY and LEE as a "2-Oswald theory." To prove this particular theory requires a great deal of evidence. Dean

Great question Dean. Thanks for clarifying. Simple answer. I don't know. I haven't made my mind up...how's that for some fence sitting? I'm gonna need these splinters removed. If you forced me to choose I would plump for number (2), but my mind swings around in circles and my questions for Judyth were to gain her insights on lots of confusing data. There is massive amounts of evidence that supports two Oswald's. I'd agree with Jim F and say that you need to keep an open mind on it all. The minute you make your mind up for certain then it can limit your thinking on other things. Wouldn't you agree? If I may merge this into Karl's reply too. I think there were people impersonating him who didn't have to specifically look like him in certain situations (Mexico - which resulted in post-assassination embarrassment when a photo of Mike Ditka is published) and there were times when the "double" was used. Hell, if I had the answer's Dean I'd be a wealthy man. Cheers Lee P.S. I think the question is "do I believe in a Harvey and Lee from such a young age?" There was, in my mind, a definitive "Harvey and Lee" in the assassination run-up and the Texas Theater incident is proof of that alone. I keep toying with the idea of Marguerite having twins and a separation process occurring as some sort of MKULTRA type experiment. Can I ask? What are your own thoughts on all of this? Lee, With my legal background, I focus on how much evidence is needed to prove a certain point. Proving HARVEY and LEE requires a great deal of evidence because it is so specific. Also, the use of a permanent double would have incurred the risk of the "framed" person figuring out the scheme. Or the double could have revealed himself to the public after the assassination. It would seem a conspiracy would not want to bring about any unnecessary risks. Using several impersonators would likely mean telling each of them less about the plot than one would have to tell a permanent one. Because of the strong likelihood that this specific claim has been rebutted (ex: the assertion that the tooth supposedly belonging to LEE but having been paid for by Lee's aunt) and because of its impracticability, I do not believe HARVEY and LEE has been proven to be true. Dean

Lee, Instead of giving a chance for Jim or Judyth to respond to what you wrote, Jack interrupted with a point already well known to many and not helpful in getting answers to what you said. I object to his form. His substance was not the point. Dean Sorry mate. I was replying whilst you were hence my post questioning you after your response to Jack. To be perfectly honest Dean, I'm still not getting it. Sorry. Jack 100% believes in Lee and Harvey being separate entities so his conclusions will always be "announced" as such... Sorry if I'm being a bit of a pain in the you know what here... Lee