Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

Dean...what a quaint idea! Refusing to comment on a book you have not read!

Jack

Jim

Thank you for your replies

The reason I have not replied about any of the posts about Armstrong is because I have not read his book. I am very upset with myself for not buying it when it came out, and my wife will not let me spend the $75.00-100.00 to buy the book. So I can not reply to anything that has to do with "Harvey and Lee" That would be very stupid on my part with out having read the book first

I will purchase Dr Mary's Monkey per your suggestion and read it (as it is much less then H&L

I will report back with my thoughts on it

The bottom line is that I hate seeing you loose two friends over Judyth, aside from all the other stuff, that is what im really trying to say Jim

Dean

My answers in Bold

Dean,

If I were not convinced she is genuine, I would not be here defending her.

More than one of your posts has bothered me. I ask the following questions:

(1) Have you ever actually met or spoken with Judyth Vary Baker?

No, I have through Email from you asked her a question and got a reply, I would talk to Judyth, but as I told you Jim I do not want to talk to a woman I do not know about personal issues that are sensitive, I will leave it at that you know what im talking about. If Judyth is willing to talk to me I am willing to read and reply to her

(2) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"?

I have watched it 10+ times, I love TMWKK and "The Love Affair" is my least favorite segment, followed very closly by French assassins

(3) Have you read MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONEY VIRUS?

No

(4) Have you read Ed Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

No

(5) Have you read my blog about Judyth Vary Baker?

Yes

(6) Have you listened to my 1-hour Haslem interview?

No

(7) Have you read my blog about DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

No

(8) Have you listened to Ed's 4-hour C2C interview?

No

(9) Are your opinions actually based upon research?

I have not researched any of Judyth's claims myself, however I have looked at alot of Barbs research on Judyth and what Barb has shown me is enough, I believe her research alone shuts down Judyth IMO

(10) What is the value of opinions not based on research?

I would say pretty high because most of us researchers have been around long enough to spot fakes, I dont need hard research to say that the stories Judyth Baker and James Files tell are false.

In every post before the last one I have expressed my feelings towards Judyth, but I have also said how I stand behind you Jim, what bothers you?

I hope its not my feelings for Judyth because they have nothing to do with my feelings about you Jim

I almost fell out of my chair when I read you were no longer friends with Jack

Look what she has done to you Jim

Do not let her do this, I look up to you Jim, I think of you as my voice for my alteration theories, I believe 100% in alteration Jim and stand behind you

But I can no longer do that because Judyth is wrong and she is loving the fact that she is breaking up your friendships

I have some questions for you now Jim, please answer them as I answered yours

1. Is believing in and backing up Judyth's story worth destroying two friendships?

IF FRIENDSHIP OUT WEIGHTS THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH, THERE IS NO SEARCH FOR TRUTH, ONLY FRIENDSHIPS.

2. Are you willing to have all of your credibility destroyed like all the other researchers who stood by Judyth before?

I SEE IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THE ARGUMENTS FOR JUDYTH ARE STRONGER THAN THOSE AGAINST HER.

3. What are you going to do and say when you find out that Judyth has been telling you a fake story?

THIS IS CALLED "BEGGING THE QUESTION". WHAT WILL YOU DO WHEN YOU BELATEDLY REALIZE I AM RIGHT?

4. How many times will it take to prove to you that Judyth is not telling the truth?

EGAD! I HAVE YET TO FIND ONE SERIOUS, PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT AGAINST HER PRESENTED ON THIS FORUM.

5. Why are you backing her up?

BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN HER, JUST AS I HAVE BACKED UP LIFTON AND JACK WHEN I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE RIGHT.

6. When did you start believing Judyth

I ONLY BEGAN STUDYING HER SERIOUSLY SINCE 2007. THE MORE I HAVE LEARNED, THE MORE I HAVE BELIEVED IN HER.

7. Did she contact you or did you contact her?

I THINK SHE SENT OUT AN EMAIL TO A HALF-DOZEN JFK STUDENTS, BUT I WAS THE ONLY ONE WILLING TO HEAR HER OUT.

8. Are you going to help her with her book?

NO, HER BOOK IS BASICALLY DONE (ALL WITHOUT ME). IT SHOULD APPEAR IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, I WOULD PRESUME.

9. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then Jack White's research?

MORE IMPORTANT ABOUT LEE HARVEY OSWALD BY A CONSIDERABLE MARGIN, BUT NOT, SAY, ABOUT THE ZAPRUDER FILM.

10. Has Judyth's "research" been more important to you then David Lifton's research?

NOT IN RELATION TO THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE OR THE Z-FILM, BUT I HAVE LEARNED NOTHING ABOUT OSWALD FROM LIFTON.

10. Do you believe Judyth over David Lifton?

ABOUT OSWALD AND NEW ORLEANS, I HAVE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL FROM ED AND FROM JUDYTH BUT NOTHING FROM LIFTON.

[Glenn Viklund]

Mr Fetzer,

Early on, I asked you a couple of questions. So far, there has been no answers. As this thread - hopefully - is fading out, I'd like to repeat those questions to you.

1. Where do you draw the line? When are you going to realize that this is not a question of "Judyth detractors"?

2. What conclusions do you draw from her consistent lying about her asylum process? None?

And, thirdly, as a matter of this thread:

3. Have you perhaps now realized that you are not the center of the Universe? Not even the center of the JFK assassination research? When you instantly dismiss Mr Harris, of whom "you've never heard", as a phony, could it possibly occur to you that things are happening without your knowledge? And have been, for years?

Hi Glenn,

There are several questions that were asked, issues raised, documents posted ... that received no response. What Judyth, with Fetzer's help, did, was steer the focus off of her and her claims and onto other people and other issues, especially Jack. I could feign surprise. :-) And given that Fetzer, as you and Jack have both noted, has himself said that he does not know Judyth's story, one would think he would be interested in the answers to those questions himself!. His lengthy comments deriding researchers and even friends while extolling the virtues of Judyth, don't indicate that he even read...or absorbed ... what was raised, nor that he has so much as one iota of any expected researcher curiosity about those items troubling to, or downright conflicting with, Judyth's claims.

Barb,

Several times, in this thread alone, Mr Fetzer has pointed out his academic qualifications - superior to others, no less. I'm sure they are. Which is also why I find it deeply disturbing to watch the way that Mr Fetzer is dealing with questions and non supporters of JVB. I was dismissed before I even got started in this thread, so was Mr Harris, Mr Dolva and Mr Williams. As for questions, Mr Fetzer is consistently avoiding to answer them. He brings JVBs answers forward, but denies any discussion about those answers of hers. However, he has stated several times that these answers "far outweigh any critic of them".

This is hardly examples of high academic standards. During my six years of University I never encountered anything similar, not once. Now, Edu is no university, true. But this way of hiding behind JVB on each and every issue does not even impress me when using Internet chat standards. The way that Mr Fetzer, without any hesitation, promotes her discrediting antics of opponents - well, that's perhaps not even worth commenting on, it might be wise of me not to do that in a public forum.

Judyth criticized me for not reading the letter she received from Walter Reed, for instance ... and she even posted a new scan/photo of it for someone ... but as always, as I pointed out to her, she covered up the bottom of the first page of the letter. I asked why that was and asked Fetzer to have Judyth send him the entire letter so that it could be posted. No one can read what they cannot see. That letter appeared in her book, she sent it to Martin to have Tony Marsh put it up on his site, and she posted it here. All three times it appears with the bottom of the first page of that letter covered up so it cannot be seen/read ... or lopped off all together. No response to the request or the question.

I noted that Judyth claims both in her book and in a BlackOp radio interview to have a "sheaf" of documents detailing the apportionment of grants and other funding for her research ... and she even quoted from them on the radio show. Yet this "sheaf" has never been seen even though requested, and I requested it again in this thread. No response.

Isn't just exactly this what has been going on for the past decade? JVB referring to hard evidence - but never actually presenting them? Not even in front of a court she could present the hard evidence she claimed to be in possession of.

This "sheaf" would be very important documentation for her to produce given the information I was given by the American Cancer Society that they have no record of her having received ANYthing other than the $250 science fair prize .... and I posted 3 yrs of annual reports from the National Science Foundation, from whom she also claims funding, that show no Judy Vary received any funding for any project from them. No response to that information from Fetzer or Judyth. If she has this "sheaf" of documents proving her funding claims, why has it never been produced?

And more, of course, as you know ... as there was the asylum issue that you asked about after getting the documents and translating them, and others raised issues and questions as well.

It is a bit hard to forget the way I was treated for bringing those documents forward....:-)

Instead, Judyth turned the focus to other things ... like Harvey & Lee ... and onto Jack. The two Oswald theory, Armstrong's work and Jack's interest and belief in that theory predate Judyth emerging as a "witness." It has been debated for years ... some believe it, some don't. As *researchers* Fetzer and Judyth are both entitled to her opinion and to present her findings, thoughts, etc. But presenting it as "I am right, you are wrong, because I am a witness and I was there" is not credible because it is her credibility that is in question ... AND she has not been documented to have been a witness to anything regarding Oswald in the first place. Fetzer has fallen hook, line and sinker into allowing the "witness" to self verify her own claims. Yet he chastises others, including old friends, for their alleged lack of scholarship in research, logic and critical thinking? Please!

Yes, it's one thing to refer to those high standards - but an entirely different issue when it comes to living up them.

Harvey and Lee stands or falls on its own merit ... for anyone interested in debating that evidence or who can produce *valid* new evidence. It has nothing to do with Judyth's claims.

Judyth's story stands or falls on its own merit as well ... what evidence can or cannot be confirmed to prove claims that can be checked, thus bolstering her credibility ....or what claims *fail* the verification process, thereby bringing her credibity into even greater question.

Agreed. I personally have made up my mind, as I've stated earlier in this thread. Her behaviour made the difference. There's no way anyone with a clear conscious would do what she is doing. This instant impulse of hers to try to discredit and destroy her opponents would not be needed if her story was true. And, of course, the asylum issue did her certainly no favors either.

It has been my experience, and that of others ...including Jack from things he has said here, that Judyth revels when she can ramble on, changing details, adding details, making excuses,etc ... but when the going gets tough, she is asked too many troubling questions or presented with too much that contradicts her story, she generally has either a crisis, or has to leave and won't be able to be at her computer or be on the net for some reason. And that is what, imo, happened here. And then, as also happened here, she is not available for questions ... but seems to always manage to get a message through to her post typer when there is something *she* wants to say.

As long as Judyth is part of the question ... she cannot be used as the answer.

It's taken on an old time tent revival sort of thing ... complete with damnation and Fetzer-fire meted out to those who dare to question rather than fall to their knees slain in the spirit of belief. There are pages and pages and pages of it that only serve to further divert where the focus should be.

If people really are interested in whether or not Judyth is, as Fetzer proclaims, "the real deal" ... then the focus needs to be on Judyth and her claims. What can be confirmed or denied. And if Judyth is the "real deal" ... both she and Fetzer should not only expect, but welcome that inquiry. Faith is for God, establishing facts that can help lead us to resolution of this case, requires something tangible.

Bests,

Barb :-)

"both she and Fetzer should not only expect, but welcome that inquiry."

Well, their natural instinct appears more to be that of wanting to kill any disbeliever. But hey, there's something for them to work on...it can't get any worse.

Barb,

As you know, Mr Fetzer is referring to the two of us as "collaborators". Exactly about what or how, I'm not sure. He hasn't been specific about the details of this accusation - as I assume it is. But as a matter of record, I do admire your research and the way that you are conducting yourself in these discussions. Very professional, in my view. I just don't understand where you are able to find the energy to do this, over and over again?

Best regards,

Glenn V.

Edited April 19, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Michael Hogan]

.....The reason I have not replied about any of the posts about Armstrong is because I have not read his book. I am very upset with myself for not buying it when it came out, and my wife will not let me spend the $75.00-100.00 to buy the book. So I can not reply to anything that has to do with "Harvey and Lee" That would be very stupid on my part with out having read the book first

I will purchase Dr Mary's Monkey per your suggestion and read it (as it is much less then H&L)

I will report back with my thoughts on it

The bottom line is that I hate seeing you lose two friends over Judyth, aside from all the other stuff, that is what im really trying to say Jim

Dean, if you change your mind about Judyth Baker and come to believe that she and Lee Oswald were

lovers, after reading Dr. Mary's Monkey, I'll be glad to give you my extra copy of Harvey & Lee.

Ed Haslam leaves no doubt that he believes in Judyth Baker as a person, as he puts it. But the actual

evidence he gives in his book for her love relationship with LHO is minimal, certainly nothing that

hasn't already appeared in this thread.

In Dr Mary's Monkey, Haslam urges the readers to make up their own minds. He refers them

to Baker's two volume book, Lee Harvey Oswald. He now admits this account is flawed.

Keep in mind that, according to Judyth Baker, she made the decision not to tell Haslam

that her book was unauthorized by her and contained errors. She would have told him if

she'd had any idea he was writing a book. Yet, according to Haslam, she "corrected and corroborated"

her story that ultimately appeared in his book.

It's these types of accounts that give me a vague unease about the whole thing.

At any rate, Ed Haslam has posted twice on this thread. The way I read it, he is asking members to wait

until Judyth Baker's new book comes out to make up their minds. He concedes there are shortcomings in

her previous accounts. Again, I have no doubt that Haslam believes she had a love affair with Oswald.

He told Jim Marrs in 2003 that this belief stems more from his belief in her as a person than it does

from actual evidence. If you get the chance, listen to that interview on YouTube, beginning at about the

forty-three minute mark.

In my opinion, Haslam has always been more interested in Judyth Baker's role in cancer research than

he has been with her alleged love relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Dear Forum Members,

Next, I can't help but think that this discussion of Judyth Vary Baker will be more productive once the members have read her soon-to-be-released book ME AND LEE, which will be her official autobiographical portrait of how her quest to find a cure for cancer lead her to work as a secretary at the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 under the direction of an ex-FBI agent and at the exact same time that Lee Oswald worked there. Trine Day Press has put a great deal of effort into making sure that the documents are well presented and that her story is properly edited for a thoughtful read by those who really want to hear her tale.

Like many, I wish such a book had been available many years earlier. Unfortunately, it was not.

I do hope that this forum's members, which are among the best informed JFK assassination researchers engaged in public debate, will read this important book with an open mind. And I look forward to their discussion about it, once they do.

Until then, all involved should realize that what is being discussed here is based primarily upon an incomplete recounting of her story and illuminated by a constellation of malignant perceptions which emerged over years of inadequate, and occasionally inappropriate, representations. What you will read is the personal story of a witness to an important, albeit infamous, chapter of our history - one which deserves a fair hearing, a full review of the evidence, and the benefit of solid analysis. Once that happens, I look forward to reading your thoughts about it.

My Best to all,

Ed Haslam

author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY

Jack,

Thanks for your questions. I have great admiration for the work that you have done over the years. I will say that I am confident that if you read ME AND LEE with the same "close scrutiny" that you have used to study all those photos, then you will come to reasonable answers... whatever they may be. And I will be interested to hear your thought about them when you do.

From my own experience, I will say that, despite the considerable contact that I had with Judyth since Nov. 2000 and all of the other previous attempts by others to recount her tale, I did not understand "the flow" of her story. While I did think that certain "landmarks" grounded her story (such as the W2 form from Reily Coffee and her time at Roswell Park Cancer Institute), there was still a forest of unanswered questions for me. I found much of her tale "disconnected" and her retelling of it "confusing," particularly on important issues like how she became involved with people like Dr. Alton Ochsner and the erratic path of her college career. I queried Judyth relentlessly about these issues, the gaps in the story, and many other issues. There were many tense moments during this process, and she became frustrated with me at times. But I finally realized this was because there were things that she was reluctant to discuss, some for personal reasons. This process took more time than I anticipated, but eventually what I found was that the key to understanding her New Orleans activities lies in the years before she ever arrived in New Orleans and before she ever met Lee Oswald. I finally realized that understanding what made young "Judy Vary" tick was as important as anything we have heard to date about her romance with Lee Oswald. She was the resource that they needed to create the bio-weapon secretly, and there is nothing glorious or glamorous about killing baby mice, amputating their tumors and grinding them up in a blender. In fact, she became disgusted with what she was doing and realized that she had been lead down the path of evil by those she trusted. In the final analysis, I consider Judyth "a witness," not "a researcher," and I think that her story must be understood in that light. But the questions remain: What insights can we gain from the recollections of this witness? And do they help us understand what happened in Dallas?

Overall, I will say that my view of her Judyth shifted as I read ME AND LEE. The portrait is paints of her is not particularly flattering, but it rings true. And it is a better grounded story than I expected to find. One that makes far more sense than anything I had heard from earlier versions. One whose pieces fit together better than I had expected. One that I hope that you (and the others seriously concerned about this subject) will read with an open mind.

My Best,

Ed Haslam

[Dean Hagerman]

Well Michael thanks for the offer but you know as well as I do that you will be keeping your extra copy of H&L

Unless Dr Mary's Monkey contains pictures of Judyth and LHO embracing each other Im positive it will not change my mind

I want to read it to try and see were Jim is coming from

.....The reason I have not replied about any of the posts about Armstrong is because I have not read his book. I am very upset with myself for not buying it when it came out, and my wife will not let me spend the $75.00-100.00 to buy the book. So I can not reply to anything that has to do with "Harvey and Lee" That would be very stupid on my part with out having read the book first

I will purchase Dr Mary's Monkey per your suggestion and read it (as it is much less then H&L)

I will report back with my thoughts on it

The bottom line is that I hate seeing you lose two friends over Judyth, aside from all the other stuff, that is what im really trying to say Jim

Dean, if you change your mind about Judyth Baker and come to believe that she and Lee Oswald were

lovers, after reading Dr. Mary's Monkey, I'll be glad to give you my extra copy of Harvey & Lee.

Ed Haslam leaves no doubt that he believes in Judyth Baker as a person, as he puts it. But the actual

evidence he gives in his book for her love relationship with LHO is minimal, certainly nothing that

hasn't already appeared in this thread.

In Dr Mary's Monkey, Haslam urges the readers to make up their own minds. He refers them

to Baker's two volume book, Lee Harvey Oswald. He now admits this account is flawed.

Keep in mind that, according to Judyth Baker, she made the decision not to tell Haslam

that her book was unauthorized by her and contained errors. She would have told him if

she'd had any idea he was writing a book. Yet, according to Haslam, she "corrected and corroborated"

her story that ultimately appeared in his book.

It's these types of accounts that give me a vague unease about the whole thing.

At any rate, Ed Haslam has posted twice on this thread. The way I read it, he is asking members to wait

until Judyth Baker's new book comes out to make up their minds. He concedes there are shortcomings in

her previous accounts. Again, I have no doubt that Haslam believes she had a love affair with Oswald.

He told Jim Marrs in 2003 that this belief stems more from his belief in her as a person than it does

from actual evidence. If you get the chance, listen to that interview on YouTube, beginning at about the

forty-three minute mark.

In my opinion, Haslam has always been more interested in Judyth Baker's role in cancer research than

he has been with her alleged love relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Dear Forum Members,

Next, I can't help but think that this discussion of Judyth Vary Baker will be more productive once the members have read her soon-to-be-released book ME AND LEE, which will be her official autobiographical portrait of how her quest to find a cure for cancer lead her to work as a secretary at the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 under the direction of an ex-FBI agent and at the exact same time that Lee Oswald worked there. Trine Day Press has put a great deal of effort into making sure that the documents are well presented and that her story is properly edited for a thoughtful read by those who really want to hear her tale.

Like many, I wish such a book had been available many years earlier. Unfortunately, it was not.

I do hope that this forum's members, which are among the best informed JFK assassination researchers engaged in public debate, will read this important book with an open mind. And I look forward to their discussion about it, once they do.

Until then, all involved should realize that what is being discussed here is based primarily upon an incomplete recounting of her story and illuminated by a constellation of malignant perceptions which emerged over years of inadequate, and occasionally inappropriate, representations. What you will read is the personal story of a witness to an important, albeit infamous, chapter of our history - one which deserves a fair hearing, a full review of the evidence, and the benefit of solid analysis. Once that happens, I look forward to reading your thoughts about it.

My Best to all,

Ed Haslam

author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY

Jack,

Thanks for your questions. I have great admiration for the work that you have done over the years. I will say that I am confident that if you read ME AND LEE with the same "close scrutiny" that you have used to study all those photos, then you will come to reasonable answers... whatever they may be. And I will be interested to hear your thought about them when you do.

From my own experience, I will say that, despite the considerable contact that I had with Judyth since Nov. 2000 and all of the other previous attempts by others to recount her tale, I did not understand "the flow" of her story. While I did think that certain "landmarks" grounded her story (such as the W2 form from Reily Coffee and her time at Roswell Park Cancer Institute), there was still a forest of unanswered questions for me. I found much of her tale "disconnected" and her retelling of it "confusing," particularly on important issues like how she became involved with people like Dr. Alton Ochsner and the erratic path of her college career. I queried Judyth relentlessly about these issues, the gaps in the story, and many other issues. There were many tense moments during this process, and she became frustrated with me at times. But I finally realized this was because there were things that she was reluctant to discuss, some for personal reasons. This process took more time than I anticipated, but eventually what I found was that the key to understanding her New Orleans activities lies in the years before she ever arrived in New Orleans and before she ever met Lee Oswald. I finally realized that understanding what made young "Judy Vary" tick was as important as anything we have heard to date about her romance with Lee Oswald. She was the resource that they needed to create the bio-weapon secretly, and there is nothing glorious or glamorous about killing baby mice, amputating their tumors and grinding them up in a blender. In fact, she became disgusted with what she was doing and realized that she had been lead down the path of evil by those she trusted. In the final analysis, I consider Judyth "a witness," not "a researcher," and I think that her story must be understood in that light. But the questions remain: What insights can we gain from the recollections of this witness? And do they help us understand what happened in Dallas?

Overall, I will say that my view of her Judyth shifted as I read ME AND LEE. The portrait is paints of her is not particularly flattering, but it rings true. And it is a better grounded story than I expected to find. One that makes far more sense than anything I had heard from earlier versions. One whose pieces fit together better than I had expected. One that I hope that you (and the others seriously concerned about this subject) will read with an open mind.

My Best,

Ed Haslam

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, Dean, God knows I wouldn't want your mind to be changed by anything like new relevant evidence! What is this forum coming to?

Click to flip through ME &LEE: http://www.trineday.com/paypal_store/produ...12-flip-320.gif

For more on ME & LEE, see http://www.trineday.com/paypal_store/produ...+Lee/index.html

Well Michael thanks for the offer but you know as well as I do that you will be keeping your extra copy of H&L

Unless Dr Mary's Monkey contains pictures of Judyth and LHO embracing each other Im positive it will not change my mind

I want to read it to try and see were Jim is coming from

.....The reason I have not replied about any of the posts about Armstrong is because I have not read his book. I am very upset with myself for not buying it when it came out, and my wife will not let me spend the $75.00-100.00 to buy the book. So I can not reply to anything that has to do with "Harvey and Lee" That would be very stupid on my part with out having read the book first

I will purchase Dr Mary's Monkey per your suggestion and read it (as it is much less then H&L)

I will report back with my thoughts on it

The bottom line is that I hate seeing you lose two friends over Judyth, aside from all the other stuff, that is what im really trying to say Jim

Dean, if you change your mind about Judyth Baker and come to believe that she and Lee Oswald were

lovers, after reading Dr. Mary's Monkey, I'll be glad to give you my extra copy of Harvey & Lee.

Ed Haslam leaves no doubt that he believes in Judyth Baker as a person, as he puts it. But the actual

evidence he gives in his book for her love relationship with LHO is minimal, certainly nothing that

hasn't already appeared in this thread.

In Dr Mary's Monkey, Haslam urges the readers to make up their own minds. He refers them

to Baker's two volume book, Lee Harvey Oswald. He now admits this account is flawed.

Keep in mind that, according to Judyth Baker, she made the decision not to tell Haslam

that her book was unauthorized by her and contained errors. She would have told him if

she'd had any idea he was writing a book. Yet, according to Haslam, she "corrected and corroborated"

her story that ultimately appeared in his book.

It's these types of accounts that give me a vague unease about the whole thing.

At any rate, Ed Haslam has posted twice on this thread. The way I read it, he is asking members to wait

until Judyth Baker's new book comes out to make up their minds. He concedes there are shortcomings in

her previous accounts. Again, I have no doubt that Haslam believes she had a love affair with Oswald.

He told Jim Marrs in 2003 that this belief stems more from his belief in her as a person than it does

from actual evidence. If you get the chance, listen to that interview on YouTube, beginning at about the

forty-three minute mark.

In my opinion, Haslam has always been more interested in Judyth Baker's role in cancer research than

he has been with her alleged love relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Dear Forum Members,

Next, I can't help but think that this discussion of Judyth Vary Baker will be more productive once the members have read her soon-to-be-released book ME AND LEE, which will be her official autobiographical portrait of how her quest to find a cure for cancer lead her to work as a secretary at the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 under the direction of an ex-FBI agent and at the exact same time that Lee Oswald worked there. Trine Day Press has put a great deal of effort into making sure that the documents are well presented and that her story is properly edited for a thoughtful read by those who really want to hear her tale.

Like many, I wish such a book had been available many years earlier. Unfortunately, it was not.

I do hope that this forum's members, which are among the best informed JFK assassination researchers engaged in public debate, will read this important book with an open mind. And I look forward to their discussion about it, once they do.

Until then, all involved should realize that what is being discussed here is based primarily upon an incomplete recounting of her story and illuminated by a constellation of malignant perceptions which emerged over years of inadequate, and occasionally inappropriate, representations. What you will read is the personal story of a witness to an important, albeit infamous, chapter of our history - one which deserves a fair hearing, a full review of the evidence, and the benefit of solid analysis. Once that happens, I look forward to reading your thoughts about it.

My Best to all,

Ed Haslam

author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY

Jack,

Thanks for your questions. I have great admiration for the work that you have done over the years. I will say that I am confident that if you read ME AND LEE with the same "close scrutiny" that you have used to study all those photos, then you will come to reasonable answers... whatever they may be. And I will be interested to hear your thought about them when you do.

From my own experience, I will say that, despite the considerable contact that I had with Judyth since Nov. 2000 and all of the other previous attempts by others to recount her tale, I did not understand "the flow" of her story. While I did think that certain "landmarks" grounded her story (such as the W2 form from Reily Coffee and her time at Roswell Park Cancer Institute), there was still a forest of unanswered questions for me. I found much of her tale "disconnected" and her retelling of it "confusing," particularly on important issues like how she became involved with people like Dr. Alton Ochsner and the erratic path of her college career. I queried Judyth relentlessly about these issues, the gaps in the story, and many other issues. There were many tense moments during this process, and she became frustrated with me at times. But I finally realized this was because there were things that she was reluctant to discuss, some for personal reasons. This process took more time than I anticipated, but eventually what I found was that the key to understanding her New Orleans activities lies in the years before she ever arrived in New Orleans and before she ever met Lee Oswald. I finally realized that understanding what made young "Judy Vary" tick was as important as anything we have heard to date about her romance with Lee Oswald. She was the resource that they needed to create the bio-weapon secretly, and there is nothing glorious or glamorous about killing baby mice, amputating their tumors and grinding them up in a blender. In fact, she became disgusted with what she was doing and realized that she had been lead down the path of evil by those she trusted. In the final analysis, I consider Judyth "a witness," not "a researcher," and I think that her story must be understood in that light. But the questions remain: What insights can we gain from the recollections of this witness? And do they help us understand what happened in Dallas?

Overall, I will say that my view of her Judyth shifted as I read ME AND LEE. The portrait is paints of her is not particularly flattering, but it rings true. And it is a better grounded story than I expected to find. One that makes far more sense than anything I had heard from earlier versions. One whose pieces fit together better than I had expected. One that I hope that you (and the others seriously concerned about this subject) will read with an open mind.

My Best,

Ed Haslam

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO JUNKKARINEN ABOUT ANOTHER FABRICATED MYSTERY

Here is the documentation showing that Barb has again been making up issues as

she goes along. I have never known anyone to be subjected to such abuse as has

Judyth on this and other forums. In any case, here is more support for her position.

JUDYTH: MEDEC-ZOA

In an e-mail to Dave Reitzes in November 2000, Judyth told

him:

Anyway, the letter i have from Walter Reed mentions file name

MEDEC-ZOA. I was ZOA and I was assigned to something called ZOE.

In her book, as a caption under the photo of the letter she received

from Dr. Jacobus at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Judyth

writes:

The letter and notes I received from Walter Reed referred to a file

called 'Medec Zoa'.

As quoted in my post on Judyth's letter to President Kennedy (post#982), Judyth claimed that when she was whisked away to a room by scientists, military officers and others and signed loyalty oaths, she was told to write to both President Kennedy and Walter Reed. She did write to Walter Reed (no copy of that letter available) and Jacobus replied to her on 2 September 1960. Walter Reed Institute of Research, then and now, enthusiastically supported students engaged in science and research. The letter is difficult to read here ... perhaps Judyth will provide copies to Jim so that the entire letter can be seen ... and so that it can be photographed or scanned head on and with greater clarity. Judyth had written WR about her interest and experiments in protecting against injury to the patient during radiation treatment. Dr. Jacobus was sending her some needed chemicals separately, was very encouraging, and encouraged her to let them know how her experiment worked out.

Judyth has claimed that she made regular reports, and that she received several more notes and packages ... but never another letter. No other notes, aside from this letter, has been shown.

The jpg of the letter is what Judyth sent Martin to post as part of her evidence. As you can see, the letter is not complete, the bottom half of the front page is not included. In her book, the bottom half of the page is covered by the end of the Jacobus letter on the next or back page.

"MEDEC-ZOA" appears to the left of the "logo" under the letterhead. It

is in no way buddied up to Judyth's name.

I asked a couple of military types, one Air Force, one Army, about

that acronym and both told me the MEDEC would refer to the Command,

and the ZOA would refer to some office within that command. They were

exactly right.

This is not a "file" nor does "ZOA" designate Judyth. It is what the

Army calls an "office symbol" and is essentially an address.

In army lingo, the first 5 letters, in this case, MEDEC, designate the

command. MEDEC was the Medical Research and Development Command, it

was created in 1958 and existed until 1994 when the command name was

changed to MRMC, Medical Research and Materials Command. Today the

office symbol for Walter Reed Army Institute of Research is MCMR [as of June 2008 when I initially wrote this].

The 3 letters after the hyphen, in this case "ZOA" refers to the the

place and department or office within that command. We know the letter

came from the office of the Chief of the Radiology Department.

The three letters that follow the current command, MCMR, are UWZ. Like

ZOA, those letters do not stand for anything ... they designate an

address within the command. The UW is common to all

offices/departments within WRAIR today. The third letter narrows it

down to which department or office, and if those 3 letters are

followed by a hyphen and then a number, it narrows it down even

further, even to a specific person.

MEDEC-ZOA was essentially the office or department address in Army

speak.

I spoke to Debra at WRAIR, she is the Assistant Director for Research

Marketing and Policy Development. She went to a couple of old timers

as well as to historical data on the previous command designations ...

and their "office symbols" of yore ... and then called me with the

information. My thanks to her.

MEDEC-ZOA is no mystery ... and no file or designation regarding

Judyth for any special or secret project.

Barb :-)

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

Jim my mind has been changed 100s of times on assassination issues and theories

Please tell me what this new relevant evidence is, because all I have seen in this thread from Judyth is old news that has been debunked or is just not to be believed

I am very open and will read or listen to anything you have to say Jim

Well, Dean, God knows I wouldn't want your mind to be changed by anything like new relevant evidence! What is this forum coming to?

Click to flip through ME &LEE: http://www.trineday.com/paypal_store/produ...12-flip-320.gif

For more on ME & LEE, see http://www.trineday.com/paypal_store/produ...+Lee/index.html

Well Michael thanks for the offer but you know as well as I do that you will be keeping your extra copy of H&L

Unless Dr Mary's Monkey contains pictures of Judyth and LHO embracing each other Im positive it will not change my mind

I want to read it to try and see were Jim is coming from

.....The reason I have not replied about any of the posts about Armstrong is because I have not read his book. I am very upset with myself for not buying it when it came out, and my wife will not let me spend the $75.00-100.00 to buy the book. So I can not reply to anything that has to do with "Harvey and Lee" That would be very stupid on my part with out having read the book first

I will purchase Dr Mary's Monkey per your suggestion and read it (as it is much less then H&L)

I will report back with my thoughts on it

The bottom line is that I hate seeing you lose two friends over Judyth, aside from all the other stuff, that is what im really trying to say Jim

Dean, if you change your mind about Judyth Baker and come to believe that she and Lee Oswald were

lovers, after reading Dr. Mary's Monkey, I'll be glad to give you my extra copy of Harvey & Lee.

Ed Haslam leaves no doubt that he believes in Judyth Baker as a person, as he puts it. But the actual

evidence he gives in his book for her love relationship with LHO is minimal, certainly nothing that

hasn't already appeared in this thread.

In Dr Mary's Monkey, Haslam urges the readers to make up their own minds. He refers them

to Baker's two volume book, Lee Harvey Oswald. He now admits this account is flawed.

Keep in mind that, according to Judyth Baker, she made the decision not to tell Haslam

that her book was unauthorized by her and contained errors. She would have told him if

she'd had any idea he was writing a book. Yet, according to Haslam, she "corrected and corroborated"

her story that ultimately appeared in his book.

It's these types of accounts that give me a vague unease about the whole thing.

At any rate, Ed Haslam has posted twice on this thread. The way I read it, he is asking members to wait

until Judyth Baker's new book comes out to make up their minds. He concedes there are shortcomings in

her previous accounts. Again, I have no doubt that Haslam believes she had a love affair with Oswald.

He told Jim Marrs in 2003 that this belief stems more from his belief in her as a person than it does

from actual evidence. If you get the chance, listen to that interview on YouTube, beginning at about the

forty-three minute mark.

In my opinion, Haslam has always been more interested in Judyth Baker's role in cancer research than

he has been with her alleged love relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Dear Forum Members,

Next, I can't help but think that this discussion of Judyth Vary Baker will be more productive once the members have read her soon-to-be-released book ME AND LEE, which will be her official autobiographical portrait of how her quest to find a cure for cancer lead her to work as a secretary at the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 under the direction of an ex-FBI agent and at the exact same time that Lee Oswald worked there. Trine Day Press has put a great deal of effort into making sure that the documents are well presented and that her story is properly edited for a thoughtful read by those who really want to hear her tale.

Like many, I wish such a book had been available many years earlier. Unfortunately, it was not.

I do hope that this forum's members, which are among the best informed JFK assassination researchers engaged in public debate, will read this important book with an open mind. And I look forward to their discussion about it, once they do.

Until then, all involved should realize that what is being discussed here is based primarily upon an incomplete recounting of her story and illuminated by a constellation of malignant perceptions which emerged over years of inadequate, and occasionally inappropriate, representations. What you will read is the personal story of a witness to an important, albeit infamous, chapter of our history - one which deserves a fair hearing, a full review of the evidence, and the benefit of solid analysis. Once that happens, I look forward to reading your thoughts about it.

My Best to all,

Ed Haslam

author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY

Jack,

Thanks for your questions. I have great admiration for the work that you have done over the years. I will say that I am confident that if you read ME AND LEE with the same "close scrutiny" that you have used to study all those photos, then you will come to reasonable answers... whatever they may be. And I will be interested to hear your thought about them when you do.

From my own experience, I will say that, despite the considerable contact that I had with Judyth since Nov. 2000 and all of the other previous attempts by others to recount her tale, I did not understand "the flow" of her story. While I did think that certain "landmarks" grounded her story (such as the W2 form from Reily Coffee and her time at Roswell Park Cancer Institute), there was still a forest of unanswered questions for me. I found much of her tale "disconnected" and her retelling of it "confusing," particularly on important issues like how she became involved with people like Dr. Alton Ochsner and the erratic path of her college career. I queried Judyth relentlessly about these issues, the gaps in the story, and many other issues. There were many tense moments during this process, and she became frustrated with me at times. But I finally realized this was because there were things that she was reluctant to discuss, some for personal reasons. This process took more time than I anticipated, but eventually what I found was that the key to understanding her New Orleans activities lies in the years before she ever arrived in New Orleans and before she ever met Lee Oswald. I finally realized that understanding what made young "Judy Vary" tick was as important as anything we have heard to date about her romance with Lee Oswald. She was the resource that they needed to create the bio-weapon secretly, and there is nothing glorious or glamorous about killing baby mice, amputating their tumors and grinding them up in a blender. In fact, she became disgusted with what she was doing and realized that she had been lead down the path of evil by those she trusted. In the final analysis, I consider Judyth "a witness," not "a researcher," and I think that her story must be understood in that light. But the questions remain: What insights can we gain from the recollections of this witness? And do they help us understand what happened in Dallas?

Overall, I will say that my view of her Judyth shifted as I read ME AND LEE. The portrait is paints of her is not particularly flattering, but it rings true. And it is a better grounded story than I expected to find. One that makes far more sense than anything I had heard from earlier versions. One whose pieces fit together better than I had expected. One that I hope that you (and the others seriously concerned about this subject) will read with an open mind.

My Best,

Ed Haslam

[Pamela Brown]

Glenn Viklund said to BJ:

As you know, Mr Fetzer is referring to the two of us as "collaborators". Exactly about what or how, I'm not sure.

You give Jim evidence that you regularly cheer each other on in your attacks on Judyth; maybe that's why.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON HOWARD'S 2001 POST REGARDING JUDYTH'S RECORD-KEEPING FOR LEE

NOTE: Howard Platzman has put it extremely well in his commentary about Paul Hoch: The evidence, when it is all laid out for you, is copious: This woman has lived a very unusual life, and no con artist could "insert herself" into Lee Oswald's life so neatly at so many points. When you consider the research Ed Haslam has done and published in DR. MARY'S MONKEY with the definitive evidence of Judyth's genius as a student of science and at research on cancer with the situation in New Orleans at the time, as he has explained it, I have a hard time appreciating why anyone would continue to doubt he truth of the core of her story in relation to Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Dr. Alton Ochsner. Everyone should be begin by reading Edward Haslam's through-going study.

Howard wrote this in 2001: 01/10/2001 12:19:59 PM Central Standard Time

This document is evidence we had given up hope of ever finding. It is well over a year and a half since I first heard about the missing piece part of the credit report. The crazy thing is that Paul Hoch, who found it, seems to think it hurts her case. Don't you think she'd have pulled this out of her hat to keep from losing CBS...FOUR SEPARATE TIMES?!

This claim, one among many, was one she had no reason to make and every reason not to (the intitials that aren't hers, e.g.). We have agonized over the seeming disappearance of this report. And now that it has been found, it is being presented as something she was saving to impress you all with at the right time. Well, the "right time" has come and gone.

I once had a great deal of respect for Paul Hoch, but he has refused to respond to personal e-mails in which I, quite calmly, I believe, point out the irrationality of his theories.

When countered, by J or Martin, he takes a step back. He seems no less biased than McAdams, with his last stated position being that she may have somehow "absorbed" the document, but she couldn't have written it. Yikes! From what position did she do so?

He has refrained from calling her a xxxx, so I assume this at least puts her at Reily's. But he has speculated that she saw it at the Archives, which, for J, would be tantamount to calling her a xxxx. It's silly to argue that she had a false memory of something she recently researched, so I guess it's "xxxx" by default.

Now, with this thing in front of me, I can see why J claims she had a devil of a time typing it. The typed portion had to be aligned with the preprinted subject line.

J spoke of boxes and lines: well here they are.

And she spoke of two sections (maybe two pages): well, here is one page with two separate sections

   

Note two other rather interesting things [about the copies he was viewing]:

1 - There is no company name on it, at least that I can see on my screen

[Note: we finally got a copy where you can see the company name, in 2004 JVB]

2 - The typed-in word "affect" in "savings and affects" is MISSPELLED!

So a man who does several of these reports a day (according to Hoch), who is a professional, who I would guess is likely to write this rather common phrase over and over again in the natural course of his duties, a man who surely has at least seen it before in text written by others (reports by other investigators, how-to manuals, client files, etc.), cannot even spell it correctly?! Is there no room for suspicion here? By contrast, this is (pardon me, J) just the sort of spelling mistake J makes (recently, "publically" for "publicly").

Note by JVB: Yes, I'm a lousy typist....Note that Desmare was the Supervisor over the other investigators. As if a supervisor (not mentioned as such except in one report) would do an investigation on a mere maintenance man rather than handing it to one of his workers.

But I did not have initials for any of them -- just for Mr. Desmare -- HCD -- as he had given me his card when Monaghan brought me over to Reail Credit's office.

I did not have access to Personnel files over at Reily's, for we were working in the small Standard Coffee Office.

NOTE WELL: For decades researchers stated Lee worked at "Reily Coffee Company," and I have been told that nobody --until I spoke out in 1999-2000 about our week together at Standard -- nobody mentioned that Lee had worked for a week a Standard. Perhaps because we managed to get all his checks issued from Reily.

We laundered his record, people, with the Reily check, and this report is a perfect example of our further laundering.

It says Lee came directly from the Marines to New Orleans, etc. More below, but back to Howard's post:==JVB==

3 - Even if J "researched" her way to this -- while forgetting to pull it out of her head when she needed it most -- what does a document that says Oswald had this kind of money (probably $16,000 or so in today's dollars)[$22,000 today!] tell us about him.

Surely it tells us he was not the pauper the WC described.

Yet the now "lone-nutter," Paul Hoch, doesn't even think this worth a mention.

What does this document tell him about LHO? I don't know, because he doesn't respond to me.

We should be celebrating the discovery of this report -- even our seasoned professional investigator gave us no hope of finding it -- not bemoaning its existence.[/b]

Howard

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

==Note: this report was buried a few places in official records. But we certainly couldn't find it.==

After Howard wrote the above, Hoch tried to pooh-pooh the report as a boiler-plate, something cranked out because the investigator was in a hurry. In other words, that Retail Credit cheated Reily and just pretended to write a background report.

A single telephone call to check if Lee had been in the Marines would have exposed his undesirable discharge and automatic disqualification as a Reily employee.

This is precisely why I was asked to prepare this background check.

My inexperience notwithstanding, that Lee and I having fun with his assets and possessions (Lee said, "Let's make me a successful Capitalist pig!") shows all over the place, but it didn't matter.

The goal was to transfer Lee (and me) after ONE week at Standard Coffee, to Reily's, to avoid Personnel there requesting a background report on Lee at the outset.

Note that we rigged it so ALL of Lee's CHECKS came from REILY's, even though it clearly states that Lee worked for a week a Standard. BTW, I have a check stub showing I worked at Sandard hat same week a Standard with Lee. It is attached.

The report iself says "Lee Harvey Oswald is employed as a Mantenance Man for the Standard Coffee Company and has been engaged in this occupation for the pas one week..."

I received secretarial training in that same week, and also laundered Lee's background report.

Then we simply walked it across the street to Reily's. Reily would not repeat a 'passed' background check from its own subcompany --it was an expense to avoid -- and Personnel scarcely looked at it.

MY background report was made IN MY PRESENCE at Retail Credit while Monaghan and I visited there.

Why did they cooperate to let us have blank forms, so I could create this?

Reily was building a new factory and was going to be hiring oodles of new workers, each of whom would need a background report. Mr. Desmare would have hopped around the block on one foot to please Monaghan, and he certainly couldn't say 'no' to my obtaining some blank forms "to write examples for the secretary training manual." And so we got the blank forms.==

Here is the next round between Paul Hoch, etc. and Dr. Howard Platzman. Note that McAdams & Co did not bring up the Retail Credit Character-Financial Report over at the Education Forum.

Here's why:

From: Howpl (howpl@aol.com)

Subject: Hoch is Back: Team Judyth Responds

This is the only article in this thread

View: Original Format

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk

Date: 2003-08-25 21:09:32 PST

Well, not Team Judyth; just me. I promise to haunt this site as long as Paul Hoch is publishing here. Since he has for some reason decided to resurrect the famed "Hoch-Shinley Research," as MacAdams so pompously calls it, I have no choice.

This was a man I admired. [He has since revealed other aspects of his Lone Nut belief system --JVB]

Following are Paul Hoch's comments on the Reily background report and my annotations following two dashes (--) None of what appears below represents anyone but me. I have not "cleared it" with Judyth or Martin. Hoch's arguments in the past have not stood up to reason. The resumption of debate over this report actually finds him strengthening the case FOR Judyth.

See if you don't agree.

Subject: FBI interview with the author of Judyth's credit report

In a thread entitled "Problems with the "Judyth" story -- a

summary," John wrote:

"4. The Retail Credit fib -- Judyth claims to have written a somewhat bizarre, and highly inaccurate, background report on Lee. But the FBI interviewed the person who actually wrote and initialed it." [according to THEM! -- read on! JVB]

-- Hoch acknowleges that the report on Lee is "somewhat bizarre and highly inaccurate." We're off to a promising start.

Martin responded (on December 14):

"The person they interviewed didn't seem able to tell them much of anything except that his initials were on the report. The report doesn't resemble anything that a real background check would have produced. Paul Hoch never offered any explanation for those problems.

"In fact, Henry Coe Desmare "said he had conducted the investigation concerning OSWALD."

-- That's what he said initially, but the story changes. See below.

HOCH: He also remembered that the name of the aunt he had interviewed "was something like MUREL" (it was Lillian Murrett) and that she lived on French Street. Indeed, Desmare was identified because his initials are on the report.

-- When Judyth first mentioned the report about four years ago, she told me the initials of someone else, she guessed a secretary, were on it. [JVB: IT HAD BEEN 35 YEARS. It was Desmare, not a secretary...then I remembered I had been given Desmare's card....]

Evidently the report turned up in an FBI check of various businesses which might be expected to have a record of Oswald.

On November 23, FBI SA James Peck interviewed Vincent Imbornone, a clerk at the Retail Credit Company on Canal Street, who "furnished a carbon copy of a Retail Credit Company report, form 1630 dated May 16, 1963....

He advised that the report furnished bore the initials 'HCD' and explained that the person writing this report for his company was HENRY COE DESMARE.... He added that this individual was a supervisor for the Retail Credit Company."

Later that day, Henry Coe Desmare was interviewed by SA's Theodore Viater and Ronald Hoverson. He identified himself as "the [sic] investigator for the Retail Credit Company, New Orleans."

"After viewing a copy of a report dated May 16, 1963, concerning LEE HARVEY OSWALD, 757 French Street, New Orleans,

-- Not Oswald's address. He was no longer living with his uncle and aunt.

HOCH: ....he said he had conducted the investigation concerning OSWALD under Account No. 6605, which is the number for Standard Coffee Company, New Orleans."

References: NARA Record Number 157-10003-10115 (Imbornone) and 157-10003-10114 (Desmare); these items are also CD 75, pp. 440 and 438-439 respectively, published in CE 1141 (22 WCH 145-146); pointed out to me by Jerry Shinley.

The Monaghan interview referred to earlier, which quotes the credit report but does not indicate that it came from an outside firm, is CD 75, p. 30-32 (CE 1894).

[JVB: Of course, Monaghan didn't refer to Standard! That would have led to ME and well as LEE, hired same day, transferred to Reily the same day, Monaghan's complicity, and much, much more. Better to never mention he word "Standard"--and it worked. Nobody mentioned "Standard" that we know of, until I spoke out about it early in 1999.]

-- Judyth also told me early on that she composed the report during a week of training, off-site. It would make perfect sense for training in this activity to be conducted at a company engaged in this activity.

HOCH: There is no question that Desmare's report was superficial.

-- You already said "somewhat bizarre and highly inaccurate." "Superficial" waters down the meaning, don't you think? It includes nothing about Oswald's stay in Russia; "U.S. Marines" is shown as his previous address and employment.

-- Quite an oversight. Defecting to Russia was not exactly the national pastime. You'd think patriotic Americans, like Reily (who was heavily involved in INCA) and Judyth's own boss, Monaghan (ex-FBI), would want to be sure that they had not hired such a person. This was not an era that took background reports lightly.

-- Interestingly, another FBI exhibit reveals that Garrison considered indicting Reily as an accessory in the assassination. He wasn't, of course. But Reily and Monaghan knew who Lee Oswald really was. They needed a bland report for the files, so Lee's immediate supervisors [and the Personnel office -JVB] would be kept in the dark. Was a pro forma report typical of the work of the Retail Credit Company when one of their regular customers hired a maintenance man? That wouldn't surprise me.

-- This refers to the report questions. No reason for the questions to be "highly inaccurate" -- only the answers.

In my correspondence with Judyth, I said that the apparent author "admitted [to interviewing agents] that he could not explain some of the discrepancies they pointed out."

-- So Judyth's claim led to the unearthing of this virtually unknown piece of evidence. And instead of getting credit for drawing our attention to EVIDENCE THAT BLOWS AWAY THE WARREN COMMISSION'S ACCOUNT OF LEE'S FINANCES, she is accused of concocting the wild claim that she wrote it, as part of her larger concoction. Then she keeps her possession of it a secret from everyone, including Joe, Martin, and me since early 1999. [1998 corr. by JVB to 1999]

If she never planned to produce it, there was no use in holding onto it. And if she did plan to produce it, she somehow forgot to do so over the course of several rounds of dithering with CBS, in manuscripts sent to publishers, and in evidence shown to researchers who visited her.

HOCH: But the interviewing agents were apparently not interested in the accuracy or completeness of the background information Desmare recorded about Oswald. They were pursuing a more serious matter - apparent evidence of Oswald associates.

The problems with that apparent evidence are not relevant to claims about the authorship of the report, I believe,

-- Not relevant?! What sort of "belief" makes wildly inaccurate reports of 2-year "associates" in New Orleans irrelevant? Especially since he just moved back to New Orleans and he was in Russia 1 ½ to 2 years ago but here are the details.

The copy of the form given to the FBI by William Monaghan indicates that just one person was interviewed by Desmare. The first question on the form is "How long known to you and informants?" In the space for the answer is the typed information "1 1/2 yrs-2y" and "intv Aunt".

-- His aunt knew LHO for only 2 years?! Say again?

-- Even if this were true, he only lived with them for a few weeks in April of 1963.

The natural reading of this information is that Desmare interviewed one person, Oswald's aunt, and that she said that she had known Oswald for one and a half or two years.

-- Yes. [JVB: consider this absurdity: the Murrets had known Lee all his life!]

However, the carbon copy of the form which was retained in Retail Credit Company files bears the notation "intv Aunt and two personal associate_ of subject." ["_" is the FBI's convention for "sic".] As spelled out in the FBI FD-302, when Imbornone provided the form and identified the author he stated that this notation "apparently meant that the individual who conducted the investigation relative to this report and wrote this report had interviewed an aunt of LEE HARVEY OSWALD as well as two personal associates of OSWALD in New Orleans."

-- Yes, yes.

Consequently, Desmare was visited at home by two FBI agents. The presence of a second agent at an interview is often a sign of the seriousness of the matter.

My hypothesis is that Desmare interviewed only one informant, and sent a report reflecting that to Standard Coffee, but that in the file copy he padded his workload by adding the notation about interviewing two personal associates.

-- This would be hilarious if not for the fact that this is an important piece of evidence. What two associates? Do companies that compose such reports not retain somewhere the names and addresses of the people they interview? In any case, the report includes something the loan-nutter, Hoch, has no way to account for. It says, among the other bizarre and inaccurate things, that Oswald had the 2003 equivalent of $17,000 in "personal effects and savings."

Add the misspelling of "affects" - a term of art one would think a senior investigator would have long ago learned how to spell correctly ? and things get really fishy. This is rank speculation. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should believe this, and every reason why, if this was a common practice, the firm would be out of business rather quickly

Hoch: Perhaps he had a quota of interviews to meet. Or perhaps the notation was added by someone else, based on a misunderstanding.

-- "Perhaps" anything, Paul.

Judyth's story at least has the advantage of being simple and comprehensible. She wrote a report for the files that did not include any unsavory elements and made up essentially bland material that sounds nothing like the Lee Oswald we know. She did this as a part of an attempt to establish Lee's cover so none of his direct supervisors would raise an eyebrow.

First, it seems, Desmare confirmed the clerk's reading of the notation: "He stated that the notation at the top of the report 'intv Aunt and two personal associate_ of subject' made reference to the fact that he had interviewed OSWALD's aunt in addition to two personal associates.

Digging himself deeper into a hole, he told the FBI agents that "Under Item No. 1 'informants', the notation '1 1/2 yrs-2y' meant the two associates he interviewed knew OSWALD for 1 1/2 years and two years respectively."

The trouble with this explanation is that it means there is no information in the report to indicate how long the third informant, Oswald's aunt, had known him.

-- No, Paul, "the trouble with this explanation" is that, so far, there are two other associates unnamed and unaccounted for. Unless he gave Ferrie and Banister as references. (Joke.)

Again, I think that the natural interpretation is that she said "one and a half to two years" and that no other associates were actually interviewed.

-- Hold it. A moment ago, you said "Desmare confirmed the clerk's reading of the notation...[which implied] he had interviewed OSWALD's aunt in addition to two personal associates." That is the "natural reading of this information."m The meaning as set forth in your hypothesis is pure, unadulterated speculation.

　

Desmare was unable to explain the supposed two other interviews to the FBI agents.

"He said he had no recollection concerning the identities of the

associates but that the aunt's name was something like MUREL and lived on French Street, New Orleans."

[JVB: But the FBI agents stated that BEFORE Desmare said this, he had been SHOWN he credit report. Obviously, having read it, he was then able to somewhat recall 'Murret' as "Murel'--they cheated, and he STILL didn't get it right.]

"DESMARE said the requesting company, in this case Standard Coffee Company, sends a card listing the names of references and associates which he assumed were taken from application forms.

-- Who has possession of this card? Matt? Debra? Jerry? Where are the application forms? Show us any piece of evidence with names that Lee could have submitted as references and we will at least have the basis for a discussion. As it stands, we only have a bizarre claim that Lee knew his aunt for only two years and a senior officer at a credit check agency is willing to confess to gross incompetence. Was Reily not a good client?

It was his opinion that the names of the associates he interviewed were probably on the application in the files of Standard Coffee Company."

The agents pointed out that, in addition to John Murrett on French Street, the associates listed on the application were both said to be "on active duty with the U. S. Marines."

-- Which would have made them hard to interview unless they were stationed in or around New Orleans. Do you have any idea who these former Marine Corps buddies might be? Kerry Thornley was in New Orleans that summer, but not on active duty. The challenge to your hypothesis now grows even stronger, as the FBI has now given a description of how these two people were related to Lee. Care to further speculate on how the FBI came up with its information?

"DESMARE said the names of the Marines [Robert Hidell, J. Evans] were not familiar, and he could not recall whether he interviewed them or someone else in the neighborhood of 757 French Street."

The agents recognized that Desmare did not have a logical explanation:

"DESMARE was reminded that OSWALD had not lived at that address but used it as a mailing address and had used it beginning in May, 1963. DESMARE was of the opinion he may have contacted the personal associates of OSWALD in the neighborhood, but it was pointed out to him that they were supposed to have known OSWALD for 1 1/2 and two years respectively and that he had not lived in the neighborhood."

Desmare then gave up:

-- But not Hoch --

"DESMARE said he was unable to explain this other than to say that he must have interviewed someone at some place or he would not have reported it."

-- EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD SAY IF THE ONLY EVIDENCE YOU DID THE INVESTIGATION IS THE FBI'S ASSERTION THAT YOU DID. THE MAN CAN'T BE ANY CLEARER: HE REMEMBERS NOTHING. INDEED, HE MIGHT HAVE DENIED WRITING IT IF THE FBI DIDN'T SAY IT POSSESSED A REPORT WITH HIS INITIALS ON IT. DOES IT ALL COME DOWN TO THIS?!

YES, IF YOU BELIEVE HOCH'S ONLY WITNESS.

[McA]There is no indication in this FD-302 that the agents recognized another possibility, which would mean that there were no unidentified Oswald associates: that Desmare had padded his count of informants After all, the FBI agents never padded their reporting of sources.

-- He lived in New Orleans before. He knew his aunt for more than two years. So that means he "padded" his count from ZERO to three. That's not padding. That's making up out of whole cloth.

[McA] For the benefit of those who can work their way out of any evidentiary corner, and will come up with some scenario explaining how it was really Judyth, not Henry Desmare, who wrote this report:

-- You just made her testimony more credible, not less. I don't know why you remained fixated on this dead horse when she offers a highly detailed story -- which has not been even been released to the general public yet!

And you're not doing decently with the few pieces you have. Your hypothesis requires a highly dishonest investigator (if he lied back then about interviewing these people, whoever they are, why should we trust him now?). And it depends on a witness sabotaging the chance of a lifetime (60 Minutes) because she couldn't produce this document during the course of a 14-month saga with them.

-- Let me repeat the question I have asked you and Jerry before. Each time, you simply ignored it. WHY, IF 60 MINUTES WAS SO DESPERATE FOR HARD EVIDENCE, WOULD JUDYTH KEEP THIS DOCUMENT SECRET FROM THEM? They already heard about the initials.

-- Moreover, Judyth has from the beginning explained to me how much trouble she had "lining up" the answers on her typewriters (you older folks remember them, right?). When pressed by Martin and me to describe the document, she spoke of boxes and lines and carbons. When we finally saw it -- produced by the hostile Debra Conway, I believe, I could see exactly why she had so much trouble typing it -- compounding the fact, known all too well by her e-mail correspondents, that she is a lousy typist.

-- Another item that argues in her favor: her obstinacy when she could help herself by lying. Yours is not an uncommon experience, Paul. An "expert" on one part of the story, or one figure in the story, latches onto it and "catches" her in what they regard as an untruth. Knowing full well that she could plead "false or adulterated memory" and shake loose from criticism, she resists this course and insists, with more vehemence that before, that she is telling the truth.

Not always -- Martin and I and others have pressed her into uncertainty on some points -- but sometimes. For instance, she was interviewed by an editor of a major news journal [the Posnerite, Brian Duffy, a powerfl man who wrote a centerfold huge article on CASE CLOSED for US News & World Report, praising Posner!]

He pressed her for the exact date she received a piece of information, over and over again, in an obsessive manner that seemed a waste of everyone's limited time. The simple fact is, she could have just given a date amd NO ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE WISER. IN THIS CASE, AT LEAST, ONLY SHE WOULD KNOW IF SHE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH OR FABRICATING JUST TO GET THIS ANNOYING FELLOW OUT OF HER FACE. Still, she claimed she couldn't peg a date and refused to.

Similarly, when confronted with your arguments, she could have asked long ago for a pardon on the grounds of false memory; she is only human, as you point out, So you've provided a ready means of escape, but she still refuses. Have we grown so used to opportunism that we can no longer recognize heroism when we see it?

-- Finally, there is so much else in her story of far greater importance, and so much more evidence that she and Lee led synchronized lives for over four months in the spring and summer of 1963.

The Platzman Ratio Test is conclusive: this story has far too details that check out, details you can only get by searching corners of the literature few of us have ever visited. For many reasons, including interviews with family members who lived with and near her, I believe her story was not researched and that it is, as she told me from the outset, complicated but logical.

The evidence, when it is all laid out for you, is copious: This woman has lived a very unusual life, and no con artist could "insert herself" into Lee Oswald's life so neatly at so many points.

Not just insert herself, but allow us to understand him better -- through her relationship with him and his relationship to her project. The revival of the background report as a point of attack is, like the Great Cancun Crisis, just so much silliness.

Some of you may be wondering why I'm posting again after previous "hit and runs." The answer is I'm extremely angry and probably not acting in my own best interests.

It's just that there is so much pseudo-scholarship emanating from Judyth's detractors that I can't resist any longer.

Next on the chopping block: the Hoch Ratio Test, about on the same level of logical soundness as the Lifton Insertion Theory.

Howard Platzman

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean,

You say to me, "I am very open and will read or listen to anything you have to say Jim", yet from the answers to my questions, it does not appear to me that you are open or willing to read or listen to my suggestions. At least five of your answers below were "No", where several others also seem to fit. You appear to be taking your cues from Junkkarinen and Viklund, whom I regard as completely unreliable. Jack and Barb may be new BFFs, but it baffles me as to why you say you are listening to me or will read what I suggest when you are not. How many times do I have to recommend reading Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S MONKEY? I have had extensive dealings with Judyth and I assure you she is not a fake. She was in New Orleans, she knew Lee Oswald, and she worked with David Ferrie and Mary Sherman. I cannot understand why you think you can tell who is or is not a phony without doing any research. I can tell you why I am skeptical of James Files, but I doubt that you have any good reasons to be skeptical of Judyth. The persons you are listening to and following are Junkkarinen and Viklund. And why in the world would you think that you know more about Judyth than I when I have had extensive contact with her and you have not? You don't seem to be thinking for yourself.

Jim

QUOTE (Dean Hagerman @ Apr 19 2010, 01:40 AM)

My answers in Bold

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Apr 19 2010, 12:54 AM)

Dean,

If I were not convinced she is genuine, I would not be here defending her.

More than one of your posts has bothered me. I ask the following questions:

(1) Have you ever actually met or spoken with Judyth Vary Baker?

No, I have through Email from you asked her a question and got a reply, I would talk to Judyth, but as I told you Jim I do not want to talk to a woman I do not know about personal issues that are sensitive, I will leave it at that you know what im talking about. If Judyth is willing to talk to me I am willing to read and reply to her

(2) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"?

I have watched it 10+ times, I love TMWKK and "The Love Affair" is my least favorite segment, followed very closly by French assassins

(3) Have you read MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONEY VIRUS?

No

(4) Have you read Ed Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

No

(5) Have you read my blog about Judyth Vary Baker?

Yes

(6) Have you listened to my 1-hour Haslem interview?

No

(7) Have you read my blog about DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

No

(8) Have you listened to Ed's 4-hour C2C interview?

No

(9) Are your opinions actually based upon research?

I have not researched any of Judyth's claims myself, however I have looked at alot of Barbs research on Judyth and what Barb has shown me is enough, I believe her research alone shuts down Judyth IMO

(10) What is the value of opinions not based on research?

I would say pretty high because most of us researchers have been around long enough to spot fakes, I dont need hard research to say that the stories Judyth Baker and James Files tell are false.

Jim my mind has been changed 100s of times on assassination issues and theories

Please tell me what this new relevant evidence is, because all I have seen in this thread from Judyth is old news that has been debunked or is just not to be believed

I am very open and will read or listen to anything you have to say Jim

Well, Dean, God knows I wouldn't want your mind to be changed by anything like new relevant evidence! What is this forum coming to?

Click to flip through ME &LEE: http://www.trineday.com/paypal_store/produ...12-flip-320.gif

For more on ME & LEE, see http://www.trineday.com/paypal_store/produ...+Lee/index.html

Well Michael thanks for the offer but you know as well as I do that you will be keeping your extra copy of H&L

Unless Dr Mary's Monkey contains pictures of Judyth and LHO embracing each other Im positive it will not change my mind

I want to read it to try and see were Jim is coming from

.....The reason I have not replied about any of the posts about Armstrong is because I have not read his book. I am very upset with myself for not buying it when it came out, and my wife will not let me spend the $75.00-100.00 to buy the book. So I can not reply to anything that has to do with "Harvey and Lee" That would be very stupid on my part with out having read the book first

I will purchase Dr Mary's Monkey per your suggestion and read it (as it is much less then H&L)

I will report back with my thoughts on it

The bottom line is that I hate seeing you lose two friends over Judyth, aside from all the other stuff, that is what im really trying to say Jim

Dean, if you change your mind about Judyth Baker and come to believe that she and Lee Oswald were

lovers, after reading Dr. Mary's Monkey, I'll be glad to give you my extra copy of Harvey & Lee.

Ed Haslam leaves no doubt that he believes in Judyth Baker as a person, as he puts it. But the actual

evidence he gives in his book for her love relationship with LHO is minimal, certainly nothing that

hasn't already appeared in this thread.

In Dr Mary's Monkey, Haslam urges the readers to make up their own minds. He refers them

to Baker's two volume book, Lee Harvey Oswald. He now admits this account is flawed.

Keep in mind that, according to Judyth Baker, she made the decision not to tell Haslam

that her book was unauthorized by her and contained errors. She would have told him if

she'd had any idea he was writing a book. Yet, according to Haslam, she "corrected and corroborated"

her story that ultimately appeared in his book.

It's these types of accounts that give me a vague unease about the whole thing.

At any rate, Ed Haslam has posted twice on this thread. The way I read it, he is asking members to wait

until Judyth Baker's new book comes out to make up their minds. He concedes there are shortcomings in

her previous accounts. Again, I have no doubt that Haslam believes she had a love affair with Oswald.

He told Jim Marrs in 2003 that this belief stems more from his belief in her as a person than it does

from actual evidence. If you get the chance, listen to that interview on YouTube, beginning at about the

forty-three minute mark.

In my opinion, Haslam has always been more interested in Judyth Baker's role in cancer research than

he has been with her alleged love relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Dear Forum Members,

Next, I can't help but think that this discussion of Judyth Vary Baker will be more productive once the members have read her soon-to-be-released book ME AND LEE, which will be her official autobiographical portrait of how her quest to find a cure for cancer lead her to work as a secretary at the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 under the direction of an ex-FBI agent and at the exact same time that Lee Oswald worked there. Trine Day Press has put a great deal of effort into making sure that the documents are well presented and that her story is properly edited for a thoughtful read by those who really want to hear her tale.

Like many, I wish such a book had been available many years earlier. Unfortunately, it was not.

I do hope that this forum's members, which are among the best informed JFK assassination researchers engaged in public debate, will read this important book with an open mind. And I look forward to their discussion about it, once they do.

Until then, all involved should realize that what is being discussed here is based primarily upon an incomplete recounting of her story and illuminated by a constellation of malignant perceptions which emerged over years of inadequate, and occasionally inappropriate, representations. What you will read is the personal story of a witness to an important, albeit infamous, chapter of our history - one which deserves a fair hearing, a full review of the evidence, and the benefit of solid analysis. Once that happens, I look forward to reading your thoughts about it.

My Best to all,

Ed Haslam

author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY

Jack,

Thanks for your questions. I have great admiration for the work that you have done over the years. I will say that I am confident that if you read ME AND LEE with the same "close scrutiny" that you have used to study all those photos, then you will come to reasonable answers... whatever they may be. And I will be interested to hear your thought about them when you do.

From my own experience, I will say that, despite the considerable contact that I had with Judyth since Nov. 2000 and all of the other previous attempts by others to recount her tale, I did not understand "the flow" of her story. While I did think that certain "landmarks" grounded her story (such as the W2 form from Reily Coffee and her time at Roswell Park Cancer Institute), there was still a forest of unanswered questions for me. I found much of her tale "disconnected" and her retelling of it "confusing," particularly on important issues like how she became involved with people like Dr. Alton Ochsner and the erratic path of her college career. I queried Judyth relentlessly about these issues, the gaps in the story, and many other issues. There were many tense moments during this process, and she became frustrated with me at times. But I finally realized this was because there were things that she was reluctant to discuss, some for personal reasons. This process took more time than I anticipated, but eventually what I found was that the key to understanding her New Orleans activities lies in the years before she ever arrived in New Orleans and before she ever met Lee Oswald. I finally realized that understanding what made young "Judy Vary" tick was as important as anything we have heard to date about her romance with Lee Oswald. She was the resource that they needed to create the bio-weapon secretly, and there is nothing glorious or glamorous about killing baby mice, amputating their tumors and grinding them up in a blender. In fact, she became disgusted with what she was doing and realized that she had been lead down the path of evil by those she trusted. In the final analysis, I consider Judyth "a witness," not "a researcher," and I think that her story must be understood in that light. But the questions remain: What insights can we gain from the recollections of this witness? And do they help us understand what happened in Dallas?

Overall, I will say that my view of her Judyth shifted as I read ME AND LEE. The portrait is paints of her is not particularly flattering, but it rings true. And it is a better grounded story than I expected to find. One that makes far more sense than anything I had heard from earlier versions. One whose pieces fit together better than I had expected. One that I hope that you (and the others seriously concerned about this subject) will read with an open mind.

My Best,

Ed Haslam

Edited April 25, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[howpl]

Dean,

I have become convinced, based upon extensive contact, confirmed by Nigel Turner's segment, Ed Haslam's

research, and evaluating more that 1,200 posts on this thread, that the attacks on Judyth are shoddy and, in

almost every case, based upon flimsy proof and faulty arguments. Lifton, for example, rejects her because

she talked about Cancun at a time it did not exist. But Judyth was talking about Kankun, which did, where

I think it would have been impossible for Lifton to have discerned any phonetic difference between them. (I

have asked for a cassette copy of the conversation, which he has refused to provide. I can imagine quite a

number of reasons why he doesn't want me to hear it, but that is no basis for rejecting her as a phony.) In

a similar vein, John Armstrong rejected her when she told him that, on some occasions, she had passed as

Marina, because Marina was pregnant but Judyth was not. He did not allow her to explain what she meant.

Jack White has enumerated about a dozen complaints against her, none of which turned out to be justifiable.

Junkkiarinen is endlessly recyclying old material from the McAdams' site, where she and Viklund have been

exposed as collaborating to attack her. The fact that she has been so massively abused in other forums is

no excuse not to grant her a level playing field here. My role has not only been to post on her behalf but

also to serve as a buffer between her and some of her less scrupulous critics. I have had a huge volume

of contact with her, including hundreds and hundreds of emails and other forms of contact, including, of

course, YouTube interviews and blogs about her. I find Ed Haslam's work thorough, meticulous, and very

compelling in placing her within the context of cancer research involving David Ferrie, Dr. Mary Sherman,

and Alton Ochsner, who was the key figure behind it all. When you consider what Ed has explained in his

two books, most recently, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, I find it difficult to imagine how anyone could take such

strong negative stances toward her. Anyone who wants to understand her story should read Ed's book.

As for the comparison between my psy ops expert and this rubbish from Jack's anonymous source, if you

don't understand the difference between a venomous ad hominem attack such as Jack posted and serious

analytical reflections on what has been going on during the course of this thread, then I am at a loss as to

what to tell you. In response to your other post, I am convinced she is "the real deal" and that almost all

of the complaints about her are fabricated or exaggerated. For some reason, everyone here is allowed to

have their opinions about Judyth except for me! If Judyth really is not the person she claims to be, then I

cannot imagine why she is drawing so much attention. Surely this is not all for my benefit! I have done

enough research on Judyth to draw my own conclusions. I am probably more versed in scholarship than

anyone else on this forum. I believe in her and I cannot allow personal friendships to defeat my commit-

ment to the search for truth. I defend others when I think they are right and oppose them when I think

they are wrong. I have stood up for Jack and David on many occasions, but in this case, they are wrong.

Jim

Jack,

In all due respect, my friend, IMO this is chicken xxxx. It was a cowardly act by the author of the message who was too uncertain of him or her self to claim responsibility for their position (if it can even be called that). It is a very low blow, not to Judyth mind you, but to yourself! Whoever the author is, you might consider the very real possibility that Judyth was not the target of the attack--you were. And, judging from Jim's reaction, it appears that they may have hit the bull's eye.

There is a "signature" to these things, my friend. You know me--and you know my meaning.

GO_SECURE

monk

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

Greg

So its ok for Jim to post some silly Psy-Op garbage attacking Jack from an unkown person

Why is it ok for Jim to do that but not ok for Jack?

I dont understand

[howpl]

Dean,

I have become convinced, based upon extensive contact, confirmed by Nigel Turner's segment, Ed Haslam's

research, and evaluating more that 1,200 posts on this thread, that the attacks on Judyth are shoddy and, in

almost every case, based upon flimsy proof and faulty arguments. Lifton, for example, rejects her because

she talked about Cancun at a time it did not exist. But Judyth was talking about Kankun, which did, where

I think it would have been impossible for Lifton to have discerned any phonetic difference between them. (I

have asked for a cassette copy of the conversation, which he has refused to provide. I can imagine quite a

number of reasons why he doesn't want me to hear it, but that is no basis for rejecting her as a phony.) In

a similar vein, John Armstrong rejected her when she told him that, on some occasions, she had passed as

Marina, because Marina was pregnant but Judyth was not. He did not allow her to explain what she meant.

Jack White has enumerated about a dozen complaints against her, none of which turned out to be justifiable.

Junkkiarinen is endlessly recyclying old material from the McAdams' site, where she and Viklund have been

exposed as collaborating to attack her. The fact that she has been so massively abused in other forums is

no excuse not to grant her a level playing field here. My role has not only been to post on her behalf but

also to serve as a buffer between her and some of her less scrupulous critics. I have had a huge volume

of contact with her, including hundreds and hundreds of emails and other forms of contact, including, of

course, YouTube interviews and blogs about her. I find Ed Haslam's work thorough, meticulous, and very

compelling in placing her within the context of cancer research involving David Ferrie, Dr. Mary Sherman,

and Alton Ochsner, who was the key figure behind it all. When you consider what Ed has explained in his

two books, most recently, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, I find it difficult to imagine how anyone could take such

strong negative stances toward her. Anyone who wants to understand her story should read Ed's book.

As for the comparison between my psy ops expert and this rubbish from Jack's anonymous source, if you

don't understand the difference between a venomous ad hominem attack such as Jack posted and serious

analytical reflections on what has been going on during the course of this thread, then I am at a loss as to

what to tell you. In response to your other post, I am convinced she is "the real deal" and that almost all

of the complaints about her are fabricated or exaggerated. For some reason, everyone here is allowed to

have their opinions about Judyth except for me! If Judyth really is not the person she claims to be, then I

cannot imagine why she is drawing so much attention. Surely this is not all for my benefit! I have done

enough research on Judyth to draw my own conclusions. I am probably more versed in scholarship than

anyone else on this forum. I believe in her and I cannot allow personal friendships to defeat my commit-

ment to the search for truth. I defend others when I think they are right and oppose them when I think

they are wrong. I have stood up for Jack and David on many occasions, but in this case, they are wrong.

Jim

Jack,

In all due respect, my friend, IMO this is chicken xxxx. It was a cowardly act by the author of the message who was too uncertain of him or her self to claim responsibility for their position (if it can even be called that). It is a very low blow, not to Judyth mind you, but to yourself! Whoever the author is, you might consider the very real possibility that Judyth was not the target of the attack--you were. And, judging from Jim's reaction, it appears that they may have hit the bull's eye.

There is a "signature" to these things, my friend. You know me--and you know my meaning.

GO_SECURE

monk

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

Greg

So its ok for Jim to post some silly Psy-Op garbage attacking Jack from an unkown person

Why is it ok for Jim to do that but not ok for Jack?

I dont understand

[howpl]

Look, people, it comes down to the evidence, a concept much more complex than most JFK researchers seem to think. It is a matter not of how many things Judyth gets wrong (Anna Lewis and Judyth disagreed about details, but Anna made and reiterated her support in the face of serious intimidation). It is a matter of:

(1) How well the totality of her testimony and documents explains mysteries that haunt the case better than any other extant story. For one of many instances, her explanation of the Clinton-Jackson witnesses is far more believable than any that has been offered elsewhere, even by Joan Mellen who brags that this is her expertise yet delivers a story that is ultimately incoherent.

(2) How well it predicts future finds and generates productive leads. In fact, her story of Clinton-Jackson "predicted" 60 Minutes' finding of an FBI report that Garrison was about to indict Alton Ochsner. Though king of INCA, his name has not come up in connection with any conspiracy to kill anyone. In fact, he was conspiring to kill Castro, with Judyth's help. but Garrison never quite figured this out -- it is fascinating to read his Playboy interview that includes musings about Ferrie and a bioweapon aimed at Castro.

The research community needs to go back to school. Standards for what count as evidence -- and for how much evidence is enough evidence -- are generally lacking in those who consider themselves professional researchers, whereas so many of them are just plain not (pace Jim, Jack White's maunderings have always struct me as below par). As for whose anti-Judyth work deserves serious attention, I am inclined to think that Barb J holds first place. She has actually made phone calls and spoken to witnesses (not to Judyth, alas).

The problem with Barb is that she doesn't realize that what she found fundamentally supports Judyth's claims! Barb tried to refute Judyth's claim that she did any serious work at Roswell when, in fact, she proved the opposite. Judyth was heartbroken over the loss of the paper she wrote based on her Roswell studies. In the end, Barb found the abstract to the paper. I thanked her for her diligence and contribution to the cause. She didn't seem to understand -- or didn't want to.

Barb did confirm that Judyth got into trouble for trying to move from her isolated quarters at Roswell to where the other young scholars were living that summer -- a story, BTW, she related to me in 1999. Barb believes that Judyth was tossed out of the program for this violation. Judyth insists she was merely reprimanded. But this is a red herring. What is important is that Barb turned up the paper's abstract. I find it almost funny that she should commend herself for not burying her finding -- for being a principled researcher! (Shouldn't that go without boasting? Perhaps not in the JFK research community.) She might as well have buried it since her tack after producing it was to run as fast as she could in the opposite direction (kind of like what Mellen did). So Barb ends up dancing around the only issue of real importance: the existence and content of the abstract and how it might be related to what Judyth was to do in 1963.

Ever the steadfast researcher, she interviewed a goodly horde of people. She sought the opinions of other students, the fellow Mirand who was most peeved at her for seeking less isolated digs, ex-high-school acquaintances, et al. Judyth may not have been universally liked (much as she may have wanted to be) because she was not a typical girl. She was a wunderkind, with all kinds of self-confidence. Maybe they saw her as odd. I'm sure they never understood why she was physically separated from the other students (I'm not sure even whether Judyth herself understood at the time). Too, she was the only one who worked directly with the Center's director, George Moore (whose own history is startlingly relevant to what Judyth was to do in 1963). But why should we care about ANY of this? Barb found the abstract, and it shows that Judyth did the work she claimed she did, whatever else she did or didn't do. Frankly, it matters not a whit if she never got an official certificate for completing the program (point of argument, not point conceded). Papers speak louder

than certificates. I'm sure I still have a science fair certificate in my basement somewhere.

PLEASE ASK BARB TO SUMMARIZE HER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PAPER THAT JUDYTH WROTE. You will find, as I did, that she is not up to it (although she has had a couple of years to examine it since she found it) -- which renders hollow her initial insistence that the Roswell sojourn was probably no more significant than a prolonged student science fair. Judyth may not have presented the paper to the field's leading lights; still, she presented the paper to professionals -- while, unfortunately, misremembering the precise name of the group that sponsored her lecture, another red herring Barb was only too happy to use to obscure the true impact of her findings.

Although we don't have the paper itself, the existing abstract gives one a sense of the content and sophistication of the work she did. So, somebody should ask Barb, as I did to no avail, what was the paper about? Does Barb care to engage Judyth in public dialogue on the subject? Judyth should have been Barb's first interviewee. Were she, she may have been the last. Barb never considered actually talking to the witness she made it her mission to trash! Is that how "real researchers" conduct their business?

Howard

[Dean Hagerman]

Jim

I never said I know more about Judyth then you do

In fact im positive you know way more about her then I do

And as for reading and listing to all the things you want me to I promise you Jim I will do that

I own with my wife a very busy buisness and as you can see I only have time to make a couple posts a day

I use the time right before I go to bed to read all the posts that I can then I hope to remember what to reply to the next day when I get a chance

In fact I have many PMs that I am behind on right now but those members know I have little time

So you have to give me time Jim, I will read the books (after I get them from Amazon) at night in bed and try to listen to and read your blogs this weekend

Im sure you can understand

Give me some time and then I can share my feelings about it with you, I will not reply to a book or blog that I have not read

Thanks Jim

I will keep you posted

Dean

PS I have been more and more interested in Barbs research and I am becoming friendly with Barb which has nothing to do with any "joining forces" with the enemy

Trust me Barb and I disagree on alot of things, but we both want the truth, I like Barb and I think her research is top notch

Im not joining her group or anything like that Jim, im just starting to look into Barbs research more deeply and im starting to agree with her

Thats it, no sinister plots behind it

Dean,

You say to me, "I am very open and will read or listen to anything you have to say Jim", yet from the answers to my questions, it does not appear to me that you are open or willing to read or listen to my suggestions. At least five of your answers below were "No", where several others also seem to fit. You appear to be taking your cues from Junkkarinen and Viklund, whom I regard as completely unreliable. Jack and Barb may be new BFFs, but it baffles me as to why you say you are listening to me or will read what I suggest when you are not. How many times do I have to recommend reading Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S MONKEY? I have had extensive dealings with Judyth and I assure you she is not a fake. She was in New Orleans, she knew Lee Oswald, and she worked with David Ferrie and Mary Sherman. I cannot understand why you think you can tell who is or is not a phony without doing any research. I can tell you why I am skeptical of James Files, but I doubt that you have any good reasons to be skeptical of Judyth. The persons you are listening to and following are Junkkarinen and Viklund. And why in the world would you think that you know more about Judyth than I when I have had extensive contact with her and you have not? You don't seem to be thinking for yourself.

Jim

QUOTE (Dean Hagerman @ Apr 19 2010, 01:40 AM)

My answers in Bold

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Apr 19 2010, 12:54 AM)

Dean,

If I were not convinced she is genuine, I would not be here defending her.

More than one of your posts has bothered me. I ask the following questions:

(1) Have you ever actually met or spoken with Judyth Vary Baker?

No, I have through Email from you asked her a question and got a reply, I would talk to Judyth, but as I told you Jim I do not want to talk to a woman I do not know about personal issues that are sensitive, I will leave it at that you know what im talking about. If Judyth is willing to talk to me I am willing to read and reply to her

(2) Have you ever watched Nigel Turner's "The Love Affair"?

I have watched it 10+ times, I love TMWKK and "The Love Affair" is my least favorite segment, followed very closly by French assassins

(3) Have you read MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONEY VIRUS?

No

(4) Have you read Ed Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

No

(5) Have you read my blog about Judyth Vary Baker?

Yes

(6) Have you listened to my 1-hour Haslem interview?

No

(7) Have you read my blog about DR. MARY'S MONKEY?

No

(8) Have you listened to Ed's 4-hour C2C interview?

No

(9) Are your opinions actually based upon research?

I have not researched any of Judyth's claims myself, however I have looked at alot of Barbs research on Judyth and what Barb has shown me is enough, I believe her research alone shuts down Judyth IMO

(10) What is the value of opinions not based on research?

I would say pretty high because most of us researchers have been around long enough to spot fakes, I dont need hard research to say that the stories Judyth Baker and James Files tell are false.

Jim my mind has been changed 100s of times on assassination issues and theories

Please tell me what this new relevant evidence is, because all I have seen in this thread from Judyth is old news that has been debunked or is just not to be believed

I am very open and will read or listen to anything you have to say Jim

Well, Dean, God knows I wouldn't want your mind to be changed by anything like new relevant evidence! What is this forum coming to?

Click to flip through ME &LEE: http://www.trineday.com/paypal_store/produ...12-flip-320.gif

For more on ME & LEE, see http://www.trineday.com/paypal_store/produ...+Lee/index.html

Well Michael thanks for the offer but you know as well as I do that you will be keeping your extra copy of H&L

Unless Dr Mary's Monkey contains pictures of Judyth and LHO embracing each other Im positive it will not change my mind

I want to read it to try and see were Jim is coming from

.....The reason I have not replied about any of the posts about Armstrong is because I have not read his book. I am very upset with myself for not buying it when it came out, and my wife will not let me spend the $75.00-100.00 to buy the book. So I can not reply to anything that has to do with "Harvey and Lee" That would be very stupid on my part with out having read the book first

I will purchase Dr Mary's Monkey per your suggestion and read it (as it is much less then H&L)

I will report back with my thoughts on it

The bottom line is that I hate seeing you lose two friends over Judyth, aside from all the other stuff, that is what im really trying to say Jim

Dean, if you change your mind about Judyth Baker and come to believe that she and Lee Oswald were

lovers, after reading Dr. Mary's Monkey, I'll be glad to give you my extra copy of Harvey & Lee.

Ed Haslam leaves no doubt that he believes in Judyth Baker as a person, as he puts it. But the actual

evidence he gives in his book for her love relationship with LHO is minimal, certainly nothing that

hasn't already appeared in this thread.

In Dr Mary's Monkey, Haslam urges the readers to make up their own minds. He refers them

to Baker's two volume book, Lee Harvey Oswald. He now admits this account is flawed.

Keep in mind that, according to Judyth Baker, she made the decision not to tell Haslam

that her book was unauthorized by her and contained errors. She would have told him if

she'd had any idea he was writing a book. Yet, according to Haslam, she "corrected and corroborated"

her story that ultimately appeared in his book.

It's these types of accounts that give me a vague unease about the whole thing.

At any rate, Ed Haslam has posted twice on this thread. The way I read it, he is asking members to wait

until Judyth Baker's new book comes out to make up their minds. He concedes there are shortcomings in

her previous accounts. Again, I have no doubt that Haslam believes she had a love affair with Oswald.

He told Jim Marrs in 2003 that this belief stems more from his belief in her as a person than it does

from actual evidence. If you get the chance, listen to that interview on YouTube, beginning at about the

forty-three minute mark.

In my opinion, Haslam has always been more interested in Judyth Baker's role in cancer research than

he has been with her alleged love relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Dear Forum Members,

Next, I can't help but think that this discussion of Judyth Vary Baker will be more productive once the members have read her soon-to-be-released book ME AND LEE, which will be her official autobiographical portrait of how her quest to find a cure for cancer lead her to work as a secretary at the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 under the direction of an ex-FBI agent and at the exact same time that Lee Oswald worked there. Trine Day Press has put a great deal of effort into making sure that the documents are well presented and that her story is properly edited for a thoughtful read by those who really want to hear her tale.

Like many, I wish such a book had been available many years earlier. Unfortunately, it was not.

I do hope that this forum's members, which are among the best informed JFK assassination researchers engaged in public debate, will read this important book with an open mind. And I look forward to their discussion about it, once they do.

Until then, all involved should realize that what is being discussed here is based primarily upon an incomplete recounting of her story and illuminated by a constellation of malignant perceptions which emerged over years of inadequate, and occasionally inappropriate, representations. What you will read is the personal story of a witness to an important, albeit infamous, chapter of our history - one which deserves a fair hearing, a full review of the evidence, and the benefit of solid analysis. Once that happens, I look forward to reading your thoughts about it.

My Best to all,

Ed Haslam

author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY

Jack,

Thanks for your questions. I have great admiration for the work that you have done over the years. I will say that I am confident that if you read ME AND LEE with the same "close scrutiny" that you have used to study all those photos, then you will come to reasonable answers... whatever they may be. And I will be interested to hear your thought about them when you do.

From my own experience, I will say that, despite the considerable contact that I had with Judyth since Nov. 2000 and all of the other previous attempts by others to recount her tale, I did not understand "the flow" of her story. While I did think that certain "landmarks" grounded her story (such as the W2 form from Reily Coffee and her time at Roswell Park Cancer Institute), there was still a forest of unanswered questions for me. I found much of her tale "disconnected" and her retelling of it "confusing," particularly on important issues like how she became involved with people like Dr. Alton Ochsner and the erratic path of her college career. I queried Judyth relentlessly about these issues, the gaps in the story, and many other issues. There were many tense moments during this process, and she became frustrated with me at times. But I finally realized this was because there were things that she was reluctant to discuss, some for personal reasons. This process took more time than I anticipated, but eventually what I found was that the key to understanding her New Orleans activities lies in the years before she ever arrived in New Orleans and before she ever met Lee Oswald. I finally realized that understanding what made young "Judy Vary" tick was as important as anything we have heard to date about her romance with Lee Oswald. She was the resource that they needed to create the bio-weapon secretly, and there is nothing glorious or glamorous about killing baby mice, amputating their tumors and grinding them up in a blender. In fact, she became disgusted with what she was doing and realized that she had been lead down the path of evil by those she trusted. In the final analysis, I consider Judyth "a witness," not "a researcher," and I think that her story must be understood in that light. But the questions remain: What insights can we gain from the recollections of this witness? And do they help us understand what happened in Dallas?

Overall, I will say that my view of her Judyth shifted as I read ME AND LEE. The portrait is paints of her is not particularly flattering, but it rings true. And it is a better grounded story than I expected to find. One that makes far more sense than anything I had heard from earlier versions. One whose pieces fit together better than I had expected. One that I hope that you (and the others seriously concerned about this subject) will read with an open mind.

My Best,

Ed Haslam

[Doug Weldon]

NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED ME

I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past would stoop to such a sophomoric level by

lodging such a blatant ad hominem. Those who resort to arguments of this caliber have discredited

themselves massively. I denounce each and every one of them, including the author of the post Jack

has repeated her and the hack who posted it. I am completely disgusted and want nothing more to

do with them. Michael Hogan and Howard Platzman are honorable men. Those who resort to such

disgraceful tactics are not. Cease and desist, Jack White. You have forefeitted being taken seriously.

Please know that I want nothing more to do with you in any context at all. We are no longer friends.

It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For

some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So

far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one

received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):

"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."

There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This

has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become

disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?

Jack

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