Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO STEPHEN ROY (DAVID BLACKBURST, WHOMEVER) ABOUT DR. MARY'S MONKEY

Just for the record, this strikes me as an extremely superficial and unreliable account of the book. I am going to invite Ed to respond to Stephen Roy (who, I understand, has also posted under the name, "David Blackburst"), which I expect he will be glad to do, since Roy is only dealing with Judyth in passing. Judyth has offered several posts about this man, none of which inspired confidence in him. Some of the posts relating to him include #1494, #1499, #1500, #1502, #1505, and #1526, in which he challenges me to produce evidence "that Ferrie had an underground lab in his apartment." That's especially apt, since it is not part of DR. MARY'S MONKEY that "Ferrie had an underground lab in his apartment". As I have explained to Jack on more than one occasion, David Ferrie's apartment was at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway, while his "Little Lab" (Barbara's apartment) was at 3225 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. (There is a photo of the street in DR. MARY'S MONKEY on page 110 and a map of the area on page 112.) So why is this guy ("Roy", "Blackburst", or whomever) making exaggerated claims that are not even part of Haslam's book, which, by the way, appeared in 2007? That, of course, is a classic example of the "strawman", in which a distorted version of an argument is adduced to make it easier to attack. For someone who insists he is "an expert" (or is it, "the expert") on David Ferrie, how could he possibly have waited until 2010 to obtain a book focused on his area of expertise? The timing of this trash review, moreover, could hardly be more suspicious. I am not impressed and I am not alone.

Here is my response to Stephen Roy in post #1499:

This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy. In earlier work, Ed Haslam talked about the use of Ferrie's apartment as a lab. Since then, he has uncovered additional evidence that explains that, while Ferrie's apartment was used for many of the experiments (killing mice and extracting their tumors, for example), the primary lab was located across the street and down from his apartment, as I explained in the post just before his! Since Haslam has acquired new evidence about how these things were being done, which he has explained in later editions of his book, Roy tells us that he is only going to talk about the mistaken earlier edition! How outrageous is that? This is a nice example of someone not letting their prior probs be affected by new evidence, because it would cause them to have to modify their position. This tells me that Roy is not seeking the truth but attempting to distort it, which is deplorable.

Miss Baker:

I still do not wish to be drawn into a debate about this case. I will respond to points you have raised.

Since the time Mr. Haslam's first edition was published, and through an updated edition, my feelings about the book have not changed. (As I noted, I have ordered a copy of the newest edition.) Despite some implications in this thread that Haslam's book is the authoritative word on certain matters, I disagree, with all due respect to Mr. Haslam. One of the central claims of the first edition is that Ferrie had an "underground lab" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway, but the book provides little, if any, evidence to support this. If I am missing any evidence from the book to support this claim, please correct me.

Jim Garrison did say that he saw mice cages there after Ferrie's death, but the first responders on that day (police, Assistant DAs, coroner (and others) did not see them, and the death scene pictures do not show them. I have to surmise that Garrison was mistaken. (Garrison had recently received a Gurvich memo mentioning mice cages in a earlier Ferrie home, in 1957.)

I think Haslam concedes today that Ferrie might not have written the cancer treatise, but in his first edition, he implied that Ferrie wrote it. Ferrie had a number of medical books and papers among his effects.

You mention the possibility of a medical lab in an apartment across the street. In this discussion, I am considering only Mr. Haslam's claim that Ferrie had such a lab in his apartment.

I don't understand your comments about why I "appeared" right after the JFK film came out, and why I have specialized in David Ferrie, because I've addressed these things many times. I was interested in the assassination from the time it happened. I read all of the first wave of critical literature, ordered the WC report and volumes, and even gave lectures and wrote articles, all from a CT perspective. In 1967, I became interested in Ferrie, thinking he may have been the mastermind. I read Weisberg, Epstein, Flammonde and other books dealing with Ferrie. Because the Ferrie info was scattered in many places, I started collating it into chronologies. I started ordering documents and contacting witnesses. In the 70s, several relevant reports and many new documents became available. At that point, I decided to write it all up as a biography. To help with that, I got a computer, which eventually led me to the Internet in the early 90s, which is when I "appeared." The only discussion groups I could find at that time were the newsgroups. At one point, Dave Reitzes wrote and asked if he could collate a few of my posts into an archive, and I consented. By then, I was known as a Ferrie specialist, and I was invited to speak on Ferrie a few times at conferences. My work on the biography is ongoing; It is hard to ever declare it "done"!!! I keep finding new things, contacting new people. The text is about 2/3 done (but open to revision, as it's on MSWord). Since I've married and had kids, it has cut my research/writing time down to just a few hours a week. I think that covers it.

As for Oswald, I'm no expert on any of those aspects of the case; I just keep up with the research and have opinions, like everybody else out here. I once felt Oswald was completely innocent; but I have come to feel that it is hard to support that belief unless a great deal of evidence was faked. And in re-reading Oswald's writings, I find his thought process very idiosyncratic.

So no, I'm not in league with anybody else. I do thank you for a few of the things you said in your post. Again, I'd prefer if you kept me out of the general debate. I just don't have time to plow through page after page of stuff.

Again, my whole point was that Haslam may be right, may be wrong. I recommend that interested readers seek alternate primary sources wherever possible.

Here was Pamela's observation about Stephen Roy in post #1500:

JF said: This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy.

It is my understanding that the Davie Ferrie of Stephen Roy's research was not even acquainted with Lee Oswald. He can correct me if I am mistaken. However, if Roy chooses not to look into evidence of conspiracy, how shall we weigh whatever else he has to say?

When it came out in about 1995, I obtained Haslam's "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" (MFMV). Concerned about the book's thinness of evidenciary support for its assertions, I wrote about it on the JFK forums of the time, and again over the years (such as a 2004 Education Forum thread.) I was admonished recently to obtain the latest edition, "Dr. Mary's Monkey" (DMM), which I have done.

First, DMM is absolutely an updated edition of MFMV; Large chunks of text are transposed from the latter to the former. My remarks here concern Haslam's material, not the added material concerning Baker.

Nothing in DMM changes my original feelings about MFMV. It is largely a personal recollection of the author's impressions and conclusions over much of his lifetime, as opposed to the more common recitation of evidence and statements of conclusions. What troubled me in the first edition still troubles me: One searches in vain for the evidence to support various conclusions. The author's impressions become suspicions; those suspicions become specific questions; and those questions harden into conclusions. (I stand corrected on one difference: The first edition stated those questions in boldface; the new edition does it as part of the text.)

The evidence for the story of the "underground laboratory" is a case in point. On pages 42-47 he is told by a high school student that Ferrie had "a full scale laboratory in his apartment with thousands of mice in cages." On page 49, he is told by his mother that Dr. Mary Sherman "was involved in David Ferrie's underground medical laboratory." Then, page 60, he relates New Orleans DA Jim Garrison's Playboy interview, that Sherman was associated with Ferrie. (Curiously, there is not a mention of Sherman anywhere in Garrison's existing files.) On page 63, the author asks: "Who was Dr. Mary Sherman? And what was she doing in David Ferrie's underground medical laboratory?" Page 64: "What was a highly-trained medical professional with impeccable credentials doing in an underground medical laboratory run by a political extremist with no formal medical training?" A story that such a lab existed has now become fact; and Sherman's connection with it now has become fact.

In 1972, he visited an apartment at 3225 Louisiana Avenue Parkway with "Barbara", and he notices a "musty smell." He is told that terrible men did terrible things to animals here, and he remembers Ferrie's "secret laboratory" (page 76). Around that time, a waterbed leaked and caused damage, but the landlord didn't seem overly concerned. But to the author, "it was clear that this was no ordinary apartment", page 86. A few years later, he learns that Ferrie lived in the area, but at 3330, not at 3225. Page 89: "Then it hit me: Ferrie's underground medical laboratory was not in his apartment, and he did not have to live in the lab. He lived near the lab, so he could manage its day-to-day operations, and kept a small number of mice mice back at his apartment for convenience. No, I had not been in Ferrie's apartment: I had been in his laboratory!"

(Incidentally, I am mentioned - not by name - in a footnote. "One JFK researcher, who has interviewed a lot of Ferrie's 'young male friends' about this points out that none of them recall seeing mice at Ferrie's apartment on Louisiana Avenue Parkway in the summer of 1963. Even Perry Russo, a witness I interviewed who had seen mice at a previous apartment, said that he did not see any in Ferrie's apartment when he attended a party there in the summer of 1963." The author asked Baker about this, and later concluded that Ferrie "realized that having a bunch of people seeing mice at his apartment was not good security, so he moved the mice...to the apartment across the street.")

(Also, let me reiterate what I have said before: Some claim that Garrison saw mice in Ferrie's apartment after Ferrie's death in 1967. Garrison, who was there only a couple of days after Ferrie's death, only claimed that there was a smell of mice. The first responding police, medical personnel, coroner's personnel and Assistant District Attorneys saw no mice or cages there. They are not mentioned in the reports or seen in the pictures, and none of them recalled such a thing in interviews. One police officer said the only trace of an animal he recalled was a dog dish on the floor.)

The author suspects that a linear particle accelerator was used to kill Sherman (page 232), so he begins looking around New Orleans for one. He hears that secret activity MAY have occurred at the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital (page 255). His friend tracks down a former building manager, who says that the hospital had a room with thick walls and high-voltage wiring. The author says (page 258) "That's it...That's the building the accelerator was in...It matches the description that was given by my source. It's exactly what we were looking for." On page 259, it becomes a fact: :'The accelerator had been located in the Infectious Disease Laboratory of the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital...a 5,000,000 volt linear particle accelerator had been quietly placed on the grounds of the U.S. Health Service Hospital so that cancer-causing monkey viruses could be roasted with radiation in secret."

One of the chapters in DMM is "A Bishop in his Heart", a quick bio of David Ferrie, based largely on a report commissioned when his former employer was looking for dirt on Ferrie. Some of the info is fairly related by the author, but some is just plain wrong. He has Ferrie in Retalhuleu, Guatemala training pilots for the Bay of Pigs invasion, but Ferrie's work record with Eastern Air Lines for that period precludes any sort of extended stay there. He also uses info from Robert Morrow's "First Hand Knowledge" which I consider unreliable.

I'll have more comments as I read more. I can't say for sure if Haslam is on to something or not, but I find it difficult to have confidence in the scarcity of the evidence he cites. I recommend that interested readers seek alternate primary sources wherever possible.

Edited April 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Was there a full moon or something? We go from you noting it is a constructive idea to have the handwriting examined by a professional to attacking me .... because what .... I said the you would need to post the full notarized and signed result? You thought someone would just take your word for it? Surely not, you are smarter than that. Or did I develop "no redeeming qualities" "as a human being" because I said that while IF the handwriting is Oswald's it would substantiate Judyth having known Oswald, but no, it would not prove she was the "real deal" on all of her claims overall?

Bizarre. LHO writing in the margins of her book would establish she knew him. Just how/why you would think it would automatically establish anything beyond that ... like working in some secret Ferrie kitchen cancer bioweapon lab is nonsensical.

You know this Pocket Aristotle of hers is potentially great evidence/proof for her. Nothing I say, or you say, changes that. It is something she has claimed as evidence, as proof, for years. What could be more important to her story than getting it properly examined? Or have you already heard from her that she won't do that ... so you attack me and make up a bale of straw about DNA, exhumed bodies, etc?

Getting the book examined can do her a lot of good if her claim about it is true. Not having it examined speaks even louder.

Right! And while I am at it, I had might as well have a DNA comparison between remnants on the pages of the book and the body that was exhumed, verify that Judyth Vary was actually born "Judyth Vary", and resolve a host of other issues. Just when I think you might be a decent person, you demonstrate, as you have throughout this thread, that you are really just a hack. I am sorry, Barb Junkkarinen, but I have found no redeeming qualities in you as a human being.

Intriguing. This is one of your more constructive posts. I will ask Judyth about it when I have the chance. She is traveling. And if something like this were to substantiate her claims, then you, Barb, will admit she IS "the real deal"?

If you can obtain and post a notarized certificate/report of authemticity from a professional, court qualified documents examiner attesting that the handwriting in Judyth's Pocket Aristotle book was written by Lee Harvey Oswald, it will go a long way toward substantiating her claim that she knew Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963. And that would be a tremendous step for her, the importance is not lost on you! Would it prove that she is the "real deal" with all of her claims overall? Of course not.

Does it give you any pause that Judyth has not pushed to have this book examined by such a qualified professional over the last 10 years? Or that she hadn't even mentioned this potentially explosive piece proof to you?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

And when, exactly, have you given Judyth credit for anything? You uncovered a missing abstract, for which I (and Howard) thanked you at the time. But no one on this thread has any doubt that, no matter how strong the evidence, you are not going to give Judyth the time of day. So why are you here pretending otherwise? No one is about to be taken in.

Was there a full moon or something? We go from you noting it is a constructive idea to have the handwriting examined by a professional to attacking me .... because what .... I said the you would need to post the full notarized and signed result? You thought someone would just take your word for it? Surely not, you are smarter than that. Or did I develop "no redeeming qualities" "as a human being" because I said that while IF the handwriting is Oswald's it would substantiate Judyth having known Oswald, but no, it would not prove she was the "real deal" on all of her claims overall?

Bizarre. LHO writing in the margins of her book would establish she knew him. Just how/why you would think it would automatically establish anything beyond that ... like working in some secret Ferrie kitchen cancer bioweapon lab is nonsensical.

You know this Pocket Aristotle of hers is potentially great evidence/proof for her. Nothing I say, or you say, changes that. It is something she has claimed as evidence, as proof, for years. What could be more important to her story than getting it properly examined? Or have you already heard from her that she won't do that ... so you attack me and make up a bale of straw about DNA, exhumed bodies, etc?

Getting the book examined can do her a lot of good if her claim about it is true. Not having it examined speaks even louder.

Right! And while I am at it, I had might as well have a DNA comparison between remnants on the pages of the book and the body that was exhumed, verify that Judyth Vary was actually born "Judyth Vary", and resolve a host of other issues. Just when I think you might be a decent person, you demonstrate, as you have throughout this thread, that you are really just a hack. I am sorry, Barb Junkkarinen, but I have found no redeeming qualities in you as a human being.

Intriguing. This is one of your more constructive posts. I will ask Judyth about it when I have the chance. She is traveling. And if something like this were to substantiate her claims, then you, Barb, will admit she IS "the real deal"?

If you can obtain and post a notarized certificate/report of authemticity from a professional, court qualified documents examiner attesting that the handwriting in Judyth's Pocket Aristotle book was written by Lee Harvey Oswald, it will go a long way toward substantiating her claim that she knew Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963. And that would be a tremendous step for her, the importance is not lost on you! Would it prove that she is the "real deal" with all of her claims overall? Of course not.

Does it give you any pause that Judyth has not pushed to have this book examined by such a qualified professional over the last 10 years? Or that she hadn't even mentioned this potentially explosive piece proof to you?

[David Andrews]

"Now someone tell me again. I must have missed it. What is the proof that

a US PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE HOSPITAL had a linear particle accelerator in

1963, and that Dr. Mary Sherman had access to it, and was there working on

mutating cancer viruses produced by mice and marmosets infected by

Ferrie and Vary, when some unknown person decided to kill Dr. Mary,

and decided that a great way to do it would be to accelerate an atomic

particle toward her, blasting away part of her torso in a gruesome manner,

and then decided to cover up his crime by transporting her mutilated bleeding

body to her house, where he broke into her house and deposited her

burned body, and then stabbed the corpse with a butcher knife and simulated

a sex crime, and then persuaded the coroner to say that the stab wounds

occurred before the horrible burns, since the stab wounds were the cause

of death, and accomplished all of this without any hospital workers or neighbors

noticing...well, I must have missed a lot somewhere here, since I did not

see any proof of any of this. Maybe I missed it in in one of the thousands

of postings in this thread. I need to pay closer attention. Someone has

solved a major murder mystery and I didn't notice.

Jack"

Clearly the Nosenko case of this research forum.

Do we believe "Golitsyn,' though "Nosenko" agrees with him this time?

Edited April 27, 2010 by David Andrews

[Stephen Roy]

(Taking Evan's advice, and not quoting long passages from #1049)

I obtained Dr. Mary's Monkey at your suggestion. "Superficial"? How can one deal with a 374 page book in a short forum post? "Unreliable"? On what basis? I provided page numbers and quotations. Feel free to invite Ed to respond; we may clarify some things.

It is, indeed, part of Dr. Mary's Monkey that Haslam mentions Ferrie having "an underground lab in his apartment": 46: "a full scale laboratory in his apartment." 49: (before he hears of 3225) "David Ferrie's underground medical laboratory." Same phrase on page 63. And so on. How is my citation of this "exaggerated claims?"

Why didn't I buy the book in 2007? I looked at it in a store, and saw that it was basically a re-write of a book I already had.

I am a Ferrie specialist. I do not hold myself out as a Ferrie "expert," but I think I've heard Baker use that phrase.

"The timing of this trash review, moreover, could hardly be more suspicious." Timing? You've been mentioning the book as a good source, and advising others to read it. So I bought it, read it, and gave my opinion. Trash review? I thought I was very restrained and polite. Suspicious? YOU brought it up and invited us to read the book.

"I am not impressed and I am not alone." Could familiarity with the New Orleans evidence or the ability to rationally evaluate evidence play any role in it? If you're not alone, who else agrees?

I'm beginning to suspect that nothing will make you look at this objectively.

[Greg Burnham]

[snip]...

Bizarre. LHO writing in the margins of her book would establish she knew him. Just how/why you would think it would automatically establish anything beyond that ... like working in some secret Ferrie kitchen cancer bioweapon lab is nonsensical. [snip]...

Barb,

While I agree with you that even if the above item is shown to be Oswald's writing it does not prove all of her other claims are true. However, why are you asking for this handwriting verification if its only purpose is to substantiate that which you have already conceded based on other evidence? If you have already conceded the high probability that they knew each other based on their concurrent employment at Reily's, why ask for this exercise in futility since, as you say, it won't prove anything beyond that which you already concede anyway?

[Jack White]

JVB admits in participating in a premeditated murder. I am surprised that nobody wants

her brought to justice. Scientific experimentation is no justification for murder.

We have attorneys on the forum. How about a legal opinion?

Jack

Many assertions have been made AND ACCEPTED AS FACT that a mental patient was injected

with Judy's cancer virus, and promptly died.

Why is this accepted as true without any checking? Hospitals keep voluminous records on

patients. What was the name of this patient? Where is the death report? Who administered

the injection? Where was the patient buried? What was the date of the injection and the date

of death? Many questions, few answers.

If this incident happened as reported, it clearly is a case of MURDER. There is no statute

of limitations on murder. If JVB admits to creating this cancer virus and being a party to

administering it to some poor unfortunate mental patient...IT IS STILL MURDER, PREMEDITATED

MURDER...not a scientific experiment. JVB has CONFESSED to murder and gone unprosecuted.

Am I the only one who finds this extraordinary?

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM CALLS STEPHEN ROY ON HIS SHODDY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

What could be a more blatant indictment of your shoddy research methodology? You mention a passage about Ferrie having "an underground laboratory" as Ed is explaining the course of his research. That occurs on early pages of the book. After he has conducted more research, he realizes that his earlier impressions were false and that the lab was actually not at his apartment at all but across the street and down at a complete different address. THIS IS ALL IN THE SAME BOOK! You cite the earlier passages and leave the impression that was Ed Haslam's final conclusion. This qualifies as trash journalism. I can't image how any one could take you seriously after a transparent attempt to deceive the members of this forum. Does anyone actually take you seriously about anything? This is reprehensible conduct on your part, which is disgusting.

As I have explained above, it is NOT part of DR. MARY'S MONKEY that "Ferrie had an underground lab in his apartment". It IS part of DR. MARY'S MONKEY that, in the course of his investigation, he at one point in time THOUGHT that was the case. But I have explained to Jack on more than one occasion, David Ferrie's apartment was at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway, while his "Little Lab" (Barbara's apartment) was at 3225 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. (There is a photo of the street in DR. MARY'S MONKEY on page 110 and a map of the area on page 112.) So are you telling us that your opinions of the book are based on the pages before those in which he explains how his mistaken belief of the past was corrected? This has to be the most blatant, amaturish, and fradulent attempt to mislead those who are reading this thread since Josiah Thompson's last post!

(Taking Evan's advice, and not quoting long passages from #1049)

I obtained Dr. Mary's Monkey at your suggestion. "Superficial"? How can one deal with a 374 page book in a short forum post? "Unreliable"? On what basis? I provided page numbers and quotations. Feel free to invite Ed to respond; we may clarify some things.

It is, indeed, part of Dr. Mary's Monkey that Haslam mentions Ferrie having "an underground lab in his apartment": 46: "a full scale laboratory in his apartment." 49: (before he hears of 3225) "David Ferrie's underground medical laboratory." Same phrase on page 63. And so on. How is my citation of this "exaggerated claims?"

Why didn't I buy the book in 2007? I looked at it in a store, and saw that it was basically a re-write of a book I already had.

I am a Ferrie specialist. I do not hold myself out as a Ferrie "expert," but I think I've heard Baker use that phrase.

"The timing of this trash review, moreover, could hardly be more suspicious." Timing? You've been mentioning the book as a good source, and advising others to read it. So I bought it, read it, and gave my opinion. Trash review? I thought I was very restrained and polite. Suspicious? YOU brought it up and invited us to read the book.

"I am not impressed and I am not alone." Could familiarity with the New Orleans evidence or the ability to rationally evaluate evidence play any role in it? If you're not alone, who else agrees?

I'm beginning to suspect that nothing will make you look at this objectively.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

Once more you discredit yourself. It was not a "medical patient" but a prisoner.

Judyth was unaware of what was taking place and that informed consent had

not be obtained. She was an unwitting participant and protested strongly at

the point in time when she understood what had happened.

Your remarks about "premeditated murder" are baseless on other grounds as

well. It was an experiment to test the bio-weapon. It was not known whether

or not it would work. Others on his forum should share my concern that you,

time after time, are demonstrating your incompetence here.

This is pitiful.

Jim

JVB admits in participating in a premeditated murder. I am surprised that nobody wants

her brought to justice. Scientific experimentation is no justification for murder.

We have attorneys on the forum. How about a legal opinion?

Jack

Many assertions have been made AND ACCEPTED AS FACT that a mental patient was injected

with Judy's cancer virus, and promptly died.

Why is this accepted as true without any checking? Hospitals keep voluminous records on

patients. What was the name of this patient? Where is the death report? Who administered

the injection? Where was the patient buried? What was the date of the injection and the date

of death? Many questions, few answers.

If this incident happened as reported, it clearly is a case of MURDER. There is no statute

of limitations on murder. If JVB admits to creating this cancer virus and being a party to

administering it to some poor unfortunate mental patient...IT IS STILL MURDER, PREMEDITATED

MURDER...not a scientific experiment. JVB has CONFESSED to murder and gone unprosecuted.

Am I the only one who finds this extraordinary?

Jack

[Greg Burnham]

Jack,

As you know, I'm not an attorney, but I think there are serious impediments to pursuing such a charge. For instance, if you are correct (in doubting much of what JVB reports) then there is no patient to identify and no crime. However, if she is telling the truth about this "murder" and since she presumably stands to lose the most if the identity of the patient is discovered, etc., and since she would be the sole source of detailed information leading to her own arrest and conviction... well, I hardly think any "suspect" would be forthcoming even if there was a reward offered! We call this a "dead end" case. But, are you sure that her story really means she was involved in a "murder" to begin with?

JVB admits in participating in a premeditated murder. I am surprised that nobody wants

her brought to justice. Scientific experimentation is no justification for murder.

We have attorneys on the forum. How about a legal opinion?

Jack

Many assertions have been made AND ACCEPTED AS FACT that a mental patient was injected

with Judy's cancer virus, and promptly died.

Why is this accepted as true without any checking? Hospitals keep voluminous records on

patients. What was the name of this patient? Where is the death report? Who administered

the injection? Where was the patient buried? What was the date of the injection and the date

of death? Many questions, few answers.

If this incident happened as reported, it clearly is a case of MURDER. There is no statute

of limitations on murder. If JVB admits to creating this cancer virus and being a party to

administering it to some poor unfortunate mental patient...IT IS STILL MURDER, PREMEDITATED

MURDER...not a scientific experiment. JVB has CONFESSED to murder and gone unprosecuted.

Am I the only one who finds this extraordinary?

Jack

Edited April 26, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Barb Junkkarinen]

And when, exactly, have you given Judyth credit for anything? You uncovered a missing abstract, for which I (and Howard) thanked you at the time. But no one on this thread has any doubt that, no matter how strong the evidence, you are not going to give Judyth the time of day. So why are you here pretending otherwise? No one is about to be taken in.

You want to help Judyth prove she knew Oswald ... see that the marginal writing is analyzed by a professional, court qualified documents examiner. Like you said when I made you aware of the book and her claim ... it is a constructive idea.

You seem to be pretending that something I said changes that. Has Judyth already told you no or given some other excuse as to why the book cannot be examined? Attacking me just looks for all the world like a dodge & divert. No one is about to be taken in by that.

Was there a full moon or something? We go from you noting it is a constructive idea to have the handwriting examined by a professional to attacking me .... because what .... I said the you would need to post the full notarized and signed result? You thought someone would just take your word for it? Surely not, you are smarter than that. Or did I develop "no redeeming qualities" "as a human being" because I said that while IF the handwriting is Oswald's it would substantiate Judyth having known Oswald, but no, it would not prove she was the "real deal" on all of her claims overall?

Bizarre. LHO writing in the margins of her book would establish she knew him. Just how/why you would think it would automatically establish anything beyond that ... like working in some secret Ferrie kitchen cancer bioweapon lab is nonsensical.

You know this Pocket Aristotle of hers is potentially great evidence/proof for her. Nothing I say, or you say, changes that. It is something she has claimed as evidence, as proof, for years. What could be more important to her story than getting it properly examined? Or have you already heard from her that she won't do that ... so you attack me and make up a bale of straw about DNA, exhumed bodies, etc?

Getting the book examined can do her a lot of good if her claim about it is true. Not having it examined speaks even louder.

[Stephen Roy]

JIM CALLS STEPHEN ROY ON HIS SHODDY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

What could be a more blatant indictment of your shoddy research methodology? You mention a passage about Ferrie having "an underground laboratory" as Ed is explaining the course of his research. That occurs on early pages of the book. After he has conducted more research, he realizes that his earlier impressions were false and that the lab was actually not at his apartment at all but across the street and down at a complete different address. THIS IS ALL IN THE SAME BOOK! You cite the earlier passages and leave the impression that was Ed Haslam's final conclusion. This qualifies as trash journalism. I can't image how any one could take you seriously after a transparent attempt to deceive the members of this forum. Does anyone actually take you seriously about anything? This is reprehensible conduct on your part, which is disgusting.

As I have explained above, it is NOT part of DR. MARY'S MONKEY that "Ferrie had an underground lab in his apartment". It IS part of DR. MARY'S MONKEY that, in the course of his investigation, he at one point in time THOUGHT that was the case. But I have explained to Jack on more than one occasion, David Ferrie's apartment was at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway, while his "Little Lab" (Barbara's apartment) was at 3225 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. (There is a photo of the street in DR. MARY'S MONKEY on page 110 and a map of the area on page 112.) So are you telling us that your opinions of the book are based on the pages before those in which he explains how his mistaken belief of the past was corrected? This has to be the most blatant, amaturish, and fradulent attempt to mislead those who are reading this thread since Josiah Thompson's last post!

Did you even read my post? I wrote briefly in paragraph 4 about the author's lack of evidence for his first supposition, that Ferrie had a lab in his apartment. Spin as you might, this IS a part of the book. Haslam wrote it, not me. And it is a part of...another account of 1963, shall we say.

Then, in paragraph 5, I discuss the even more striking lack of evidence for the "underground laboratory" at 3225 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. The very thing you're accusing me of not mentioning.

And how was his "mistaken belief of the past...corrected?" Apparently by something that I wrote some years ago, and ended up as a footnote in Dr. Mary's Monkey.

And the obligatory denunciation: "indictment of your shoddy research methodology...qualifies as trash journalism..transparent attempt to deceive the members of this forum...reprehensible conduct on your part, which is disgusting...blatant, amaturish, and fradulent attempt to mislead..." By the way: The correct spelling is "amateurish."

I am completely unimpressed with your your ability to acquire, analyze and present evidence. Were it possible, I would be even less impressed with your ability to engage in rational discussion without obsessively engaging in behavior unworthy of a true scholar. The readers here have had a good look at you for the last few months, and you're not fooling anyone. Your concept of "critical thinking" is to pontificate and demand agreement from those you denounce as lesser mortals, and you have violated the letter and spirit of the Forum rules in your replies to numerous posters. Time will tell who has the better knowledge of the New Orleans aspects of the case, who is better able to rationally analyze that evidence and separate the good stuff from the bad stuff, and who is better able to engage in a mutual learning process like an adult.

[Dean Hartwell]

Hi Jack,

I have a law degree though I do not have a license to practice law. Here is my opinion:

Murder requires a number of elements, all of which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

It requires the homicide rule that one life must be taken by another. [COMMENT: Here, you apparently believe it to be a person's injection or part of a plan to inject the prisoner]

It requires that there be no valid excuse, justification or accident for the taking.

It requires that the person taking the life have "malice aforethought" or the intent to kill [COMMENT: Intent may be shown by words or by conduct - Where is the evidence of conduct calculated to take a life?]

Can you prove all of this beyond a reasonable doubt? There may be a taking (questionable), but no intent by anyone and instead the strong likelihood of accident. And as for "premeditation," without any proof of murder, there is no need to consider that.

I do not see any prosecutor coming anywhere near the fulfillment of the evidencial requirements.

Dean

JVB admits in participating in a premeditated murder. I am surprised that nobody wants

her brought to justice. Scientific experimentation is no justification for murder.

We have attorneys on the forum. How about a legal opinion?

Jack

Many assertions have been made AND ACCEPTED AS FACT that a mental patient was injected

with Judy's cancer virus, and promptly died.

Why is this accepted as true without any checking? Hospitals keep voluminous records on

patients. What was the name of this patient? Where is the death report? Who administered

the injection? Where was the patient buried? What was the date of the injection and the date

of death? Many questions, few answers.

If this incident happened as reported, it clearly is a case of MURDER. There is no statute

of limitations on murder. If JVB admits to creating this cancer virus and being a party to

administering it to some poor unfortunate mental patient...IT IS STILL MURDER, PREMEDITATED

MURDER...not a scientific experiment. JVB has CONFESSED to murder and gone unprosecuted.

Am I the only one who finds this extraordinary?

Jack

Edited April 26, 2010 by Dean Hartwell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks, Dean. I suppose that "reckless endangerment" might be involved here, but nothing close to murder.

Hi Jack,

I have a law degree though I do not have a license to practice law. Here is my opinion:

Murder requires a number of elements, all of which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

It requires the homicide rule that one life must be taken by another. [COMMENT: Here, you apparently believe it to be a person's injection or part of a plan to inject the prisoner]

It requires that there be no valid excuse, justification or accident for the taking.

It requires that the person taking the life have "malice aforethought" or the intent to kill [COMMENT: Intent may be shown by words but especially by conduct - was there a plan to kill this prisoner? Where is the evidence?]

Can you prove all of this beyond a reasonable doubt? There may be a taking (questionable), but no intent by anyone and instead the strong likelihood of accident. And as for "premeditation," without any proof of murder, there is no need to consider that.

I do not see any prosecutor coming anywhere near the fulfillment of the evidencial requirements.

Dean

JVB admits in participating in a premeditated murder. I am surprised that nobody wants

her brought to justice. Scientific experimentation is no justification for murder.

We have attorneys on the forum. How about a legal opinion?

Jack

Many assertions have been made AND ACCEPTED AS FACT that a mental patient was injected

with Judy's cancer virus, and promptly died.

Why is this accepted as true without any checking? Hospitals keep voluminous records on

patients. What was the name of this patient? Where is the death report? Who administered

the injection? Where was the patient buried? What was the date of the injection and the date

of death? Many questions, few answers.

If this incident happened as reported, it clearly is a case of MURDER. There is no statute

of limitations on murder. If JVB admits to creating this cancer virus and being a party to

administering it to some poor unfortunate mental patient...IT IS STILL MURDER, PREMEDITATED

MURDER...not a scientific experiment. JVB has CONFESSED to murder and gone unprosecuted.

Am I the only one who finds this extraordinary?

Jack

Edited April 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You appear to be consistent in your methodology. In an earlier post, #1499, I called you for dissembling about this very point. There it was your position, "You mention the possibility of a medical lab in an apartment across the street. In this discussion, I am considering only Mr. Haslam's claim that Ferrie had such a lab in his apartment." I pointed this out again in post #1709. Why don't you just say, "I am only going to talk about claims where I can convey the impression that Ed Haslam was wrong"? Your chicanery is blatant and violates the most elementary standards of research and scholarship. You were, after all, making this claim in a post in 2010, even though you knew he had a new book out. You obviously feigned that it did not even exist because it's contents would have exposed the shameful deception involved in your attempt to smear him. (I have invited Ed Haslam to add his comments to this thread, which I will be glad to post.)

JIM CALLS STEPHEN ROY ON HIS SHODDY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

What could be a more blatant indictment of your shoddy research methodology? You mention a passage about Ferrie having "an underground laboratory" as Ed is explaining the course of his research. That occurs on early pages of the book. After he has conducted more research, he realizes that his earlier impressions were false and that the lab was actually not at his apartment at all but across the street and down at a complete different address. THIS IS ALL IN THE SAME BOOK! You cite the earlier passages and leave the impression that was Ed Haslam's final conclusion. This qualifies as trash journalism. I can't image how any one could take you seriously after a transparent attempt to deceive the members of this forum. Does anyone actually take you seriously about anything? This is reprehensible conduct on your part, which is disgusting.

As I have explained above, it is NOT part of DR. MARY'S MONKEY that "Ferrie had an underground lab in his apartment". It IS part of DR. MARY'S MONKEY that, in the course of his investigation, he at one point in time THOUGHT that was the case. But I have explained to Jack on more than one occasion, David Ferrie's apartment was at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway, while his "Little Lab" (Barbara's apartment) was at 3225 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. (There is a photo of the street in DR. MARY'S MONKEY on page 110 and a map of the area on page 112.) So are you telling us that your opinions of the book are based on the pages before those in which he explains how his mistaken belief of the past was corrected? This has to be the most blatant, amaturish, and fradulent attempt to mislead those who are reading this thread since Josiah Thompson's last post!

Did you even read my post? I wrote briefly in paragraph 4 about the author's lack of evidence for his first supposition, that Ferrie had a lab in his apartment. Spin as you might, this IS a part of the book. Haslam wrote it, not me. And it is a part of...another account of 1963, shall we say.

Then, in paragraph 5, I discuss the even more striking lack of evidence for the "underground laboratory" at 3225 Louisiana Avenue Parkway. The very thing you're accusing me of not mentioning.

And how was his "mistaken belief of the past...corrected?" Apparently by something that I wrote some years ago, and ended up as a footnote in Dr. Mary's Monkey.

And the obligatory denunciation: "indictment of your shoddy research methodology...qualifies as trash journalism..transparent attempt to deceive the members of this forum...reprehensible conduct on your part, which is disgusting...blatant, amaturish, and fradulent attempt to mislead..." By the way: The correct spelling is "amateurish."

I am completely unimpressed with your your ability to acquire, analyze and present evidence. Were it possible, I would be even less impressed with your ability to engage in rational discussion without obsessively engaging in behavior unworthy of a true scholar. The readers here have had a good look at you for the last few months, and you're not fooling anyone. Your concept of "critical thinking" is to pontificate and demand agreement from those you denounce as lesser mortals, and you have violated the letter and spirit of the Forum rules in your replies to numerous posters. Time will tell who has the better knowledge of the New Orleans aspects of the case, who is better able to rationally analyze that evidence and separate the good stuff from the bad stuff, and who is better able to engage in a mutual learning process like an adult.

Edited April 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer