Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Judyth will reply when she can, Jack. She has been traveling. Do you admit

that HARVEY & LEE is as "illogical" in your sense as Judyth's story? That you

are so adamant about reading DR. MARY'S MONKEY, given the role that you

are playing as among Judyth's leading criticis, discredits you completely, not

just in my mind but, I am quite sure, in the minds of many other researchers.

I doubt that I have ever been more disappointed in anyone else in my adult life.

I posted a study showing that MARMOSET MONKEYS were not being used for medical

research in 1963. Where is documentation to the contrary? I have seen none. Did

you see the study I cited?

The tiny marmosets you show are newborns whose eyes are not open yet. Adult

marmosets are MUCH LARGER.

Where is the DOCUMENTATION that the JVB stories are true? Is it just Haslam's

OPINION? An opinion is not PROOF. A proof requires independent DOCUMENTATION.

I have asked no questions nor stated facts that discredit me. I HAVE OFFERED

OPINIONS which you may consider erroneous, but discredit me only to YOU.

There ARE MANY who consider my opinions to be valid, not erroneous...and thus do

not discredit me.

Jack

JIM APPEALS TO JACK TO STOP A CAMPAIGN THAT IS DISCREDITING HIMSELF

Jack,

Ed Haslam spend more than a decade doing research to track down what happened to

Mary Sherman. Time after time, on this forum, during this thread, claims that Judyth

has made, which appeared initially to be very implausible, have turned out to be true.

In post #1583, Judyth even provided a citation about the common use of marmosets:

"The common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) is a small, nonendangered New World primate that is native to

Brazil and has been used extensively in biomedical research. Historically the common marmoset has been used

in neuroscience, reproductive biology, infectious disease, and behavioral research. Recently, the species has been

used increasingly in drug development and safety assessment. Advantages relate to size, cost, husbandry, and

biosafety issues as well as unique physiologic differences that may be used in model development. Availability

and ease of breeding in captivity suggest that they may represent an alternative species to more traditional

nonhuman primates. The marmoset models commonly used in biomedical research are presented, with

emphasis on those that may provide an alternative to traditional nonhuman primate species."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14524414

Again, in post #1569, I pointed out that, although her claims about Lee's "reading list" seemed far-fetched, she was right:

In a paragraph below in my response to Bernice, I made the following observation about Lee's reading list:

Other aspects of her story may involve embellishments, such as recollecting the details of conversations they

had on various occasions. I certainly agree that the "reading list" Judyth provided appears to be a bit much,

where it reads more like a "wish list" than actual reading by the man who was killed in Dallas. Yet, even here,

Judyth has some support for what she has to tell us in the form of a report by Marina about what Lee read.

Time after time, points she has made that seemed initially implausible have turned out to be true. Lee's list,

no matter how implausible, was substantiated by the FBI and became a formal document in the hearings:

So I think we have one more illustration of the dramatic difference it makes when claims that initially appear

to be implausible nevertheless turn out to be true. Once again, Judyth has been vindicated, where what she

contributed to the previous post was blurbs about the contents of those book. I have known Doug Weldon to

be fair-minded in the past. I would like to have some indication that he is willing to respond to new evidence!

And in post #1651, I pointed out that the theory of HARVEY & LEE is, if anything, even less "logical" than Judyth's story:

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE APPEAL TO WHAT IS "LOGICAL" AND WHAT IS NOT

Truth can be stranger than fiction. When you look where you've been, sometimes

you had no idea where you were going. Judyth was talented at cancer research.

She was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner. There was a problem with the

polio vaccine, which had to be treated covertly to avoid alarming the public. Dr.

Mary Sherman was engaged in research there. The experiments did involve mice

and monkeys. David Ferrie and others were involved in conducting that research.

It involved the use of a linear particle accelerator. Someone had to have assisted

her. Judyth and Lee were hired by Riley's on the same day. Judyth kept the time

cards and other records for Oswald. Anna Lewis has testified that she and David,

her husband, even "double-dated" with Judyth and Lee. Mary Sherman was killed,

apparently using a linear particle accelerator. The death scene at her apartment

was staged. Ochsner did inoculate his grandchildren, killing one, while inducing

polio in the other. Judyth does appear to have been summarily sacked after she

protested the use of a prisoner in a (fatal) experiment without informed consent.

David Ferrie appears to have been silenced; and Ruby, too, using the bio-weapon.

And a second "Judyth Vary Baker" was used to impersonate the real Judyth Vary.

What could be a greater stretch than the idea of "two Oswalds", both having the

same name, one called "Harvey", the other "Lee", who even attended the same

schools, though not at the same time, where one was born in Hungary, physically

unimposing but intellectually able, who spoke fluent Russian but could not drive,

while the other had a propensity for violence, could drive but could not speak any

Russian and who had no interest in political philosophy or matters intellectual,

both of whom had mothers by the same name, where one of them ("Lee") lost

a tooth at Beauregard Junior High School, but Lillian Murret, the aunt of the

other ("Harvey"), paid for his dental bill, where his brother, Robert, who looks

exactly like him, is not supposed to be related genetically and who could have

effortlessly impersonated him did not, even though, after the assassination, he

would give lectures and publish a book falsely blaming his brother for a crime

he did not commit, where not only Aunt Lillian but Robert, Marguerite, and

Marina all knew of the existence of both "Harvey" and "Lee", even though none

of them ever uttered a peep! Neither of these stories is "logical" in the sense

Jack intends. Yet, I submit, at least one of these stories appears to be true.

But, of course, as you demonstrate with every post, not only are you unwilling

to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY so you could be brought up-to-speed on some of

the most basic aspects of the case--where you seem to pride yourself on your

ignorance--but time after time, when one or another of your attacks upon her

has proven to be misguided--where you must have posted close to a hundred

by now, none of which appears to have been well-founded--you are not even

willing to concede that you were wrong--not about marmosets, not about the

reading list, not about the "index" in John's book, not about the wrong date of

the founding of the Warren Commission, not about the story of "Lee"'s missing

tooth, not about Judyth's eye-color study, not about her observations regarding

photographs upon which you have relied to make the case for "two Oswalds"--

the list goes on and on, Jack. You are not even willing to concede that HARVEY

& LEE presents a theory that is even more implausible on its face than Judyth's

story. Yet you persist in repeating ignorant claims that you would not make if

you had read Ed's book and attacking Judyth without acknowledging when she

has been right. These are not the signs of responsible research, Jack, but the

signs of someone whose commitment to a predetermined conclusion has far,

far exceeded his rational response to logic and evidence. Lifton can't save you,

either, because he confronts problems of credibility of his own. And where will

you be when he finally comes clean about HARVEY & LEE? I am sorry to say it,

Jack, but you are discrediting yourself with every post. Relative to the method

of tenacity, in contrast with scientific reasoning, you are, alas, the poster child!

Jim

Thanks, David. I find the most incredible of the items you list is that JVB was unaware

of the Garrison investigation back in 1967. Every newspaper and magazine and TV

newscast carried details daily. I even bought 3 month subscriptions to the New Orleans

Item and the New Orleans Times-Picayune to get fuller coverage. At that time the

assassination was fresh in everyone's minds, many of the players were still alive, and

even the grocery story tabloids had front page coverage every week. Knowing about

the CONTROVERSIAL Garrison trial was unavoidable. Garrison was even a guest on

the Carson Tonight show.

Someone who had personal acquaintances with David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Clay

Shaw, Lee Oswald, Reily Coffee, et al had to be living on another planet to be UNAWARE

of the Clay Shaw Trial. UNBELIEVABLE!

Jack

Kevin Greelee:

I just read your post (#1450, dated 4/21/10) which quotes two of my posts (on the Alt.conspiracy discussion group, now available via Google) --some ten years ago (specifically, one on 10/26/2000, and the other on 12/31/2001). These posts were written at a time not only when my recollections of my March 4 2000, conversation with Judyth were fresh in my mind, but also at a time when I probably had a thick pile of notes and transcript material at hand.

As you correctly quote, Judyth made the following assertions in that March, 2000 phone call:

ITEM: That she co-wrote a science fiction story with Lee Oswald

ITEM: That, to beef up security for Kennedy, Lee fomented the Adlai Stevenson incident in Dallas

ITEM: That she, Judyth, had been offered $1 million by some tabloid for her story

ITEM: That despite her connection with all these events back in 1963, she never heard of the Garrison investigation at the time it was occurring (starting around Feb 1967)

ITEM: That at the "cancer lab" at Dave Ferrie¹s apartment, they "processed" 4,000 mice per month.

ITEM: That she arranged to check Lee out of work (and so that's why the time clock records, to be found in the 26 volumes)

appear as they do. (To anyone interested: There are certain clusters of times,which--IMHO-- Judyth explains by inserting herself into a "story" built around that data).

ITEM: That in connection with her alleged knowledge of Lee's visit to lecture at the Jesuit college at Spring Hill, Alabama,

that Robert Kennedy made a phone call there. (Yes, dear reader, blink twice if you must, but no, you're not imagining what I just wrote:

in the March, 2000 phone call, Judyth alleged that Robert Kennedy, the Attorney General of the United States,

called the Jesuit College at which Oswald spoke, and for some undefined reason, in connection with LHO's visit there).

ITEM: That she (and her co-workers in Florida) "knew" the

assassination was going to happen, and so prepared to watch it on TV.

As you noted, the links to the full text of my two posts were:

for October 26,2000:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...ca7348809?hl=en

and for Dec 31 2001

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...c1cb707a4?hl=en

When I clicked on the links you provided, they came right up on my screen.

* * *

Again, thanks for your post, and for the URL links that bring these two posts--from 10 years ago--right onto the computer screen. I had completely forgotten about these details, or that I had analyzed the conversation I had had with Judyth in such detail, and, finally, that I had written these posts. Its hard to believe that ten years have passed!

And of course you are right: with regard to my own skepticism about Judyth and her various claims, it is incorrect for anyone to focus just on the "Cancun" matter as "the reason" I rejected her entire story (as if that was the only problem!). As these posts amply demonstrate, it was much more than her claim that Lee Oswald said that they (she and Judyth) would/should meet in Cancun (the resort which did not then exist, aside from whether some primitive village by that name did exist) that lay behind my own conclusions about Judyth--i.e., that she lacked credibility, could not/should not be taken seriously, and my own conclusions that she was a fantasist.

One other point: I am not saying any of these things to hurt anyone individually. Its just that I have spent too much time on the Kennedy case connecting the dots, and attempting to do real research--and believe me, that is hard enough--and so when some intruder enters the picture, claiming that they were “on the grassy knoll,” or “in the autopsy room” or—in this instance—in the life of Lee Oswald, (who was, obviously, a major player in this affair, even if he was framed for a crime he did not commit) I must raise my hand and say “I object.” It is easy to argue about the evidence with someone with whose theories I disagree. But I simply cannot and will not stand idly by and watch someone mess up the historical record by bearing false witness.

DSL

4/26/10; 2 AM

Los Angeles, CA

Edited April 27, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Doug Weldon]

Except, of course, if the participants, such as Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, and Judyth Vary,

had been told that the subject (who was a prisoner) had "volunteered" for an experiment by

the authority providing the experimental subject, such as Alton Ochsner, then none of those

who actually administered the vaccine would be guilty of anything remotely approximating

murder, in which case our former prosecutor's analysis does not apply. There is surely more

ground to believe this scenario than that Sherman, Ferrie, and Vary would murder anyone.

And the fact that when Judyth discovered that the experimental subject had died and had

not been extended the right of informed consent, his analysis appears to be unjustifiable.

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

Dean:

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

Doug Weldon

Jim:

Please note I have prosecuted and DEFENDED murders. It is, of course, dependent on all of the facts. If the people knew the substance could likely result in the death of a person and they cooperated in it being administered to a person it is totally irrelevant whether the person volunteered or not. If they did not know it was going to be administered to an individual(s) and they participated in the coverup of the death they could be found guilty of accessory after the fact, a lesser crime. This is NOT a debatable point. It simply is what it is.

Doug Weldon

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Throughout the history of medicine, subjects have volunteered for experiments where the

outcomes were unknown and could result in death. It is interesting that Alton Ochsner in

fact injected his grandaughter and his grandson with the polio vaccine, which killed the boy

and induced polio into the girl. No one has ever suggested that Ochsner should be brought

up on murder charges. For a smart guy, you seem to be oblivious of the history of medicine.

The controversy has raged over informed consent, not whether the subjects actually survived.

Except, of course, if the participants, such as Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, and Judyth Vary,

had been told that the subject (who was a prisoner) had "volunteered" for an experiment by

the authority providing the experimental subject, such as Alton Ochsner, then none of those

who actually administered the vaccine would be guilty of anything remotely approximating

murder, in which case our former prosecutor's analysis does not apply. There is surely more

ground to believe this scenario than that Sherman, Ferrie, and Vary would murder anyone.

And the fact that when Judyth discovered that the experimental subject had died and had

not been extended the right of informed consent, his analysis appears to be unjustifiable.

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

Dean:

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

Doug Weldon

Jim:

Please note I have prosecuted and DEFENDED murders. It is, of course, dependent on all of the facts. If the people knew the substance could likely result in the death of a person and they cooperated in it being administered to a person it is totally irrelevant whether the person volunteered or not. If they did not know it was going to be administered to an individual(s) and they participated in the coverup of the death they could be found guilty of accessory after the fact, a lesser crime. This is NOT a debatable point. It simply is what it is.

Doug Weldon

[Jack White]

Interesting SPECULATION by Jim's ANONYMOUS "expert".

But he overlooks another possibility for "FREEZE DRIED WITNESSES." At a necessary time, they

can be "thawed out" and USED FOR DISINFORMATION PURPOSES to control public thought.

They can be "genuine enough" to be acceptable to some as the "real deal" with well scripted

histories...but with just enough flaws to be "self-discrediting" and cause confusion.

Jack

PSY OPS EXPERT REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT JUDYTH VARY BAKER

Jack White has made the assertion that the the idea that Judyth Vary was so important as a witness to the JFK Assassination to have long term psyops brought against her for so many years does not makes sense, because if she was that important the the cia would have terminated her.

Jack is a world renown expert on photo and video analysis and there are not many other individuals in the world that can match his skill level in analyzing photos and videos. His research work and conclusions about the fake videos and photos of the "moon landings" and the "z film" are notably rock solid and he should be highly commended for this superior work that has stood the test of time.

But like most folks, especially those not involved in intel work or who do not have good contacts with those inside intel, as far as "extra-judicial murders" go, he knows very little on the subject as to why they occur, by whom and how they are justified and in what situations they are chosen as the "with prejudice" i.e. "final option" for sanction.

Here's some general background in response to Jack's assertion. Government sanctioned murders have always occurred at times and this has been true within the USA too. This can involve secret coups de etat where top political leaders are terminated such as presidents Lincoln and JFK. It can also include the murder of other top political figures and public figures such as Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Sen. John Tower, Malcolm X, Sen. Paul Wellstone, Gov. Carnahan, etc. It has been estimated that worldwide up to about one-half of all airline crashes are instigated in order to get from one to several individuals on that targeted flight. Thus this business of state sanction murder is a very nasty, cruel and inhuman business. It is the epitome of existential thinking and the leo straussian edict that "the ends justify the means", which is the mainstream of almost every intel agency in the world and almost every military organization. This is the inhuman, evil and disgusting ideology of the likes of lenin, hitler, stalin and mao and it has become the central ideology of our 37 intel agencies, which in and of itself should be very, very alarming to say the least.

Govt sanction murders can also include troublesome witnesses to many government scandals such as Danny Cassalaro of inslaw fame, Ian Spiro and his whole family, the DC Madam Palfry, and many, many more over the years including numerous important witnesses to the JFK Assassination. In recent times since WW2 with the advent of our "national security state" after the roswell crash and the national security act of 1947, there has usually been what is called a "signed finding" to authorize these murders, and the justification is to preserve the national security of the USA. It was rumored that JFK's murder was authorized by such a finding signed by LBJ as vice president in collusion with the jcs and j. edgar mary after it was determined that JFK was a national security risk because of his alleged drug use with mary meyer, his going soft on cuba, his conciliatory discussions with Khrushchev and his intentions to disband the cia and withdraw from vietnam.

These state sanction murders have been carried out in many ways by many groups. There have been quite a few sanctioned murders by state authorities and various federal agencies acting rogue on behalf of certain politicians and large corporate entities, some of whom have been privatized as agents of national security. And over the years since Vietnam, up to 50% of all intel functions have been privatized to shadow govt subcontractors, which makes their work even more deniable.

A former chitown police officer once told me that back in the 60's when certain high political figures wanted a "job" done they would make a phone call to a certain individual at the "treasury dept" would would see that the job was completed and then payment or favors would be made later on.

J. edgar mary had his own private group of hitmen, most mob related. It was called the "squad" and was written about in a book by Michael Milan, titled The Squad. Milan's book is very well done and unfortunately very accurate. At the end of WW2 the US military used several special squads to kill certain japanese war criminals and certain nazi war criminals that survived and escaped capture. This is well documented in several good sources.

The cia has always had special murder squads such as op40 out of room 40 langely modeled after England's room 40 in WW2 and so do many of our at least 37 intel agencies. This group op40 included cubans and one doesn't have to dig too deep to find out their actual names. Nixon and others were heavily involved in running this group. Op40 was of course alleged to have been deeply involved in the JFK Assassination. Operation Pegasus was a deep black special op force which also did many deep black covert ops and later on did special "jobs" after it was hijacked by those that murdered JFK. It typically operated by the authority of signed presidential findings and was responsible for taking drastic measures to protect the national security when no other options were available or had failed. This group supposedly answered directly to potus alone. Typically a presidential letter signed by potus was given to each op saying that if in the process of fulfilling their assignment they broke some laws, immunity was hereby granted under national security. After JFK's death Pegasus was allegedly hijacked by the same sinister forces that murdered him and was allegedly used for protection of illegal govt drug and weapon trafficking.

When state sanctioned jobs are done, the local police are typically contacted by the proper higher authority and instructed to stand down, which they always do. When a designated special high surveillance team which has typically spent at least several days stalking the target to appraise easiest access and means, then it will institute the op. The specific means can be selected from a broad range of tasks involving high tech poisons, pulsed beam microwaves, or actual physical attack. Any physical attack can be made to look as a suicide or a death from natural causes as in the case of william colby. In some cases where it is considered important, a target can be induced to write a suicide letter after certain convincing arguments are presented such as if you don't cooperate we will go after your kids, spouse, relatives, etc. And drug injections, beatings or torture may be used to soften a target up. Some attacks are intended to be savage and grotesque as a warning to others not to talk. One famous case involving this kind of action was the alleged "suicide" of Gary Webb, who supposedly shot himself in the face twice with a shotgun. Absurd circumstances like agriculture inspector marshall's alleged suicide where he was shot five times with a bolt action rifle is another example of a job designed to get the intended "no talk" message across. The klintons of mena, arkansas drug fame were notorious for being surrounded by many absurd and grotesque dixie mob murders like this framed by local authorities as suicide including the "boys on the track" and vince foster.

After the JFK Assassination, the dixie mob and the cubans were allegedly responsible for some of the most savage killings which were to be used to make an example to frighten the others to keep quiet about what they knew. The cia has done a lot of the killings but often uses assets that are deniable. Some however have been trained at the farm, and these usually kill in foreign lands not inside the USA. But the other intel agencies have done their share and a whole other subject is the foreign intel agencies which are sometimes allowed to do their jobs with a wink and a nod by authorities who many times provide cover.

Since 9/11 and the patriot act, these state ordered killings are no longer declared as extra-judicial within intel, the military and the govt. They are now considered to be legal under "national emergency status" which our country is supposedly in at least that is what various recent so called attorney generals and govt lawyers have declared. And this fits well with the govt's novel position that torture of "enemy combatants" even if they are women and young children is okay even if it means crushing as young child's testicles as one top govt just-us dept attorney declared.

Most US govt assassinations nowadays are character assassinations done in the major mass media. It is usually not necessary to resort to murder, however if the need arises after other venues have been exhausted you can be sure that US intel will respond accordingly.

Now how does this background relate to Judyth Vary? After the JFK Assassination, she was quiet and was not considered a threat because it was assumed that she was too afraid to talk. But she has likely been closely monitored for many years. The usual strategy is to "retain" some important witnesses in a "freeze dried" state for later activation. This will seem very strange to the uninformed, but here is how it actually works. To freeze dry an important witness, the agency makes sure that they are mildly harassed and kept down in a weakened conflicted state, usually making certain that they are somehow induced to appear discredited, kooky or marginalized from family, friends and mainstream society in general.

Then at a later time they will may be activated and brought out of their "freeze dried" state to be allowed and/or empowered deliver their payload of evidence should that be desired as it often is at a certain specified time depending on intel's overall goals. A target can be freeze dried over a long period of time by utilizing govt agencies such as the IRS, city real estate taxing authorities, local police, arranged neighbors, employers, other govt agencies, and corporate interests to keep the target stalked, surveilled and harassed and thereby maintained in an ongoing weakened state until such time of conversion back to a real PERSON again. Note "PERSON" is a legal concept you can research in Black's legal dictionary and it has a special legal meaning.

Could this be what is now occurring with Judyth Vary? Is she being taken out of a previously induced freeze dried state and is this being done on purpose by a certain intel faction? And why in the world would a certain faction of intel actually want an important witness that was suppressed for many years to come forth with important evidence proving government complicity in the JFK Assassination, its cover up and other serious associated crimes, some of which appear to be ongoing and even more prominent now? Is here an intel faction that want the citizens to realize their govt is a rogue criminal and wants the citizens to lose all respect for it? Could this be a means to motivate the public to support the formation of a new world govt perhaps?

Not all factions or members of intel are evil. There are some good guys, actually quite a few, and they fight the system (i.e. beast or monster) as best they can. Sometimes they use this freeze dried with later activation process to attain their own goals such as exposure of evidence to help push an agency or the govt to a less evil status. They may unleash the activation part of the process and send it off on a tangent they think is healthy for the society and one that will help slay the beast while allowing the re-emergence of Constitutional govt again (typically this is called a rear guard restoration action).

All govts of the world lie continually and do much evil while also delivering intermittent good overall such as social order. In order for any current govt to be able to rule over the evil of man that govt must be able and willing to be more vicious and savage than any entity that challenges them, otherwise they won't survive as a self governing entity. And topically they must feed off of their subordinates they rule over in order to have enough power to function as a beast. And be clear about it the US govt was usurped from the people by special interest groups and offshore int'l banking conglomerates many years ago, entities who have trashed the US Constitution. Unless the citizens of the US take back their country it cannot once again function as a Republic the way it was designed to by our Founding Fathers. The problem is that with the US victory in WW2 and the 1947 formation of the national security state, the credo "national security" has allowed the shadow govt to become a wealth and liberty consuming out of control beast-monster, invoking national security as a false cover for the most criminal acts acts imaginable, the trashing of the US Constitution and the formation of a nazified police state which is becoming so powerful that it is almost impossible for the common man to take back his country.

Here is the answer to Jack White's assertion and it involves "contrarian" thinking that is very difficult for the uninformed to understand or comprehend in its fullest meaning. One of the most important principals of intel is the "controlled leak", that is, leaking of the truth exposing govt corruption at the time of intel's choice. Now, it is feasible and understandable that a controlled leak of the Judyth Vary history and evidence when instituted at the appropriate time and manner could achieve certain desired intel goals. It could allow the public to believe the truth that the govt killed JFK and covered it up, that Oswald actually was a patsy, and that there was a top secret bioweapon research in New Orleans involving Ochsner, and that the govt was responsible for allowing simian SV-40 virus contaminants to remain in the polio vaccine and other vaccines. The public would then be allowed to BELIEVE that, but not allowed to KNOW that for sure, since the major mass media will never report is as an established scientific fact but only as conspiracy their or conjecture, unless a certain "critical mass" is reached and certain intel factions give it a wink and a nod and allows it to become a mainstream media talking point.

Strange as this seems, this fits well with the over policy and goals of intel which is to generate massive cognitive dissonance wherein the public feels and believes that the govt did all these bad things, but can never know it for sure. This is part of their "king's new clothes" policy. In order to climb the corp/govt/defense food chain, one must acknowledge the king's new clothes even though deep down inside they fear the truth which could transform them overnight to a "man without a country" and an "outsider". One must comply or they cannot climb the food chain and will be ostracized from normal society. Thus we have a nation where most of mainstream society is living in a state of generalized denial. This freezes the citizens up from getting involved in their govt to any meaningful Constitutional extant and usually causes them to go away silently in "quiet desperation".

So, it is certainly possible and plausible that Judyth Vary was "freeze dried" and is now being activated in order for her story and history to be used for certain Intel purposes. However, when this is done, other associated intel factions may have their own agenda and may attempt to take her story from Believing to KNOWING, that is from belief to fact by creating enough critical mass in certain "friendly major mass media" to force that transition for the overall betterment of society.

So to respond to Jack White's assertion, there was no need for intel to murder Judyth Vary after the assassination because she wasn't talking and posed no threat at that time and because she was probably put into a "freeze dried" state and kept there to be used later on. Now she is apparently being taken out of that state and coming into her own and speaking out and writing about her history and what she knows first hand from the early 1960's and the time around the JFK Assassination. Could there be a certain good intel faction that has hijacked her status and is allowing her story to be used to actually help society change for the good? It may be more likely than you think possible.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Mr. Fetzer-

I do not know Dean Hagerman but I suspect that- outside of the Judyth Baker issue- he and I would not agree about much concerning the assassination. But I wanted to mention that I read his posts very differently than you apparently do. I do not see him as a lemming, blindly following the opinions of others to fit in. Rather, it seems to me that throughout this thread he has thought for himself and painfully come to the conclusion that someone he has respected has feet of clay. He has done his best to express his concerns to you, Mr. Fetzer, and you have either ignored them or tried to lecture him as if he were a child. He deserves better.

You again make the claim, Mr. Fetzer, that people need to consider the "evidence." When I asked you to provide that evidence, you declined to provide any. I ask you again- you posted a list of 17 important elements of Judyth's story. You claimed that the first point- that Judyth had been lured to New Orleans by Dr. Ochner- was especially important and well supported. What is that support? I have read the thread, I have read your blogs, I've listened to your interviews, I watched Judyth be interviewed on the Nigel Turner program and I have not seen a single bit of evidence other than Judyth's own word. So clarify things for me- what is the evidence that backs up that well supported point? I frankly don't think it exists but perhaps I'm wrong. So what about it? Instead of calling me a fool or Josiah Thompson's lackey or whatever other insult you can dream up, put me in my place by providing even a smidgen of real evidence.

Can you do it?

[David Lifton]

Hello Jack,

Re your statement, "I even bought 3 month subscriptions to the New Orleans

Item and the New Orleans Times-Picayune to get fuller coverage."

You are not/were not alone. In 1967, I am one of the small number of persons who lived thousands of miles from New Orleans but who--like you--paid for a subscription to the New Orleans States-Item (and, as I recall, the Times-Picayune as well, or maybe a friend ordered that one, and we exchanged). I have old manila file folders filled with articles. These subscriptions stayed in force for months, if not years, and when the case went to trial (Spring, 1969) that was the way to get line by line transcripts of a lot of the testimony.

So . . yes, I'm a member of that small club of "out of towners" who (like you) subscribed to the local New Orleans newspapers to keep up with what --back then--seemed to be the big break in the Kennedy case.

And yes, your point is (of course) well taken, and so now we come back to Judyth, that call I had with her in March, 2000, and her credibility. Its hard to believe anyone who had any of the connections Judyth claimed to have had could possibly have been unaware of these events unfolding in New Orleans (starting in February, 1967, as I recall) since they were the focus of major media attention. When Judyth made that statement, I was amazed, but then, it was one of a number of amazing statements made during that very unusual phone call. Had the call not been taped, and then carefully reviewed afterwards, it is one of those things that probably would have just slid by. When one is dealing with a dozen amazing statements, one after another after another, what does one do? What does one believe? One tries to be polite and behave reasonably--not realizing that any of this is to be taken seriously. That was my impression, as the call went on and on, and then finally ended.

DSL

4/26/10; 7:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Edited April 27, 2010 by David Lifton

[Jack White]

[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?

Why must we ASSUME that LHO and JVB knew each other because they both worked at Reily's? We have only her word for it.

He was a machinery worker; she was an office worker. It is not uncommon that in a large company not every worker will know every other worker.

[Doug Weldon]

Throughout the history of medicine, subjects have volunteered for experiments where the

outcomes were unknown and could result in death. It is interesting that Alton Ochsner in

fact injected his grandaughter and his grandson with the polio vaccine, which killed the boy

and induced polio into the girl. No one has ever suggested that Ochsner should be brought

up on murder charges. For a smart guy, you seem to be oblivious of the history of medicine.

The controversy has raged over informed consent, not whether the subjects actually survived.

Except, of course, if the participants, such as Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, and Judyth Vary,

had been told that the subject (who was a prisoner) had "volunteered" for an experiment by

the authority providing the experimental subject, such as Alton Ochsner, then none of those

who actually administered the vaccine would be guilty of anything remotely approximating

murder, in which case our former prosecutor's analysis does not apply. There is surely more

ground to believe this scenario than that Sherman, Ferrie, and Vary would murder anyone.

And the fact that when Judyth discovered that the experimental subject had died and had

not been extended the right of informed consent, his analysis appears to be unjustifiable.

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

Dean:

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

Doug Weldon

Jim:

Please note I have prosecuted and DEFENDED murders. It is, of course, dependent on all of the facts. If the people knew the substance could likely result in the death of a person and they cooperated in it being administered to a person it is totally irrelevant whether the person volunteered or not. If they did not know it was going to be administered to an individual(s) and they participated in the coverup of the death they could be found guilty of accessory after the fact, a lesser crime. This is NOT a debatable point. It simply is what it is.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

Actually you are wrong about this. Without question, Oshner could and should have been charged with murder for his son and maiming his daughter. You cannot use people as guinea pigs without informing them of potential consequences. If the foreseeable consequence of an action is death or serious harm then it is a socially impermissable experiment. This is not Mengele and Nazi Germany. You cannot have informed consent for death or serious harm. That is why medical trials are often halted before their completion because of unforeseeable events. Here you are stating that JVB though death was the foreseeable outcome.

Doug Weldon

[Kevin Greenlee]

And yes, your point is (of course) well taken, and so now we come back to Judyth, that call I had with her in March, 2000, and her credibility. Its hard to believe anyone who had any of the connections Judyth claimed to have had could possibly have been unaware of these events unfolding in New Orleans (starting in February, 1967, as I recall) since they were the focus of major media attention. When Judyth made that statement, I was amazed, but then, it was one of a number of amazing statements made during that very unusual phone call. Had the call not been taped, and then carefully reviewed afterwards, it is one of those things that probably would have just slid by. When one is dealing with a dozen amazing statements, one after another after another, what does one do? What does one believe? One tries to be polite and behave reasonably--not realizing that any of this is to be taken seriously. That was my impression, as the call went on and on, and then finally ended.

DSL

4/26/10; 7:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

David-

that must have been quite a phone call. even many of judyth's critics claim that she is an intelligent woman but if she was really that bright why on earth would she have tried to peddle her ridiculous stories to someone who knows this material as well as you do?

[Jack White]

Perhaps I have this mixed up with the alleged visit by LHO, Ferrie and Shaw

to Jackson, Louisiana, to the East Louisiana State Hospital. My memory was

that the cancer virus was given to someone there. Maybe I am wrong.

What was the prison facility where the prisoner was killed? I do not remember

a prison being used. What was the prison, who was the prisoner, what was

the date, and how was this accomplished? What is the source of this

documentation?

As for premeditated murder, JVB claims to have been part of a plot to

concoct an infectious potion to be used to kill Fidel Castro, which was to

be delivered by LHO to Mexico City...but was cancelled because a hurricane

struck Cuba. She admits this...planning to kill Castro. Apparently then, as

the story goes, the lethal potion was tested on a human other than Castro

BY SOMEONE. But legally, these conspirators were planning a murder, but

the initial victim was not Castro.

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

Edited April 27, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Monk...thanks for pointing out the irony. IF she is lying about the "murder", then she has nothing to fear!

If she is telling the truth and an inmate was "murdered", then she has the perfect defense....by just saying

"I was just making all that up; we didn't kill anybody!"

So I guess she has nothing to worry about, despite her "confession".

Jack

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

[Kevin Greenlee]

Doug-

Mr. Fetzer may be unintentionally confusing people here. ochsner was not using chldren as guniea pigs. the vaccine he injected them with was manufactured by cutter laboratories. due to a production problem, it became contaminated and- as mr. fetzer noted- there were tragic results. but they were certainly not ochsner's fault. and the incident is definitely in no way comparable to the experimentation that judyth claimed to have been a part in.

Jim:

Actually you are wrong about this. Without question, Oshner could and should have been charged with murder for his son and maiming his daughter. You cannot use people as guinea pigs without informing them of potential consequences. If the foreseeable consequence of an action is death or serious harm then it is a socially impermissable experiment. This is not Mengele and Nazi Germany. You cannot have informed consent for death or serious harm. That is why medical trials are often halted before their completion because of unforeseeable events. Here you are stating that JVB though death was the foreseeable outcome.

Doug Weldon

[Jack White]

Thanks, Dean, for the legal opinion. But here we have what amounts to a CONFESSION by one

of the conspiracy of perpetrators. What is the legal effect of a CONFESSION?

Jack

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

[Jack White]

Thanks, Doug! What would be the effect of her "confession" about the deadly potion which

she conspired with others to produce TO KILL CASTRO? This implies an intent to kill,

even though the victim was just "a scientific test", and not the intended victim.

Jack

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

Dean:

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

Doug Weldon

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

There are lots of cases involving "first time" medical procedures where the life of the

patient/subject could be lost if it were unsuccessful. The first heart-lung transplant,

the first kidney transplant, and loads of other cases. You are distracting attention by

exclusively focusing on the Ochsner case, since the history of medicine is replete with

cases of the kind I have in mind. Why can't you, of all people, simply concede that

you were not thinking of cases of this kind and that, as I have observed, there are

categories of cases--especially medical--where the lost of a life after having granted

"informed consent" would not quality as murder. No one would ever prosecute them.

Is that too much to ask? You seem to be unable to grant that the other side is right

ABOUT ANYTHING. The "reading list", for example, turned out to be substantiated

by an actual WARREN COMMISSION DOCUMENT. Do you still insist that Judyth was

wrong about that one, too, just as I am still wrong about the history of medicine?

Throughout the history of medicine, subjects have volunteered for experiments where the

outcomes were unknown and could result in death. It is interesting that Alton Ochsner in

fact injected his grandaughter and his grandson with the polio vaccine, which killed the boy

and induced polio into the girl. No one has ever suggested that Ochsner should be brought

up on murder charges. For a smart guy, you seem to be oblivious of the history of medicine.

The controversy has raged over informed consent, not whether the subjects actually survived.

Except, of course, if the participants, such as Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, and Judyth Vary,

had been told that the subject (who was a prisoner) had "volunteered" for an experiment by

the authority providing the experimental subject, such as Alton Ochsner, then none of those

who actually administered the vaccine would be guilty of anything remotely approximating

murder, in which case our former prosecutor's analysis does not apply. There is surely more

ground to believe this scenario than that Sherman, Ferrie, and Vary would murder anyone.

And the fact that when Judyth discovered that the experimental subject had died and had

not been extended the right of informed consent, his analysis appears to be unjustifiable.

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

Dean:

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

Doug Weldon

Jim:

Please note I have prosecuted and DEFENDED murders. It is, of course, dependent on all of the facts. If the people knew the substance could likely result in the death of a person and they cooperated in it being administered to a person it is totally irrelevant whether the person volunteered or not. If they did not know it was going to be administered to an individual(s) and they participated in the coverup of the death they could be found guilty of accessory after the fact, a lesser crime. This is NOT a debatable point. It simply is what it is.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

Actually you are wrong about this. Without question, Oshner could and should have been charged with murder for his son and maiming his daughter. You cannot use people as guinea pigs without informing them of potential consequences. If the foreseeable consequence of an action is death or serious harm then it is a socially impermissable experiment. This is not Mengele and Nazi Germany. You cannot have informed consent for death or serious harm. That is why medical trials are often halted before their completion because of unforeseeable events. Here you are stating that JVB though death was the foreseeable outcome.

Doug Weldon