Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Doug Weldon]

Doug,

I entered "Lee Harvey Oswald, Puskin", and there's a letter from Marina to an aunt

and uncle about Lee sending her Tolstoy, Chekhov, and Pushkin. Not to make too

much of a point of it, but is it possible that someone who spoke Russian, who lived

in Russia, and who married a Russian wife might have tastes in reading, including

poetry, that might differ from those, for example, of a Midwestern attorney-at-law?

Jim

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?

Jim:

These are totally separate issues where first time medical procedures are used in attempts to prolong life where the failure to do something has the consequence of death. Loss of life is not the intended consequence of these tests. Would one perform a heart-lung transplant on a healthy person even if they consented?

This discussion is about Judyth, Oshner, Ferrie, and others. My comments were directed towards them and their circumstances. It was not a philosophical discussion I inserted in the middle of the thread. My comments were a direct response to a specific question, not a theoritical discussion about the history of medicine.

I questioned whether Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I doubt if Pushkin would be available at the Dallas library in the early 1960's and he is far more complicated than these other books. Did the WC exhibit substantiate JVB or did she get a list from the exhibit and use it as part of a list she made up?

Doug Weldon

Jim:

Did you look at the letter? It is dated April 27, 1963. It is a letter from Marina to aunt Valya and uncle Ilya. The pertinent part says:

We at last got Ogonek and Soviet Belorussia so we know what is happening in Minsk and everything in the Union. I have Russian books. Alka (Oswald) buys them for me in New York. That is, they send them from there: Tolstoy, Chekhov, Pushkin. When we have more dough we will see; I will buy some more. I do not have complete collections.

The obvious question is when is Oswald in New York in 1963 or how does he buy them in New York, with his American Express card? Furthermore, they are sent to Marina, not to Lee. It is easy to comprehend Marina reading them but unless someone has deep roots in the Soviet Union it would be very difficult. This observation is not from myself, a Midwestern attorney, but from a native of the Soviet Union. Also, note the books were sent to Marina. When did Oswald read them, while he was working, working for Bannister,doing the cancer research, preparing for his abort team, writing a science fiction book with Judyth, or during his trysts with Judyth when he was driving her around?

I am curious. Where does JVB say it was Oswald learned Russian?

I repeat:I do believe Judyth would take a giant step forward with her credibility if the book with Oswald's alleged handwriting would be analyed and verified. Though not dispositive of her entire story, it would be a concrete example of her veracity (or lack thereof).

I was surprised by the response to Barb to this question. At first you agreed it was a good question and then you dismissed her. Did Judyth refuse to cooperate with this? The proof of such would enhance her credibility with me.

Doug Weldon

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

In post #1797 I responded to your claims that you only read research

that is "documented" and that Ed Haslam's work was "not documented".

I am very curious how you formed that impression, especially since you

do not own and have not read his book. Please answer these questions:

(1) Why are you suggesting I read an outdated book about Judyth?

(2) Is that your idea of a constructive suggestion from you to me?

(3) How did you know that DR. MARY'S MONKEY is "not documented"?

(4) Since it is copiously documented, are you now eager to read it?

(5) Have you read my blogs on Judyth on jamesfetzer.blogspot.com?

(6) Have you read my blogs on Haslam on jamesfetzer.blogspot.com?

(7) Have you heard my interview with Ed on radiofetzer.blogspot.com?

(8) Have you listened to the 4-hour interview with Ed Haslam on "C2C"?

(9) You have not responded to my post #1797? Have you read it as yet?

Here's a copy of the relevant content of post #1797 for you to read here:

Jack,

This business about "documentation" astonishes me. There is copious documentation in Ed's book.

Where did you derive the impression of "absence of documentation"? Here are some facts about it:

DR. MARY'S MONKEY (2007), xi + 374 pages.

Foreword by Jim Marrs

Prologue (two photos, one is a photo/map)

Chapter 1 (17 photos including photo maps, 47 end notes, many with multiple references)

Chapter 2 (6 photos, 5 end notes with references)

Chapter 3 (one photo, 14 end notes with references)

Chapter 4 (6 photos, including one photo map, 7 end notes with references)

Chapter 5 (18 photos, including photo maps, 30 end notes with references)

Chapter 6 (12 photos, including photo maps, 12 end notes with references)

Chapter 7 (16 photos, photo maps, graphics, 13 end notes with references)

Chapter 8 (17 photos, 63 end notes with references)

Chapter 9 (17 photos, including 3 graphs, 42 end notes with references)

Chapter 10 (4 photos, including photo maps, many quotes from reports)

Chapter 11 (18 photos, diagrams, maps, 11 end notes with references)

Chapter 12 (3 photos, two maps, 17 end notes with references)

Chapter 13 (8-9 photos and graphics, 15 end notes with references)

Chapter 14 (three photos, including two photo maps, two end notes with references)

Appendix (13 photos, including several photo maps, 20 end notes with references)

Epilogue (10 photos, 16 end notes with references)

Document A (one photo, 6 pages)

Document B (one page/cancer rates)

Document C (three pages, autopsy report)

Bibliography (8 pages)

Index (10 pages)

This is actually one of the best "documented" books for the general public that I have ever read. It

breaks my heart to think where we might have gone on this thread if you had had a copy of it at hand.

You may now be starting to see why I kept encouraging you to read it. It is an excellent, very thorough,

meticulous and very detailed report of Ed Haslam's investigation. Perhaps this will give you an inkling of

why I have suggested in the past that you simply didn't know what you were talking about. You didn't.

Jim

Speaking of reading books, Jim...HAVE YOU read the original Judyth

book (the "unauthorized" 2-volume set)? How does it differ from any

new "authorized" material? If I should read books, I assume that you

have done so, since you ARE interested.

Jack

Jack,

This epitomizes the problem, Jack. You have no interest. You won't read

the book. But you continue to offer slashing comments that are adverse

to Judyth when, by your own admission, you have no interest in her and

you won't read the most important book written about her. Can't you see

what's wrong with this picture, Jack?

Jim

I see no problem, Jim. I would read the book if I had it, but do not wish

to buy a book I do not want. I have read the previous book, and am led

to believe that the ONLY new information concerns JVB.

I AM NOT INTERESTED IN THE TALES OF JVB UNLESS THERE IS DOCUMENTATION.

I know all I want to know about her.

So far I have seen no documentation offered by readers of the book, including

you. Mostly Haslam offers opinions and theories, not documentation. However

I did find his theories interesting about the creation of the AIDS virus.

But as a subscriber to the COVERT ACTION INFORMATION BULLETIN before its

demise, I was studying the AIDS virus more than 30 years ago, and the information

presented strongly indicated that the mutated virus was created by the biowarfare

goons at Fort Detrick Maryland as a part of PROJECT GLOBAL 2000, which was

a eugenics campaign by the Pentagon to reduce world population. It was introduced

in Africa to kill off people of color. If you are not familiar with GLOBAL 2000, you

need to read up on it. It was to KILL OFF UNDESIRABLE people (non-white) through

disease (AIDS), small scale limited wars in ethnic countries, famine in poor nations,

and drug addiction. THE PROGRAM IS STILL IN EFFECT. Read up on EUGENICS.

The Bush family and SKULL AND BONES all promote eugenics. So while Haslam

offers some interesting information about AIDS...it is not ACCIDENTAL as he

purports. It is an instrument of global population control at highest levels to rid

the world of undesirables...blacks, homosexuals and arabs.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Doug,

No, I haven't discounted it. Judyth has been traveling and unavailable. I said

I would run it by her, but my impression is that Barb is going to make it all but

impossible to satisfy standards of documentation that would ever satisfy her. I

think it is a bit of a run-around, but I am glad to hear that it would impress you.

So many members are jumping on this murder rap that I really want to talk to

you a bit more about it. There are many cases of deliberate killing of a human

being that do not quality as "murder": soldiers in combat, police in performance

of their duty, civilians in self-defense. Indeed, four conditions appear necessary:

murder (of x by y) =df the (a) deliberate killing of x by y where ( x is a human

being, © y is deliberately killing x, and (d) the killing of x by y is illegal. Other

cases that are exceptions, therefore, include impositions of the death penalty as

a legally administered punishment and abortions performed before the 7th month.

Personally, I am quite confident that there are medical and research exceptions:

http://www.godandscience.org/abortion/sld0...ml#xgTFBDL8PQpF discusses

the laws on abortion in California. Apparently the Army has conducted tests of

an anthrax vaccine without prior consent: http://www.vaccine-a.com/intro.html

Since this vaccine experiment probably has relevant similarities and differences

to the test with the prisoner, I will ask Judyth to elaborate upon the facts of the

matter, which you have indicated can make a significant difference. I would like

to gain greater clarity on this case from moral, political, and legal points of view.

Jim

P.S. My question was this: Is it possible that someone who spoke Russian, who

lived in Russia, and who married a Russian wife might have tastes in reading,

including poetry, that might differ from those, for example, of a Midwestern

attorney-at-law? That was my question. I don't think you have answered it.

Doug,

I entered "Lee Harvey Oswald, Puskin", and there's a letter from Marina to an aunt

and uncle about Lee sending her Tolstoy, Chekhov, and Pushkin. Not to make too

much of a point of it, but is it possible that someone who spoke Russian, who lived

in Russia, and who married a Russian wife might have tastes in reading, including

poetry, that might differ from those, for example, of a Midwestern attorney-at-law?

Jim

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?

Jim:

These are totally separate issues where first time medical procedures are used in attempts to prolong life where the failure to do something has the consequence of death. Loss of life is not the intended consequence of these tests. Would one perform a heart-lung transplant on a healthy person even if they consented?

This discussion is about Judyth, Oshner, Ferrie, and others. My comments were directed towards them and their circumstances. It was not a philosophical discussion I inserted in the middle of the thread. My comments were a direct response to a specific question, not a theoritical discussion about the history of medicine.

I questioned whether Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I doubt if Pushkin would be available at the Dallas library in the early 1960's and he is far more complicated than these other books. Did the WC exhibit substantiate JVB or did she get a list from the exhibit and use it as part of a list she made up?

Doug Weldon

Jim:

Did you look at the letter? It is dated April 27, 1963. It is a letter from Marina to aunt Valya and uncle Ilya. The pertinent part says:

We at last got Ogonek and Soviet Belorussia so we know what is happening in Minsk and everything in the Union. I have Russian books. Alka (Oswald) buys them for me in New York. That is, they send them from there: Tolstoy, Chekhov, Pushkin. When we have more dough we will see; I will buy some more. I do not have complete collections.

The obvious question is when is Oswald in New York in 1963 or how does he buy them in New York, with his American Express card? Furthermore, they are sent to Marina, not to Lee. It is easy to comprehend Marina reading them but unless someone has deep roots in the Soviet Union it would be very difficult. This observation is not from myself, a Midwestern attorney, but from a native of the Soviet Union. Also, note the books were sent to Marina. When did Oswald read them, while he was working, working for Bannister,doing the cancer research, preparing for his abort team, writing a science fiction book with Judyth, or during his trysts with Judyth when he was driving her around?

I am curious. Where does JVB say it was Oswald learned Russian?

I repeat:I do believe Judyth would take a giant step forward with her credibility if the book with Oswald's alleged handwriting would be analyed and verified. Though not dispositive of her entire story, it would be a concrete example of her veracity (or lack thereof).

I was surprised by the response to Barb to this question. At first you agreed it was a good question and then you dismissed her. Did Judyth refuse to cooperate with this? The proof of such would enhance her credibility with me.

Doug Weldon

Edited April 28, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Attention John Simkin...

Again someone has contacted me saying they tried to join the forum but got a message

that the forum is no longer accepting new members. Why is this?

This man did his PhD thesis on MARMOSET MONKEYS and wants to clarify misinformation

in the JVB thread.

How can he join? I will email him if you will tell me.

Jack

[Doug Weldon]

Doug,

No, I haven't discounted it. Judyth has been traveling and unavailable. I said

I would run it by her, but my impression is that Barb is going to make it all but

impossible to satisfy standards of documentation that would ever satisfy her. I

think it is a bit of a run-around, but I am glad to hear that it would impress you.

So many members are jumping on this murder rap that I really want to talk to

you a bit more about it. There are many cases of deliberate killing of a human

being that do not quality as "murder": soldiers in combat, police in performance

of their duty, civilians in self-defense. Indeed, four conditions appear necessary:

murder (of x by y) =df the (a) deliberate killing of x by y where ( x is a human

being, © y is deliberately killing x, and (d) the killing of x by y is illegal. Other

cases that are exceptions, therefore, include impositions of the death penalty as

a legally administered punishment and abortions performed before the 7th month.

Personally, I am quite confident that there are medical and research exceptions:

http://www.godandscience.org/abortion/sld0...ml#xgTFBDL8PQpF discusses

the laws on abortion in California. Apparently the Army has conducted tests of

an anthrax vaccine without prior consent: http://www.vaccine-a.com/intro.html

Since this vaccine experiment probably has relevant similarities and differences

to the test with the prisoner, I will ask Judyth to elaborate upon the facts of the

matter, which you have indicated can make a significant difference. I would like

to gain greater clarity on this case from moral, political, and legal points of view.

Jim

P.S. My question was this: Is it possible that someone who spoke Russian, who

lived in Russia, and who married a Russian wife might have tastes in reading,

including poetry, that might differ from those, for example, of a Midwestern

attorney-at-law? That was my question. I don't think you have answered it.

Doug,

I entered "Lee Harvey Oswald, Puskin", and there's a letter from Marina to an aunt

and uncle about Lee sending her Tolstoy, Chekhov, and Pushkin. Not to make too

much of a point of it, but is it possible that someone who spoke Russian, who lived

in Russia, and who married a Russian wife might have tastes in reading, including

poetry, that might differ from those, for example, of a Midwestern attorney-at-law?

Jim

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?

Jim:

These are totally separate issues where first time medical procedures are used in attempts to prolong life where the failure to do something has the consequence of death. Loss of life is not the intended consequence of these tests. Would one perform a heart-lung transplant on a healthy person even if they consented?

This discussion is about Judyth, Oshner, Ferrie, and others. My comments were directed towards them and their circumstances. It was not a philosophical discussion I inserted in the middle of the thread. My comments were a direct response to a specific question, not a theoritical discussion about the history of medicine.

I questioned whether Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I doubt if Pushkin would be available at the Dallas library in the early 1960's and he is far more complicated than these other books. Did the WC exhibit substantiate JVB or did she get a list from the exhibit and use it as part of a list she made up?

Doug Weldon

Jim:

Did you look at the letter? It is dated April 27, 1963. It is a letter from Marina to aunt Valya and uncle Ilya. The pertinent part says:

We at last got Ogonek and Soviet Belorussia so we know what is happening in Minsk and everything in the Union. I have Russian books. Alka (Oswald) buys them for me in New York. That is, they send them from there: Tolstoy, Chekhov, Pushkin. When we have more dough we will see; I will buy some more. I do not have complete collections.

The obvious question is when is Oswald in New York in 1963 or how does he buy them in New York, with his American Express card? Furthermore, they are sent to Marina, not to Lee. It is easy to comprehend Marina reading them but unless someone has deep roots in the Soviet Union it would be very difficult. This observation is not from myself, a Midwestern attorney, but from a native of the Soviet Union. Also, note the books were sent to Marina. When did Oswald read them, while he was working, working for Bannister,doing the cancer research, preparing for his abort team, writing a science fiction book with Judyth, or during his trysts with Judyth when he was driving her around?

I am curious. Where does JVB say it was Oswald learned Russian?

I repeat:I do believe Judyth would take a giant step forward with her credibility if the book with Oswald's alleged handwriting would be analyed and verified. Though not dispositive of her entire story, it would be a concrete example of her veracity (or lack thereof).

I was surprised by the response to Barb to this question. At first you agreed it was a good question and then you dismissed her. Did Judyth refuse to cooperate with this? The proof of such would enhance her credibility with me.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

Everything you state is absolutely correct. Assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, Washingto, and Montana but it would be murder. if there was assistance in other states. The only other circumstance is that y could be so reckless that the death of x would be foreseeable. The facts would dictate everything and it is impossible to evaluate Judyth's situation without knowing all of the particular facts.

Also see involuntary manslaughter

The act of unlawfully killing another human being unintentionally.

Most unintentional killings are not murder but involuntary manslaughter. The absence of the element of intent is the key distinguishing factor between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. In most states involuntary manslaughter results from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while performing a legal act, or while committing an act that is unlawful but not felonious.

Many states do not define involuntary manslaughter, or define it vaguely in common-law terms. Some jurisdictions describe the amount of negligence necessary to constitute manslaughter with terms such as criminal negligence, gross negligence, and culpable negligence. The only certainty that can be attached to these terms is that they require more than the ordinary negligence standard in a civil case. With this approach the state does not have to prove that the defendant was aware of the risk.

Other jurisdictions apply more subjective tests, such as "reckless" or "wanton," to describe the amount of negligence needed to constitute involuntary manslaughter. In this approach the defendant must have personally appreciated a risk and then chosen to take it anyway.

There are two types of involuntary manslaughter statutes: criminally negligent manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter. Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs when death results from a high degree of negligence or recklessness. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk and under some codes the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious homicide.

An omission to act or a failure to perform a duty constitutes criminally negligent manslaughter. The existence of the duty is essential. Since the law does not recognize that an ordinary person has a duty to aid or rescue another in distress, a death resulting from an ordinary person's failure to act is not manslaughter. On the other hand, an omission by someone who has a duty, such as a failure to attempt to save a drowning person by a lifeguard, might constitute involuntary manslaughter.

In many jurisdictions death that results from the operation of a vehicle in a criminally negligent manner is punishable as a separate offense. Usually it is considered a less severe offense than involuntary manslaughter. These jurisdictions usually call the offense reckless homicide, negligent homicide, or vehicular homicide. One reason for this lesser offense is the reluctance of juries to convict automobile drivers of manslaughter.

Unlawful act manslaughter occurs when someone causes a death while committing or attempting to commit an unlawful act, usually a misdemeanor. Some states distinguish between conduct that is malum in se (bad in itself) and conduct that is malum prohibitum (bad because it is prohibited by law). Conduct that is malum in se is based on common-law definitions of crime; for example, an assault and battery could be classified as malum in se. Acts that are made illegal by legislation — for example, reckless driving — are malum prohibitum. In states that use this distinction, an act must be malum in se to constitute manslaughter. If an act is malum prohibitum, it is not manslaughter unless the person who committed it could have foreseen that death would be a direct result of the act.

In other states this distinction is not made. If death results from an unlawful act, the person who committed the act may be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter even if the act was malum prohibitum. Courts will uphold unlawful act manslaughter where the statute was intended to prevent injury to another person.

There is also voluntary manslaughter;

MANSLAUGHTER, VOLUNTARY

In order for someone to be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person acted in the heat of passion; and heat of passion was caused by adequate provocation. Heat of passion may be provoked by fear, rage, anger or terror. Provocation, in order to be adequate, must be such as might naturally cause a reasonable person in the passion of the moment to lose self-control and act on impulse and without reflection.

An example might be finding your spouse in bed with someone.

Doug Weldon

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

Since you are there, could you respond to my post #1820? Thanks very much!

Jim

Attention John Simkin...

Again someone has contacted me saying they tried to join the forum but got a message

that the forum is no longer accepting new members. Why is this?

This man did his PhD thesis on MARMOSET MONKEYS and wants to clarify misinformation

in the JVB thread.

How can he join? I will email him if you will tell me.

Jack

[Jack White]

I asked once before and nobody answered...

1. Who was this prisoner who died after being given the cancer potion?

2. What was his name?

3. What was the date of this event?

4. Where did this take place?

5. How was this administered?

6. Did the man volunteer, under full disclosure?

7. Where is the obituary?

8. Where was he buried?

9. Is there relevant paperwork?

10. Who is the source that the event even happened?

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

Great to have an expert on marmoset monkeys available. I am curious about what we

are going to learn from him. We already know that marmosets are used in research:

"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

That is an official statement from the federal government. So will he tells that this is NOT

correct and that marmosets are NOT used extensively in biomedical research? Or will he

tell us that he was in New Orleans and familiar with the research being conducted by Mary

Sherman, David Ferrie, Judyth Vary Baker, and Lee Oswald and marmosets were NOT used?

Jim

Attention John Simkin...

Again someone has contacted me saying they tried to join the forum but got a message

that the forum is no longer accepting new members. Why is this?

This man did his PhD thesis on MARMOSET MONKEYS and wants to clarify misinformation

in the JVB thread.

How can he join? I will email him if you will tell me.

Jack

Edited April 28, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

Since I made this point in post #1821, are you not reading mine either?

Since this vaccine experiment probably has relevant similarities and differences

to the test with the prisoner, I will ask Judyth to elaborate upon the facts of the

matter, which you have indicated can make a significant difference. I would like

to gain greater clarity on this case from moral, political, and legal points of view.

I don't get it, Jack. If you are going to post so much, at least read them.

Jim

I asked once before and nobody answered...

1. Who was this prisoner who died after being given the cancer potion?

2. What was his name?

3. What was the date of this event?

4. Where did this take place?

5. How was this administered?

6. Did the man volunteer, under full disclosure?

7. Where is the obituary?

8. Where was he buried?

9. Is there relevant paperwork?

10. Who is the source that the event even happened?

Jack

[Michael Hogan]

.....About your questions regarding the first "Judyth Vary Baker", you are right that

I have not given you my take. From the book, it is apparent that Ed's girlfriend

did not want to discuss political issues with her friends, because she found it very

embarrassing. So when he was invited to visit with her, he chose not to accept.

That makes sense to me. My own wife, for example, has told me on a number

of occasions that she did not want me to talk about politics, where sometimes I

have and sometimes I have not, where she has let me know her opinion either

way. Avoiding meeting her at that time would have been one way to avoid that.

Moreover, my impression is that Ed was not as aware of Judyth's significance at

the time. When he subsequently had the chance to learn more about her--via

"60 Minutes" and Howard Platzman--of course, he jumped at it. This seems to

me to be appropriate to his evolving understanding of the case as he pursued it.

So I am not bothered by the fact that he was not immediately interested in the

first "Judyth". You wanted my take before I asked Ed about it. So that is what

I think. The most striking aspect of all of this, as I see it, is that Judyth had an

impersonator so early on, which is inconceivable if she were not "the real deal."

Jim, thank you for your response. I am commenting not to belabor the point or

dispute your take on it. I just want to show that two people can look at the same

thing and see it entirely differently.

Haslam was a "Garrison expert" living in New Orleans. He and his girlfriend abruptly

left a party (at Haslam's urging!) when the hostess told Haslam's girlfriend that she had

been a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald and invited Haslam to discuss the Garrison investigation.

Haslam was living up to his agreement not to discuss Garrison around her friends.

Seemingly not affronted, two weeks later this same hostess named Judyth Vary Baker invited Haslam

and his girlfriend to her house for dinner. Haslam had already spent time talking to her husband

at the party. He "reminded" his girlfriend that this woman was a "good buddy" of Oswald and that he

did not want to go to her house for dinner. Even though there was no chance of Haslam embarassing

his girlfriend in front of any of her fellow students.

Of course Haslam was not aware of her significance at the time, other than she claimed to

be a close friend of Oswald. It's simply astonishing to me that Haslam, or anyone for that matter,

would not at least make an attempt to persuade his girlfriend to go. Instead, Haslam makes it clear

that it was at his impetus that they declined the invitation. Remember, this was someone that claimed

to be a friend of Oswald, not a mere acquaintance. To hear Haslam tell it, he was not even the least

bit curious.

Haslam tells this story so briefly, so matter-of-factly, and so devoid of any detail of what he was thinking

at the time that it seems odd. He makes no mention of trying to track down any of the people that attended

the party in order to verify his story. You or I would have done that. Sixty Minutes could have done that for him.

Haslam takes scarcely more that a page to tell the reader of the meeting in the school cafeteria, the attendance

at the party,and the declination of the dinner invitation. His description of these very important events is so "bare-boned"

as to be unsatisfying to the reader, and to me ultimately unconvincing.

Anyway Jim, thanks for sharing your views. Maybe you are right. I just see Haslam's account of that episode differently than you do.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

ED HASLAM RESPONDS TO JACK WHITE ABOUT "GHOST WRITING"

Jim Fetzer,

Yes, I was one of five editors that Trine Day had working on Judyth's book

to make sure that the content was properly vetted and professionally

presented. In fact, I believe that the current draft of ME AND LEE is

shorter than original manuscript she submitted to Trine Day, so where is the

ghost-writing? From my perspective, I helped edit her manuscipt. The

publisher agrees. So what "good authority" is Jack referring to?

Bottomline, ME AND LEE is 100% Judyth's story, but it has been properly

edited... for the first time.

Ed Haslam

P.S. I was asked to write the Foreword.

P.P.S. Michael, I have sent him your questions, but he has yet to reply to them.

Jack,

This seems to me to reflect a misunderstanding of Judyth. Perhaps in the past she was naive

about other's telling her story, but that is most certainly not the case today. I have done some

light editing in correcting typos, removing bolds and such, and doing some formatting to make it

easier to read her posts. But she has been very insistent that they be right as she intends them.

I would be surprised if much more was taking place in preparing her book for publication. But I

would not be surprised if she had more material she wanted than could reasonably be included.

Jim

JIM REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN ABOUT TRUTH AND JUDYTH VARY BAKER

....I have been extremely frustrated to expend so much time

and effort to bring you Judyth's story only to discover that most of those posting on

this forum are not reading or studying the evidence, including DR. MARY'S MONKEY.

....In spite of my repeated entreaties, my impressionis that you have yet to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY,

even though you profess to be someone who admires my work. Words are cheap, Dean, and until you

show me that you have a better grasp of the evidence than Jack, for example, I can no longer respect you.

My point is that, unless you have considered the evidence that I have identified, over and over

again, including my blogs about Judyth, the YouTube interviews I have conducted, my

program with Ed Haslam, which has long been posted on my radio program's archives

and on my blogs at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, you don't have the right to have

an opinion about Judyth--at least, not one that qualifies as "rational". I spent all those

years teaching students how to think things through, and I am acutely disappointed so

many who have made posts couldn't have passed a freshman course in critical thinking.

You have opinions, but without reviewing the evidence, they can't qualify as good ones.

Jim, the scant evidence that appears in Dr Mary's Monkey supporting Judyth Baker's claim that she had

a relationship with Lee Oswald has more than been covered in this thread. You have even reproduced the

two chapters where Haslam deals with this issue. Yet you continue to contend that members need to read

his book in order to have a right to their opinions.

But you haven't read Armstrong's book and that hasn't prevented you from expressing your strong opinions about the

quality of his research and the quality of his conclusions. Seemingly, you base your opinions on nothing much more

than an index and a missing tooth. If you are going to apply the same standards of critical thinking to yourself as you did

to your students and members of this Forum, shouldn't it be incumbent on you to read Harvey & Lee in it's entirety

before attempting to discredit Armstrong as you have done?

Weeks ago I posed several questions to you about Ed Haslam's research. At first you ignored them. I posted them again

to no avail. At the time you were responding to almost anyone and everyone, yet you would not address my questions.

Frustrated, I posed just one question in hope that you would give me your take. You then asked me to repeat the rest of the

questions because you did not want to go to Haslam with one question at a time. I rephrased the questions and presented them to you.

I noticed that you had Ed Haslam respond to Stephen Roy's posts in a very short period of time, yet my questions still have gone unanswered.

I am going to repeat just one of them here. I am really more interested in your explanation than Ed Haslam's at this point in time.

He has alread publicly evinced a reluctance to discuss JVB/LHO until her new book comes out.

Judyth Baker has claimed that she did not tell Haslam about her first book being unauthorized and containing errors, but she would

have done so if she had known Haslam was writing a book. Haslam's book came to her as a great surprise.

However, in Dr Mary's Monkey, Haslam presents a chapter entitled Judyth's Story. He writes: "Judyth has been kind enough

to corroborate (and correct) my version of her account." It defies logic to think that Haslam would get her to do this without telling her

it was for a book he was writing.

Jim, do you find it odd that Ed Haslam would not tell Judyth Baker that he was writing a book (where she would play a

prominent role as his "witness"), particularly in light of the fact that he had her make corrections to and corroborations of

his chapter that dealt with her story?

Excellent, Michael. Interesting item is that I have it on good authority that Haslam is ghost-writing the "new Judyth book"...if

it ever comes out.

Jack

Edited April 28, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Hi Greg,

I don't know where you got the idea I have ever conceded that Judyth knew Oswald. I have not. [snip]

My mistake. I was under the impression that you believed they had, at least, met each other. Do you believe that? Or do you think it's unlikely? During your research did you find out how many people were employed at Reily's in 1963 during that period of time? If it's 800 employees, then perhaps they missed each other. But, if it's only 8 or so--that's a lot harder to miss. IMO, the probability is extremely high that they knew each other. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, I didn't mean to.

Greg,

I think it is not unlikely that they had exchanged a courtesy nod, good morning, good evening type of thing ... after all, they worked in the same building. Or there could have been some work related reason they may have spoken to one another. I wouldn't consider that knowing one another ... it is knowing of one another. I have never seen any evidence that they actually knew one another personally.

The company occupied 5 floors. According to Martin Shackelford, Reily had about a hundred employees at the time. I was not able to verify an exact number of employees in 1963 with the company, but was told a hundred, give or take, sounded about right.

And ... no prob. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

I think it is not unlikely that they had exchanged a courtesy nod, good morning, good evening type of thing ... after all, they worked in the same building. [snip]

Thanks Barb,

You employed a double negative. So for clarity sake then, you think it IS likely that their paths crossed. Since that is the most you would concede even if the handwriting analysis panned out, its hardly worth the effort.

[Jack White]

Apparently my source was mistaken.

Jack

ED HASLAM RESPONDS TO JACK WHITE ABOUT "GHOST WRITING"

Jim Fetzer,

Yes, I was one of five editors that Trine Day had working on Judyth's book

to make sure that the content was properly vetted and professionally

presented. In fact, I believe that the current draft of ME AND LEE is

shorter than original manuscript she submitted to Trine Day, so where is the

ghost-writing? From my perspective, I helped edit her manuscipt. The

publisher agrees. So what "good authority" is Jack referring to?

Bottomline, ME AND LEE is 100% Judyth's story, but it has been properly

edited... for the first time.

Ed Haslam

P.S. I was asked to write the Foreword.

P.P.S. Michael, I have sent him your questions, but he has yet to reply to them.

Jack,

This seems to me to reflect a misunderstanding of Judyth. Perhaps in the past she was naive

about other's telling her story, but that is most certainly not the case today. I have done some

light editing in correcting typos, removing bolds and such, and doing some formatting to make it

easier to read her posts. But she has been very insistent that they be right as she intends them.

I would be surprised if much more was taking place in preparing her book for publication. But I

would not be surprised if she had more material she wanted than could reasonably be included.

Jim

JIM REPLIES TO DEAN HAGERMAN ABOUT TRUTH AND JUDYTH VARY BAKER

....I have been extremely frustrated to expend so much time

and effort to bring you Judyth's story only to discover that most of those posting on

this forum are not reading or studying the evidence, including DR. MARY'S MONKEY.

....In spite of my repeated entreaties, my impressionis that you have yet to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY,

even though you profess to be someone who admires my work. Words are cheap, Dean, and until you

show me that you have a better grasp of the evidence than Jack, for example, I can no longer respect you.

My point is that, unless you have considered the evidence that I have identified, over and over

again, including my blogs about Judyth, the YouTube interviews I have conducted, my

program with Ed Haslam, which has long been posted on my radio program's archives

and on my blogs at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, you don't have the right to have

an opinion about Judyth--at least, not one that qualifies as "rational". I spent all those

years teaching students how to think things through, and I am acutely disappointed so

many who have made posts couldn't have passed a freshman course in critical thinking.

You have opinions, but without reviewing the evidence, they can't qualify as good ones.

Jim, the scant evidence that appears in Dr Mary's Monkey supporting Judyth Baker's claim that she had

a relationship with Lee Oswald has more than been covered in this thread. You have even reproduced the

two chapters where Haslam deals with this issue. Yet you continue to contend that members need to read

his book in order to have a right to their opinions.

But you haven't read Armstrong's book and that hasn't prevented you from expressing your strong opinions about the

quality of his research and the quality of his conclusions. Seemingly, you base your opinions on nothing much more

than an index and a missing tooth. If you are going to apply the same standards of critical thinking to yourself as you did

to your students and members of this Forum, shouldn't it be incumbent on you to read Harvey & Lee in it's entirety

before attempting to discredit Armstrong as you have done?

Weeks ago I posed several questions to you about Ed Haslam's research. At first you ignored them. I posted them again

to no avail. At the time you were responding to almost anyone and everyone, yet you would not address my questions.

Frustrated, I posed just one question in hope that you would give me your take. You then asked me to repeat the rest of the

questions because you did not want to go to Haslam with one question at a time. I rephrased the questions and presented them to you.

I noticed that you had Ed Haslam respond to Stephen Roy's posts in a very short period of time, yet my questions still have gone unanswered.

I am going to repeat just one of them here. I am really more interested in your explanation than Ed Haslam's at this point in time.

He has alread publicly evinced a reluctance to discuss JVB/LHO until her new book comes out.

Judyth Baker has claimed that she did not tell Haslam about her first book being unauthorized and containing errors, but she would

have done so if she had known Haslam was writing a book. Haslam's book came to her as a great surprise.

However, in Dr Mary's Monkey, Haslam presents a chapter entitled Judyth's Story. He writes: "Judyth has been kind enough

to corroborate (and correct) my version of her account." It defies logic to think that Haslam would get her to do this without telling her

it was for a book he was writing.

Jim, do you find it odd that Ed Haslam would not tell Judyth Baker that he was writing a book (where she would play a

prominent role as his "witness"), particularly in light of the fact that he had her make corrections to and corroborations of

his chapter that dealt with her story?

Excellent, Michael. Interesting item is that I have it on good authority that Haslam is ghost-writing the "new Judyth book"...if

it ever comes out.

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Greg,

I think it is not unlikely that they had exchanged a courtesy nod, good morning, good evening type of thing ... after all, they worked in the same building. [snip]

Thanks Barb,

You employed a double negative. So for clarity sake then, you think it IS likely that their paths crossed. Since that is the most you would concede even if the handwriting analysis panned out, its hardly worth the effort.

Yeah, little weird construct there ... sorry. On your clarification .... no, that is not what I meant. I have no way of knowing whether it would have been "likely" .... but there is no reason it would have been unlikely (or unusual), given that they worked in the same place.

You keep asserting things I have not said. :-) If the handwriting is certified by a qualified professional to be that of Lee Harvey Oswald, then I think that would establish that she did know him. To what degree .... that won't tell us. But if the writing is his, then they obviously had more than a nodding courtesy fellow employee in passing knowledge of one another.

One could get the idea that you are trying to create a preemptive excuse for not having the analysis done.:-) I can't think of one valid reason a claimant, with an item in hand that could establish part of their claim ... and an important part ... would not be begging to have it analyzed.

Can you?

Bests,

Barb :-)