Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

When I have the chance, I am going to post an extended reply about the meaning of "rationality" in this

context. Let me simply observe at the moment that a basic requirement of scientific reasoning is known

as "the requirement of total evidence", which insists that, in the search for truth, reasoning must be based

upon all of the available relevant evidence. Those who are basing their reasoning only upon portions of the

available evidence are committing the fallacy known as "special pleading", which is also know as the method

of selection and elimination (by selecting the evidence that agrees with a predetermined point of view and

eliminating the rest). As I shall explain, if you have not viewed "The Love Affair", read DR. MARY'S MONKEY

or--once it becomes available--ME & LEE, you cannot have satisfied that requirement, which means that, in

the strict sense, your conclusion will not properly qualify as "rational" because it is not based upon all of the

available relevant evidence. And that remains the case even if you ultimately concluded that you disbelieve

in Judyth or if you ultimately conclude that you believe in her. I will expand upon this in a post tomorrow.

Jim has been quoted as saying:

"you don't have the right to have an opinion about Judyth--at least, not one that qualifies as 'rational'"

Jim has named the topic on this thread. It makes sense that he consider the foundation of the opinions given in response to what he says, including whether one has read his sources.

Can anyone reasonably form a rational opinion about the Warren Report without having read it? I would say no.

Other sources are welcome. It would help, though, if those who would draw from other sources to identify the significance of what they assert. For example, there has been a lot of talk about a book that may or may not have Oswald’s writing on it and I still don’t understand why it is important to our discussion.

Dean

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean,

Be so kind as to repost the entire post from which Jack has derived this statement.

There is a series of ..... that suggests to me he has edited it in ways that distort my

meaning, which would be apparent from the entire post taken in context. I have been

making this point in a multiplicity of posts, but no one seems to understand that you

do not have the right to pick and chose your evidence and still qualify as "rational".

Many thanks!

Jim

I should explain that his has nothing to do with whether or not you ultimately believe in

Judyth. That is a conclusion that each of us had to determine for themselves. My point

is that, unless you have considered the evidence that I have identified, ...... you don't have the right to have

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

I cannot believe that Jim Fetzer wrote the above.

So nobody has the right to have an opinion unless it meets the teacher's criteria?

Jim, you were a teacher too long. You are no longer talking to "students".

I cant believe it either Jack

I was shocked when I read that

[Doug Weldon]

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

Jim:

I watched Judyth again very carefully on TMWKK. I have a number of questions but in regards to the point of murder the answer is very clear. Consent is not even an issue that can be raised. Judyth's own statements indicate that none of the people had the capacity to voluntarily give consent. She describes going back and seeing one of the victims. The only thing that would have to be established is a corpus. A victim or victims would have to be identified and a cause of death determined. If that can be done then it is unequivocal that Judyth could be charged as an accessory to 1st degree murder. In 1963 she would have faced the death penalty for her involvement. Now, after Furman v Georgia, she would be facing life in prison. I am not certain about Louisiana but in many states it would be without possibility of parole. Once a corpus could be established, Judyth's confession on TMWKK or elsewhere would absolutely be admissible. In most instances a corpus and a confession (unless determined to be false) would be all that would be needed for a conviction. There is no statute of limitations on murder in any state. If she is telling the truth it is morally and legally murder. It is not even debateable. Politically, I cannot answer the question but if I was a district attorney in Louisiana and could establish a corpus I would issues charges and a warrant for her arrest. This is not an academic discussion. It is very serious. I am sincerely very disturbed after hearing her account. it is chilling.

Doug Weldon

[Doug Weldon]

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

Jim:

I watched Judyth again very carefully on TMWKK. I have a number of questions but in regards to the point of murder the answer is very clear. Consent is not even an issue that can be raised. Judyth's own statements indicate that none of the people had the capacity to voluntarily give consent. She describes going back and seeing one of the victims. The only thing that would have to be established is a corpus. A victim or victims would have to be identified and a cause of death determined. If that can be done then it is unequivocal that Judyth could be charged as an accessory to 1st degree murder. In 1963 she would have faced the death penalty for her involvement. Now, after Furman v Georgia, she would be facing life in prison. I am not certain about Louisiana but in many states it would be without possibility of parole. Once a corpus could be established, Judyth's confession on TMWKK or elsewhere would absolutely be admissible. In most instances a corpus and a confession (unless determined to be false) would be all that would be needed for a conviction. There is no statute of limitations on murder in any state. If she is telling the truth it is morally and legally murder. It is not even debateable. Politically, I cannot answer the question but if I was a district attorney in Louisiana and could establish a corpus I would issues charges and a warrant for her arrest. This is not an academic discussion. It is very serious. I am sincerely very disturbed after hearing her account. it is chilling.

Doug Weldon

Upon establishing a corpus I would charge her with open murder which encompasses 1st and 2nd degree murder. It is a non bondable offense(s).

Doug Weldon

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

In the context of the times, I doubt that anyone would be willing to convict her of any crime in relation to these

attempts to discover a method for taking out the leader of a foreign nation (Fidel Castro), which was not even a

federal offense until Ford, Carter, and Reagan signed executive orders prohibiting it. I believe that, at this point

in time, our discussion is purely academic and that the only reason for pursuing it at all is an effort to intimidate

or harass Judyth. I hold you in high esteem, counselor, but I think this murder exercise is completely misguided.

Today, in another climate, I might be more accommodating, but I have to ask if you have taken any action to bring

charges against the agents of the government responsible for these "extraordinary renditions" (kidnappings) and the

incarceration and torture to which they have been subjected and which have often led to death? If you were more

active regarding issues that matter in this day and age, I would be more open to supposing that your discussion of

this alleged offense was sincere rather than grounded in malice. I am sorry to say, I have no reason to think that.

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

Jim:

I watched Judyth again very carefully on TMWKK. I have a number of questions but in regards to the point of murder the answer is very clear. Consent is not even an issue that can be raised. Judyth's own statements indicate that none of the people had the capacity to voluntarily give consent. She describes going back and seeing one of the victims. The only thing that would have to be established is a corpus. A victim or victims would have to be identified and a cause of death determined. If that can be done then it is unequivocal that Judyth could be charged as an accessory to 1st degree murder. In 1963 she would have faced the death penalty for her involvement. Now, after Furman v Georgia, she would be facing life in prison. I am not certain about Louisiana but in many states it would be without possibility of parole. Once a corpus could be established, Judyth's confession on TMWKK or elsewhere would absolutely be admissible. In most instances a corpus and a confession (unless determined to be false) would be all that would be needed for a conviction. There is no statute of limitations on murder in any state. If she is telling the truth it is morally and legally murder. It is not even debateable. Politically, I cannot answer the question but if I was a district attorney in Louisiana and could establish a corpus I would issues charges and a warrant for her arrest. This is not an academic discussion. It is very serious. I am sincerely very disturbed after hearing her account. it is chilling.

Doug Weldon

Edited April 29, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Kathleen Collins]

Kathy, how does killing Castro save the US of A?

JVB's claims about foreknowledge and non action is atrocious. The assassination threatened to trigger a nuclear confrontation, and in the years since has led to the deaths and miseries of millions if not billions of the earths population.

Patriotism truly is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Precious soil : Bah!

Castro was a communist dictator. He was our enemy and he was physicaly close to us. The people of Cuba live in fear. Look what little Elian Gonzalez went through. I'm sure he's working on a farm now, when he could have been free in America.

I am convinced Castro is dead -- and for a long time now. Popping him off in 1963 may have relieved the Cuban people. Instead the guns turned around and took Kennedy out.

Would you like to live in Cuba under Castro? I'd rather see him dead.

Kathy C

Sorry Kath. I completely and utterly disagree with 90% of your message. The 10% I do agree with is your name at the bottom.

Edited: anger taken out

Anger over what? Basically, I think we should stay out of other countries' business. But there are exceptions.

About 2 years ago I read 2 books dealing with the Assassination. They said that the Kennedy brothers were going to assassinate Castro on Dec. 1, 1963. I don't know how true that was. Brothers says Bobby Kennedy was working with a group of Cuban Exiles, without his brother knowing, to kill Castro. With Castro dead, maybe the Cubans could have their land back. Castro had nuclear missiles. He was dangerous to this country. Did you feel bad when Saddam Hussein died (even though he didn't have weapons of mass destruction)? Would you like to live with him as a ruler? What about Adolph Hitler? Would you let that continue?

Maybe you ought to go to Anger Management classes.

Kathy C

My apologies Kathy. Here was me thinking history, politics and geopolitics were far more complicated than that which you have outlined above.

Please forgive me.

One day, I may look forward to, and hope for, the extermination of my fellow human beings the same way you do. Here's to Iran *clink*

Castro has been dead for 4 years now. He's missed appearances at different events significant to the people of Cuba. Use your head. His brother and allies continue the same govt, though I was hoping they'd be overthrown. Would Elian Gonzalez's mother lose her life, trying to swim to N.America with her son, if Cuba wasn't hell?

John Lennon's song "Imagine" (which I hate) is about communism. Just listen to the words. So much so that Castro had a bronze sculpture of John sitting on a bench in a small park in Cuba, which I've seen on Google Earth Street View, to my surprise. Now the Cuban people are ALLOWED to listen to Beatle records. Ask any residents of Little Havana, FL if they want to go back to Cuba.

Don't get me wrong. The first second I saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan I was hooked and still am. I just find "Imagine" monotonous, insincere and hypercritical. And I'm entitled to my opinion.

Kathy C

Edited April 29, 2010 by Kathleen Collins

[Doug Weldon]

In the context of the times, I doubt that anyone would be willing to convict her of any crime in relation to these

attempts to discover a method for taking out the leader of a foreign nation (Fidel Castro), which was not even a

federal offense until Ford, Carter, and Reagan signed executive orders prohibiting it. I believe that, at this point

in time, our discussion is purely academic and that the only reason for pursuing it at all is an effort to intimidate

or harass Judyth. I hold you in high esteem, counselor, but I think this murder exercise is completely misguided.

Today, in another climate, I might be more accommodating, but I have to ask if you have taken any action to bring

charges against the agents of the government responsible for these "extraordinary renditions" (kidnappings) and the

incarceration and torture to which they have been subjected and which have often led to death? If you were more

active regarding issues that matter in this day and age, I would be more open to supposing that your discussion of

this alleged offense was sincere rather than grounded in malice. I am sorry to say, I have no reason to think that.

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

Jim:

I watched Judyth again very carefully on TMWKK. I have a number of questions but in regards to the point of murder the answer is very clear. Consent is not even an issue that can be raised. Judyth's own statements indicate that none of the people had the capacity to voluntarily give consent. She describes going back and seeing one of the victims. The only thing that would have to be established is a corpus. A victim or victims would have to be identified and a cause of death determined. If that can be done then it is unequivocal that Judyth could be charged as an accessory to 1st degree murder. In 1963 she would have faced the death penalty for her involvement. Now, after Furman v Georgia, she would be facing life in prison. I am not certain about Louisiana but in many states it would be without possibility of parole. Once a corpus could be established, Judyth's confession on TMWKK or elsewhere would absolutely be admissible. In most instances a corpus and a confession (unless determined to be false) would be all that would be needed for a conviction. There is no statute of limitations on murder in any state. If she is telling the truth it is morally and legally murder. It is not even debateable. Politically, I cannot answer the question but if I was a district attorney in Louisiana and could establish a corpus I would issues charges and a warrant for her arrest. This is not an academic discussion. It is very serious. I am sincerely very disturbed after hearing her account. it is chilling.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

I am not intending to intimidate Judyth and there is no malice. There is no reason for me to have any such feelings towards her. In fact, I do not have "feelings" about Judyth either way. Again, I said I would give her much credibility if the writing in the book turns out to be Oswald. There is no question that an attempt to kiil Castro would be unlikely to subject Judyth to prosecution. However, being an accomplice to killing people innocent people is simply murder. If you wish to test my bias simply have Judyth name the people who were killed by creating cancer by injecting them. My guess is that it would not be overlooked and that charges would likely be issued today. The police would investigate and submit a warrant request for prosecution. There is no crime without a corpus but Judyth is running a risk that this might reach the ears of the relatives of someone she was involved in killing in Louisiana in 1963.

You state that "Today, in another climate, I might be more accommodating, but I have to ask if you have taken any action to bring

charges against the agents of the government responsible for these "extraordinary renditions" (kidnappings) and the

incarceration and torture to which they have been subjected and which have often led to death? If you were more

active regarding issues that matter in this day and age, I would be more open to supposing that your discussion of

this alleged offense was sincere rather than grounded in malice."

This is as ridiculous as suggesting I e-mailed Jack a psychological analysis of Judyth. It is a diversion. There is no one more than me that believes Bush, Cheney(especially), and Rumsfield should be criminally prosecuted not only for murder but for treason. My biggest fear was that Cheney would die and Bush would become President. Probably my greatest disappointment with Obama, second only to continuing the futile war in Afganistan, was his decision not to pursue criminal charges against these people. I emphatically believe in truth and justice. It cannot be disguised by political agendas. Are there times it is merited? Of course. It is a tragedy that Hitler was not murdered. One of my great heros is Dietrich Bonhoffer, who had to struggle with his religious beliefs and make the decision to kill evil, Hitler. He was executed after the failed attempt.

It was you who asked what the political, moral, and legal ramifications of what Judyth did. Was everyone to ignore your question? I examined your question solely by Judyth's own words, nothing more. You cannot ask the question and then say you don't like the answer and then cast groundless dispersions about what my motivation might be. Don't take my word for it. Ask anyone who has been deeply involved withh the criminal justice system. I am confident you would get the same answer. Murder is murder. If Judyth is honest I hope this might be something that she exaggerated the truth about. It is very disturbing.

Doug Weldon

[Pamela Brown]

JF said to DW:I hold you in high esteem, counselor, but I think this murder exercise is completely misguided.

I agree. This issue is a rabbit trail and not relevant to this discussion. I'm sure there are lots of people Weldon would like to prosecute for one reason or another, perhaps simply because he once 'believed' them and later found out he had been wrong.

[Jack White]

More on marmosets...

There are two kinds:

Common marmoset = Callithrix jacchus

 

Pygmy marmoset = Cebuella pygmaea***

The pygmy marmoset baby is thumb sized; the ADULT pygmy marmoset is

5 to 6 inches tall and weighs about 5 to 6 ounces (one-third pound).

If JVB used thumb sized marmosets, they were babies.

The common marmoset, of course, is larger.

I cannot find on the internet whether marmosets were available for medical

research in 1963.

Jack

***thanks to an anonymous researcher, confirmed on a marmoset website.

[Greg Burnham]

Jim:

I watched Judyth again very carefully on TMWKK. I have a number of questions but in regards to the point of murder the answer is very clear. Consent is not even an issue that can be raised. Judyth's own statements indicate that none of the people had the capacity to voluntarily give consent. She describes going back and seeing one of the victims. The only thing that would have to be established is a corpus. A victim or victims would have to be identified and a cause of death determined. If that can be done then it is unequivocal that Judyth could be charged as an accessory to 1st degree murder. In 1963 she would have faced the death penalty for her involvement. Now, after Furman v Georgia, she would be facing life in prison. I am not certain about Louisiana but in many states it would be without possibility of parole. Once a corpus could be established, Judyth's confession on TMWKK or elsewhere would absolutely be admissible. In most instances a corpus and a confession (unless determined to be false) would be all that would be needed for a conviction. There is no statute of limitations on murder in any state. If she is telling the truth it is morally and legally murder. It is not even debateable. Politically, I cannot answer the question but if I was a district attorney in Louisiana and could establish a corpus I would issues charges and a warrant for her arrest. This is not an academic discussion. It is very serious. I am sincerely very disturbed after hearing her account. it is chilling.

Doug Weldon

Doug & Jim,

For the sake of conversation, and perhaps more, I find this topic fascinating. Here's why: If Judyth is telling the truth, and if she believes that revealing the truth supercedes her own individual best interests, there might be an angle worth pursuing. From what I know of her--and from what Jim has presented--she certainly seems to place the importance of "sharing the truth" above her own best interests, as demonstrated by the many "trials and tribulations" she has willingly endured that she attributes to her having attempted to tell her story. If this claim is, in fact, true--it is quite admirable.

So, assuming her story really is true, she definitely seems to display characteristics consistent with being the "real deal" -- However, many have doubted that the "substance of her revelations" are real and have challenged, not the existence of her plight, but rather have challenged the assertion that her "trials and tribulations" are, in fact, further PROOF that her story is true and somehow a threat to those who may have something to lose if her story is believed.

Based on that, I have an idea.

Jim, I ask you to not act as her defense counsel because you are not qualified to act in that capacity, and second, because it is unnecessary at this juncture. Third, we'll need you in a different capacity. Also, I am not attacking her or suggesting she should be punished. I am thinking of something else.

Theoretically, if she were to reveal the name or names of the individuals who were victims of this program it would establish her credibility--without doubt--if same could be independently verified from public, medical, and/or law enforcement records. Moreover, if, based on this information, a DA chose to pursue charges against her, this would require a trial in which the power to subpoena relevant documents and witnesses, etc. would exist for both the DA and the Defense...including the documents in the possession of the federal, state, and/or local government. This would be stronger than any FOIA request could ever be.

Now, Jim--if it turns out you are correct--that there is insufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonble doubt she goes free, but we still have the truth...or at least more truth than we have now--and that's what Judyth says she wants as well. Since you believe that there is no case--or at least an un-winnable case for the prosecution--in the end, her story is out in the open, it is irrefutable as it has been as fully vetted as possible in a public forum, and we have the information [TRUTH].

[Doug Weldon]

In the context of the times, I doubt that anyone would be willing to convict her of any crime in relation to these

attempts to discover a method for taking out the leader of a foreign nation (Fidel Castro), which was not even a

federal offense until Ford, Carter, and Reagan signed executive orders prohibiting it. I believe that, at this point

in time, our discussion is purely academic and that the only reason for pursuing it at all is an effort to intimidate

or harass Judyth. I hold you in high esteem, counselor, but I think this murder exercise is completely misguided.

Today, in another climate, I might be more accommodating, but I have to ask if you have taken any action to bring

charges against the agents of the government responsible for these "extraordinary renditions" (kidnappings) and the

incarceration and torture to which they have been subjected and which have often led to death? If you were more

active regarding issues that matter in this day and age, I would be more open to supposing that your discussion of

this alleged offense was sincere rather than grounded in malice. I am sorry to say, I have no reason to think that.

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

Jim:

I watched Judyth again very carefully on TMWKK. I have a number of questions but in regards to the point of murder the answer is very clear. Consent is not even an issue that can be raised. Judyth's own statements indicate that none of the people had the capacity to voluntarily give consent. She describes going back and seeing one of the victims. The only thing that would have to be established is a corpus. A victim or victims would have to be identified and a cause of death determined. If that can be done then it is unequivocal that Judyth could be charged as an accessory to 1st degree murder. In 1963 she would have faced the death penalty for her involvement. Now, after Furman v Georgia, she would be facing life in prison. I am not certain about Louisiana but in many states it would be without possibility of parole. Once a corpus could be established, Judyth's confession on TMWKK or elsewhere would absolutely be admissible. In most instances a corpus and a confession (unless determined to be false) would be all that would be needed for a conviction. There is no statute of limitations on murder in any state. If she is telling the truth it is morally and legally murder. It is not even debateable. Politically, I cannot answer the question but if I was a district attorney in Louisiana and could establish a corpus I would issues charges and a warrant for her arrest. This is not an academic discussion. It is very serious. I am sincerely very disturbed after hearing her account. it is chilling.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

I am not intending to intimidate Judyth and there is no malice. There is no reason for me to have any such feelings towards her. In fact, I do not have "feelings" about Judyth either way. Again, I said I would give her much credibility if the writing in the book turns out to be Oswald. There is no question that an attempt to kiil Castro would be unlikely to subject Judyth to prosecution. However, being an accomplice to killing people innocent people is simply murder. If you wish to test my bias simply have Judyth name the people who were killed by creating cancer by injecting them. My guess is that it would not be overlooked and that charges would likely be issued today. The police would investigate and submit a warrant request for prosecution. There is no crime without a corpus but Judyth is running a risk that this might reach the ears of the relatives of someone she was involved in killing in Louisiana in 1963.

You state that "Today, in another climate, I might be more accommodating, but I have to ask if you have taken any action to bring

charges against the agents of the government responsible for these "extraordinary renditions" (kidnappings) and the

incarceration and torture to which they have been subjected and which have often led to death? If you were more

active regarding issues that matter in this day and age, I would be more open to supposing that your discussion of

this alleged offense was sincere rather than grounded in malice."

This is as ridiculous as suggesting I e-mailed Jack a psychological analysis of Judyth. It is a diversion. There is no one more than me that believes Bush, Cheney(especially), and Rumsfield should be criminally prosecuted not only for murder but for treason. My biggest fear was that Cheney would die and Bush would become President. Probably my greatest disappointment with Obama, second only to continuing the futile war in Afganistan, was his decision not to pursue criminal charges against these people. I emphatically believe in truth and justice. It cannot be disguised by political agendas. Are there times it is merited? Of course. It is a tragedy that Hitler was not murdered. One of my great heros is Dietrich Bonhoffer, who had to struggle with his religious beliefs and make the decision to kill evil, Hitler. He was executed after the failed attempt.

It was you who asked what the political, moral, and legal ramifications of what Judyth did. Was everyone to ignore your question? I examined your question solely by Judyth's own words, nothing more. You cannot ask the question and then say you don't like the answer and then cast groundless dispersions about what my motivation might be. Don't take my word for it. Ask anyone who has been deeply involved withh the criminal justice system. I am confident you would get the same answer. Murder is murder. If Judyth is honest I hope this might be something that she exaggerated the truth about. It is very disturbing.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

If I was representing Judyth I would advise her to keep her mouth shut about this. I would not put this in a book. If she was ever charged no attorney would advise her to testify. In the offices of many defense attorneys they often have a fish on a plaque on their walls. On that plaque there is some writing. It states, "I wouldn't be here either if I kept my mouth shut."

The odds are in Judyth's favor that there is not going to be a corpus here for many reasons. However, if Judyth wishes to play Russian Roulette she is certainly free to do so. Next to the fish there might be another plaque with Judyth's picture.

Doug Weldon

[Jack White]

Fetzer:

"you don't have the right to have an opinion about Judyth--at least, not one that qualifies as "rational"."

Interesting statement, coming from you. Now, after what you've displayed in this thread with a complete lack of anything that backs your opinions up, you expect others to view your own opinion as " rational"?

Your rational for this seem entirely built on that JVBs claims to some degree are backed up by Haslam, and that JVB have faith in Haslam. Has there been any additional verifible facts added to the story in this thread? Has there been any new documents coming to light?

Since the answer to both questions is no, this cross referencing doesn't add much, if anything, in terms of evidence to support Judyth's story. Even if you write a third book, referencing to both Haslam's and JVBs it will likewise, not change anything. Unless there is hard, verifiable, evidence. The fact that the three of you believed in each other, well, that was already known and obvious.

On the other hand, your complete ignorance of hard evidence - as presented by me - that clearly questions JVBs credibility, is quite remarkable and certainly does nothing to strengthen your "rational".

To Jack:

You certainly have a point with regards to the marmosets. Just a quick check raises many questions. Whether used in the early 60's, well, probably doubtful but that can always be answered by referring to secret intelligence operations. So could, of course, any questions about quaranteen.

But, considering "thousands of pounds" of them, which would mean hundreds of these little creatures, it becomes more interesting. These little monkeys, it turns out, communicate through smell, among other things. This odor would, if you have hundreds of them, no doubt be picked up some distance away. Furthermore, these monkeys are vocal, very vocal as soon as they are distressed or bored, for whatever reason. Is it really possible to keep the smell and this noise away from neighbors? And, they need meticulous care in terms of food, water, room temperature and so forth. Otherwise mortality rates will be high, and their quality as subjects in medical research diminishes fast, they will not breed and so forth. Which is crucial for their well being.

Quite an operation, no doubt. To keep hundreds of them, how many caretakers around the clock, would this require, I wonder?

One website I read about marmosets indicated that one of the problems of using them

for research was that when caged they tended to develop a "psychological" syndrome.

(hey, monkeys have feelings too!...much higher intelligence than mice.)

Adult PYGMY marmosets weigh about a third of a pound...or 3 monkeys per pound.

Jack

[Jack White]

In the context of the times, I doubt that anyone would be willing to convict her of any crime in relation to these

attempts to discover a method for taking out the leader of a foreign nation (Fidel Castro), which was not even a

federal offense until Ford, Carter, and Reagan signed executive orders prohibiting it. I believe that, at this point

in time, our discussion is purely academic and that the only reason for pursuing it at all is an effort to intimidate

or harass Judyth. I hold you in high esteem, counselor, but I think this murder exercise is completely misguided.

Today, in another climate, I might be more accommodating, but I have to ask if you have taken any action to bring

charges against the agents of the government responsible for these "extraordinary renditions" (kidnappings) and the

incarceration and torture to which they have been subjected and which have often led to death? If you were more

active regarding issues that matter in this day and age, I would be more open to supposing that your discussion of

this alleged offense was sincere rather than grounded in malice. I am sorry to say, I have no reason to think that.

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

Jim:

I watched Judyth again very carefully on TMWKK. I have a number of questions but in regards to the point of murder the answer is very clear. Consent is not even an issue that can be raised. Judyth's own statements indicate that none of the people had the capacity to voluntarily give consent. She describes going back and seeing one of the victims. The only thing that would have to be established is a corpus. A victim or victims would have to be identified and a cause of death determined. If that can be done then it is unequivocal that Judyth could be charged as an accessory to 1st degree murder. In 1963 she would have faced the death penalty for her involvement. Now, after Furman v Georgia, she would be facing life in prison. I am not certain about Louisiana but in many states it would be without possibility of parole. Once a corpus could be established, Judyth's confession on TMWKK or elsewhere would absolutely be admissible. In most instances a corpus and a confession (unless determined to be false) would be all that would be needed for a conviction. There is no statute of limitations on murder in any state. If she is telling the truth it is morally and legally murder. It is not even debateable. Politically, I cannot answer the question but if I was a district attorney in Louisiana and could establish a corpus I would issues charges and a warrant for her arrest. This is not an academic discussion. It is very serious. I am sincerely very disturbed after hearing her account. it is chilling.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

I am not intending to intimidate Judyth and there is no malice. There is no reason for me to have any such feelings towards her. In fact, I do not have "feelings" about Judyth either way. Again, I said I would give her much credibility if the writing in the book turns out to be Oswald. There is no question that an attempt to kiil Castro would be unlikely to subject Judyth to prosecution. However, being an accomplice to killing people innocent people is simply murder. If you wish to test my bias simply have Judyth name the people who were killed by creating cancer by injecting them. My guess is that it would not be overlooked and that charges would likely be issued today. The police would investigate and submit a warrant request for prosecution. There is no crime without a corpus but Judyth is running a risk that this might reach the ears of the relatives of someone she was involved in killing in Louisiana in 1963.

You state that "Today, in another climate, I might be more accommodating, but I have to ask if you have taken any action to bring

charges against the agents of the government responsible for these "extraordinary renditions" (kidnappings) and the

incarceration and torture to which they have been subjected and which have often led to death? If you were more

active regarding issues that matter in this day and age, I would be more open to supposing that your discussion of

this alleged offense was sincere rather than grounded in malice."

This is as ridiculous as suggesting I e-mailed Jack a psychological analysis of Judyth. It is a diversion. There is no one more than me that believes Bush, Cheney(especially), and Rumsfield should be criminally prosecuted not only for murder but for treason. My biggest fear was that Cheney would die and Bush would become President. Probably my greatest disappointment with Obama, second only to continuing the futile war in Afganistan, was his decision not to pursue criminal charges against these people. I emphatically believe in truth and justice. It cannot be disguised by political agendas. Are there times it is merited? Of course. It is a tragedy that Hitler was not murdered. One of my great heros is Dietrich Bonhoffer, who had to struggle with his religious beliefs and make the decision to kill evil, Hitler. He was executed after the failed attempt.

It was you who asked what the political, moral, and legal ramifications of what Judyth did. Was everyone to ignore your question? I examined your question solely by Judyth's own words, nothing more. You cannot ask the question and then say you don't like the answer and then cast groundless dispersions about what my motivation might be. Don't take my word for it. Ask anyone who has been deeply involved withh the criminal justice system. I am confident you would get the same answer. Murder is murder. If Judyth is honest I hope this might be something that she exaggerated the truth about. It is very disturbing.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

If I was representing Judyth I would advise her to keep her mouth shut about this. I would not put this in a book. If she was ever charged no attorney would advise her to testify. In the offices of many defense attorneys they often have a fish on a plaque on their walls. On that plaque there is some writing. It states, "I wouldn't be here either if I kept my mouth shut."

The odds are in Judyth's favor that there is not going to be a corpus here for many reasons. However, if Judyth wishes to play Russian Roulette she is certainly free to do so. Next to the fish there might be another plaque with Judyth's picture.

Doug Weldon

Can you picture Judyth keeping her mouth shut?

[Doug Weldon]

In the context of the times, I doubt that anyone would be willing to convict her of any crime in relation to these

attempts to discover a method for taking out the leader of a foreign nation (Fidel Castro), which was not even a

federal offense until Ford, Carter, and Reagan signed executive orders prohibiting it. I believe that, at this point

in time, our discussion is purely academic and that the only reason for pursuing it at all is an effort to intimidate

or harass Judyth. I hold you in high esteem, counselor, but I think this murder exercise is completely misguided.

Today, in another climate, I might be more accommodating, but I have to ask if you have taken any action to bring

charges against the agents of the government responsible for these "extraordinary renditions" (kidnappings) and the

incarceration and torture to which they have been subjected and which have often led to death? If you were more

active regarding issues that matter in this day and age, I would be more open to supposing that your discussion of

this alleged offense was sincere rather than grounded in malice. I am sorry to say, I have no reason to think that.

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

Jim:

I watched Judyth again very carefully on TMWKK. I have a number of questions but in regards to the point of murder the answer is very clear. Consent is not even an issue that can be raised. Judyth's own statements indicate that none of the people had the capacity to voluntarily give consent. She describes going back and seeing one of the victims. The only thing that would have to be established is a corpus. A victim or victims would have to be identified and a cause of death determined. If that can be done then it is unequivocal that Judyth could be charged as an accessory to 1st degree murder. In 1963 she would have faced the death penalty for her involvement. Now, after Furman v Georgia, she would be facing life in prison. I am not certain about Louisiana but in many states it would be without possibility of parole. Once a corpus could be established, Judyth's confession on TMWKK or elsewhere would absolutely be admissible. In most instances a corpus and a confession (unless determined to be false) would be all that would be needed for a conviction. There is no statute of limitations on murder in any state. If she is telling the truth it is morally and legally murder. It is not even debateable. Politically, I cannot answer the question but if I was a district attorney in Louisiana and could establish a corpus I would issues charges and a warrant for her arrest. This is not an academic discussion. It is very serious. I am sincerely very disturbed after hearing her account. it is chilling.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

I am not intending to intimidate Judyth and there is no malice. There is no reason for me to have any such feelings towards her. In fact, I do not have "feelings" about Judyth either way. Again, I said I would give her much credibility if the writing in the book turns out to be Oswald. There is no question that an attempt to kiil Castro would be unlikely to subject Judyth to prosecution. However, being an accomplice to killing people innocent people is simply murder. If you wish to test my bias simply have Judyth name the people who were killed by creating cancer by injecting them. My guess is that it would not be overlooked and that charges would likely be issued today. The police would investigate and submit a warrant request for prosecution. There is no crime without a corpus but Judyth is running a risk that this might reach the ears of the relatives of someone she was involved in killing in Louisiana in 1963.

You state that "Today, in another climate, I might be more accommodating, but I have to ask if you have taken any action to bring

charges against the agents of the government responsible for these "extraordinary renditions" (kidnappings) and the

incarceration and torture to which they have been subjected and which have often led to death? If you were more

active regarding issues that matter in this day and age, I would be more open to supposing that your discussion of

this alleged offense was sincere rather than grounded in malice."

This is as ridiculous as suggesting I e-mailed Jack a psychological analysis of Judyth. It is a diversion. There is no one more than me that believes Bush, Cheney(especially), and Rumsfield should be criminally prosecuted not only for murder but for treason. My biggest fear was that Cheney would die and Bush would become President. Probably my greatest disappointment with Obama, second only to continuing the futile war in Afganistan, was his decision not to pursue criminal charges against these people. I emphatically believe in truth and justice. It cannot be disguised by political agendas. Are there times it is merited? Of course. It is a tragedy that Hitler was not murdered. One of my great heros is Dietrich Bonhoffer, who had to struggle with his religious beliefs and make the decision to kill evil, Hitler. He was executed after the failed attempt.

It was you who asked what the political, moral, and legal ramifications of what Judyth did. Was everyone to ignore your question? I examined your question solely by Judyth's own words, nothing more. You cannot ask the question and then say you don't like the answer and then cast groundless dispersions about what my motivation might be. Don't take my word for it. Ask anyone who has been deeply involved withh the criminal justice system. I am confident you would get the same answer. Murder is murder. If Judyth is honest I hope this might be something that she exaggerated the truth about. It is very disturbing.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

If I was representing Judyth I would advise her to keep her mouth shut about this. I would not put this in a book. If she was ever charged no attorney would advise her to testify. In the offices of many defense attorneys they often have a fish on a plaque on their walls. On that plaque there is some writing. It states, "I wouldn't be here either if I kept my mouth shut."

The odds are in Judyth's favor that there is not going to be a corpus here for many reasons. However, if Judyth wishes to play Russian Roulette she is certainly free to do so. Next to the fish there might be another plaque with Judyth's picture.

Doug Weldon

Can you picture Judyth keeping her mouth shut?

Jack:

There are only two reasons Judyth would continue talking about this: 1. she is very foolish 2. It is not true so there is nothing to fear.

Doug Weldon

[Greg Burnham]

Jim:

If I was representing Judyth I would advise her to keep her mouth shut about this. I would not put this in a book. If she was ever charged no attorney would advise her to testify. In the offices of many defense attorneys they often have a fish on a plaque on their walls. On that plaque there is some writing. It states, "I wouldn't be here either if I kept my mouth shut."

The odds are in Judyth's favor that there is not going to be a corpus here for many reasons. However, if Judyth wishes to play Russian Roulette she is certainly free to do so. Next to the fish there might be another plaque with Judyth's picture.

Doug Weldon

Yes Doug, I suppose that if you were representing her you would tell her to shut up because you would have a fiduciary to do just that, but you ARE NOT representing Judyth! You have no obligation to protect her. In fact, you don't think she is telling the truth to begin with. Why does she need your advice (to remain silent) if she is fabricating her story and therefore has nothing to fear? Did something about her presentation on TMWKK strike you as possibly true? I'm confused.