Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

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].

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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? :lol::huh::):blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
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? :lol::huh::):blink:

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Doug,

There is a third option. She is committed to exposing the truth about her experiences in New Orleans and has

pursued that objective without regard for her own personal interests, especially from a legal point of view. In

my opinion, this is neither foolish nor dishonest because she really does believe that her story is one that the

American people are entitled to know. I find Monk's suggestion overwhelmingly more responsible in this rather

extraordinary context. I am having a very hard time believing your ongoing effort is not malicious in motive.

This whole thread continues to stun me with regard to several individuals whom I have esteemed in the past.

Jim

P.S. She is a "whisteblower" about events of the greatest magnitude. Your attitude could not be less apposite.

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? :lol::huh::):blink:

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

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites

GB said: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].

Not that this is necessarily a bad or a good thing, but we would probably end up with a situation similar to the Garrison trial, especially if the govt knows Judyth is telling the truth. Everything imaginable would be done to poison the well, taint the jury pool, etc. Nevertheless, with a proper defense, Judyth and truth might prevail. I wonder if Mark Lane would be interested?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Monk:

You are correct. I am merely offering what a defense attorney would advise her. If you go back and read my original post I expressed concerns but concluded "These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness. "

I don't know if Judyth is right or wrong or truthful on some things and embellishing other things. I noted on TMWKK that she never mentioned the house across the stree but as you and I know Nigel Turner may have edited things out.

Judyth may ultimately be right. Obviously there are things that strike me as truthful but I cannot distinguish between if it was an event she experienced or something she researched. The shame is that if she is truthful her research will always cast doubt about her. Concrete evidence is the most impressive to me. I have not closed my mind to such evidence. It is simple to demonstrate if it is actually Oswald's writing in the book as she says. I would have to be impressed as I cannot fathom any other reason for her to have such. I don't believe the dialog she offers but I can overlook that in light of other compelling evidence. It would be very foolish of me not to keep an open mind to such evidence.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

In my opinion, it would be less of a stretch to suggest that you are attempting to intimidate a witness in this case

than your specious bifurcation between being foolish or fabricating. It pains me that you appear to lack (what I

always assumed was true of you) the sophistication to draw more subtle distinctions. Be so kind as to give some

consideration to her role as a whistleblower and the proportionality of her responsibility for what was taking place,

by and large beyond her ability to affect it. Your attitude about all of this appears to be completely inappropriate.

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.

Monk:

You are correct. I am merely offering what a defense attorney would advise her. If you go back and read my original post I expressed concerns but concluded "These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness. "

I don't know if Judyth is right or wrong or truthful on some things and embellishing other things. I noted on TMWKK that she never mentioned the house across the stree but as you and I know Nigel Turner may have edited things out.

Judyth may ultimately be right. Obviously there are things that strike me as truthful but I cannot distinguish between if it was an event she experienced or something she researched. The shame is that if she is truthful her research will always cast doubt about her. Concrete evidence is the most impressive to me. I have not closed my mind to such evidence. It is simple to demonstrate if it is actually Oswald's writing in the book as she says. I would have to be impressed as I cannot fathom any other reason for her to have such. I don't believe the dialog she offers but I can overlook that in light of other compelling evidence. It would be very foolish of me not to keep an open mind to such evidence.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

I had the strangest dream last night. I dreamed that I was older and retired, and also asleep, in a bedroom somewhere, maybe down Silver Spring way.

At any rate - in the dream, Dick Helms called me.

He sounded all boozy, with a self-pity chaser backing up his anger.

"Do you know what they've got down there in Cuba?" he demanded. "Do you? Well, I'll tell you. They've got a g*d-d*mn*d statue of Kennedy in a park down there. In a park - you hear me? A park surrounded by office buildings. And in every one of those buildings, they keep a sixth-floor corner window open. Yeah! Just to tick me off! I swear, I -- "

"Dick! Dick!" I shouted, for the connection seemed to be slipping away, and the phone felt wet in my hand. "Dick, tell me --" (For though I never knew the man, I felt strangely close to him then, the further away he sounded.) "-- The statue? What does it show Kennedy doing?"

"Smoking a cigar!" he roared, though by then he might as well have been bellowing at me through a sewer pipe. "Holding one of those long, slim panatelas up beside his temple and thinking, for God's sake, as if thinking could --"

It was then that I awoke. And though my eyes had opened, the world was yet so dim that I could barely see.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug,

There is a third option. She is committed to exposing the truth about her experiences in New Orleans and has

pursued that objective without regard for her own personal interests, especially from a legal point of view. In

my opinion, this is neither foolish nor dishonest because she really does believe that her story is one that the

American people are entitled to know. I find Monk's suggestion overwhelmingly more responsible in this rather

extraordinary context. I am having a very hard time believing your ongoing effort is not malicious in motive.

This whole thread continues to stun me with regard to several individuals whom I have esteemed in the past.

Jim

P.S. She is a "whisteblower" about events of the greatest magnitude. You attitude could not be less apposite.

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? :lol::huh::):blink:

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

Jim:

There is no reason to turn every observation into a personal attack. I sincerely and objectively examined the evidence. Feel free to solicit another experienced legal opinion. If Judyth is truthful I would disagree with Jack and I would welcome the evidence and I would find it critically important. This is not a game for me but I have to question accounts. I understand I am not immune from it. I never submitted anything without some form of corroboration. Barb and Jerry questioned Nick Prencipe's account. I was not personally offended as you appear to be here. In fact, I understood their points but in the totality of the evidence I disagreed. My response is fine, eliminate Nick then keep eliminating people as you see see fit but if you believe one of the many witnesses or cannot discredit them then you have a problem.

Is Judyth above being questioned? Do you believe nobody is going to ask these questions after her book comes out? Is anyone who would ask a question despicable?Because I ask them now does that make me malicious. If it was me I would want to know where people see weaknesses in my account. There is no need to make wild accusations against the person raising questions. Do you think in a court trial the other attorney should have no right to question a witness or that even that person's attorney should only be entitled to throw softballs at the person? In TMWKK Judyth did not mention the film JFK as an impetus for coming forward. I simply do not know but I am going to be impressed by the hard evidence, not as Barb has raised, with Judyth being the verifying source for her own statements. I have always stated, May we come to know the truth. If you are going to personally attack me for every question I raise then it is productive for no one. It is a diversion to state such things as"it would be more credible if you questioned Judyth's cancer research if we knew where you stand on national health care." It is simply a clever diversion.

Finally, yes, your third option is a possibility, but as I noted, Judyth is admitting to murder If revealing this truth is more important to her than perhaps facing the consequences of her actions, she has my admiration. I have no personal stake in this. I do not understand why this is so personal to you.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Monk:

You are correct. I am merely offering what a defense attorney would advise her. If you go back and read my original post I expressed concerns but concluded "These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness."

I don't know if Judyth is right or wrong or truthful on some things and embellishing other things. I noted on TMWKK that she never mentioned the house across the stree but as you and I know Nigel Turner may have edited things out.

Judyth may ultimately be right. Obviously there are things that strike me as truthful but I cannot distinguish between if it was an event she experienced or something she researched. The shame is that if she is truthful her research will always cast doubt about her. Concrete evidence is the most impressive to me. I have not closed my mind to such evidence. It is simple to demonstrate if it is actually Oswald's writing in the book as she says. I would have to be impressed as I cannot fathom any other reason for her to have such. I don't believe the dialog she offers but I can overlook that in light of other compelling evidence. It would be very foolish of me not to keep an open mind to such evidence.

Doug Weldon

Doug, would it be fair to say this:

In your opinion, even if Judyth is the "real deal" it may not matter even in the best of circumstances because nothing could ever come of it, particularly in a court of law, because her having conducted extensive research would necessarily taint her witness testimony beyond repair, rendering it useless?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Monk:

You are correct. I am merely offering what a defense attorney would advise her. If you go back and read my original post I expressed concerns but concluded "These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness."

I don't know if Judyth is right or wrong or truthful on some things and embellishing other things. I noted on TMWKK that she never mentioned the house across the stree but as you and I know Nigel Turner may have edited things out.

Judyth may ultimately be right. Obviously there are things that strike me as truthful but I cannot distinguish between if it was an event she experienced or something she researched. The shame is that if she is truthful her research will always cast doubt about her. Concrete evidence is the most impressive to me. I have not closed my mind to such evidence. It is simple to demonstrate if it is actually Oswald's writing in the book as she says. I would have to be impressed as I cannot fathom any other reason for her to have such. I don't believe the dialog she offers but I can overlook that in light of other compelling evidence. It would be very foolish of me not to keep an open mind to such evidence.

Doug Weldon

Doug, would it be fair to say this:

In your opinion, even if Judyth is the "real deal" it may not matter even in the best of circumstances because nothing could ever come of it, particularly in a court of law, because her having conducted extensive research would necessarily taint her witness testimony beyond repair, rendering it useless?

Monk:

Yes, absolutely. I thought that was what I wrote though perhaps not so eloquently.

Best,

Doug

Link to post
Share on other sites
Monk:

You are correct. I am merely offering what a defense attorney would advise her. If you go back and read my original post I expressed concerns but concluded "These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness."

I don't know if Judyth is right or wrong or truthful on some things and embellishing other things. I noted on TMWKK that she never mentioned the house across the stree but as you and I know Nigel Turner may have edited things out.

Judyth may ultimately be right. Obviously there are things that strike me as truthful but I cannot distinguish between if it was an event she experienced or something she researched. The shame is that if she is truthful her research will always cast doubt about her. Concrete evidence is the most impressive to me. I have not closed my mind to such evidence. It is simple to demonstrate if it is actually Oswald's writing in the book as she says. I would have to be impressed as I cannot fathom any other reason for her to have such. I don't believe the dialog she offers but I can overlook that in light of other compelling evidence. It would be very foolish of me not to keep an open mind to such evidence.

Doug Weldon

Doug, would it be fair to say this:

In your opinion, even if Judyth is the "real deal" it may not matter even in the best of circumstances because nothing could ever come of it, particularly in a court of law, because her having conducted extensive research would necessarily taint her witness testimony beyond repair, rendering it useless?

Monk:

Yes, absolutely. I thought that was what I wrote though perhaps not so eloquently.

Best,

Doug

Would it also be accurate to say that the same "handicap" would NOT exist if she were a defendant (as opposed to being a witness)? Please answer freely, counselor, as you do not represent her, nor are you offering her or us legal advice--just an opinion. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...