Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Glenn Viklund]

Monk:

I hope I am understanding the question. If she was on trial for murder the only issue would be "was a murder(s) committed and did Judyth participate in the commission of the murder(s). Her statement could be introduced from TMWKK or any other interview or writings.. She would have to explain why it was incorrect or misinterpreted. Everything else, incliuding the Castro information, would unlikely be admissible as being irrelevant. BTW, I agree that Mark Lane would be a good person to offer his opinion and see if or where he disagrees with me.

Doug Weldon

Interesting thoughts of yours, this.

But I don't think she's got anything whatsoever to worry about.

If this ever got to trial in the US, I don't have the slightest doubt that this would only lead to the third Court looking at her claims, in two countries, saying exactly the same:

We do not believe this story.

The only question I have, is - I wonder how many courts it will take to end this?

Edited April 29, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Doug Weldon]

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.

----

Monk:

I hope I am understanding the question. If she was on trial for murder the only issue would be "was a murder(s) committed and did Judyth participate in the commission of the murder(s). Her statement could be introduced from TMWKK or any other interview or writings.. She would have to explain why it was incorrect or misinterpreted. Everything else, incliuding the Castro information, would unlikely be admissible as being irrelevant. BTW, I agree that Mark Lane would be a good person to offer his opinion and see if or where he disagrees with me.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I know I am beginning to speculate perhaps beyond the point of prudence, but if you don't mind indulging me for a moment more...

This goes to a possible defense...in terms of mitigating circumstances. Is it reasonably conceivable that a judge might grant the defense a relatively wider latitude, when introducing evidence supporting a theory of mitigating circumstances, than would normally be expected due to the extraordinary nature of the case?

Keep in mind, the DA wasn't "compelled" to prosecute this case as a result of it being a "hot homicide" garnering a lot of media coverage, nor was it a case that at one time drew tremendous attention to itself and would now still be considered "high profile" albeit in the "cold case" file. In other words, would any consideration be given to the fact that the main, if not sole, reason the DA pursued prosecution was due to the SUSPECT volunteering the information so that a broader justice might be done -- or a broader injustice might be averted?

Thanks.

Monk:

My simple answer is no. Of course any judge is subject to their own idiosyncratic nature, and can admit what they want to but if things are, as she stated in TMWKK, I do not see any mitigating circumstanes. It would be admitted only over vehement objection.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

THIS IS A REVISED POST IN RESPONSE TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT "THE THIRD OPTION"

Doug, I appreciate this clarification. I think we are closer about this than I had supposed:

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.

Can you imagine the sensation prosecuting Lee Oswald's girlfriend and research associate

in the development of a bioweapon would cause? It would blow open what appears to be

the first among the CIA's "family jewels" and expose the contamination of the polio virus,

not to mention shattering the myth of "the lone, demented gunman". Get front row seats!

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.

----

Monk:

I hope I am understanding the question. If she was on trial for murder the only issue would be "was a murder(s) committed and did Judyth participate in the commission of the murder(s). Her statement could be introduced from TMWKK or any other interview or writings.. She would have to explain why it was incorrect or misinterpreted. Everything else, incliuding the Castro information, would unlikely be admissible as being irrelevant. BTW, I agree that Mark Lane would be a good person to offer his opinion and see if or where he disagrees with me.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I know I am beginning to speculate perhaps beyond the point of prudence, but if you don't mind indulging me for a moment more...

This goes to a possible defense...in terms of mitigating circumstances. Is it reasonably conceivable that a judge might grant the defense a relatively wider latitude, when introducing evidence supporting a theory of mitigating circumstances, than would normally be expected due to the extraordinary nature of the case?

Keep in mind, the DA wasn't "compelled" to prosecute this case as a result of it being a "hot homicide" garnering a lot of media coverage, nor was it a case that at one time drew tremendous attention to itself and would now still be considered "high profile" albeit in the "cold case" file. In other words, would any consideration be given to the fact that the main, if not sole, reason the DA pursued prosecution was due to the SUSPECT volunteering the information so that a broader justice might be done -- or a broader injustice might be averted?

Thanks.

Monk:

My simple answer is no. Of course any judge is subject to their own idiosyncratic nature, and can admit what they want to but if things are, as she stated in TMWKK, I do not see any mitigating circumstanes. It would be admitted only over vehement objection.

Edited April 29, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Doug Weldon]

Doug, Let me see if I have this straight, counselor.

You maintain that Judyth is either a fool or a fake:

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

I observe that this is a specious bifurcation, a false dichhotomy,

because there is a third alternative that you have overlooked:

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.

. . . .

Jim

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

The logical point that you have overlooked a third alternative is not personal. So I don't understand why you

would suggest that it is. Given your obvious gifts for reasoning, the following bifurcation appears to be true:

Either Doug Weldon committed an uncharacteristic lapse in reasoning or he has motives for smearing Judyth.

It is not the case that Doug Weldon committed an uncharacteristic lapse in reasoning.

________________________________________________________________________________

He has motives for smearing Judyth.

This argument, like my previous observation about your specious bifurcation, is also objective and justified.

If you are willing to acknowledge an uncharacteristic lapse in reasoning, then I will withdraw it. Moreover,

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.

This appears to be a nuanced and exacting definition of the position you have staked out for yourself. Please be

so kind as to explain what is "personal" about it, other than it concerns the argument that you have advanced.

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?

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

Jim:

I am stating that ANYONE who admits to committing 1st degree murder would be foolish or know that it could not be proven. Did you somehow miss my last paragraph where I acknowledged your third alternative? What possible motive could I have in smearing Judyth? How does it benefit me. It is bizarre.I will let my posts speak for themselves. Does it go along with the psychological profile you claim I sent Jack? Why would Lifton send you the tape? Is it because of the nice way you requested it or the fact you accused him of criminally obtaining it? This unrelenting defense of Judyth no matter the cost is very puzzling.

Doug Weldon

[Greg Burnham]

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.

----

Monk:

I hope I am understanding the question. If she was on trial for murder the only issue would be "was a murder(s) committed and did Judyth participate in the commission of the murder(s). Her statement could be introduced from TMWKK or any other interview or writings.. She would have to explain why it was incorrect or misinterpreted. Everything else, incliuding the Castro information, would unlikely be admissible as being irrelevant. BTW, I agree that Mark Lane would be a good person to offer his opinion and see if or where he disagrees with me.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I know I am beginning to speculate perhaps beyond the point of prudence, but if you don't mind indulging me for a moment more...

This goes to a possible defense...in terms of mitigating circumstances. Is it reasonably conceivable that a judge might grant the defense a relatively wider latitude, when introducing evidence supporting a theory of mitigating circumstances, than would normally be expected due to the extraordinary nature of the case?

Keep in mind, the DA wasn't "compelled" to prosecute this case as a result of it being a "hot homicide" garnering a lot of media coverage, nor was it a case that at one time drew tremendous attention to itself and would now still be considered "high profile" albeit in the "cold case" file. In other words, would any consideration be given to the fact that the main, if not sole, reason the DA pursued prosecution was due to the SUSPECT volunteering the information so that a broader justice might be done -- or a broader injustice might be averted?

Thanks.

Monk:

My simple answer is no. Of course any judge is subject to their own idiosyncratic nature, and can admit what they want to but if things are, as she stated in TMWKK, I do not see any mitigating circumstanes. It would be admitted only over vehement objection.

Doug,

I think I see what you mean...but, TMWKK was a commercial television production that was subject to editing, etc. -- It is not tantamount to a confession, IMO--of course, I most certainly could be wrong. But, in any event, this story sure seems to be extremely challenging. I mean, wow--if we put ourselves in Jim's shoes! What a long haul this has been for him, so far, only to find out that--even if she is "the real deal" it won't matter because her testimony is tainted as a witness, and even if she's a murderer who went to trial she can't tell the truth about the circumstances that led up to it even there because no one would want to know! Moreover, even though she isn't "wanted" for anything now--if she turned herself in for KNOWLEDGE of a crime that nobody was even persuing--she could be in big trouble irrespective of the broader truth.

The deaths probably weren't ruled homicides anyway--so it's all a moot point.

Thanks for the feedback, Doug.

[Glenn Viklund]

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

One of the requirements also is that the cages should be no less than 2*1 meter. How many of those could be squeezed into a standard house?

Etc. etc., the list goes on.

[Doug Weldon]

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.

----

Monk:

I hope I am understanding the question. If she was on trial for murder the only issue would be "was a murder(s) committed and did Judyth participate in the commission of the murder(s). Her statement could be introduced from TMWKK or any other interview or writings.. She would have to explain why it was incorrect or misinterpreted. Everything else, incliuding the Castro information, would unlikely be admissible as being irrelevant. BTW, I agree that Mark Lane would be a good person to offer his opinion and see if or where he disagrees with me.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I know I am beginning to speculate perhaps beyond the point of prudence, but if you don't mind indulging me for a moment more...

This goes to a possible defense...in terms of mitigating circumstances. Is it reasonably conceivable that a judge might grant the defense a relatively wider latitude, when introducing evidence supporting a theory of mitigating circumstances, than would normally be expected due to the extraordinary nature of the case?

Keep in mind, the DA wasn't "compelled" to prosecute this case as a result of it being a "hot homicide" garnering a lot of media coverage, nor was it a case that at one time drew tremendous attention to itself and would now still be considered "high profile" albeit in the "cold case" file. In other words, would any consideration be given to the fact that the main, if not sole, reason the DA pursued prosecution was due to the SUSPECT volunteering the information so that a broader justice might be done -- or a broader injustice might be averted?

Thanks.

Monk:

My simple answer is no. Of course any judge is subject to their own idiosyncratic nature, and can admit what they want to but if things are, as she stated in TMWKK, I do not see any mitigating circumstanes. It would be admitted only over vehement objection.

Doug,

I think I see what you mean...but, TMWKK was a commercial television production that was subject to editing, etc. -- It is not tantamount to a confession, IMO--of course, I most certainly could be wrong. But, in any event, this story sure seems to be extremely challenging. I mean, wow--if we put ourselves in Jim's shoes! What a long haul this has been for him, so far, only to find out that--even if she is "the real deal" it won't matter because her testimony is tainted as a witness, and even if she's a murderer who went to trial she can't tell the truth about the circumstances that led up to it even there because no one would want to know! Moreover, even though she isn't "wanted" for anything now--if she turned herself in for KNOWLEDGE of a crime that nobody was even persuing--she could be in big trouble irrespective of the broader truth.

The deaths probably weren't ruled homicides anyway--so it's all a moot point.

Thanks for the feedback, Doug.

Monk:

Yes, they could subpoenae the unedited tapes and determine if the statement was misrepresented. I don't know if she ever said this in other writings or interviews. It was not a police interrogation so the only test is whether the statement was voluntary. They have to have a corpus whuch I agree is difficult. Technically, it is not a confession as much as a statement against interest but yes, they have the same effect. It is my observation that she is tainted as a witness because of her research. Perhaps you and others see it differently. Ifg she went to trial it again, is my legal opinion, that the other circumstances are irrelevant because nothing would mitigate the actual killings. It might have a mitigating factor on sentencing. Yes, she could turn herself in, and if she gave details of the crime she would be charged. As I mentioned before, if a relative or someone knew of the death of an individual and could link it to Judyth's statements it could reopen everything. Look at the grand jury with LBJ, Malcom Wallace, and Henry Marshall. It is really not moot. Two years ago I defended a cold case for murder that 26 years before a cause of death could not be determined. Do I think she's probably safe? Yes. If circumstances I noted emerge would they charge her? Likely.

Judyth, because of her research, needs the "hard" evidence such as writings, documents naming her, etc. I am the expert "on" my own opion, not "in" my own opinion. Maybe I am in the minority but I am not convinced. I simply believe I, and others that raise questions, should not be libeled for doing so. Thanks.

Doug Weldon

[Greg Burnham]

I simply believe I, and others that raise questions, should not be libeled for doing so. Thanks.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I don't recall having ever libeled you or anyone else for raising questions or anything else, do you?

[Doug Weldon]

Doug,

I don't recall having ever libeled you or anyone else for raising questions or anything else, do you?

Monk:

Absolutely not. I should have attached this to a different post.

Doug Weldon

[Jack White]

I have been reading some websites regarding SUCCESSFUL REIMPLANTATION OF AVULSED TEETH.

Most dental experts (all articles by such) say that to be successful, the reimplantation ought to be

done within one hour of the injury. If longer, physiological changes occur in the tooth and mouth

which greatly decrease the chances of success. Furthermore, the experts point out the many

problems involved, such as infection of the gums, difficulty eating, etc. A very big problem is

that the dentist must "splint" the tooth to the two adjacent teeth by bonding a "brace" to stabilize

the reimplant and keep it from moving during healing; this makes eating normal food impossible,

so a liquid or IV diet must be maintained for weeks for the implant to heal. If the tooth was out

of the mouth for more than an hour, nerve connections are unlikely to reattach, and the implant

usually must be saved by doing a root canal procedure.

The procedure is not as simple as "putting it in a glass of milk and getting a dentist to reinsert it."

Jack

[Karl Kinaski]

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: Can you picture Judyth keeping her mouth shut?

No. And I appreciate her big mouth! There are too many chickens out there, especially regarding to this never ending murder case. History would be looking very different, if there had been more Judyths in the last 47 years.

KK

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

PSY OPS EXPERT OFFERS ANOTHER VIEW OF THE JUDYTH VARY STORY

1. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt (PBARD) by a preponderance of evidence that the US Federal Government covered up the JFK Assassination. Thus the US Govt was an Accessory After the Crime:

A. FBI and WC suppressed evidence

B. FBI destroyed evidence

C. FBI threatened numerous witnesses

2. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt (PBARD) by a preponderance of evidence that the US Federal Government changed normal Secret Service protection procedures thereby withdrawing the protection JFK was entitled to by SS regulations and standard procedures. Thus the US Govt was an Accessory to the crime and this required some type of pre-planned change in procedure.

A. SS departed from normal protection procedures regarding stationing agents along parade

and making sure all windows were closed and buildings were secure.

B. SS driver knowingly slowed the Presidential car allowing an easier target which was clearly

against regulations.

C. SS supervisor ordered SS men to step back from the Presidential car, out of their required

positions.

D. The SS illegally took custody of JFK's body and transported it out of jurisdiction back to DC,

thereby obstructing the Dallas Police authorities investigation.

E. The SS transported JFK's body to Bethesda for the autopsy and then clearly faked the X-rays

and autopsy report at the direction of a high ranking Govt official.

F. Gerald Ford later on admitted to changing the description of the wound to the back to obscure

its true position and gave his reason as "doing what was best for the country".

G. Several officials deeply involved in the HSCA investigation have commented that Intel interfered

with their investigation at various levels.

H. There is substantial evidence that the CIA interfered with the release of numerous documents

during the ARRB's work.

It stands to reason that if #1 and #2 above have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then it is a very small jump to make the assumption that the US Government itself instituted the Assassination via the SS and used the FBI to cover it up. It also seems obvious that any JFK Assassination and cover-up would have to have been instituted as an illegal, sophisticated, deep cover covert operations using one or more powerful intel agencies working on behalf of the US Govt. This should seem very clear to anyone who has basic knowledge of the science of Logic and has evaluated the basic facts of the matter.

Now this sort of analysis can be used to evaluate the Judyth Vary story.

1. It has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt (PBARD)that Judyth Vary was a very gifted

science student and was recognized for her work with cancer induction in mice.

2. It has been PBARD that Judyth Vary went to New Orleans in pursuit of establishing a career track

in cancer research.

3. It has been PBARD that Judyth worked at Reily Coffee which was well know at the time for assisting

intel by providing job cover for some of its operatives.

4. It has been PBARD that Lee Harvey Oswald also worked at Reily Coffee during the same time that

Judyth Vary was employed there.

#1-#4 above are the basic established background for any claims of Judyth Vary.

5. Any reasonable person considering #1-#4 above can easily conclude that Judyth Vary's claims about

being brought to New Orleans by Dr. Alton Ochnser to be his underling to work on a cancer program does

seem reasonable since this fits with the background of #1.

6. Any reasonable person considering #3-#4 above could reasonably conclude that it is possible and plausible

that Judyth Vary worked with and knew Lee Harvey Oswald as she claims.

7. Now if both #6 and #7 are plausible, then it also seems plausible that Judyth Vary's claims about Oswald

serving as her associate in some arrangement seems plausible.

8. If #7 seems plausible and it does, then it is not too big a jump to assume that Judyth and Lee Harvey Oswald

got involved sexually since LHO was trained as an intel operative at Atsugi and there is a document (health report)

supporting the contention that while at Atsugi he got involved sexually, picked up an STD as a part of an intel operation

and was therefore not disciplined. It is well known in the intelligence community that many operatives are trained to

use sex as a means of entrapment (i.e. "honey pot operations"). For this "medical visit for treatment of an STD" to be

documented in LHO's military medical file is an extraordinary proof that he was being trained as a deep cover intel

operative for clandestine service. Ops trained like this use their skills to seduce and control individuals they are told

to as a necessary part of their job (many consider it one of the perks of their job--having their govt order them to

have sex usually does not create any protesting in well trained ops that are committed to completing assigned missions

to preserve "national security" of their country).

9. If #8 seems plausible and it does, then it is not too big a jump to assume that Judyth was being brought into a major

US Intel deep cover covert operation by a trained intel operative (LHO).

10. If #5 and #9 seem plausible and they do, then it is not too big a jump to assume that Judyth Vary was brought into

a deep cover intel op involving Oswald and Dr. Alton Ochsner.

11. If #10 seems plausible and it does, then it is not too big a jump to assume that the operation involved a need to bring

someone like Judyth Vary to work on cancer induction research since that was her already proven skill. Of course, importing

such a young, naive lady into such an intel op could help make it deniable (who would ever believe this unless they knew how

intel works, and using such a young inexperienced individual maximizes the probability of that person being quite subservient).

12. If #11 seems plausible and it does, then it is not too much a jump to believe Judyth Vary's claims that she carried out her

cancer induction in mice work at David Ferrie's lab located in a residential area of New Orleans.

13. Judyth Vary has claimed that she was told to stay away from any program in medicine and cancer research by her professor.

There is no evidence to substantiate this available but it certainly seems reasonable if she was brought into a deep cover illegal

domestic covert ops.

Now, #5 - #12 seem plausible in view of the background established and PBARD in #1-#4. And actually any other alternative does not make any sense in view of the PBARD #1- #4.

Now, it is easy for folks to respond to a story that on face value seems incredulous by claiming Judyth Vary is a confabulator, a fantacist, etc. It is much harder for individuals who are privy to how intel functions in the real world to respond this way.

For example, how absurd is the claim that LHO was a highly trained intel op, trained to use sex as a means of seduction and control? But this is what really occurred and is standard operating procedure for certain deep cover ops.

Who would ever believe that LHO was a highly trained career intel op who was sent to the Soviet Union in a dangerous deep cover role, using a political defector doofus image as his cover? But that is exactly what happened and it is reasonable to assume that some entity very high up in the US Govt greased the skids for his re-entry back into the USA with his soviet wife.

A reasonably well informed individual who understands how intel ops are trained and how deep cover domestic covert operations are conducted (and yes, they are illegal), will not so quickly dismiss Judyth Vary's story as fantasy, confabulated, wishful thinking, etc.

If one understands that it is highly likely that Judyth Vary was brought into an ongoing deep cover, multi-faceted intel op run through and Inca and by Oshner, with involvement by LHO and David Ferrie who was also a known intel operative, then it is not too big a jump to conclude that Judyth Vary herself has been surveilled, harassed and "controlled" to a certain degree in a desired fashion for many years in sophisticated complex ways by intel, especially considering all the trouble she has had after her experiences in New Orleans.

Could Judyth Vary have been manipulated long term by intel and could the release of her story have been managed in a manner to make it appear incredulous? It is certainly possible and probably likely. Does this in and of itself prove her story is generally false or fabricated by her? Not at all. In fact if true it adds great importance to her as a witness, especially in regard to PBARD #1 -#4 and greatly adds to the probability that #5 -#10 are likely to be true also. Each specific claim of her story would have to be evaluated by existing evidence in and of itself. And with the PBARD of #1 - #4, a very good base pretext is set which call out for some explanation which would make sense overall. And total confabulation of all of Judyth Vary's claims beyond #1 - #4 does not seem to be a reasonable assumption at this point in time.

Could she have been manipulated using certain sophisticated and complex mindkonrol technologies (MK)? Note: the MK in MKUltra represented Mind Kontrol in Mengele's Nazi MK Ultra program which was imported into US intel after WW2). That is certainly possible for part of her story but would not in and of itself negate the remaining part of her story which could be true. There are over 200 unclassified US patents on MindKontrol technology which can be viewed at the USPTO on line and many of these involved pulsed beam microwave thought induction and stimulation intra-cranially. And there are more than a few mindkontrol patents which have been classified and which can't be viewed on line at the USPTO.

My conclusion at this point is that it is reasonable to accept #1 - #10 and certainly possible for any or all of the rest of her claims to be true, includiny #11 - #13 and any or all of the rest not listed here. It is safe to assume that bringing Judyth Vary to New Orleans to continue her research on inducing cancer in mice without her having completed a medical degree is quite incredulous, unless one understands how illegal domestic deep covert covert ops run by intel actually occur in the real world. Then it seems quite reasonable.

And there is one more aspect to this. It is standard operating procedure in any such illegal domestic deep cover intel op to weave selected misinformation and disinformation into any op to create later deniability. Here is how it works. It can include including falsities and misdirected false references in any related documents to lead away from the essence of the op or to make the document look forged. This is almost always done. Specific and/or hidden spelling and grammar errors and obvious untruths are often included to make sure the documents will appear forged and will lead in the wrong direction to any investigators. Then typically different errors and falsities are included on different copies of the document so that any leak of the document is easily traceable. And when an agent, cutout or asset is brought into any such operation, they are often assigned certain tasks which have nothing to do with the most important part of the op, but are just included to create a situation that when examined later by investigators or researchers lead away from the truth.

It is always possible that intel set up and used the Ferrie's cancer induction research as a program which could be later used as a cover story to take the JFK Assassination responsibility to Cuba, by allowing the "discovery" of attempts by Ferrie and Oswald to Murder Castro with cancer by Castro which then caused Castro and the USSR to take JFK out in retaliation as "blowback". Often illegal domestic deep cover covert ops run parallel tracks with different programs overlaid, one as the cover for the other, designed for one to become disposable in order to protect the other.

When the a person not well trained in intel or privy to its methods attempts to research a deep cover covert op, then it is very difficult for that individual to ever make valid headway, since each op is typically designed with misinformation and disinformation aspects and dual parallel ops built into it. That is why the most effective researchers consult with retired intel ops or those well versed in intel methodology. Otherwise they often end up going down a rabbit hole by design, a rabbit hole that has been predesigned by intel planners as a trap to protect the op from ever being discovered. Most researchers are just out of their league or in over their heads when attempting to figure these ops out without outside assistance from those who understand how they work.

Edited May 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

JF said to DL:I have asked several times that you send me a copy of the cassette of your conversation with Judyth that I might have the opportunity to evaluate your "evidence" for myself.

Until Lifton provides you with a copy of the illegally-taped interview with Judyth so that it can be evaluated by someone who does not have an agenda against her, nothing that he says about it should be given much weight. As Lifton is not being forthcoming, it follows that there is a reason for it. That he keeps repeating his interpretation of it is telling. How can we not ask 'what is he hiding'?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Doug, I appreciate this clarification. I think we are closer about this than I had supposed:

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.

Can you imagine the sensation prosecuting Lee Oswald's girlfriend and research associate

in the development of a bioweapon would cause? It would blow open what appears to be

the first among the CIA's "family jewels" and expose the contamination of the polio virus,

not to mention shattering the myth of "the lone, demented gunman". Get front row seats!

Doug, Let me see if I have this straight, counselor.

You maintain that Judyth is either a fool or a fake:

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

I observe that this is a specious bifurcation, a false dichhotomy,

because there is a third alternative that you have overlooked:

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.

. . . .

Jim

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

. . .

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

Jim:

I am stating that ANYONE who admits to committing 1st degree murder would be foolish or know that it could not be proven. Did you somehow miss my last paragraph where I acknowledged your third alternative? What possible motive could I have in smearing Judyth? How does it benefit me. It is bizarre.I will let my posts speak for themselves. Does it go along with the psychological profile you claim I sent Jack? Why would Lifton send you the tape? Is it because of the nice way you requested it or the fact you accused him of criminally obtaining it? This unrelenting defense of Judyth no matter the cost is very puzzling.

Doug Weldon

Edited April 29, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Two different authorities on MARMOSET monkeys who have been

following this thread have sent me information which seems to

demolish the statement of JVB that she, Ferrie and LHO "processed

thousands of pounds of monkeys" in their apartment laboratory

cancer virus experiments. Here are some quotes I received this morning

from a PhD who is an author of scientific papers regarding medical

experiments using marmosets (I have added bold face to emphasize

certain points):

QUOTE:

The picture that someone googled to include in the EF thread is that of C. jacchus babies. Within months they double in size and then those juveniles double in size. Adult common marmosets are the size of large rats. The reason I wanted to join the thread was to clarify that although they are small they do need huge amounts of space. They only thrive in family groups and they need to leap around and graze on branches or they get sick. You would be looking at a minimum of two cubic metres for a pair of adults. Consequently, keeping large numbers (say more than 10) is not something you can do at home. They do tend to screech a lot, by the way. You do know it when you are near a primate colony . . .

From my reading of the thread the claim was that Judyth used large numbers of C. jacchus. The only way you could do this in a domestic setting is to put them in shoe-box size cages and they would just get sick and die. There is no question about it: the only way to keep them healthy enough for research purposes is to give them large amounts of space and keep them as family units. Even then you can get health problems.

No one would ever use an animal for research that was unhealthy and likely to die due to lack of space and activities. No point at all. If ‘testing in a primate’ was seen as the final stage in the development of a bioweapon then it would have been easier, cheaper and safer to have used some monkeys from an existing research colony. I find it quite likely that the US military would have had access to a primate colony, for instance. I would also want to check that the product worked in large primates, not C. jacchus. But, again, that’s just my opinion.

I suggest that the bioweapons story is Judyth’s ‘big lie’ - something so outrageous that intelligent people should spend no time analysing it.