Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

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?

[emphasis added]

Pamela,

My thoughts exactly!

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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

DSL

4/26/10; 7:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

David-

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

Kevin,

The short answer to your question is: I don’t know.

But the longer answer goes something like this:

I called Judyth on March 4, 2000 because my good friend Robert Chapman (who was also a close friend of Mary Ferrell) telephoned with what he thought was a very special opportunity: to speak with someone whom the official investigation had (somehow) “missed” and who had had an intimate relationship with Oswald. Although somewhat skeptical that Lee Oswald had any affair (because I believed I knew Oswald’s character reasonably well, and especially his feelings towards his wife, and the enthusiasm he had about being a father again), I nevertheless decided to make the call. Assuming this woman was who she said she was (and Robert and Mary both believed her to be genuine), I thought this conversation might be important, and so I made provision to record it. Not in my wildest dreams did I believe I might be speaking to someone I would soon conclude was telling a completely false story, someone who had studied the records and had “interjected herself” into a narrative that (as you point out) I knew all too well from my own study of the record.

I should also add that without a tape I would not have been able to make the analysis I subsequently did, and as rapidly as I did, all based on simply one phone call. But Judyth can “gush,” and that’s exactly what she did, when we spoke. So in many respects, the tape functioned like a butterfly net, not only to capture the nuances of the call but also to record the many implausible assertions she breathlessly made, one after another.

So that’s about the best answer I can provide to your very reasonable question. She said what she did, and then I analyzed what she had said.

If you want to see what I believe to be a first rate analysis of Judyth’s claims, just go to the website of Dave Reitzes. He has gone to considerable lengths to lay out, discuss, and analyze many of her claims.

As to why people like Platzman and Shackelford believe her story, I have no idea. Platzman has a Ph.D in philosophy; Shackelford, I would think, would know better. I really do not understand why my “radar” picked up on what she was doing, rather quickly, yet they appear to have been taken in.

In 1996, paying too much attention to some beautiful weather in upstate New York, I drove right into a small town speed trap, and paid the price. For some reason certain people who I think should know better, are (in this instance) paying too much attention to “the scenery,” and so they have become ensnared in the historical equivalent of a small-town speed trap.

All I can say is “Go Figure.”

DSL

Links to Reitzes website, which has links to his criticism of Judyth’s story.

First, see: “Judyth Vary Baker: Self –Proclaimed Mistress of Lee Harvey Oswald”, at

http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-menu.html

for an overview.

In particular, his essay—“Judyth Baker—The Story So Far (According to Judyth Vary Baker, Martin Shackelford, and Howard Platzman, Ph.D.)” is, to my mind, a definitive accounting of all the twists and turns in Judyth’s evolving story.

Here is the link for that:

http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-story.html

Also please note: Starting at Retizes’ “note 96” and extending all the way to “note 125,” the interested reader will find a veritable load of data about the issue of “Cancun”—and all the different statements, excuses, explanations, etc., for this monumental gaffe (and/or “defect’) in her story, depending on how one views it.

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. :)

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

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

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? :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

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

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

David,

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. You unwillingness to do so causes me considerable skepticism.

Having had overwhelmingly greater contact with her, I find her to be extremely candid and forthcoming. It is my belief

that you misinterpreted what she was telling you and that your claims about your cassette should not be taken seriously.

If you would be so kind as to send me a copy, I would be glad to offer my opinions to confirm or to disconfirm your own.

Jim

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

DSL

4/26/10; 7:30 PM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

David-

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

Kevin,

The short answer to your question is: I don’t know.

But the longer answer goes something like this:

I called Judyth on March 4, 2000 because my good friend Robert Chapman (who was also a close friend of Mary Ferrell) telephoned with what he thought was a very special opportunity: to speak with someone whom the official investigation had (somehow) “missed” and who had had an intimate relationship with Oswald. Although somewhat skeptical that Lee Oswald had any affair (because I believed I knew Oswald’s character reasonably well, and especially his feelings towards his wife, and the enthusiasm he had about being a father again), I nevertheless decided to make the call. Assuming this woman was who she said she was (and Robert and Mary both believed her to be genuine), I thought this conversation might be important, and so I made provision to record it. Not in my wildest dreams did I believe I might be speaking to someone I would soon conclude was telling a completely false story, someone who had studied the records and had “interjected herself” into a narrative that (as you point out) I knew all too well from my own study of the record.

I should also add that without a tape I would not have been able to make the analysis I subsequently did, and as rapidly as I did, all based on simply one phone call. But Judyth can “gush,” and that’s exactly what she did, when we spoke. So in many respects, the tape functioned like a butterfly net, not only to capture the nuances of the call but also to record the many implausible assertions she breathlessly made, one after another.

So that’s about the best answer I can provide to your very reasonable question. She said what she did, and then I analyzed what she had said.

If you want to see what I believe to be a first rate analysis of Judyth’s claims, just go to the website of Dave Reitzes. He has gone to considerable lengths to lay out, discuss, and analyze many of her claims.

As to why people like Platzman and Shackelford believe her story, I have no idea. Platzman has a Ph.D in philosophy; Shackelford, I would think, would know better. I really do not understand why my “radar” picked up on what she was doing, rather quickly, yet they appear to have been taken in.

In 1996, paying too much attention to some beautiful weather in upstate New York, I drove right into a small town speed trap, and paid the price. For some reason certain people who I think should know better, are (in this instance) paying too much attention to “the scenery,” and so they have become ensnared in the historical equivalent of a small-town speed trap.

All I can say is “Go Figure.”

DSL

Links to Reitzes website, which has links to his criticism of Judyth’s story.

First, see: “Judyth Vary Baker: Self –Proclaimed Mistress of Lee Harvey Oswald”, at

http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-menu.html

for an overview.

In particular, his essay—“Judyth Baker—The Story So Far (According to Judyth Vary Baker, Martin Shackelford, and Howard Platzman, Ph.D.)” is, to my mind, a definitive accounting of all the twists and turns in Judyth’s evolving story.

Here is the link for that:

http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-story.html

Also please note: Starting at Retizes’ “note 96” and extending all the way to “note 125,” the interested reader will find a veritable load of data about the issue of “Cancun”—and all the different statements, excuses, explanations, etc., for this monumental gaffe (and/or “defect’) in her story, depending on how one views it.

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

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

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...