Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

DW says:If Judyth was in court and testifying and the writing turns out not to be Oswald's then she would be confronted with it and it would weigh on her credibility about everything she states.

<sigh>If only Weldon had applied the same level of scrutiny to Whittaker's statements instead of swallowing them whole.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE: "The actual location was not where Lee and I expected to go to a hotel, only to meet . . . we were going to then go explore Chichen Itza, which was supposed to be relatively close, and ruins, all of which we believed from a book [sic] we read together was in Quintana Roo . . . we were going to go to a fine hotel...maybe that was a joke of Lee's...and we were going to get a Catholic priest to marry us." UNQUOTE

((DSL comment: Attention All Readers Please Note: Lee, an atheist, and married to Marina, loving his daughter June, and happily expecting the birth of his second child. . . was planning to go off with this lady “to get a Catholic priest to marry us” ?! - - -Oh pleeez.))

:)

Jim

How can you possibly defend this crazy statement that Judyth made?

Let us count the ways ... sigh. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Viklund, I should have added you as a cheerleader for the anti-Judyth cult.

In case you haven't noticed, I have posted rebuttals to virtually every one

of the vast number of criticisms that have been lodged against her. Why in

the world would you think that I would believe in Judyth without doing my

own homework? I have explained many times why your claims about her

stay in Sweden are baseless on their face. Jack has made many worthless

criticisms and does not even bother to read the most important work about

Judyth. Lifton won't share his precious cassette, no doubt because it would

reveal aspects of their conversation that he wants to conceal. Weldon has

gone off the deep end with this absurdity about bringing murder charges

against her. None of you has ever conceded that she had anything right!

This kind closed-mindedness in the face of contrary evidence is distinctive

of a cult. I plan to tackle some issues that remain, but I have no reason to

think anti-Judyth zealots like the four of you will ever change your minds.

Fetzer:

"There is nothing here that impugns the integrity of Judyth."

You've by now gotten arguments from 15-20 of the most experienced JFK researchers, and from several others too. I cannot recollect that the two of you have accepted one single argument to this day from the other side as of yet. You are lecturing others about how to deal with arguments, and still you are far from acting this way yourself.

What I remember from the mod group back in 2008 is that you are doing exactly what Shackelford did then. He's not around anymore - I wonder for how long you'll be around with this nonsense?

Jim:

A hysterical response does not change reality. The simple facts are Judyth, if she is truthful, participated in creating a substance to kill Castro. Judyth became awre that the substance was going to be used on person(s) who lacked the capacity to know what was going to happen to them. She objected, knew that tests were being done, but did nothing. She visited one of the subjects who was dying in agony and again did nothing. Tell me why this is not muurder. There are a number of attorneys on this forum. Dean Hartwell has stated that he is a law school graduate and he is a supporter of you and Judyth. I am open to analysis but you, with no experience in the law, are not in a position to simply ignore or dismiss such. Let the attorneys come forward and tell me where my analysis is faulty. I was very careful in charging people with crimes because I knew that decision I would make would forever change the life of the person I accused no matter what the final outcome would be. I took the responsibility very seriously. This case would need a corpus, an identifiable victim(s), but if that could be established it would be a very powerful case for murder. Whether that legal obstacle could be overcome the fact is, again if Judyth is telling the truth and its a big if unless more bona fide evidence for her veracity can be presented, this is a woman who would be morally guilty of murder.

I have watched to the you-tube videos. Judyth has certain things correct but they are things that can be researched or things that can be fabricated. Apparently there is even a research team that is assissting the preparation of her book. When I watch the you-tube videos I see someone being tossed softballs and the interviewer clapping for her without pursuing the inconsistencies that are known to exist in her changing of stories. Judyth elaborated on the fine hotel in Kankun in this thread but her stories go all over the place. I have been to Chichen Itza and throughout Mexico. Chichen Itza was very remote in 1963 and in many ways it still is in that it is still a long drive from Cancun today. I am open to the hard facts that would enhance her credibility. They are very simple but you continue to ignore them.

1. Have a professional analysis of the supposed writing of Oswald.

2. Have Judyth produce the tape she says she has that she claims gives a totally different account of her encounter with Mary Ferrell.

3. Tell how they were going to get these quickie divorces and find crooked priests in Mexico when she was not even sure they were going.

4. Where did Oswald learn Russian and why did Marina say he could not read it very well? What evidence is there that he read Pushkin. Listening to an opera does not qualify. Where are the books? How did Oswald get books from New York to Marina when he was never in New York in 1963?

5. Where is the evidence of the science fiction book Judyth and Oswald were writing together? What evidence is there that Oswald was interested in science fiction?

There are many more questions but this would be a good place to start. These are very fair. Do you realize what a competent attorney could do in shredding Judyth right now. Bugliousi, despite his despicable book, would salivate at the chance to cross examine Judyth. How many people on this forum do you believe are convinced by Judyth so far? My guess would be less than 10 and all the rhetoric is not going to change that until she and you begin to address the hard evidence as noted above. If I am wrong submit a list of people on this forum whom you believe support your position with the evidence presented to date. Monk is very analytical but I have to believe that even he has questions before he would totally commit to his support for her veracity. I am willing to weigh the evidence but until such issues can be addressed this is nothing more than historical fiction. Name calling is not going to change these fundamental issues. Judyth would be far better served by simply addressing them.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pam,

Would you care to explain this thing about the 1964 screening of Z-film? David Lifton has mentioned this a couple of times and it would be enlightening to hear your version of this - as it seems - rather sensational story?

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is more than enough evidence to establish

that Judyth was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner

Please share this evidence with us!

Yes, Jim, please tell us, in your own words, what "more than enough" evidence exists to

establish that Judyth "was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner."

This question has been asked by a few now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Barb,

If, in order for conclusion "A" (they did all that) to be true

premise "B" (they knew each other) must necessarily be true

and if evidence "C" (handwriting analysis) supports premise "B" (which is now accepted as true as a result of "C")

...logically, it still MEANS NOTHING ABOUT CONCLUSION "A" beyond "a maybe" -- You have said the same from the beginning and I agree. So why not drop it already? Sheesh. It doesn't mean anything!

Unless you are pretty darn sure that the analysis would be negative thus disproving THAT claim and damaging her credibility?

Why not just admit that's why you're pushing so hard? It's obvious anyway--and it's OK to say so.

Maybe I'm out of line. Perhaps you really make a good point that I'm just missing. Let's just disagree.

Greg,

'

Whether I believe the analysis will be "negative" or not is not an issue ... the book with the handwriting, the claim ... and a professionals analysis is all that matters, no matter which way it falls.

As for your "sheesh" ... yeah, sheesh, Greg, I've only been responding to questions you kept asking - as you'll recall, you told your friend Fetzer not to speak ... until you were through "questioning" the "witness." I've answered every one of them. I think it just didn't pan out they way you thought it would. And yes, as I noted in my last response to you ... we do just seem to disagree. And that's okay. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another thing: I have not yet read any details about Judyth's brushes with death. I would like to hear about them.

Kathy C

Scanty details is pretty much all any of us have heard despite requests for more information ... and documentation. Judyth claims being hit by cars, being burglarized ... hard drives destroyed and/or stolen, manuscripts being stolen, her hotel room being broken into, being hospitalized for injuries, suffering chronic problems from concussions suffered in some of these events and permanent eye damage as well. Over the years, many have asked for police reports, the name of the hotel where the lock on her room was destroyed by someone in order to get into her room, dates, etc. I have never even seen so much as a response to any questions about any of these occurances.

Police reports, confirmation from the hotel, etc are things that could help Judyth verify her claims. So is the "sheaf" of documents she claims show apportionments of grants and other funding for her continued research ... and during a BlackOp radio interview just a few years ago, Judyth stated what they were and quoted from them.

Police reports from any incidents that victimized her, this sheaf of documents ... and, of course, professional examination of her Pocket Aristotle with the marginal notes that she claims LHO wrote, are all things that could go a long way toward proving her veracity overall ... and confirming several of her claims.

Fetzer now says he has done his "homework" ... so where is all this evidence? Why hasn't Judyth produced any of it?

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Another thing: I have not yet read any details about Judyth's brushes with death. I would like to hear about them.

Kathy C

Scanty details is pretty much all any of us have heard despite requests for more information ... and documentation. Judyth claims being hit by cars, being burglarized ... hard drives destroyed and/or stolen, manuscripts being stolen, her hotel room being broken into, being hospitalized for injuries, suffering chronic problems from concussions suffered in some of these events and permanent eye damage as well. Over the years, many have asked for police reports, the name of the hotel where the lock on her room was destroyed by someone in order to get into her room, dates, etc. I have never even seen so much as a response to any questions about any of these occurances.

Police reports, confirmation from the hotel, etc are things that could help Judyth verify her claims. So is the "sheaf" of documents she claims show apportionments of grants and other funding for her continued research ... and during a BlackOp radio interview just a few years ago, Judyth stated what they were and quoted from them.

Police reports from any incidents that victimized her, this sheaf of documents ... and, of course, professional examination of her Pocket Aristotle with the marginal notes that she claims LHO wrote, are all things that could go a long way toward proving her veracity overall ... and confirming several of her claims.

Fetzer now says he has done his "homework" ... so where is all this evidence? Why hasn't Judyth produced any of it?

Bests,

Barb :-)

The remarkable thing about this is that she gave the courts in Sweden this story, and told them she had the necessary evidence. Even so, when those same courts requested this evidence, she failed to come up with anything.

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Fetzer,

You've again and again stated that my claims have been rebutted - better yet, dismissed as nonsense. I challenge you, and Judyth, to once again to have a look at these unanswered questions. My conclusions are there, feel free to object to them, If you do; i would expect a proper explanation as to what has been rebutted or answered:

1. Who; what authority, has decided that you are to travel in secrecy, ”for your protection”?

Suggestion: There has been no such decision, anywhere. Not in the US, not in Europe. No stamps is simply just the result of crowded airports, lazy customs or something along these lines. It happens every day to tens of thousands of travelers. The reason for her to make something other than that out if this, is to add further credibility to all kinds of alledged threats.

2. Why did your friends present – as I showed by quotation in my first posting – a summon to a meeting, as a grant of asylum?

Suggestion: Shackelford presented a document as proof of asylum (of some ”kind”, never mind that ”kind” of asylum did not and do not exist, that's not the point here.) Read my first posting here on EDU to see exactly what Shackelford said. This was NOT to prove her involvement in the process or that she was not in the country illegally. Judyth provided them with this view and that's what they went with.

To Martin Shackelford: I'll be briefly in the US this summer, I'll bring you a newly cooked Janssons Temptation and buy you a beer, just to get your take on this embarrasing fiasco. I might be wrong, but I have a feeling that you're not to happy with how this thing transpired..I must also apologize to you. You did provide incorrect information, but only Pamela and Marsh criticized me with all kinds of nonsense for bringing this information forward. You did not, which I stated in my first posting here. For this, I apologize.

3. Why are you giving the impression that you received special treatment, when your case, in every possible respect, was a standard asylum seekers case?

Suggestion: Basically the same reasons as given in the first question, see more related to this, below.

4. Why are you saying that you could have stayed another ”year or two”, when, in fact, you by every possible means available to you, had exhausted your options to stay in Sweden?

Suggestion: Well, that's a good question, considering how easy it is to determine that she tried everything, but had to leave. As I mentioned in my first posting, this fits well into the broader picture where she wants to give the impression of her making all the choices, her setting the agenda, her case being very special and claims along these lines.

5. Why are you suggesting that the two Swedish Courts who decided in your case, disregarded the evidence and used a ”standard reply” to motivate their findings?

Suggestion: Does any Governmental Agency anywhere, ever do anything regarding Judyth without having some, dark sinister motive behind their actions? In this case she's suggesting that they somehow had to say they did not believe her story for reasons of political correctness. What this goes to show, is how little Judyth understand about how things work in Sweden. But of course, her side of this argument adds lots of weight to her more generally speaking. ”Yes, even Swedish Courts were afraid of to speak up”. But when reading the verdict, they did indeed speak up, loud and clear. Here's an example:

Judyth tells the Court: ”I have proof that I was kidnapped and harmed in Holland”. When motivating their decision, here's how the Court responded:

”Regarding the alledged kidnapping in Holland, this has not been elaborated on, and it nevertheless is not likely to have occured” [my translation]. Which of course is the bureaucratic, judicial version of saying: Sorry Ms Baker, we don't believe a word of this.

Really, a no brainer, this one.

6. What is the name of the official who told you that the two Court decisions would be kept confidential?

Suggestion: No one ever told her this. In the rare exception, which her case was not, black out of sensitive parts is step one. Only in the extremely rare case does complete confidentiality of the Courts decisions apply. It goes without saying that every single official she ever got in touch with is well aware of this.

Admittedly, an inch of progress seems to have been made; Judyth, yesterday:

”The latest test is trying to discredit the very obvious fact that when I applied for political asylum, an action I took to escape death threats in Hungary, I was not immediately deported after they heard my case. No matter how many experts they drag out, the fact is that I was accepted for consideration, and even got a writ of inhibition, which is unusual. ”

Her asylum experience has now boiled down to ”I was accepted for consideration” which definitely is more in line with reality. Funny, as this is precisely what I stated in McAdams forum fifteen months ago. Which, at that point, resulted in bucket loads of yelling from her friends.

But, and I must agree with Jack White's brilliant way of putting it – it's hard when you have a moving target. Because despite this considerable return to reality, she once again changes the story. Now we are to understand that despite public records of all relevant decisions made and actions taken in her case, there is this thing with developments outside of the records. Things that are impossible to track down, of course.

Yes, and I said so in my first posting: Certainly they may have cut her a little slack about this and that, it's more than likely that they did. And certainly, I believe she was treated well, with lots of expressions of understanding for her situation from people around her, including, no doubt, officials.

However, there's a huge gap from this to all claims of special handlings in important aspects of Judyth's case. Whatever actions that was taken on her behalf ”on the ground”, none of it could have contradicted or added anything of significance as compared to what is to be found in the public records today. To suggest otherwise, if that is what she is now doing, is ridiculous. Had Judyth had anything else to say in relation to the questions I asked, she would certainly have done so.

I've gone through this very carefully. Looking at what Judyth says now and what she said through her friends back in 08. Going through the cases as they are officially outlined by the Swedish Courts. Having a few phone conversations with officials and having a few discussions with a friend of mine who is a lawyer. I'm an economist by profession and indeed used to check and double check the facts, prior to making any conclusions.

To re-iterate:

1. Judyth Vary Baker applied for political asylum in Sweden in the early fall of 2007.

2. This was denied later that fall.

3. She immediately appealed this decision.

4. This appeal was denied, in the early summer of 2008, and she had to leave the country shortly thereafter.

5. Her judicial status during this entire process was that of an asylum seeker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It ie not unusual at all. Sweden is A refugee haven. All applicanys are given consideration according to law.

One thing that seems to be overlooked is that the european union makes travel without visa to those who have the right to stay within it pretty easy. Even as a foreigner, I had no trounle moving around within europe, certainly not within scandinavia, even though I carry an australian passport, having had to renounce my scandinavian one when naturalised. I, as I'm sure many others, can attest to a lack of stamping. I think from 29 + odd custom throughputs I have just a few stamps. I think they're just really interested in where people are at any time, for whatever reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It ie not unusual at all. Sweden is A refugee haven. All applicanys are given consideration according to law.

Not traditionally for Americans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Monk:

I totally agree with Barb for the same reasons I explained before. What is the big deal? It appears that this should have been done long ago. This is not about Barb or anyone being clever.I read on the web that there had been preliminary studies that "looked good." This is nonsense.What preliminary studies could be done? What would it mean to you if it was not Oswald's writing? This would establish to me and should to anyone that she knew him. If she has lied then it also says a lot. People could still choose to believe other parts of her story but it would be damaging. I would think she would urgently want to get this analyzed. It is an independent document brought forth by Judyth. It would go a long way in establishing her credibility. If she cannot do this simple verification then she is truly just wasting everyone's time. I am open but it either is or isn't. I cannot understand the resistence. This should be step one. It is a concrete piece of information that has been authenticated by Judyth. It is not an account that cannot be verified or an item that could be researched. In a real court this would be subpoened and analyzed. In any court of public opinion no less should be expected. How can anyone demand to hear Lifton's tape when this hard piece of evidence is available?

Doug Weldon

Well said, Doug .... that sums it up quite well.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pamela, that's not true, If you were a US Viet Nam war deserter you got special pre arranged treatment. A milder form of Wahlenberg freely distributing swedish citizenship to jews being carted off to germany. As today refugees from other hot spots since then find refuge, the Kurds for example spent a lot of time there.

edit:edit

Edited by John Dolva
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not true, If you were a US Viet Nam war deserter you got special pre arranged treatment. A milder form of Wahlenberg freely distributing swedish citizenship to jews being carted off to germany. As today refugees from other hot spots since then find refuge, the Kurds for example spent a lot of time there.

I think that Pam has missed an important ingredient here; many war deserters from the US have found refugee in Sweden, many of them as a result of the death penalty in certain states in the US. Once this threat can be proven, it's more or less a formality. During the Vietnam war, it was a matter of strongly different interpretations of international human and civil rights laws.

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to post
Share on other sites
It ie not unusual at all. Sweden is A refugee haven. All applicanys are given consideration according to law.

One thing that seems to be overlooked is that the european union makes travel without visa to those who have the right to stay within it pretty easy. Even as a foreigner, I had no trounle moving around within europe, certainly not within scandinavia, even though I carry an australian passport, having had to renounce my scandinavian one when naturalised. I, as I'm sure many others, can attest to a lack of stamping. I think from 29 + odd custom throughputs I have just a few stamps. I think they're just really interested in where people are at any time, for whatever reason.

Absolutely, John. Her Majesty always greets travelers arriving in Great Britain with a stamp in ... and sends them off with a stamp out. Within western Europe, it has been my experience that other than wherever you first land, and where you fly out from, stamps are few and far between when you travel by car or train. Funny how you can come and go by train all day between most countries and never even be asked to flash your passport, but a couple countries ... like France and Italy ... still require (last time I was there in 2001 anyway) hotels to take your passport and record info when checking in. As the man at the desk of one hotel where we stayed in Italy told an American woman who was rather freaking out when he asked for her and her husband's passports and slid them into a drawer, "The chief of police, he likes to know who is sleeping in his city." We were on our way out thru the lobby and I told her it was okay, they would get it back to her soon. She looked relieved, but I am not sure she was completely convinced.<g>

Bests,

Barb :-)

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...