Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Doug Weldon]

Doug,

While we will be responding to several of the issues that you raise, I have

one for you. What have you done to pursue the prosecution of one James

Files, who has provided a detailed confession of his role as an assassin of

JFK? I might be more impressed with the zeal of your pursuit of Judyth,

if I thought there is any chance this is not a case of selective prosecution.

Since Files' confession has been around for some time and you are no

doubt aware of it, has your determination to track down evil-doers been

displayed in this case? Because it seems to me to have none of the kinds

of ambiguity that surround Judyth's case, where I am convinced that you

are attempting to intimidate a witness and violating canons of legal ethics.

Jim

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

Jim:

I am not prosecuting anyone. James Files' story has many of the same holes that I see inJudyth's story. Files is blatantly admitting to murder. The question is whether it is a false confession thus anyones statements have to be qualified by, "if true." I didn't "track Judyth" but when you raised the legal, political, and moral questions if Judyth engaged in murder I watched her segment again from TMWKK. I gave my opinion and my offer remains to any attorney who may disagree with me.

This is not a cult. It is certain that all of us disagree on different aspects of the assassination but I have never questioned the desire of Jack, David, Armstrong, Barb, Monk, myself, or you or anyone in wanting to determine the truth. As a friend I did look at this more carefully than I would have if it was someone I did not know. As a friend I would stand up with you and for you through most anything. It is about the character of life. However, I would cheapen a friendship if I responded less than honestly. As Jack, Dixie, and others have said, this is not new to us. We have walked this walk before. Judyth's account, if true, would be powerful. However, many of us have seen the stories change, questions go unanswered, and simply some things that make no sense.

Judyth is not above being questioned. All of the questions and points, Viklund, Hogan, Hagerman, Barb, and others should not be dismissed with slurs but should be responded to with responsible answers. I have not been offended. I have no personal vendetta nor am I on a mission to destroy Judyth. I cannot set aside judgment or reason as she makes her claims. She has made the assertions, not any of us. It is supposedly her experience. It is her that needs to convince. For many of us, that has yet to happen.

Doug Weldon

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

I am a bit puzzled by the FOIA suggestion, but who knows? My impression is that the CIA

and the FBI want to suppress information and all of this, not release it to the public. The

marriage information should be a matter of public record. She talks about making her way

from Gainesville, where she was a student at the University of Florida, to New Orleans in

the first of the seven new YouTubes I have posted, which you obviously have not watched.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Jim

There are multiple ways of verifying some of the Judyth tales:

1. File a FOIA request with the CIA and FBI regarding their files on Judyth Vary/Judyth Vary Baker

in 1963 in relation to New Orleans, Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Alton Oschner,

Carlos Marcello, Clay Shaw, Fidel Castro, Reily Coffee, Jackson Hospital, medical research, monkey

virus, etc. It is known that the FBI had extensive files on many of these subjects and had many

of them UNDER CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE, noting all of their contacts. Any mention of Vary/Baker

in relation to any of these subjects would be substantiation perhaps that some portions of her

story is true. However, the ABSENCE of ANY mention of Vary/Baker might be equally revealing.

The CIA was running some of these operations, so their records would be revealing, even if

heavily redacted.

2. Locate Robert Baker, her former husband, and pose many reasonable questions regarding the

period of 1963 and any knowledge he has regarding the activities of his wife. One researcher

pointed out to me that there is a conflict even in the circumstances of the Baker marriage. This

source says that the quickie elopement did not happen as JVB describes. This source says that

she and Baker were married in Florida in a traditional wedding, and this can be proved by

marriage license and other records. If this is true (I have no way of knowing), then why would

JVB say that Baker showed up in New Orleans and demanded an immediate marriage, so they

eloped? If she is wrong about how and when she was married, this would cast a large cloud over

anything else she says.

3. Check college records. My source says that Judyth and Robert were classmates at the

University of Florida (Gainesville?) BEFORE she went to New Orleans. If she was a student

there before going to New Orleans, why does her story omit this detail?

There are other obvious civil records which can be consulted. Why not cease the arguing and

do some primary research?

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Dean,

I'm sorry, but your responses are appalling. How could you

possibly listen to everything she has to tell us and not learn

SOMETHING? My guess is that you have still not read DR.

MARY'S MONKEY or other sources I have recommended. As

it happens, I am not going to worry about whether you or

anyone else on this thread is convinced by Judyth or not.

Jim

Jim

I have just finished every video you posted with Judyth

I promise you I watched them with an open mind

I feel the exact same about Judyth after watching them Jim

She is not telling the truth

Just listen to her fantastic stories about meeting Hemming and him just telling Judyth about all of his activities like its no big deal

Just listen to her talk about David Ferrie and the fact that she was at his house for Parties and all this research, I mean come on there is no way in hell any of it is true

Jim I did what you asked, the videos have no evidence that Judyth and LHO were lovers

All they are is Judyth telling fairy tales

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

With practically every post, I realize how much you don't know about this case, even when

Judyth has been quite explicit. I even put up a post about the marmosets for you, but it

obviously had no impact. They used tiny marmosets with undeveloped immune systems,

where most of their research was on mice and larger monkeys. All this has been explained

to you several times before and is discussed in the YouTubes I have just posted. I can no

longer worry about your understanding of these things. I accept the results of the studies

discussed in The Guardian. You are not going to change your mind, regardless of the data,

where you will pick and choose between any new information to find anything that (in your

mind) confirms your predetermined conclusion. I may not like it, but I have to accept that.

Jim

I continue to be intrigued by the use of the term THOUSANDS OF POUNDS OF MONKEYS which

were allegedly used by the Mary/Ferrie/Vary medical team.

In the early days of the Judyth Saga, we were told of the experiments in Ferrie's apartment

using MICE. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not remember ANY mention of MONKEYS.

All the attention was on mice, and Judyth's expertise with growing mice cancers.

Then, in 1995, Haslam authored "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus"...a book searching

for the origin of the AIDS virus.

Thereafter, Judyth's stories included monkeys in the research. But therein lies a problem.

A number of mice in a small apartment is not much of a problem. But monkeys ARE MUCH

LARGER THAN MICE. Monkeys are social and intelligent, and to be useful for research must

be kept in natural circumstances to stay healthy. They require LARGE CAGES and much

more care than mice. A large number of large cages would be out of the question in Ferrie's

small crowded apartment. Using "thousands of pounds of monkeys" could not happen there.

So JVB came up with using marmosets, a very small South American monkey that weighs

about a third of a pound (3 marmosets = 1 pound; 3000 marmosets = 1000 pounds).

So if adult marmosets were used, the group "processed" more than 3000 marmosets.

The logistics of this are staggering, as well as the time required. But wait...Judyth then

said that adult marmosets were not used, but thumb-sized baby marmosets. But literature

on marmosets says they live in highly socialized family groups, and develop psychological

problems when separated from the group. The literature emphasizes that if separated

from its parents, a baby quickly becomes sick and dies. So to use baby marmosets, it

is necessary to have the baby's parents present. So Judyth's story changes to the project

using all kinds of monkeys...thus back to the larger cages...and the logistics required:

large cages, care and attention to feeding and maintaining the health of the monkeys,

the comings and goings of crates of monkeys to the small apartment, the noise of monkey

chatter, the smell, disposal of monkey wastes, and disposal of dead monkeys. Keeping

several dozen monkeys in an apartment as described would amount to running a small

zoo. A zookeeper would be required to maintain the large number of monkeys.

Logistical constraints and TIME REQUIRED for cancers to develop, grow, and be

analyzed seem to rule out the team using monkeys. JVB should have stayed with her

original story of mice, which was more possible logistically.

I am still researching the TIME REQUIRED to grow cancers in MICE and MONKEYS.

All of the team's research is crowded into a two month period in the summer of 1963.

A time study of the time required for meaningful research may prove JVB's undoing.

Jack

[Greg Burnham]

Doug,

I tend to agree with everything you wrote here. After reading what Jim and Jack wrote on the previous page, it sounds like both sides are finally beginning to converge to a degree.

IMO: both sides have been "guilty" of prejudice and/or bias--and both have been such with undertandable cause. On the one hand, those who have already dealt with this subject for numerous years and have concluded that the claims were without merit have, naturally and properly, entered the current debate somewhat "jaded" but not necessarily for all the wrong (or right) reasons. On the other hand, Jim, who is brand new to this subject, naturally and properly entered (initiated) the debate without this prerequisite cynicism that is characteristic of Judyth's detractors. From his perspective, rightly, his was the proper approach. Truth is, it's the proper approach, but only if that pre-existing "jaded" condition is NOT present, which clearly is not the case for her detractors. Jim's error, if there is one, was in expecting those with whom he is engaged to approach the subject fresh, as newbies--but since they have already "been there and done that" long ago it was an impossible expectation. Now, that said, it doesn't mean they're right about Judyth being a fraud either. All it means is that they want substantiation--and the burden of proof is on the one making the initial positive assertion, Judyth.

Will Judyth's story ultimately bear scrutiny? I don't know. But, it does appear that there might be avenues for her or her supporters to pursue which could serve to corroberate her claims if they are true.

GO_SECURE

monk

Jim:

I am not prosecuting anyone. James Files' story has many of the same holes that I see inJudyth's story. Files is blatantly admitting to murder. The question is whether it is a false confession thus anyones statements have to be qualified by, "if true." I didn't "track Judyth" but when you raised the legal, political, and moral questions if Judyth engaged in murder I watched her segment again from TMWKK. I gave my opinion and my offer remains to any attorney who may disagree with me.

This is not a cult. It is certain that all of us disagree on different aspects of the assassination but I have never questioned the desire of Jack, David, Armstrong, Barb, Monk, myself, or you or anyone in wanting to determine the truth. As a friend I did look at this more carefully than I would have if it was someone I did not know. As a friend I would stand up with you and for you through most anything. It is about the character of life. However, I would cheapen a friendship if I responded less than honestly. As Jack, Dixie, and others have said, this is not new to us. We have walked this walk before. Judyth's account, if true, would be powerful. However, many of us have seen the stories change, questions go unanswered, and simply some things that make no sense.

Judyth is not above being questioned. All of the questions and points, Viklund, Hogan, Hagerman, Barb, and others should not be dismissed with slurs but should be responded to with responsible answers. I have not been offended. I have no personal vendetta nor am I on a mission to destroy Judyth. I cannot set aside judgment or reason as she makes her claims. She has made the assertions, not any of us. It is supposedly her experience. It is her that needs to convince. For many of us, that has yet to happen.

Doug Weldon

Edited May 2, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Doug,

As I have already observed, we are going to respond to at least some and

probably all of the questions you raise. In the meanwhile, would you ask

David Lifton if he might send me a cassette of his conversation with her?

That would go a long way to restoring my belief that he is not simply out

to trash Judyth to preserve his own past research on Oswald. I do admire

your calm demeanor. After having read The Guardian, I shall try to do my

best to emulate you. The power of reason to persuade is obviously limited,

far more so than I imagined. You could be among the more rational here.

Thank you!

Jim

Doug,

While we will be responding to several of the issues that you raise, I have

one for you. What have you done to pursue the prosecution of one James

Files, who has provided a detailed confession of his role as an assassin of

JFK? I might be more impressed with the zeal of your pursuit of Judyth,

if I thought there is any chance this is not a case of selective prosecution.

Since Files' confession has been around for some time and you are no

doubt aware of it, has your determination to track down evil-doers been

displayed in this case? Because it seems to me to have none of the kinds

of ambiguity that surround Judyth's case, where I am convinced that you

are attempting to intimidate a witness and violating canons of legal ethics.

Jim

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

Jim:

I am not prosecuting anyone. James Files' story has many of the same holes that I see inJudyth's story. Files is blatantly admitting to murder. The question is whether it is a false confession thus anyones statements have to be qualified by, "if true." I didn't "track Judyth" but when you raised the legal, political, and moral questions if Judyth engaged in murder I watched her segment again from TMWKK. I gave my opinion and my offer remains to any attorney who may disagree with me.

This is not a cult. It is certain that all of us disagree on different aspects of the assassination but I have never questioned the desire of Jack, David, Armstrong, Barb, Monk, myself, or you or anyone in wanting to determine the truth. As a friend I did look at this more carefully than I would have if it was someone I did not know. As a friend I would stand up with you and for you through most anything. It is about the character of life. However, I would cheapen a friendship if I responded less than honestly. As Jack, Dixie, and others have said, this is not new to us. We have walked this walk before. Judyth's account, if true, would be powerful. However, many of us have seen the stories change, questions go unanswered, and simply some things that make no sense.

Judyth is not above being questioned. All of the questions and points, Viklund, Hogan, Hagerman, Barb, and others should not be dismissed with slurs but should be responded to with responsible answers. I have not been offended. I have no personal vendetta nor am I on a mission to destroy Judyth. I cannot set aside judgment or reason as she makes her claims. She has made the assertions, not any of us. It is supposedly her experience. It is her that needs to convince. For many of us, that has yet to happen.

Doug Weldon

[Dean Hartwell]

Doug, you have said:

Jim:

I am not prosecuting anyone. James Files' story has many of the same holes that I see in Judyth's story. Files is blatantly admitting to murder. The question is whether it is a false confession thus anyones statements have to be qualified by, "if true." I didn't "track Judyth" but when you raised the legal, political, and moral questions if Judyth engaged in murder I watched her segment again from TMWKK. I gave my opinion and my offer remains to any attorney who may disagree with me...

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...

---

Do you only want a response to your legal observations on murder from an attorney? I have more to offer on this subject and I do not believe it takes a license nor practice as a criminal attorney to have an informed opinion about it:

Can you think of a person who has been brought to trial almost fifty years after the alleged act of murder?

If there is such a person, did they commit an act believing they were assisting their nation in a national security matter?

Did this person agree to an act designed to kill a person other than the one who died?

I bring this up because Judyth participated in a plan to develop a cancer to kill Fidel Castro. When she was told she would have to use it on another person, a prisoner, she objected, which shows a lack of intent to killing the prisoner. It also goes to her state of mind. She has further stated that the leader of the plan to inject cancer in a prisoner threatened her life if she did not follow through.

I realize the defense of duress typically does not work in homicide as a complete defense.

However, even if a prosecutor brought Judyth to trial (which for reasons I have stated earlier, I do not believe will happen), a defense attorney could bring up these points to the jury. And a jury, considering the nation’s perceived gain of killing Castro, her sincere objection to the plan to use cancer cells on the prisoner, the duress as it affected her state of mind and the unusual allegation and length of time since the alleged crime, would acquit her.

[Pamela Brown]

DW said:I am not prosecuting anyone. James Files' story has many of the same holes that I see inJudyth's story.

Whittaker's story had holes large enough to drive a limo through, but Weldon didn't bother to scrutinize it in any way. How can he possibly think he has any credibility in 'finding holes' in anybody else's story?

[Dean Hagerman]

Can you think of a person who has been brought to trial almost fifty years after the alleged act of murder?

John List

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

QUESTIONS FOR JACK WHITE ABOUT METHODOLOGY AND "PRIMARY RESEARCH"

Jack,

After raking leaves for a few hours and thinking about this post, I have a few questions:

(1) Is the FOIA route the one that you and John Armstrong adopted in your research on

HARVEY & LEE? If so, that might explain quite a lot. Has it ever crossed you mind that

the CIA and the FBI might not be the most reliable sources about the JFK assassination?

(2) Judyth has told me on several occasions that Lee had explained to her that the CIA

was creating a "false personal history" for him so he could return to a normal life after

his covert assignments. Did you and John take that into account in doing your research?

(3) Doesn't that suggest that, if there really were "two Oswalds" (other than Robert and

Lee), then you should have uncovered THREE: your "Harvey", your "Lee", plus the fake

personal history the CIA had created? Could you have confounded "Lee" and the fake?

(4) Judyth observed that, in relation to some of your photographic studies, the case for

"a second Oswald" appears to depend on photos that only differ with respect to, say,

their aspect ratio. You are aware of this. Has it affected your case for "two Oswalds"?

(5) Some of your argument are based on assuming that photos with asymmetrical

features might be composites. But don't most people have asymmetrical features?

Have you done studies by doing what you have done to Oswald photos with others?

(6) You suggest FOIAing the CIA and FBI as "primary research". I don't get it. Aren't

witness interviews the most important and primary research, since they are required

to authenticate photos and films? Is that a procedure that you and John followed?

(7) Why are you suggesting that I should so some "primary research"? Surely what I

am doing in interviewing the person who appears to be the most knowledgeable witness

to Lee's activities in New Orleans is "primary research" if any research on JFK is primary.

This is a nice example of your utter incapacity to break free from your preconceptions.

Jim

There are multiple ways of verifying some of the Judyth tales:

1. File a FOIA request with the CIA and FBI regarding their files on Judyth Vary/Judyth Vary Baker

in 1963 in relation to New Orleans, Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Alton Oschner,

Carlos Marcello, Clay Shaw, Fidel Castro, Reily Coffee, Jackson Hospital, medical research, monkey

virus, etc. It is known that the FBI had extensive files on many of these subjects and had many

of them UNDER CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE, noting all of their contacts. Any mention of Vary/Baker

in relation to any of these subjects would be substantiation perhaps that some portions of her

story is true. However, the ABSENCE of ANY mention of Vary/Baker might be equally revealing.

The CIA was running some of these operations, so their records would be revealing, even if

heavily redacted.

2. Locate Robert Baker, her former husband, and pose many reasonable questions regarding the

period of 1963 and any knowledge he has regarding the activities of his wife. One researcher

pointed out to me that there is a conflict even in the circumstances of the Baker marriage. This

source says that the quickie elopement did not happen as JVB describes. This source says that

she and Baker were married in Florida in a traditional wedding, and this can be proved by

marriage license and other records. If this is true (I have no way of knowing), then why would

JVB say that Baker showed up in New Orleans and demanded an immediate marriage, so they

eloped? If she is wrong about how and when she was married, this would cast a large cloud over

anything else she says.

3. Check college records. My source says that Judyth and Robert were classmates at the

University of Florida (Gainesville?) BEFORE she went to New Orleans. If she was a student

there before going to New Orleans, why does her story omit this detail?

There are other obvious civil records which can be consulted. Why not cease the arguing and

do some primary research?

Jack

Edited May 4, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hartwell]

Can you think of a person who has been brought to trial almost fifty years after the alleged act of murder?

John List

---

Hi Dean,

Is this who you meant?

John Emil List (September 17, 1925 - March 21, 2008) was an American murderer. On November 9, 1971, he murdered his mother, wife and three children in Westfield, New Jersey, and then disappeared. He had planned everything so meticulously that nearly a month passed before anyone noticed that anything was amiss. A fugitive from justice for nearly 18 years, he was finally apprehended on June 1, 1989 after the story of his murders was broadcast on America's Most Wanted. List was found guilty and sentenced to five terms of life imprisonment, dying in prison custody in 2008 at age 82. (Source: Wikipedia)

According to this source, John List was brought to justice 18 years after his murders.

Also, his crimes had nothing to do with national security nor is there any doubt that he killed those he originally planned to kill.

Dean Hartwell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

By the way, Jack, Judyth's marriage certificate is shown in "The Love Affair", where she was

married to Robert Baker in Mobile, AL, on 2 May 1963. It really would be helpful if you were

to actually watch/read some of the basic evidence in this case. Why don't you try doing that?

There are multiple ways of verifying some of the Judyth tales:

1. File a FOIA request with the CIA and FBI regarding their files on Judyth Vary/Judyth Vary Baker

in 1963 in relation to New Orleans, Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Alton Oschner,

Carlos Marcello, Clay Shaw, Fidel Castro, Reily Coffee, Jackson Hospital, medical research, monkey

virus, etc. It is known that the FBI had extensive files on many of these subjects and had many

of them UNDER CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE, noting all of their contacts. Any mention of Vary/Baker

in relation to any of these subjects would be substantiation perhaps that some portions of her

story is true. However, the ABSENCE of ANY mention of Vary/Baker might be equally revealing.

The CIA was running some of these operations, so their records would be revealing, even if

heavily redacted.

2. Locate Robert Baker, her former husband, and pose many reasonable questions regarding the

period of 1963 and any knowledge he has regarding the activities of his wife. One researcher

pointed out to me that there is a conflict even in the circumstances of the Baker marriage. This

source says that the quickie elopement did not happen as JVB describes. This source says that

she and Baker were married in Florida in a traditional wedding, and this can be proved by

marriage license and other records. If this is true (I have no way of knowing), then why would

JVB say that Baker showed up in New Orleans and demanded an immediate marriage, so they

eloped? If she is wrong about how and when she was married, this would cast a large cloud over

anything else she says.

3. Check college records. My source says that Judyth and Robert were classmates at the

University of Florida (Gainesville?) BEFORE she went to New Orleans. If she was a student

there before going to New Orleans, why does her story omit this detail?

There are other obvious civil records which can be consulted. Why not cease the arguing and

do some primary research?

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

Can you think of a person who has been brought to trial almost fifty years after the alleged act of murder?

John List

---

Hi Dean,

Is this who you meant?

John Emil List (September 17, 1925 - March 21, 2008) was an American murderer. On November 9, 1971, he murdered his mother, wife and three children in Westfield, New Jersey, and then disappeared. He had planned everything so meticulously that nearly a month passed before anyone noticed that anything was amiss. A fugitive from justice for nearly 18 years, he was finally apprehended on June 1, 1989 after the story of his murders was broadcast on America's Most Wanted. List was found guilty and sentenced to five terms of life imprisonment, dying in prison custody in 2008 at age 82. (Source: Wikipedia)

According to this source, John List was brought to justice 18 years after his murders.

Also, his crimes had nothing to do with national security nor is there any doubt that he killed those he originally planned to kill.

Dean Hartwell

I was wrong about the time frame I thought List killed his family in the early 60s not early 70s and his trial was not until the 00s

I was wrong

And I was only trying to answer the part of your question that I quoted, as you can clearly see I did not quote any other part of what you were asking

Edited May 2, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[David Andrews]

Byron De La Beckwith of Mississippi, who killed Medgar Evers in 1963. Two mistrials in 1964; convicted 1994.

[Dean Hartwell]

Byron De La Beckwith of Mississippi, who killed Medgar Evers in 1963. Two mistrials in 1964; convicted 1994.

David,

The first question asked about someone "brought to trial" almost 50 years later. Beckwith was twice brought to trial the YEAR AFTER he killed Evers with the mistrials you mentioned. So this doesn't answer the first question.

Can anyone give me the name of someone who answers to ALL three questions:

Can you think of a person who has been brought to trial almost fifty years after the alleged act of murder?

If there is such a person, did they commit an act believing they were assisting their nation in a national security matter?

Did this person agree to an act designed to kill a person other than the one who died?

Dean Hartwell