Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Doug Weldon]

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.

Dean:

This is a fair analysis. She could argue coercion more successfully than duress but the problem was that , if her account is true, not only did she not do anything to stop the killing of the innocent victim(s) she later went back and observed the effects of what was done, but then again did nothing. You are correct that you must have a "mens rea" but Judyth knew this was designed to kill and was being used as such. There is a reason there is no statute of limitations on murder. As I mentioned I defended a 26 year old murder two years ago. The reason they are often not prosecuted so many years later is that the witnesses and perpetrators are often dead after such a length of time. I do not believe a jury would ever hear that this was designed to kill Castro. It is irrelevant. If scientists were involved in developing a weapon to kill Osama Bun Laden, would they be immune from prosecution because they came and tested it on and eliminated your whole family. Thanks for the response.i

Doug Weldon

[Doug Weldon]

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.

Dean:

This is a fair analysis. She could argue coercion more successfully than duress but the problem was that , if her account is true, not only did she not do anything to stop the killing of the innocent victim(s) she later went back and observed the effects of what was done, but then again did nothing. You are correct that you must have a "mens rea" but Judyth knew this was designed to kill and was being used as such. There is a reason there is no statute of limitations on murder. As I mentioned I defended a 26 year old murder two years ago. The reason they are often not prosecuted so many years later is that the witnesses and perpetrators are often dead after such a length of time. I do not believe a jury would ever hear that this was designed to kill Castro. It is irrelevant. If scientists were involved in developing a weapon to kill Osama Bun Laden, would they be immune from prosecution because they came and tested it on and eliminated your whole family. Thanks for the response.i

Doug Weldon

Dean:

Nazis are still being prosecuted for war crimes (political) 65 years later.

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.

Dean:

This is a fair analysis. She could argue coercion more successfully than duress but the problem was that , if her account is true, not only did she not do anything to stop the killing of the innocent victim(s) she later went back and observed the effects of what was done, but then again did nothing. You are correct that you must have a "mens rea" but Judyth knew this was designed to kill and was being used as such. There is a reason there is no statute of limitations on murder. As I mentioned I defended a 26 year old murder two years ago. The reason they are often not prosecuted so many years later is that the witnesses and perpetrators are often dead after such a length of time. I do not believe a jury would ever hear that this was designed to kill Castro. It is irrelevant. If scientists were involved in developing a weapon to kill Osama Bun Laden, would they be immune from prosecution because they came and tested it on and eliminated your whole family. Thanks for the response.i

Doug Weldon

Thanks, Doug!

The last question you presented is crucial to the whole problem of prosecution. If I did not learn that scientists had tested on and killed my family until 47 years later, how would I prove who exactly did the crime? Key evidence and witnesses would likely be missing. This lack of certainty over who did what to whom is at the heart of the key principal of identifying those who have done wrong. If someone did come forward after watching the videotape of Judyth, how could they be certain it was their relative or friend? (There may well have been other experiments, victim families, if they were told anything, were not likely told the truth, etc.)

What she did later - or failed to do - may well tie into the problem of coercion or duress. If she had not gone to observe the effects, the person in charge of the crime may have tracked her down on suspicion she would turn over information to another party. Which brings up another question: should she have told the proper authorities? Her life may have been at stake.

Thank you for your response.

Dean

[Doug Weldon]

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.

Dean:

This is a fair analysis. She could argue coercion more successfully than duress but the problem was that , if her account is true, not only did she not do anything to stop the killing of the innocent victim(s) she later went back and observed the effects of what was done, but then again did nothing. You are correct that you must have a "mens rea" but Judyth knew this was designed to kill and was being used as such. There is a reason there is no statute of limitations on murder. As I mentioned I defended a 26 year old murder two years ago. The reason they are often not prosecuted so many years later is that the witnesses and perpetrators are often dead after such a length of time. I do not believe a jury would ever hear that this was designed to kill Castro. It is irrelevant. If scientists were involved in developing a weapon to kill Osama Bun Laden, would they be immune from prosecution because they came and tested it on and eliminated your whole family. Thanks for the response.i

Doug Weldon

Thanks, Doug!

The last question you presented is crucial to the whole problem of prosecution. If I did not learn that scientists had tested on and killed my family until 47 years later, how would I prove who exactly did the crime? Key evidence and witnesses would likely be missing. This lack of certainty over who did what to whom is at the heart of the key principal of identifying those who have done wrong. If someone did come forward after watching the videotape of Judyth, how could they be certain it was their relative or friend? (There may well have been other experiments, victim families, if they were told anything, were not likely told the truth, etc.)

What she did later - or failed to do - may well tie into the problem of coercion or duress. If she had not gone to observe the effects, the person in charge of the crime may have tracked her down on suspicion she would turn over information to another party. Which brings up another question: should she have told the proper authorities? Her life may have been at stake.

Thank you for your response.

Dean

Dean:

If someone came forward 47 years later (Judyth) and you could tie the confession to the killing of your family you don't really need other witnesses. You have a corpus and a confession. Many murders are committed without witnesses. The law does not consider fear of life as a defense to murder. The law requires that someone do something to abandon the crime. Otherwise, any mafia killer could be excused and could even take it a step further and say "well, if I didn't murder all of those people they would have killed me." Your questions are good and your point is well taken that it would take a remarkable convergence of circumstances for it to be practical for such a crime to be prosecuted. However. your point is legitimate but there is no question that if there were a convergence of circumstances, i.e., identifiable victiim(s) and a sufffient and detailed confession then it certainly could be pursued. Good points.

Doug Weldon

[David Andrews]

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

Nyah-nyah -- you didn't say, "without a previous trial."

As far as I'm concerned, in the intelligence climate that later got Dr. King killed, De La Beckwith may well have had notions of national security, even anti-communism, on his mind. Whether any organization (KKK? FBI?) sanctioned Evers' murder on national security grounds...well, that's as much up for speculation as that element would be in the killing of JFK, no?

Is all this in the service of investigating whether someone deserves to be charged with murder for an inmate chemical trial that may well have been legalized by the inmate signing some medico-legal release, worded to cover all contingencies, even quick metastasis and death? Under the proper formalities - no murder was ever done.

Edited May 2, 2010 by David Andrews

[Pamela Brown]

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

do some primary research?

Why does Jack White hold Judyth to a different standard that he does Whittaker? Jack White bought Whittaker's story hook-line-and-sinker and didn't bother to do a single bit of vetting of any of the incongruous things he said. Yet Jack wants what amounts to a government investigation of Judyth's statements. What gives?

[Dean Hartwell]

Dean:

Nazis are still being prosecuted for war crimes (political) 65 years later.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

The Nazis receive no sympathy for their actions in Israeli courts nor in legal system here. And there is no political push in the United States to bring in those who were part of plots to kill Castro.

Dean

[Jack White]

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

do some primary research?

Why does Jack White hold Judyth to a different standard that he does Whittaker? Jack White bought Whittaker's story hook-line-and-sinker and didn't bother to do a single bit of vetting of any of the incongruous things he said. Yet Jack wants what amounts to a government investigation of Judyth's statements. What gives?

Who is Whittaker? I am unaware of a Whittaker.

Jack

Edited May 3, 2010 by Jack White

[Greg Burnham]

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

do some primary research?

Why does Jack White hold Judyth to a different standard that he does Whittaker? Jack White bought Whittaker's story hook-line-and-sinker and didn't bother to do a single bit of vetting of any of the incongruous things he said. Yet Jack wants what amounts to a government investigation of Judyth's statements. What gives?

Who is Whittaker? I am unaware of a Whittaker.

Jack

Jack,

George Whittaker, Sr., was a manager at the Ford Plant in Rouge, Michigan. I think she's referencing the debate about the limo windshield's through-and-through hole.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Pamela Brown]

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

do some primary research?

Why does Jack White hold Judyth to a different standard that he does Whittaker? Jack White bought Whittaker's story hook-line-and-sinker and didn't bother to do a single bit of vetting of any of the incongruous things he said. Yet Jack wants what amounts to a government investigation of Judyth's statements. What gives?

Who is Whittaker? I am unaware of a Whittaker.

Jack

Jack,

George Whittaker, Sr., was a manager at the Ford Plant in Rouge, Michigan. I think she's referencing the debate about the limo windshield's through-and-through hole.

Oh yes. Jack might remember Whitaker better as the unnamed and unvetted witness he and Weldon tried to foist on the research community in 1998. Back then his name was known only to a 'trusted few'. Guess Jack was not one of them.

[Pamela Brown]

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

do some primary research?

Why does Jack White hold Judyth to a different standard that he does Whittaker? Jack White bought Whittaker's story hook-line-and-sinker and didn't bother to do a single bit of vetting of any of the incongruous things he said. Yet Jack wants what amounts to a government investigation of Judyth's statements. What gives?

Who is Whittaker? I am unaware of a Whittaker.

Jack

Whitaker.

When you and I sparred on the DellaRosa forum years ago this man's name was not even disclosed to the research community. You were comfortable with that too, weren't you? So you swallowed whole a story given by a man whose name you did not even know? And you encouraged -- no, more like demanded -- that others do the same? How can you be so open to his goofy statements and demand a governmental inquiry with everything Judyth says?

Edited May 3, 2010 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Greg Burnham]

Oh yes. Jack might remember Whitaker better as the unnamed and unvetted witness he and Weldon tried to foist on the research community in 1998. Back then his name was known only to a 'trusted few'. Guess Jack was not one of them.

Or maybe these are two separate issues and he simply didn't make the connection yet. It took me a few minutes to realize what you were talking about too!

[Jack White]

Jim...I did not suggest that YOU do anything. I suggested that "someone" should do

those things.

And....

PRIMARY RESEARCH consists of examination of original records, testimony, recordings,

films, testimony, interviews and the like.

SECONDARY RESEARCH consists of reading books, listening to interviews, searching

the internet, and the like learning information from the works of others.

John Armstrong relied heavily on PRIMARY RESEARCH in writing his heavily footnoted

book, citing each of his sources. He relied heavily on interviewing of witnesses.

Jack

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

[Jack White]

Oh yes. Jack might remember Whitaker better as the unnamed and unvetted witness he and Weldon tried to foist on the research community in 1998. Back then his name was known only to a 'trusted few'. Guess Jack was not one of them.

Or maybe these are two separate issues and he simply didn't make the connection yet. It took me a few minutes to realize what you were talking about too!

I thought we were discussing JVB, not the windshield issue. I could remember NO Whittaker associated with JVB.

Jack

[Jack White]

I have been reading several websites devoted to study of cancer

induced in monkeys. They are all very sad, about the little creatures

who will soon be sacrificed to study the effects of various cancers.

This compilation is a summation/amalgamation of what I read on

several sites. (you can do the same):

The typical monkey lives in a cage 6'x6', and careful daily records

are kept, just as they would be on a human hospital patient. They

undergo diagnoses just like a human cancer patient would. They

are xrayed and various tests run, just as humans. When the cancer

has been determined to be at the stage for exhaustive study, maybe

6 months after the cancer inducement, the monkey is euthanized

(as JVB says, sacrificed) euphemisms for KILLED, and a medical

autopsy performed by a skilled doctor, who removes the tumor

for scientific examination. The whole procedure's length depends

on how long it takes the tumor to grow.

Draw your own conclusions.

Jack