Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Pamela Brown]

'Kevin Greenlee'

mr. fetzer-

(...)

talking about your radio program brings up another thought. from your appearances on "black op radio" over the years, i know how closely you follow politics. you will certainly remember how- in 2008- sarah palin was generally not interviewed on anything but "friendly" shows, programs hosted by the likes of sean hannity or rush limbaugh. this created the lasting impression that the republicans did not have faith or confidence that she could handle tougher interviews. in the minds of many, this notion did far more damage than any gaffes palin might have made on other programs. after all, if the party itself did not have faith in her then why should anyone else?

the comparision is, of course, not exact but i do think something similar is going on with judyth. i have never heard her interviewed by any but the most sympathetic of interviewers. why is this? would it be possible for you to bring some of her critics on your program sometime so they can directly ask tough questions of her? it would certainly get a great deal of attention from the people reading this thread and, since i am sure you believe judyth would be able to answer her critics, it might even do her cause some good.

A very good idea, indeed! Let some nameable JVB hostile Interviewer cross swords with Judyth. I am sure she will masterly get out of the affair. The question is: would the enemies of JVB risk such a defeat?

KK

It seems those in the *closed* camp are seeing the writing on the wall -- that may be why they cannot stop posting to this thread. LOL

[Guest John Gillespie]

LF said:I take it as seriously as I take the content of Oswald's "letter" to the Soviet Embassy dated November 9th 1963. Do you take that seriously?

I see a pattern in the fact that Lee and Marina never lived together after NOLA. Add to that the fact that he was trying to send her and the children back to USSR, left his wedding ring at the Paines, plus some money, and it is my thinking that he was leaving her for good. These factors open the door for Marina to have been asked if she thought there was another woman involved in their relationship. I believe she had her suspicions and they may have come out. This may have contributed to the sequestration of Marina until she gave her testimony at the WC the way the govt wanted it. It may also have contributed to the govt not protecting LHO. If he lived, and he was proclaiming his innocence, what would he say on the witness stand? He could have opened up the whole Pandora's box. So, conveniently, he was eliminated.

_____________________________________

It is my thinking that your thinking is correct. Well, at least he may have thought he was leaving, eh?

The lamestream media has never given a serious, adversarial or skeptically critical presentation on the identity or role of the Paines, nor the identities of certain of their relatives and associates. A University of Hartford Professor once taught a course in the late Seventies entitled "Who Is Jack Ruby?" that, when completed, converted about a hundred students into vehement critics of the Warren Commission and the lone nut theory. Why not a similar course on the Paines? Because it would bring the same result.

The hallowed halls of academia are filled with the corrupted acolytes of government spending. So, too, the exalted backrooms and corridors of PBS, which parrots the LHO-as-lone-nut party line. Despite the affectations of open-mindedness and independence, our formerly revered institutions are now very much members of The Establishment.

P.S. Black Op Radio is planning a conference to be held in Hawaii in 2011.

Regards, JG

[Glenn Viklund]

I didn't even know they had a killfile option on here, but yes, when someone killfiles you, it means they won't see your posts ...

Bests,

Barb :-)

Darn, I'd hoped it was the other way around...

[Pat Speer]

DL again complains:Completely aside from the factual problems, I found her demeanor to be "non-credible," to put it politely.

Lifton is apparently oblivious to the fact that his credibility in making any claims about Judyth are hindered by his refusal to release a copy of his illegal tape to Jim Fetzer.

And of course his position on Judyth was already probably predetermined in that he is outraged at the Garrison investigation and maybe everything connected to NOLA.

It seems obvious to me that Lifton is playing a game of poker. He is waiting for JUDYTH to call him a xxxx, so he can play the tape and discredit her. That is, if a tape even exists. That JUDYTH has not only NOT called him a xxxx, but admitted that she talked to him and said cancun/kankun, proves she is scared of what is on the tape, IF it exists. So Lifton has in effect already won the war without even firing a shot.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

THE JUDYTH BOOK SAMPLE MATCHES LEE’S WRITING

Well, good .... now that we've had amateur hour using nobody knows how many generations of photocopy for an exemplar, and a photocopy of a photocopy of a single word from the questioned document, you can devote time to having a professional, court approved document examiner take a swing at it. :-)

BTW, the word sticks out like a sore thumb in my opinion .... the p doesn't look like like any of the other several p's (that all have the same characteristics) in the Oswald note, for one thing.

And since you are back in touch with Judyth and she even commented on this ... just what does she say about having a qualified professional examine her Pocket Aristotle?

NOTE: As a young man, I took an interest in graphology (hardwriting analysis) myself.

Although the sample is small, it appears to match the other writing extremely well. When

I first received what Howard had sent, I read it through and assumed that he had sent me

a sample of Lee’s handwriting for comparison. It looked to me like a single unified piece. I

have asked Howard to send his second example of the same technique for me to post here.

HOWARD COMMENTS:

In a message dated 4/301020, Howard Platzman <Howpl@aol.com> wrote:

Jim

The fax I sent: I copied an annotation in the margins of J's Aristotle book,

putatively by Lee, and pasted it into a documented example of Lee's handwriting.

The fit is perfect. As you can see, it is one individual's writing all the way through.

You can only pick out the pasted-in part by reading for meaning. Interestingly, the

annotation includes a misspelling, as might be expected from a dyslectic. I have

another example using the same technique. I'm not a pro, but I'm convinced.

Howard

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

The original margin writing was small, on the left-hand side of the page in this case,

composed of a few words, written with a short, stubby pencil such as were used with

compasses in high school geometry classes. Plus, in ink, we have a few numbers, a lot

of underlining, and parentheses in more than one style. The underlining is sometimes

sloppy. The highlighted word comes from a short phrase, "comparation of 3" with a large

bow-style [brace] {-type parenthesis. He obviously meant "comparison of 3" -- misspelling

'comparison.' .The writing, though blown up to more than twice its original size, retained

all the proportions seen in the handwriting samples of normal size.

JVB

Edited May 3, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen

[Jack White]

One of my monkey experts who has been following this thread (but not posting) emailed me the following:

Excellent post and good questions. Others that may be asked:

How were the monkeys euthanized? Methods have changed over the years.

How were the corpses disposed of? Getting rid of hundreds of dead monkeys would be a major headache. These days incinerators are used. At (my university), the smoke from the Vet School incinerator has a peculiar odor. We used to say, “It must be rabbit burning day…” Assuming the bodies were incinerated, what was the capacity of the incinerator and how were the ashes disposed of? Did the neighbors complain about the smoke?

How long did it take to “process” one monkey?: to euthanize it, open it, remove tumors and place the body in the storage area prior to disposal. Let’s say that took 6 minutes (a minimum it seems to me) then it would take 6,000 minutes to process a thousand monkeys; that’s 100 hours, or 10 man-days of work at 10 hours per day without stops for lunch or breaks.

If their incinerator could take twenty-five monkeys, forty “burns” would be required to dispose of 1,000 monkeys. If a “burn” took half an hour, that would be 500 hours of incineration time. Unless corpses could be kept cold, this process would be a bottle neck…

Jack

PS...I cannot find the Judyth quote to double check...I keep forgetting whether she said

"thousands of pounds" or "hundreds of pounds" of monkeys. Which did she say?

Jim...please submit the following questions to Judyth:

1. What size cage was used for monkeys?

2. How many monkeys were in each cage?

3. What means was used to induce cancer in each monkey?

4. Where did the resulting tumor appear?

5. How long did it take for the cancer to appear and grow to optimum size?

6. What records were kept on each monkey?

7. Was the cancer induced internally or externally?

8. Who killed each monkey to "harvest" the cancer?

9. Who autopsied each monkey and removed the tumor?

10. What tests were performed on the tumor?

11. Who performed the tests?

12. Why were "hundreds of pounds" of monkeys used?

That's enough to start with. My monkey experts are standing by to study

Judyth's responses for medical research accuracy.

Thanks!

Jack

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

Edited May 3, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

KG humbly said:i am trying- and badly failing- to understand your recent criticism about jack white and this whitaker fellow. the fault is surely mine and i hope you will clarify. to me, it seems as if you are saying that

Kevin seems to have a need to create strawmen rather than acknowledge that I am asking Jack to define the process he uses to vett witnesses. If it has changed, isn't that for him to say? If Kevin doesn't see a need for a process, that's his choice.

Pamela...this is irrelevant to the JVB thread, but I LISTENED TO THE AUDIO TAPE of the Ford man who removed

the windshield, just as I might listen to witness testimony from a jury box. This man was completely credible as

a witness. He was telling the truth. In the background could be heard interjections by his wife pleading with him

to "keep quiet" for the sake of the family. The details he provided were "real". He was not telling made up tales.

Jack

[Jack White]

They lived together ON WEEKENDS. Does that not count? He did not have a car and could not drive, and

his job was downtown. A cheap rooming house near downtown cost much less than commuting from

Irving, about 12 miles away. How does that translate to a marriage breakup?

Jack

LF said:I take it as seriously as I take the content of Oswald's "letter" to the Soviet Embassy dated November 9th 1963. Do you take that seriously?

I see a pattern in the fact that Lee and Marina never lived together after NOLA. Add to that the fact that he was trying to send her and the children back to USSR, left his wedding ring at the Paines, plus some money, and it is my thinking that he was leaving her for good.

These factors open the door for Marina to have been asked if she thought there was another woman involved in their relationship. I believe she had her suspicions and they may have come out. This may have contributed to the sequestration of Marina until she gave her testimony at the WC the way the govt wanted it. It may also have contributed to the govt not protecting LHO. If he lived, and he was proclaiming his innocence, what would he say on the witness stand? He could have opened up the whole Pandora's box. So, conveniently, he was eliminated.

[Jack White]

Onward and upward. Judyth does not lend much credible information as to what happened to JFK. I believe this topic can seriously divide and conquer the movement for truth regarding the JFK Assassination.

It has once, and it is doing it again. History repeats. A useless and worthless exercise. I agree, B.A.

Jack

[Jack White]

I have disagreed with you many times in the past, but this post is exactly on target.

Few researchers have bothered to DO PRIMARY RESEARCH on the information put

forth by JVB. You are a notable exception.

I admit to having done practically NO primary research on her tales because I judge

them to be unworthy of the effort. If she had just called her books FICTION, I might

have found them as interesting as an obscure little book in my collection, SHERLOCK

HOLMES IN DALLAS, which has the master sleuth trying to solve the JFK murder.

By trying to pass her fiction as fact, JVB has been her own undoing.

Jack

(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.

Jim

Gathering information proffered by someone who comes forth claiming to be a witness is only the first step. What have you done beyond taking what she tells you and not only running with it as fact, but beating others over the head with it as well?

I find it more than bizarre ... and plenty dismal ... that given all of the conflicts, and claims that documentably failed the verification process, noted by others, especially those like Jack, Dean, David, myself and others who have been involved in or followed Judyth's story for years, that you have no time for it, don't want to hear it and instead attack the messengers. You yourself have noted you don't know her story ... you now know the current story pretty well. But you do not know how much of what you are now hearing is different from what it was last year or 5 years ago or 10 years ago. And you don't know what are new additions to her story. Where is your intellectual curiosity, your scholarship in research before running forth and declaring someone the "real deal" without having independently verifying *any*thing?

Jack is correct ... primary research is a must. How does what she tells you hold up under scrutiny ... or has already been confirmed or denied? What have you even attempted to verify? And the biggest question of all, that has people just shaking their heads, is why don't you even care to find out? Above, you even note that she is the person who "appears to be" ... well, appearances can be deceiving. But you will never know as long as you continue to allow this claimant to self-verify her own story. No one should have to point out the folly in that to you.

[Jack White]

Jim...talking to JVB is NOT primary research, because it is her statements which

are being challenged. Primary research would search for information which

proves or disproves her tales. JVB the "author" and JVB the "witness" are two

separate entities.

OSWALD AND BAKER: DR. HENRY SILVAO

by Judyth Vary Baker and Lola Heavey

NOTE: This is a nice example of "primary research" where a witness corrects

the record of studies that purport to settle issues, but do so in misleading ways.

My inference would be that Silva may have remained “on the job” because there

was too much risk involved in allowing inquiries to be made without a manager.

THE LAMBERT TARGET ARTICLE

The Good Witness: Dr. Frank Silva and “Lee Harvey Oswald”

by Patricia Lambert

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/silva.htm

“…Dr. Silva [was] a prominent psychiatrist in Baton Rouge. But in 1963 he was

working at this mental hospital “in charge of training residents for Tulane.” Dr.

Silva said he was sent there by Tulane “for 45 days and I stayed four years” as

director of the program.

Dr. Silva said that he was working at the hospital all during the year 1963 but

had never seen or heard of Lee Harvey Oswald. He was originally scheduled to

be there 45 days, but remained there, conveniently, for four years.

JUDYTH AND LOLA COMMENT:: “Why did he stay for four years? Was it

because after the experiments there, he had to provide “damage control” for any

investigators, such as from the press, the FBI, Garrison, etc.?

Lambert, who is no friend of Garrison’s, nevertheless occasionally helps his case,

such as her report on Dr. Silva -- a physician working at the East Louisiana (Mental)

Hospital near Jackson. The Registrar of Voters, Henry Palmer, stated to Garrison that

Lee H. Oswald told him he was ‘living’ with Dr. Silva at the hospital. Why would Oswald

say such a thing? Speculation from Silva was that Palmer was somehow out to ‘get him’

for some reason. But Palmer simply repeated what Oswald told him. He had no vendetta

against Silva.

The truth is often elegant. Oswald, waiting with Ferrie and Shaw in the black Cadillac,

saw the voter registration drive going on and, as George DeMohrenschildt has told us,

he was concerned about civil rights. Witnesses agree the Clinton-Jackson sightings were

at the end of August or early September. The exact date was August 29, 1963, the day

after Martin Luther King’s speech of August 28. Lee Oswald is on record as having sat on

the “colored” side at the courthouse when he waited to pay his fine after his August 9th

arrest. Carlos Bringuier mentions it. The same man wanted to support the blacks who

were attempting to register to vote. He spoke to a colored girl who had been rejected,

who was very upset because she had an A.A. degree in business and they said she was

illiterate.

Lee returned briefly to the car and made a bet that he could register without showing any

documentation. For that reason, Lee named a doctor he knew was at the hospital. After all,

this trip was to join a convoy that would be delivering one or more prisoners to the hospital

for the bioweapon experiment. Lee said he was living with Dr. Silva -- that was his “proof of

residency” -- to try to win the bet. Lee told Judyth Vary Baker that he had actually succeeded

in getting registered briefly before he let the cat out of the bag by asking Palmer how he might

obtain a job out there -- when he was supposedly already living with the doctor there!

[Jack White]

The visits of LHO driving Ruth Paine's station wagon to Irving Barber Shasteen OCCURRED ON

WEEKDAYS, at a time LHO was in Dallas, working at the TSBD. One of the LHOs could drive.

The other one could not.

THE DISAPPEARING WITNESS: THE WOMAN IN THE CAR (WAS JUDYTH VARY BAKER)

NOTE: This is a nice example of the process of making a person who should be of enormous

interest "disappear" from official records, but where diligent research can uncover the history

of the sequence, as occurs here, beginning with the Clay Shaw trial and ending with the HSCA.

This is a nice illustration why depending on “official records” is unlikely to reveal the whole story.

THE MISSING WITNESS

During the trial of Clay Shaw, a man named Edwin Lea McGehee testified that a man resembling

Lee Harvey Oswald came into his barbershop in late August 1963 for a haircut, that he was able

to remember him because he had few strangers as patrons, and that a woman was driving him

in "a battered old car". The state acknowledged that it could not identify here and make it clear

that, in particular, it was not alleging that this woman was Marina Oswald (now Marina Oswald

Porter). The state wished it could have identified her.

Here's an extract from the trial transcript:

McGehee also testified, "The car might have been dark-green--but the make of it I just couldn't

remember, it was an old car, real old." It "resembled a Kaiser or Frasier or an old Nash." "There

was a woman sitting on the front seat", he recalled, "and in the back seat" he also noticed what

"looked like a [baby] bassinet". He suggested that Oswald [who was looking for a job] pay a visit

to State Representative Reeves Morgan, who worked as a guard at the East Louisiana State Mental

Hospital, who testified that Oswald visited him at his home outside of Jackson for 20 or 25 minutes,

and told him of his expertise as an electrician. It was late August or early September. Not called

was Morgan's daughter, Mary, a student at LSU in 1967, who told the New Orleans District Attorney

that "when Oswald was in the house talking with dad, she happened to walk towards the screen door

and sat on the porch and just casually noticed that there was a dark colored car parked under the tree

in front of the house." It was "an old car and the model was somewhere in the Fifties." She remembered

"seeing a woman in the car". Her and her father's testimony both appears to have been taken in 1967.

THE HSCA PUTS THE WOMAN BEHIND THE WHEEL

On 19 January 1978, Mr. McGehee was interviewed by Bob Buras and Patricia Orr of the House Select

Committee on Assassinations at his home in Jackson about the testimony that he had presented on 6

February 1969. He reiterated that Oswald had come in for a haircut in late August 1963 and that "a

woman in a battered old car had driven up at about the same time that Oswald had arrived. He did

not see Oswald get out of or into the car. McGehee was unable to remember the type of car that the

woman had been driving. A big black car pulled away shortly after Oswald left. He did not know if

Oswald got into it." Because of his "clean cut appearance", after Oswald explained to him that he

"really needed a job", McGehee referred him to his friend, Morgan Reeves, who worked at the East

Louisiana State Hospital, which might be looking for someone to work in its electrical department:

THE HSCA MAKES MARY MORGAN’S “WOMAN IN THE CAR” VANISH

The same staff members had also interviewed Morgan Reeves just a few hours earlier on the same

day. "He verified that his statements made at the Clay Shaw trial, which [they] went over with him,

were accurate and truthful" and that "Sometime in 'probably the latter part of August' Oswald came

to Morgan's home to talk with him about getting a job at East Louisiana State Hospital. He "believes

Oswald drove up to his home or had been driven to his home by somebody, because he had heard the

car come up the driveway just before Oswald came to the door. Unfortunately, [either] Mr. Morgan or

his daughter, who was present at the time, did not see the car or the possible driver."

STATEMENT BY JUDYTH VARY BAKER:

Multiple reports that LHO could drive were rejected by the Warren Commission, for Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald--who was under duress--consistently stated that LHO could not drive. But other reports from the Irving, Texas-based barber (Mr. Sasheen), the barber in Jackson, LA (Lea McGehee), and Mary Morgan, the daughter of Texas State Representative Reeves Morgan, among others, suggested that Oswald in fact could drive.

The HSCA was deeply concerned about these inconsistencies. There was no doubt that at least some witnesses had seen Marina and Lee Oswald together, with Lee driving. Judyth Vary Baker was also seen by two people -- Lea McGehee and Mary Morgan -- during the course of the second trip LHO made to the East Louisiana State [Mental] Hospital. That trip concerned the testing of a bioweapon for use against Fidel Castro. She was with him in the car when he had his hair cut by Lea McGehee and when Mary Morgan saw her.

In 1969 testimony, a woman closely associated with Oswald and who was also with him the trip to the hospital was with him. Lee drove the car. By 1978, however, that woman was now described as driving the car herself and was no longer closely associated with Oswald in one report and in the other, she had disappeared entirely from the record. The woman whom Garrison wanted identified became an inconvenient, disappearing woman by the time the HSCA investigators re-examined the witnesses. That woman was me.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Jim...talking to JVB is NOT primary research, because it is her statements which

are being challenged. Primary research would search for information which

proves or disproves her tales. JVB the "author" and JVB the "witness" are two

separate entities.

Spot on, Jack. It's disconcerting that Fetzer does not know this in the first place, and still doesn't get it despite similar

posts stating this earlier in the thread.

Judyth cannot be part of the answer ... as long as she remains part of the question.

She has no verifiable bonafides as a witness to anything regarding Oswald, the assassination ... or any of

the commonly known suspected players, whom she claims to have known and/or worked with.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Dean Hartwell]

Jim...talking to JVB is NOT primary research, because it is her statements which

are being challenged. Primary research would search for information which

proves or disproves her tales. JVB the "author" and JVB the "witness" are two

separate entities.

Spot on, Jack. It's disconcerting that Fetzer does not know this in the first place, and still doesn't get it despite similar

posts stating this earlier in the thread.

Judyth cannot be part of the answer ... as long as she remains part of the question.

She has no verifiable bonafides as a witness to anything regarding Oswald, the assassination ... or any of

the commonly known suspected players, whom she claims to have known and/or worked with.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb,

What you say about "verifiable bonafides as a witness" may explain the different opinions on this thread about Judyth.

Anna Lewis has testified on audiotapes and film that she and her husband, David, double-dated with Judyth and Lee.

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/14...udyth-vary.html

Is there a reason you do not view her as a bonafide?

It would help if those who criticize Judyth on these grounds tell the group what kind of witness they are looking for.

Dean

[Barb Junkkarinen]

I have disagreed with you many times in the past, but this post is exactly on target.

Few researchers have bothered to DO PRIMARY RESEARCH on the information put

forth by JVB. You are a notable exception.

I admit to having done practically NO primary research on her tales because I judge

them to be unworthy of the effort. If she had just called her books FICTION, I might

have found them as interesting as an obscure little book in my collection, SHERLOCK

HOLMES IN DALLAS, which has the master sleuth trying to solve the JFK murder.

By trying to pass her fiction as fact, JVB has been her own undoing.

Jack

Thank you very much, Jack. But don't sell yourself short ... you have made, and continue to make, valuable contributions and insights in this thread. And you are doing some important primary research now on some of her "monkey business."

Sherlock Holmes working on the JFK case ... how delightful, I will have to look for that one!

Bests,

Barb :-)

(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.

Jim

Gathering information proffered by someone who comes forth claiming to be a witness is only the first step. What have you done beyond taking what she tells you and not only running with it as fact, but beating others over the head with it as well?

I find it more than bizarre ... and plenty dismal ... that given all of the conflicts, and claims that documentably failed the verification process, noted by others, especially those like Jack, Dean, David, myself and others who have been involved in or followed Judyth's story for years, that you have no time for it, don't want to hear it and instead attack the messengers. You yourself have noted you don't know her story ... you now know the current story pretty well. But you do not know how much of what you are now hearing is different from what it was last year or 5 years ago or 10 years ago. And you don't know what are new additions to her story. Where is your intellectual curiosity, your scholarship in research before running forth and declaring someone the "real deal" without having independently verifying *any*thing?

Jack is correct ... primary research is a must. How does what she tells you hold up under scrutiny ... or has already been confirmed or denied? What have you even attempted to verify? And the biggest question of all, that has people just shaking their heads, is why don't you even care to find out? Above, you even note that she is the person who "appears to be" ... well, appearances can be deceiving. But you will never know as long as you continue to allow this claimant to self-verify her own story. No one should have to point out the folly in that to you.