Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Greg Burnham]

Monk:

Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

Since you insist on using examples from the justice system to make your point, I will too. The fact that prejudices are part of the human experience is the reason that jury selection is an art form. As you know, if a potential juror were to reveal such prejudice, as understandable as it might be under his or her unique circumstances, such a potential juror will be dismissed or released from duty. They will be deemed unfit for jury service due to that prejudice. Are you inadvertantly making a judgment call as to the fitness of Dean as a "dispassionate" juror?

I'd like to move on as well.

Monk:

It is not that simplistic. There are challenges for cause, which are not so broad, and preemptory challenges. What do you call a person with an I.Q. of 60, barely got into law school, finished at the bottom of their class, failed the bar exam 4 times before barely passing it? Answer: Your Honor.

Doug Weldon

Absurd. Oh, I get it: Lawyer jokes.

[Dean Hagerman]

I would say this Greg

If I was going through Jury selection on a Trial for lets say a Homeless man who killed another person I would make sure the Defense knew about my feelings and my past dealings with Homeless people so that the Homeless man would get a fair trial by having me not sit on the Jury

I believe everybody deserves a fair trial, and I would be man enough to make sure that I was not on the jury to sway another juror with my feelings about Homeless people

Im not trying to drag this on Greg, I just want you to know I have strong feelings about alot of things, getting a fair trial no matter who the accused is one of those things

Edited May 5, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Greg Burnham]

I would say this Greg

If I was going through Jury selection on a Trial for lets say a Homeless man who killed another person I would make sure the Defense knew about my feelings and my past dealings with Homeless people so that the Homeless man would get a fair trial by having me not sit on the Jury

I believe everybody deserves a fair trial, and I would be man enough to make sure that I was not on the jury to sway anybody with my feelings about Homeless people

Im not trying to drag this on Greg, I just want you to know I have strong feelings about alot of things, getting a fair trial no matter who the accused is one of those things

Thanks Dean. I figured as much. You strike me as an honest guy. In such a circumstance you would disqualify yourself as a matter of self respect--so that justice would have the best chance to prevail.

I've often heard it said, "The best thing about being a cop is never having to make up a bogus excuse to get out of reporting for jury duty."

Edited May 6, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Judyth wrote:

My kids were voted most popular, played with state champion-to-be football

team, and were valedictorians, their blushing single mother so thrilled.

I served in Bradenton as tutor, counselor to women, a state-trained child

abuse investigator, and made some rescues of children that could be made

into a movie, including a shotgun shoved against my chest, etc. .

Previously, I'd rescued, and caused to be rescued, dozens of starving

pregnant mares and got new laws passed in state of Texas against animal

abuse...and founded FBC Humane Society.

Bradenton is in Fort Bend County (FBC). The Fort Bend County website for community

services lists NO FBC HUMANE SOCIETY.

Jack

Jack,

Just a poorly constructed ramble .... she lived in Bradenton, Florida .... and in Stafford, Texas. Stafford is in

Fort Bend County, TX. And it looks like you are correct .... no FBC Humane Society listed.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Kathleen Collins]

Judyth wrote:

My kids were voted most popular, played with state champion-to-be football

team, and were valedictorians, their blushing single mother so thrilled.

I served in Bradenton as tutor, counselor to women, a state-trained child

abuse investigator, and made some rescues of children that could be made

into a movie, including a shotgun shoved against my chest, etc. .

Previously, I'd rescued, and caused to be rescued, dozens of starving

pregnant mares and got new laws passed in state of Texas against animal

abuse...and founded FBC Humane Society.

Bradenton is in Fort Bend County (FBC). The Fort Bend County website for community

services lists NO FBC HUMANE SOCIETY.

Jack

Jack,

Just a poorly constructed ramble .... she lived in Bradenton, Florida .... and in Stafford, Texas. Stafford is in

Fort Bend County, TX. And it looks like you are correct .... no FBC Humane Society listed.

Bests,

Barb :-)

About her time in Stafford, TX: she helped with the town's bicentennial memorial garden. She claims her name is on a monument there for her civic service.

Does anyone live near Stafford, TX and can go to the memorial garden and see if her name is on a monument there?

Kathy C

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Judyth wrote:

My kids were voted most popular, played with state champion-to-be football

team, and were valedictorians, their blushing single mother so thrilled.

I served in Bradenton as tutor, counselor to women, a state-trained child

abuse investigator, and made some rescues of children that could be made

into a movie, including a shotgun shoved against my chest, etc. .

Previously, I'd rescued, and caused to be rescued, dozens of starving

pregnant mares and got new laws passed in state of Texas against animal

abuse...and founded FBC Humane Society.

Bradenton is in Fort Bend County (FBC). The Fort Bend County website for community

services lists NO FBC HUMANE SOCIETY.

Jack

Jack,

Just a poorly constructed ramble .... she lived in Bradenton, Florida .... and in Stafford, Texas. Stafford is in

Fort Bend County, TX. And it looks like you are correct .... no FBC Humane Society listed.

Bests,

Barb :-)

About her time in Stafford, TX: she helped with the town's bicentennial memorial garden. She claims her name is on a monument there for her civic service.

Does anyone live near Stafford, TX and can go to the memorial garden and see if her name is on a monument there?

Kathy C

She also claimed she was on the committee and that she designed the thing.

[Greg Parker]

I promised I would not post in thread, but who knew back then what turns it would take?

Your point is well taken but I think these criticisms of Dean are exaggerated.

Really? I think they were admirably restrained. Particularly Lee's, given what I think he would have liked to have said.

Any of us, rightly or wrongly and probably wrongly, would be more skeptical of the testimony of a homeless person.

Since you cannot possibly be that dumb, I have to assume you are playing defense attorney. This is not about his skepticism. It is about his characterizations.

And his latest claim that he would disqualify himself as a jurist in the trial of a homeless person in order that they receive a fair trial is risible given he has already admitted acting as judge, jury and executioner against a homeless person - who was inebriated I might add, and therefore unlikely to be able to defend himself against such a spineless attack.

A common jury instruction is that the jury can consider the demeanor of the witnesses and the manner in which they testify. This started with Jim criticizing that Dean was not impressed with the demeanor of watching Judyth. Jim attacked him and Dean then became defensive. He can judge things as he wishes and he would not be alone in his observations of Judyth or his skepticism of homeless people being the sole substantiation of points made by Judyth. Dean has been a valuable contributor and participant in the forum. I believe this is a diversion from the isues and we should move on.

No. He would not be alone. He stands firmly with John McAdams with whom I debated homelessness some years ago. One McAdams' Proclamation as I recall it, was that America rocks because mentally ill people are free to sleep in parks if they want.

Like most have a choice...

The problem with Jim's friends in relation to their support of Judyth is NOT their former homelessness. It is, in my opinion, a problem of empathy (or bias) arising out of the alleged shared experiences of having emails tampered with and being (again allegedly) hounded and harassed by one's own government.

I note that you and Dean want to move on. Isn't it a bitch when things get a bit tough and someone keeps wanting to drag you back and make you accountable for your own words?

Hey councilor, here's an idea. Why don't you do some public defending for Jack White and John Armstrong? There's a couple of threads were they surely could use such a sharp legal mind.

Doug Weldon

[Jack White]

I promised I would not post in thread, but who knew back then what turns it would take?

Your point is well taken but I think these criticisms of Dean are exaggerated.

Really? I think they were admirably restrained. Particularly Lee's, given what I think he would have liked to have said.

Any of us, rightly or wrongly and probably wrongly, would be more skeptical of the testimony of a homeless person.

Since you cannot possibly be that dumb, I have to assume you are playing defense attorney. This is not about his skepticism. It is about his characterizations.

And his latest claim that he would disqualify himself as a jurist in the trial of a homeless person in order that they receive a fair trial is risible given he has already admitted acting as judge, jury and executioner against a homeless person - who was inebriated I might add, and therefore unlikely to be able to defend himself against such a spineless attack.

A common jury instruction is that the jury can consider the demeanor of the witnesses and the manner in which they testify. This started with Jim criticizing that Dean was not impressed with the demeanor of watching Judyth. Jim attacked him and Dean then became defensive. He can judge things as he wishes and he would not be alone in his observations of Judyth or his skepticism of homeless people being the sole substantiation of points made by Judyth. Dean has been a valuable contributor and participant in the forum. I believe this is a diversion from the isues and we should move on.

No. He would not be alone. He stands firmly with John McAdams with whom I debated homelessness some years ago. One McAdams' Proclamation as I recall it, was that America rocks because mentally ill people are free to sleep in parks if they want.

Like most have a choice...

The problem with Jim's friends in relation to their support of Judyth is NOT their former homelessness. It is, in my opinion, a problem of empathy (or bias) arising out of the alleged shared experiences of having emails tampered with and being (again allegedly) hounded and harassed by one's own government.

I note that you and Dean want to move on. Isn't it a bitch when things get a bit tough and someone keeps wanting to drag you back and make you accountable for your own words?

Hey councilor, here's an idea. Why don't you do some public defending for Jack White and John Armstrong? There's a couple of threads were they surely could use such a sharp legal mind.

Doug Weldon

John Armstrong and I need no defending. People who make accusations like this should read the book.

Jack

[Greg Burnham]

I promised I would not post in thread, but who knew back then what turns it would take?

I'm glad you did. And yes, a WHOLE LOT of self restraint was employed. You made some other very cogent observations. Well done.

[Cliff Varnell]

Monk:

Fair enough. Unfortunately, prejudices are part of the human experience. We are all "victims" of our experiences. No argument. I would like to move on.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug, correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Jim Fetzer indicated his desire

to not continue on this thread?

I don't see what is accomplished by beating up on Jim and Judyth any further.

Wouldn't it be better to allow the man to withdraw as gracefully as possible?

I think it a service to all to let this thread be hijacked.

Cliff:

I was not aware of that. Jim posted three times yesterday and did not mention anything. The last thing I knew was that Jim stated that Judyth was going to answer the questions I and others raised.

Best,

Doug Weldon

On the Deep Politics Forum 05/04/10 at 8:52 pm Jim Fetzer wrote the

following:

This is the third or fourth time I have tried to end the thread. I learned quite a lot about the character of JFK research as it is practiced on The Education Forum. I feel badly that I did not do a better job of keeping current here. I have appreciated your comments, some of which were rather important. This is a far more hospitable forum, but I need to sort out the attacks on Judyth, which were fast and furious there. It was the following discovery, however, that broke my interest in pursuing this any further. Reason appears to have has no effect on those who are committed! I found this simply dumbfounding.

Sounds to me like a guy who's had enough.

This entire exercise played out years ago on alt.ass.mcadams with Dave Reitzes

as the relentless prosecutor and Martin Shackelford as the hapless JVB defender.

Ugly.

I saw this coming on the Ed Forum, btw. Check out post #4 on this thread.

Prescient, no?

[William Kelly]

"This is the third or fourth time I tried to end the thread..." Prof. Fetzer

Wait, wait, not yet, there's still a question on the table. Kathleen wants to know if Oswald practiced safe sex.

And 400 more hits to reach six figures. Let's go for it.

Does the administration's statistics show of a more popular thread?

BK

Edited May 6, 2010 by William Kelly

[Cliff Varnell]

"This is the third or fourth time I tried to end the thread..." Prof. Fetzer

Wait, wait, not yet, there's still a question on the table. Kathleen wants to know if Oswald practiced safe sex.

And 400 more hits to reach six figures. Let's go for it.

Does the administration's statistics show of a more popular thread?

BK

Someone correct me if I'm wrong -- but isn't the record holder a thread

devoted to Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked?

You know...real research...

[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 listened to the entire podcast of Judyth. Overall, she presented herself very well and with more personality than I have seen in prior interviews. The bottom line will continue to be if her assertions check out. The only question I heard addressed that I raised was the first one about the handwriting. It appeared that she is not going to have it examined but then offered a handwriting analysis herself. Again, she cannot be the analyst for her own evidence. No expert is going to reach a conclusion in a few minutes as she suggested. Some of the responses were unusual such as about the motorcade going past John Connolly's apartment on Turtle Creek Road. I thought he lived in the governor's mansion. Was she suggesting someone was filming the motorcade for him from the apartment? She also offerred that people on the forum did not know how to deal with witnesses, only documents. I assure you I have dealt with more witnesses than you can possibly imagine and I am certain that others here have experiences. Corroboration is very important. I am waiting to see how things turn out with things she has claimed to have done. Legitimate questions are being pursued. I am puzzled why you are proclaiming she is authentic while these questions are still in the air. I am keeping an open mind and seeing if her assertions are true. She will always create a doubt unless she has the handwriting properly analyzed. I was also puzzled about the monkeys. She kept saying thousands of pounds of monkeys , not thousands of monkeys, but then talked about 65 pound monkeys. She later talked about the marmousett(sic) monkeys but thousands of pounds of these would be thousands of monkeys. It may be my misunderstanding but it was not clear to me. I have yet to listen to her witnesses but will do so. It matters not to me if they are prominent or homeless or whatever but everyone judging this will weigh their demeanor, etc. I don't know if someone is confronting them with question. I wish I could question them.

I recall that Lifton wrote that he would post the tape with Judyth as an mp3 for all to hear if Judyth would sign a release. Wouldn't that be the most fair method since it is not you that needs to be convinced but rather than all the people who are interested in her story? They are the ultimate jury. Nobody is going to judge this because of what you, I,David, Barb, Jack, etc.ay. They will judge for themselves. There is one major point on which I disagree with you. I think people on this forum have been very fair to her. They have made observations and asked good questions. Rather than attack them for not being observant as you I think you need to understand that these are people truly interested in the assassination. Are people not interested going to even pay attention to this? Between your 152 I.Q. and my 75 I.Q. I am certain the vast majority of the people following this will fall somewhere in between and it is not you or I, but it is the court of public opinion that will need to be persuaded.

Doug Weldon

[Barb Junkkarinen]

At that time, Jack, many states required a blood test as well ... and Judyth mentions they needed to get a blood test in her book. The test was a VDRL which is a test for syphilis ... the test had to be ordered as a "pre-marital" so that a signed certificate would be issued with the (hopefully!) negative results. Couples then took their health certificates to the courthouse to get their marriage license. No official signed health certificates, no marriage license.

Bests,

Barb :-)

I forgot about blood tests. As I recall, they take several days to do the lab work. The quickie marriage

elopement overnight to Mobile could have taken a week, including the lab work and waiting period,

the ceremony, and the honeymoon. What is Judyth's timeline on the elopement?

And she never did respond to my friend's claim that she and Baker were married in Florida, not Alabama.

Were announcements of the marriage printed in any newspaper? If they were in New Orleans, as she

says, why did they go to Mobile to tie the knot? Why not just get married in romantic New Orleans?

Jack

Jack,

VDRLs were mostly done at hospital labs and reference labs .... labs at clinics generally didn't do them unless their patient population required that test often. Too spendy to keep the reagents on hand otherwise. The clinic/lab where I worked in San Diego, we sent them out to our reference lab ... and generally had them back the next day, or the day after tops. But it was not a same day test. That's not to say that one couldn't wheedle and whine their way into getting a lab to do a quicker turnaround for them if they had their blood drawn early enough in the day, but that wasn't something someone planning to get married could expect/plan on.

Judyth's timeline in her book is that Robert was to arrive on the morning of May 1 and they would go straight to the courthouse to buy their license and get married. He arrived, they went to the courthouse ... and learned there was a 2 day waiting period in Louisiana. Neither of them had checked the details ahead of time. So, then they went to the library and looked up nearby states and discovered there was no waiting period in Alabama .... so the next morning they drove to Mobile.

She says they went and bought their marriage license and were then sent to the hospital for their blood tests .... and as soon as their blood was drawn, they were given the certificates they needed to go around the corner and get married. In a footnote she relates that for years she had "believed" they got the results right on the spot, but then realizing that would have been "clinically impossible" and that "what happened" was that they were sent the results by mail, or as related in the text, she writes in parentheses that "the test results, if positive, would have been sent to us."

Procedurally, this makes no sense .... as the purpose for the law was to prevent people with syphilis from marrying and spreading the joy. I don't know how they operated in Alabama in 1963 .... will have to find out. Nor does it make sense to me that after a celebratory dinner, they went back to the hospital pharmacy to pick up her birth control pills. Ya know what they call people who start taking their birth control pills on their wedding night? Mommy & Daddy. And what doctor ordered them?

And, yes, I noticed, she hasn't answered your question.

Barb :-)

[Glenn Viklund]

Ya know what they call people who start taking their birth control pills on their wedding night? Mommy & Daddy. And what doctor ordered them?

Barb :-)

Barb,

Scratching my head here, how does that work?