Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO DOUG WELDON (HE HOPES) FOR THE FINAL TIME

It defies belief that you would come onto this thread again without having

read the posts that intervened. When someone pointed out that you were

looking for more from me but I had indicated I was "signing off", you said

you had read the last three posts and had no idea. But the first of those

posts BEGAN with a statement that I had no desire to continue with this,

especially since studies discussed in The Guardian have established that,

when those who are committed to a certain point of view are presented

with corrective information, it REINFORCES their commitment instead of

causing them to adjust their beliefs. And that conclusion, which simply

dumbfounds me, has been powerfully confirmed by my experience here.

Many of your contributions, including this post, do nothing to reassure me.

After all, here's Doug Weldon, experienced prosecutor and processor of

witnesses extraordinaire. He makes this post without having even read

#2180. He appears to have completely missed #2055. He doesn't even

spell John Connally's name correctly. Let me offer a caricature of what

the petty participants on this forum would do with him. How can he post

when he isn't reading them? Sometimes he seems to know what he is

talking about, but other times he misses the boat by a mile! Here the

one posting can't even spell "Connally", but other times he has spelled

the name correctly. How can some of these posts come from someone

who is on top of things and others from someone who is not? Some of

them spell his name correctly, others do not. These inconsistencies are

difficult to explain unless, perhaps, there actually are "two Weldons"!

Indeed, I take it his commitment to HARVEY & LEE largely motivates

his interest in Judyth. Yet when she and I have raised questions about

the adequacy of John Armstrong's research--about the "index" to the

26 volumes, the date of founding of the Warren Commission, the eye-

color difference claim, the use of aspect-ratio distortions to bolster a

weak case for photographic support, and even "Harvey"'s aunt Lillian

purportedly paying for "Lee"'s dental work--there has been nothing to

my knowledge coming from Doug Weldon. Jack even began a thread,

"For Jim/Judyth" (now on page 12 of the index) to collate them. When

I point out that Jack's allegation about Judyth's story being "illogical"

applies equally to the story of HARVEY & LEE, we hear nothing from him.

Let me show how easy it would be to shred Doug Weldon on the stand.

"Mr. Weldon, you say you 'listened to the entire podcast'. Which one is

that? There are two two-hour interviews which have been posted there.

Which one did you listen to? You also say, 'the only question you heard

addressed was the one about handwriting'. But don't you know that she

had also done some eleven YouTube interviews, many of which deal with

specific questions that have been raised on the forum, such as the 'Can-

cun/Kankun' controversy? You suggest that Judyth should ask Lifton to

post the audio of his conversation with her if she will declare that she is

not going to bring a suit against him. But don't you know Judyth herself

has observed that the statute of limitations has surely run out on making

such a legal filing? You are an attorney, are you not? You don't know?"

"Included on the blogs Dr. Fetzer has created about her, you can find an

interview with Anna Lewis, who was a friend of Judyth's in New Orleans

and who, with her husband, David, 'double-dated' with Judyth and Lee.

Have you watched that video? Because there are living witnesses who

support Judyth's story. Another is a classmate from the University of

Florida in whom she confided about her plans to head for New Orleans

in the expectation of entering the Tulane Medical School. She, too, is

still alive and attests to the truth of Judyth's story. Her name is Kathy

Santa, M.D. How can an experienced attorney such as yourself be so

oblivious of the importance of living witnesses who support her story?"

"Mr. Weldon, you say you are puzzled that Dr. Fetzer finds Judyth to be

credible when there are lingering questions about aspects of her story,

such as details about the monkey business and her marriage to Robert.

Jack White has repeatedly confounded the weight of the monkeys with

their number. Have you ever corrected him about his blunder? Indeed,

have you ever corrected any of Judyth's critics for their mistakes? Why,

when Dr. Fetzer has had overwhelmingly more direct interaction with her

and two of his closest friends--who are nobody's fool--have lived with her

for a week in a modest rooming house, relating with her every minute of

the day, do you suppose that inferences you are drawing from purported

inconsistencies in minutia should be weighted more than their experience?

Why are you unwilling to grant the least force to their personal knowledge?"

"As an experienced attorney, are you unaware that witnesses repeatedly

subjected to interrogations about their stories commonly describe them in

slightly variant ways across time and under different circumstances, where

those minor inconsistencies do nothing to impeach the integrity of what they

have to tell us? Isn't there something about materiality that matters? And

if this witness has been subjected to multiple mischaracterizations on many

different forums, don't you think it becomes trifling to offer inconsistencies

that are artificial rather than genuine? Yet you appear to be unwilling to

acknowledge any of these obvious considerations. You do not even seem

willing to grant that someone subjected to impersonation is probably real!

Is your devotion to HARVEY & LEE so great you won't give her a fair shake?"

Not only have you apparently not read my "sign off" post #2180 but to the

best of my knowledge, you have never responded to the series of posts in

which I lay out some of the crucial aspects of Judyth's story, including one

about Ochsner (#2120), another on the consistency of Judyth's story over

time (#2121), another on Lee's handwriting and Judyth's sample (#2122),

an important one on "the disappearing witness" (#2123), and a fourth on

maintaining control of witnesses at East Louisiana State Hospital (#2124).

All of these provide substantial circumstantial evidence supporting Judyth's

story. But Weldon is so careless in dealing with them that he even claims

the comparison comes from Judyth when it comes from Howard Platzman.

For an experienced prosecutor, I would have thought the post about "the

disappearing witness" (#2123) would have caught your eye. There are

several early reports of a woman accompanying Lee Oswald, first, when

he enters a barbershop to have a hair cut, second, when he visits a state

representative whose daughter, Mary Morgan, observes the woman in an

old car from which Oswald has entered the house. In successive reports

about it, this person gradually disappears, to the extent that recent work

by associates of Jim DiEugenio maintains she was never there, as though

their much later work could possibly qualify as more reliable than earlier

work by Jim Garrison's staff! This appears to be a stunning example of a

methodological blunder, as I have taken pains to explain above (#2142).

Lest anyone suppose my disagreements with Jack White, David S. Lifton,

Doug Weldon, or Jim DiEugenio are rooted in past conflicts between us, I

am glad to take this opportunity to dispose of any such illusions, namely:

Jack and I have collaborated extensively in the past, where I published

his studies in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). He and I

have fought many battles together on the same side against the forces

of darkness in relation to JFK research. I have admired him greatly in

the past, but his utter unwillingness to open his mind to the possibility

that Judyth's story might be true has driven me up the wall. In spite

of my enormous affection for Jack, I am appalled by his ignorance of

basic aspects of the case, which I addressed, for example, in #2073.

As I have observed on more than one occasion, I learned more about

JFK from BEST EVIDENCE (1980) than from any other source when I

first became serious about JFK research and I consider my three books

as sequels to Lifton's studies. When DiEugeio attacked Doug Horne for

his support of Lifton's views, I defended Horne and Lifton against Jim,

as anyone can see (#2157). When Lifton's laptop was stolen from his

car in Santa Monica, he called me for help and I lent him $1,000 to buy

a replacement. But his attitude toward Judyth is simply inexcusable. He

could have contributed so much more, including about HARVEY & LEE.

I have long admired Jim DiEugenio for his dogged determination with

respect to Vincent Buliosi's RECLAIMING HISTORY, where John and I

republished all eight installments of his critique and more in our co-

edited journal, assassinationresearch.com. He has a background in

history, which meant that I was taken aback to discovery that he was

reviewing Horne's book and attacking his admiration for Lifton's work

without realizing that INSIDE THE ARRB vindicates Lifton's research!

That he would attempt to undermine "The Disappearing Witness" by

granting more weight to later interviews than to earlier ones (given

the fallibility of memories, the corruption of investigations of JFK and

the pressure that has no doubt been placed upon them) stunned me.

Doug Weldon speaks with a soft voice but has a considerable intellect.

I published his brilliant study of the Lincoln limousine in MURDER and I

have defended his research in many contexts, including a recent thread

on this very forum. Why he should denigrate his own IQ escapes me,

because he ordinarily qualifies as one of the more patient and thorough

-going students of JFK in town--with the striking exception of his work on

Judyth, which has been slipshod in the extreme. He has taken a casual

approach to this thread, reading intermittently and often posting without

catching up on the state of discussion, as he has done here (see above).

If his research on the limo had been this shoddy, I would not have used

it. Judyth appears to be a special case that tests the integrity of us all.

On the other hand, there have been interesting contributions from others

who were not well known to me, including Michael Hogan, Karl Kinaski,

and Pamela Brown, who have made subtle and penetrating comments,

with which I often agree. Others have been more predictable, such as

. . . . Well, you know their names. They practice the art of flooding the

thread each time I make a consequential post, in the hope that no one

is going to notice. Those who want to study the black arts could learn a

thing or two from them. I close with a tip of my hat to Dean Hartwell,

who has (from my point of view) been the most objective and balanced

of the contributors to this thread. And in recognition thereof, I present:

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]

JUDYTH’S STORY HAS REMAINED CONSTANT ACROSS TIME

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the AIDS virus.(75)

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, a precursor to the AIDS virus.(76)

The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that could knock out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidneys of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, Simian Virus 40 (SV-40), unrelated to the AIDS virus.(77)

Note that the first two quotes above are from material written before Judyth read Haslam's first book in late 1999/early 2000 (her amazon review, posted earlier today, is dated January 19, 2000) .... the third quote is from later ... after she is known to have read and reviewed Haslam's book.

Dave Reitzes, whose link David Lifton posted a few days ago, has done a great job collecting and sourcing a lot

of the changes in Judyth's claims/story "across time" ... including the above.

The numbered source notes:

75. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance: Outline of the Conspiracy": "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the AIDS virus."

76. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance," alternate draft provided to Robert Vernon, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004: "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the PRECURSOR OF THE AIDS virus. Note: This material, DERIVED FROM VIRAL CONTAMINANTS FOUND in the early polio vaccine and other applications, is now the subject of an important new book on the origin of AIDS, Edward Hooper's The River." "Judyth's Story," outline provided to Robert Vernon on December 23, 1999, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004: "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the cancer cells. This material -- from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- is now the subject of a new book on the origin of AIDS." Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, October 9, 2004: "Read the book. [Note: Judyth acknowledged in an Internet forum post of September 27, 2004, that despite five years of trying, she has been unable to find a publisher for her book.] The matter is too complex to be explained by Mr. Reitzes, who is relying on a portion of an incomplete summary of the process written by somebody else."

77. Rene Zwaap, "An American Hero," De Groene Amsterdammer, June 21, 2003 (based on an interview with Judyth Vary Baker), automated translation, posted by John McAdams to alt.assassination.jfk, July 8. 2003: "[Oswald] got a hurry course over it go around with the transport of living cancer cells, that in a special chemical liquid living could become hold. By that technique was worked with SV-40, material that were pulled from the kidneys [of monkeys], that also became uses by the development of the polio vaccine. The target of the operation was Castro with it to infect. He stood known as a lover of cigars and nobody will it thus strangely of look up as he lung cancer would get." Howard Platzman, alt.assassination.jfk post, August 31, 2003: "The outline is meant as a catch-all. It has had errors in it before and it probably has errors in it now. . . . Anyway, the medical stuff is not that easy to understand and I got parts of it wrong myself, so please tread with caution. SV-40 is not HIV, but they are related. Initially, I thought they were the same. Both attack the immune system and both jumped species from monkey to man."

Dave's site:

http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-story.html

And thanks to Dave for having had things in one place, all sourced, for a very long time now ... a real time saver.

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO JACK FOR (WHAT THEY BOTH HOPE IS) THE LAST TIME

It pains me to see Jack reiterating the kind of nonsense that has appeared on the

McAdams forum, which has featured a thread using the name “Haslam attacks

Blackburst on Educational Forum.” But that is far removed from the truth about

Ed Haslam, where Jack appears to have fallen for inaccurate information there.

I offer these corrections for the benefit of members of both forums, in particular:

Strike one: Haslam did not attack anyone on the Educational Forum. McAdams

copied one of my posts from The Educational Forum, not Ed's. What I posted

was a private email from him to me in which he suggested to me that I ignore

Stephen Roy’s criticism of DR. MARY'S MONKEY and encouraged me not to post

any response whatsoever to the Blackburst post. That was not even “an attack.” '

Since it was I who posted Ed's email to me on the forum, blaming Haslam for “the

attack” and distorting what happened in the headline is a gross misrepresentation.

Some may wonder about the motive behind this not-so-subtle attempt to mislead

that crowd, but I am not surprise. Was it to incite them to rally against Ed in the

hope of tarnishing him and defending Blackburst? It certainly looks like that to me.

Strike two: McAdams said that Ed Haslam was a graduate of Marquette University.

I contacted Ed and confirmed that he never attended Marquette University. It’s a

gross error that McAdams did not bother to check. Further, Ed pointed out to me

that he devoted two chapters in DR. MARY'S MONKEY to his years as a student at

Tulane University in New Orleans during both undergraduate and graduate school.

So it appears that McAdams, like Jack White, has not yet even read Haslam’s book.

Strike three: McAdams identified Haslam as “Haslem,” like “McAdems”, despite the

fact that Haslam’s name was correctly spelled in large type in the thread’s heading.

This is sloppy writing for a college professor, which smacks of intentional disrespect,

but the mistakes do not stop with McAdams and are not so trivial as this. Consider:

Dave Reitzes cited an undated post from Greg Burnham which said that Haslam’s

father worked at Ochsner Clinic. Again, I checked with Haslam who said that his

father never worked for Ochsner Clinic, though he did acknowledge that both men

were doctors affiliated with Tulane Medical School at various points in their careers,

although in different departments. This may be the source of Jack's latest mistake.

One last point. Attorney Robert Harris claimed to have spoken to Ed Haslam in his

office in Albuquerque and discussed his first book, MARY, FERRIE, & THE MONKEY

VIRUS with him. This was in the 1990s, however, which was years before Ed moved

to Florida where "60 Minutes" introduced him to Judyth Vary Baker. It was Judyth's

personal testimony that confirmed Haslam’s suspicions of a biological weapon activity

in David Ferrie’s apartment and confirmed Alton Ochsner’s connection to that effort.

So Ed acknowledged that he did not have a witness to support his suspicions of bio-

weapon activity at a time when he did not have a witness. Today he has a witness

who confirms the bio-weapon activity. Obviously, Ed would be keenly interested in

a witness who confirmed his well-founded suspicions about events in New Orleans,

just as Lifton cares about Bethesda witnesses who confirm his suspicions about body

alteration and Weldon witnesses about the Lincoln limo. None of them would want

false witnesses for any of these issues. And, so far as I can see, none of them has.

P.S. My friend, Lola, just observed, "I don't bother with Jack anymore. He receives a

complimentary copy of DR. MARY'S MONKEY from Haslam himself, and doesn't even

bother to go to his website and get the email there. And he will read the book when

he has the time...I am not impressed in the slightest. HARVEY & LEE is Jack's bible."

So for Jack to claim he has "no vested interest" here is not the case and never was.

David,

......You have a motive that drives you--to protect your investment in your

manuscript, which I presume has to be tossed if Judyth is correct.

David Lifton has probably spent spent many sleepless nights since this thread commenced,

worried that Jim Fetzer was going to prove to the world that Judyth Baker is the "real deal."

I'm sure that Jim is aware that Ed Haslam had a very strong motive to believe JVB's story,

a belief that Haslam has admitted is based largely on faith. (i.e. his belief in her "as a person.")

Haslam knew that his first book, Mary, Ferrie & the Monkey Virus (1995) suffered from the

lack of a "living witness." In the five years since he self-published it, Haslam sold 2000 copies,

1000 of which were Xeroxed.

In 2000, after becoming aware of Judyth Baker via 60 Minutes, Haslam's first thoughts were

of concern "that 60M could easily discredit her story as a means of discrediting my story." (Page 285, DMM)

Thus it was established early on that Haslam had a vested interest in JVB being the "real deal."

You have a very good point that several people who discredit JVB have a vested interest

in debunking her. Likewise, those who promote her also have a vested interest. Her wild tales,

if true, impeaches years of research, or at least an investment of time and credibility (such as in

Jim's case).

I have NO vested interest either way. Her strange stories to me make NO difference in the JFK

investigation. I am impartial, but not neutral. After evaluating her stories, I believe they are

largely fiction based on a minimal truth and massive research.

I believe Haslam's vested interest was related to his father. His father, Dr. Ed Haslam, worked

for Dr. Oschner. Through family connections I speculate that he suspected that the AIDS virus

had been produced by the Oschner group, and as a family matter, he wanted to clear his father

of any participation in the monkey research. This is just speculation, of course...but would be

a far stronger motive than just writing a book. The JVB part is merely a late addition to the

book in order to try to confirm some loose ends.

Jack

Edited May 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[John Dolva]

I'm a bit puzzled by Judyths claim to be a socialist, when she bacame one, why she thought it relevant re asylum seeking, and why, as a socialist, associating with the sisterhood in a plan to kill Castro. Also, the actual court transcripts, and maybe the deliberations, should be providable by her?

[Dean Hagerman]

Early Judyth, excerpt from an e-mail ... from October 2000.

Subj: Re: test

Date: 10/6/00 3:49:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Americanwebworks

To: Dreitzes

CC: Howpl

(.........................)

i am not interested in maing any money or peddling a book. I got an

agent hoping to get the book i wrote--which put everything down in

detail before i talked to anybody, and then had a professor keep a

truncated version of it in caseanything happened to me--that shows i

have never deviated from my account from the first. however, if people

ask me something, i will add information. For exakple, Debra Conway

asked me intimate questions about Lee, since she knew information from

things i never knew existed. Example: was lee circumcized? (no). The

pointnis that whatever i might not have thought to put down, if

somebody asked, i emailed them .....

(.......)

God bless you,Dave,

Judyth V. Baker

Per Oswald autopsy report:

The penis is circumcised.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H26_CE_3002.pdf

Circumcision comment is third to last comment in second paragraph.

Barb :-)

I have photographic proof that Oswald is in fact circumcised

The autopsy photograph I have leaves no doubt that he is

Add this with the autopsy report and we have a for sure strike against Judyth that she had no idea and just guessed that he wasnt

If she had as she said a hot and heavy love affair she would know for SURE if he was or was not circumcised

She said he was NOT

We know for a fact that he WAS

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Early Judyth, excerpt from an e-mail ... from October 2000.

Subj: Re: test

Date: 10/6/00 3:49:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Americanwebworks

To: Dreitzes

CC: Howpl

(.........................)

i am not interested in maing any money or peddling a book. I got an

agent hoping to get the book i wrote--which put everything down in

detail before i talked to anybody, and then had a professor keep a

truncated version of it in caseanything happened to me--that shows i

have never deviated from my account from the first. however, if people

ask me something, i will add information. For exakple, Debra Conway

asked me intimate questions about Lee, since she knew information from

things i never knew existed. Example: was lee circumcized? (no). The

pointnis that whatever i might not have thought to put down, if

somebody asked, i emailed them .....

(.......)

God bless you,Dave,

Judyth V. Baker

Per Oswald autopsy report:

The penis is circumcised.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H26_CE_3002.pdf

Circumcision comment is third to last comment in second paragraph.

Barb :-)

I have photographic proof that Oswald is in fact circumcised

The autopsy photograph I have leaves no doubt that he is

Add this with the autopsy report and we have a for sure strike against Judyth that she had no idea and just guessed that he wasnt

If she had as she said a hot and heavy love affair she would know for SURE if he was or was not circumcised

She said he was NOT

We know for a fact that he WAS

Ahhh, yes ... those autopsy photos. Thanks for posting and confirming that the autopsy report

and the autopsy photo are in agreement, Dean.

Bests to you,

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

It's the pointnis that's circumcized. (musta been a bad hair day)

edit:typos

LOL!

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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?

Haha! Well, they *don't* work instantaneously ... need to be on the pill for a month before you are protected from pregnancy.

Barb :-)

[Doug Weldon]

JIM RESPONDS TO DOUG WELDON (HE HOPES) FOR THE FINAL TIME

It defies belief that you would come onto this thread again without having

read the posts that intervened. When someone pointed out that you were

looking for more from me but I had indicated I was "signing off", you said

you had read the last three posts and had no idea. But the first of those

posts BEGAN with a statement that I had no desire to continue with this,

especially since studies discussed in The Guardian have established that,

when those who are committed to a certain point of view are presented

with corrective information, it REINFORCES their commitment instead of

causing them to adjust their beliefs. And that conclusion, which simply

dumbfounds me, has been powerfully confirmed by my experience here.

Many of your contributions, including this post, do nothing to reassure me.

After all, here's Doug Weldon, experienced prosecutor and processor of

witnesses extraordinaire. He makes this post without having even read

#2180. He appears to have completely missed #2055. He doesn't even

spell John Connally's name correctly. Let me offer a caricature of what

the petty participants on this forum would do with him. How can he post

when he isn't reading them? Sometimes he seems to know what he is

talking about, but other times he misses the boat by a mile! Here the

one posting can't even spell "Connally", but other times he has spelled

the name correctly. How can some of these posts come from someone

who is on top of things and others from someone who is not? Some of

them spell his name correctly, others do not. These inconsistencies are

difficult to explain unless, perhaps, there actually are "two Weldons"!

Indeed, I take it his commitment to HARVEY & LEE largely motivates

his interest in Judyth. Yet when she and I have raised questions about

the adequacy of John Armstrong's research--about the "index" to the

26 volumes, the date of founding of the Warren Commission, the eye-

color difference claim, the use of aspect-ratio distortions to bolster a

weak case for photographic support, and even "Harvey"'s aunt Lillian

purportedly paying for "Lee"'s dental work--there has been nothing to

my knowledge coming from Doug Weldon. Jack even began a thread,

"For Jim/Judyth" (now on page 12 of the index) to collate them. When

I point out that Jack's allegation about Judyth's story being "illogical"

applies equally to the story of HARVEY & LEE, we hear nothing from him.

Let me show how easy it would be to shred Doug Weldon on the stand.

"Mr. Weldon, you say you 'listened to the entire podcast'. Which one is

that? There are two two-hour interviews which have been posted there.

Which one did you listen to? You also say, 'the only question you heard

addressed was the one about handwriting'. But don't you know that she

had also done some eleven YouTube interviews, many of which deal with

specific questions that have been raised on the forum, such as the 'Can-

cun/Kankun' controversy? You suggest that Judyth should ask Lifton to

post the audio of his conversation with her if she will declare that she is

not going to bring a suit against him. But don't you know Judyth herself

has observed that the statute of limitations has surely run out on making

such a legal filing? You are an attorney, are you not? You don't know?"

"Included on the blogs Dr. Fetzer has created about her, you can find an

interview with Anna Lewis, who was a friend of Judyth's in New Orleans

and who, with her husband, David, 'double-dated' with Judyth and Lee.

Have you watched that video? Because there are living witnesses who

support Judyth's story. Another is a classmate from the University of

Florida in whom she confided about her plans to head for New Orleans

in the expectation of entering the Tulane Medical School. She, too, is

still alive and attests to the truth of Judyth's story. Her name is Kathy

Santa, M.D. How can an experienced attorney such as yourself be so

oblivious of the importance of living witnesses who support her story?"

"Mr. Weldon, you say you are puzzled that Dr. Fetzer finds Judyth to be

credible when there are lingering questions about aspects of her story,

such as details about the monkey business and her marriage to Robert.

Jack White has repeatedly confounded the weight of the monkeys with

their number. Have you ever corrected him about his blunder? Indeed,

have you ever corrected any of Judyth's critics for their mistakes? Why,

when Dr. Fetzer has had overwhelmingly more direct interaction with her

and two of his closest friends--who are nobody's fool--have lived with her

for a week in a modest rooming house, relating with her every minute of

the day, do you suppose that inferences you are drawing from purported

inconsistencies in minutia should be weighted more than their experience?

Why are you unwilling to grant the least force to their personal knowledge?"

"As an experienced attorney, are you unaware that witnesses repeatedly

subjected to interrogations about their stories commonly describe them in

slightly variant ways across time and under different circumstances, where

those minor inconsistencies do nothing to impeach the integrity of what they

have to tell us? Isn't there something about materiality that matters? And

if this witness has been subjected to multiple mischaracterizations on many

different forums, don't you think it becomes trifling to offer inconsistencies

that are artificial rather than genuine? Yet you appear to be unwilling to

acknowledge any of these obvious considerations. You do not even seem

willing to grant that someone subjected to impersonation is probably real!

Is your devotion to HARVEY & LEE so great you won't give her a fair shake?"

Not only have you apparently not read my "sign off" post #2180 but to the

best of my knowledge, you have never responded to the series of posts in

which I lay out some of the crucial aspects of Judyth's story, including one

about Ochsner (#2120), another on the consistency of Judyth's story over

time (#2121), another on Lee's handwriting and Judyth's sample (#2122),

an important one on "the disappearing witness" (#2123), and a fourth on

maintaining control of witnesses at East Louisiana State Hospital (#2124).

All of these provide substantial circumstantial evidence supporting Judyth's

story. But Weldon is so careless in dealing with them that he even claims

the comparison comes from Judyth when it comes from Howard Platzman.

For an experienced prosecutor, I would have thought the post about "the

disappearing witness" (#2123) would have caught your eye. There are

several early reports of a woman accompanying Lee Oswald, first, when

he enters a barbershop to have a hair cut, second, when he visits a state

representative whose daughter, Mary Morgan, observes the woman in an

old car from which Oswald has entered the house. In successive reports

about it, this person gradually disappears, to the extent that recent work

by associates of Jim DiEugenio maintains she was never there, as though

their much later work could possibly qualify as more reliable than earlier

work by Jim Garrison's staff! This appears to be a stunning example of a

methodological blunder, as I have taken pains to explain above (#2142).

Lest anyone suppose my disagreements with Jack White, David S. Lifton,

Doug Weldon, or Jim DiEugenio are rooted in past conflicts between us, I

am glad to take this opportunity to dispose of any such illusions, namely:

Jack and I have collaborated extensively in the past, where I published

his studies in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY

PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). He and I

have fought many battles together on the same side against the forces

of darkness in relation to JFK research. I have admired him greatly in

the past, but his utter unwillingness to open his mind to the possibility

that Judyth's story might be true has driven me up the wall. In spite

of my enormous affection for Jack, I am appalled by his ignorance of

basic aspects of the case, which I addressed, for example, in #2073.

As I have observed on more than one occasion, I learned more about

JFK from BEST EVIDENCE (1980) than from any other source when I

first became serious about JFK research and I consider my three books

as sequels to Lifton's studies. When DiEugeio attacked Doug Horne for

his support of Lifton's views, I defended Horne and Lifton against Jim,

as anyone can see (#2157). When Lifton's laptop was stolen from his

car in Santa Monica, he called me for help and I lent him $1,000 to buy

a replacement. But his attitude toward Judyth is simply inexcusable. He

could have contributed so much more, including about HARVEY & LEE.

I have long admired Jim DiEugenio for his dogged determination with

respect to Vincent Buliosi's RECLAIMING HISTORY, where John and I

republished all eight installments of his critique and more in our co-

edited journal, assassinationresearch.com. He has a background in

history, which meant that I was taken aback to discovery that he was

reviewing Horne's book and attacking his admiration for Lifton's work

without realizing that INSIDE THE ARRB vindicates Lifton's research!

That he would attempt to undermine "The Disappearing Witness" by

granting more weight to later interviews than to earlier ones (given

the fallibility of memories, the corruption of investigations of JFK and

the pressure that has no doubt been placed upon them) stunned me.

Doug Weldon speaks with a soft voice but has a considerable intellect.

I published his brilliant study of the Lincoln limousine in MURDER and I

have defended his research in many contexts, including a recent thread

on this very forum. Why he should denigrate his own IQ escapes me,

because he ordinarily qualifies as one of the more patient and thorough

-going students of JFK in town--with the striking exception of his work on

Judyth, which has been slipshod in the extreme. He has taken a casual

approach to this thread, reading intermittently and often posting without

catching up on the state of discussion, as he has done here (see above).

If his research on the limo had been this shoddy, I would not have used

it. Judyth appears to be a special case that tests the integrity of us all.

On the other hand, there have been interesting contributions from others

who were not well known to me, including Michael Hogan, Karl Kinaski,

and Pamela Brown, who have made subtle and penetrating comments,

with which I often agree. Others have been more predictable, such as

. . . . Well, you know their names. They practice the art of flooding the

thread each time I make a consequential post, in the hope that no one

is going to notice. Those who want to study the black arts could learn a

thing or two from them. I close with a tip of my hat to Dean Hartwell,

who has (from my point of view) been the most objective and balanced

of the contributors to this thread. And in recognition thereof, I present:

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

Jim:

I hope this is my last reply to this thread. I listened to both podcasts. Judyth never responded to any of the four questions I raised except to state she will not submit the alleged LHO writing to an independent handwriting analysis. I became even more concerned when I heard how much she knows about handwriting analysis annd offered her opinions on the writings.. It further raises my concern that the writing could be a careFul forgery. Yes, I am a poor typist and unfortunately this forum does not provide a spelling analysis. How would I possibly know what the statute of limitations or laws are in California? In many states if one party knows a conversation is being taped it is legal. I have no devotion to Harvey and Lee but there are many impressive points. I believe that very few of the pertinent questions in this forum have been adequately addressed. I think it likely that Judyth has convinced very few people on this forum and probably has done herself a disservice. Judyth asked why people on this forum did not ask her questions directly on this forum? It is the same logic she has used with many of her contentions. She ignores that she used you as a conduit for whatever points or questions she chose to address. It is time for this to end. Good luck on her book and movie rights. Ultimately she remains an elusive and damaged witness.

Doug Weldon

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is embarrassing. I have previously explained to Dean that what he has

is an alteration of the originals. They are going to great lengths to fake even

the autopsy photos of Oswald. I obtained a full-body photo long ago and, as

I explained to Dean some time ago, it supported Judyth completely. I am very

upset that he would post this, after I had explained to him what is going on.

Is there no end to the rubbish that appears in this thread? I am disgusted.

Early Judyth, excerpt from an e-mail ... from October 2000.

Subj: Re: test

Date: 10/6/00 3:49:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Americanwebworks

To: Dreitzes

CC: Howpl

(.........................)

i am not interested in maing any money or peddling a book. I got an

agent hoping to get the book i wrote--which put everything down in

detail before i talked to anybody, and then had a professor keep a

truncated version of it in caseanything happened to me--that shows i

have never deviated from my account from the first. however, if people

ask me something, i will add information. For exakple, Debra Conway

asked me intimate questions about Lee, since she knew information from

things i never knew existed. Example: was lee circumcized? (no). The

pointnis that whatever i might not have thought to put down, if

somebody asked, i emailed them .....

(.......)

God bless you,Dave,

Judyth V. Baker

Per Oswald autopsy report:

The penis is circumcised.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H26_CE_3002.pdf

Circumcision comment is third to last comment in second paragraph.

Barb :-)

I have photographic proof that Oswald is in fact circumcised

The autopsy photograph I have leaves no doubt that he is

Add this with the autopsy report and we have a for sure strike against Judyth that she had no idea and just guessed that he wasnt

If she had as she said a hot and heavy love affair she would know for SURE if he was or was not circumcised

She said he was NOT

We know for a fact that he WAS

Edited May 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Barb Junkkarinen]

What? Why on earth would anyone alter Oswald's genitals in an autopsy photo?

You expect Dean to take your having "explained" it to him at face value, when he is looking

at the photo he has and it agrees with the autopsy report?

Have you sent this photo of yours to Dean so he can compare?

Aside from that, you are stepping in it here as you are apparently unaware that Judyth later changed her tune

and said Oswald *was circumcized*and went on in a very long ramble about some bogus photo that showed

otherwise and commenting on how she thought the

person who had that bogus photo wasn't a very good researcher.

Sometime between 2000, when she told Debra that LHO was NOT circumsized, and 2009, when she wrote

a very long ramble mentioning it, she learned Oswald was circumsized. It's just another one of those little things

that has not remained constant "across the years."

Oops.

This is embarrassing. I have previously explained to Dean that what he has

is an alteration of the originals. They are going to great lengths to fake even

the autopsy photos of Oswald. I obtained a full-body photo long ago and, as

I explained to Dean some time ago, it supported Judyth completely. I am very

upset that he would post this, after I had explained to him what is going on.

Is there no end to the rubbish that appears in this thread? I am disgusted.

Early Judyth, excerpt from an e-mail ... from October 2000.

Subj: Re: test

Date: 10/6/00 3:49:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Americanwebworks

To: Dreitzes

CC: Howpl

(.........................)

i am not interested in maing any money or peddling a book. I got an

agent hoping to get the book i wrote--which put everything down in

detail before i talked to anybody, and then had a professor keep a

truncated version of it in caseanything happened to me--that shows i

have never deviated from my account from the first. however, if people

ask me something, i will add information. For exakple, Debra Conway

asked me intimate questions about Lee, since she knew information from

things i never knew existed. Example: was lee circumcized? (no). The

pointnis that whatever i might not have thought to put down, if

somebody asked, i emailed them .....

(.......)

God bless you,Dave,

Judyth V. Baker

Per Oswald autopsy report:

The penis is circumcised.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H26_CE_3002.pdf

Circumcision comment is third to last comment in second paragraph.

Barb :-)

I have photographic proof that Oswald is in fact circumcised

The autopsy photograph I have leaves no doubt that he is

Add this with the autopsy report and we have a for sure strike against Judyth that she had no idea and just guessed that he wasnt

If she had as she said a hot and heavy love affair she would know for SURE if he was or was not circumcised

She said he was NOT

We know for a fact that he WAS

[Jack White]

What? Why on earth would anyone alter Oswald's genitals in an autopsy photo?

You expect Dean to take your having "explained" it to him at face value, when he is looking

at the photo he has and it agrees with the autopsy report?

Have you sent this photo of yours to Dean so he can compare?

Aside from that, you are stepping in it here as you are apparently unaware that Judyth later changed her tune

and said Oswald *was circumcized*and went on in a very long ramble about some bogus photo that showed

otherwise and commenting on how she thought the

person who had that bogus photo wasn't a very good researcher.

Sometime between 2000, when she told Debra that LHO was NOT circumsized, and 2009, when she wrote

a very long ramble mentioning it, she learned Oswald was circumsized. It's just another one of those little things

that has not remained constant "across the years."

Oops.

This is embarrassing. I have previously explained to Dean that what he has

is an alteration of the originals. They are going to great lengths to fake even

the autopsy photos of Oswald. I obtained a full-body photo long ago and, as

I explained to Dean some time ago, it supported Judyth completely. I am very

upset that he would post this, after I had explained to him what is going on.

Is there no end to the rubbish that appears in this thread? I am disgusted.

Early Judyth, excerpt from an e-mail ... from October 2000.

Subj: Re: test

Date: 10/6/00 3:49:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Americanwebworks

To: Dreitzes

CC: Howpl

(.........................)

i am not interested in maing any money or peddling a book. I got an

agent hoping to get the book i wrote--which put everything down in

detail before i talked to anybody, and then had a professor keep a

truncated version of it in caseanything happened to me--that shows i

have never deviated from my account from the first. however, if people

ask me something, i will add information. For exakple, Debra Conway

asked me intimate questions about Lee, since she knew information from

things i never knew existed. Example: was lee circumcized? (no). The

pointnis that whatever i might not have thought to put down, if

somebody asked, i emailed them .....

(.......)

God bless you,Dave,

Judyth V. Baker

Per Oswald autopsy report:

The penis is circumcised.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H26_CE_3002.pdf

Circumcision comment is third to last comment in second paragraph.

Barb :-)

I have photographic proof that Oswald is in fact circumcised

The autopsy photograph I have leaves no doubt that he is

Add this with the autopsy report and we have a for sure strike against Judyth that she had no idea and just guessed that he wasnt

If she had as she said a hot and heavy love affair she would know for SURE if he was or was not circumcised

She said he was NOT

We know for a fact that he WAS

Harvey was circumcised (per autopsy report). Lee was not circumcised, as was customary for boys born

in that era, unless Jewish.

Jack

[Greg Parker]

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. [/color]

Please show me the post in which I claimed to "attack" a homeless person Greg

Dont accuse me of something I did not say

I think you need to go back and read what I wrote very slowly

All I did was tell him to please not use that type of vulgar language in front of my wife and other customers

Ya. Sure. People often ambush "stumbling drunks" in the middle of the night making sure there are no witnesses in order to have a quiet chat about proper etiquette.

I'd be amazed if even Kevin or Doug buy that one.

[Greg Parker]

I hope this is my last reply to this thread. I listened to both podcasts. Judyth never responded to any of the four questions I raised except to state she will not submit the alleged LHO writing to an independent handwriting analysis. I became even more concerned when I heard how much she knows about handwriting analysis annd offered her opinions on the writings.. It further raises my concern that the writing could be a careFul forgery. Yes, I am a poor typist and unfortunately this forum does not provide a spelling analysis. How would I possibly know what the statute of limitations or laws are in California? In many states if one party knows a conversation is being taped it is legal. I have no devotion to Harvey and Lee but there are many impressive points.

At the same time you and other Harvey & Leeites bemoan what you consider lack of responsiveness from JVB, you all simultaneously avoid any direct response to points raised about Armstrong's research here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=9502&st=0 or in other threads.

Why is that?

Edited May 7, 2010 by Greg Parker

[Jack White]

One at a time, give me a question about Harvey and Lee, without inflamatory rhetoric.

I will attempt to answer each question, or will ask John.

No legitimate questions will be avoided. Keep brief and to a single point.