Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Stephen Roy]

Jim, with over 2300 posts on this thread it has simply become too unwieldly to go back and find all of your

exact comments about the scholarship and quality of Haslam's research. I do recall you using the words

for the general public in one instance, but the larger point is that you have always defended the scholarship

and research in Dr Mary's Monkey. Your comment about "getting my points straight" is gratuitous.

As far as answering my questions, you have not. You left it that you had contacted Ed Haslam about them and were

waiting for his reply. That is where things were left. If you dispute this, I will take the time and go back and find the post.

I have watched virtually all of Haslam's videos. The more I watch Haslam, the less faith I have in him in terms

of his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers. If he has no evidence or research of his own to

offer regarding his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers, then his book is of questionable value to this thread,

as far as I am concerned.

I have simply claimed that Haslam presents no real evidence or proof that this was so.

You could have conceded that long ago and saved me some time and effort.

Not only that, I have claimed that there are inconsistencies and vagaries in Haslam's account.

I have always confined my comments only to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Baker. If Haslam

expects anyone to believe his account of meeting another Judyth Baker in 1972 with absolutely

no evidence other than his recollections, the rest of his unsupported statements need to be rock-solid

in order to afford him the benefit of the doubt.

(The above edited for space- SR)

Michael:

You and I seem to be among the few who have taken Fetzer's advice and obtained and read Dr. Mary's Monkey, watched/listened to the various YouTube and audio programs and read some of the related literature. While our main points of interest vary - for you, Baker; for me, Ferrie - I think we are seeing it the same way. I expected to see reasonably convincing evidence in support of key assertions, but I have not seen anything approaching that standard.

My key Ferrie questions are: Did Ferrie actually have an "underground medical laboratory" at any location? Did Ferrie actually work with Dr. Mary Sherman? I certainly see Haslam's belief that these things are true, but little if any verfiable, checkable evidence. We end up ultimately with circular corroboration: Baker confirms Haslam, and Haslam confirms Baker.

And my response from Fetzer has been even more troubling than yours. He challenges my qualifications to have an opinion. He invokes Haslam to suggest that I am nothing more than a jealous wannabe. He denigrates my research without making any attempt to see any of it. He tries to put me down by suggesting that my slow caution in my PART-TIME writing of my Ferrie biography doesn't meet his standard of churning out 29 books in even fewer years. Forum rules prevent me from using a word to describe how he has treated me.

I don't know where to go from here. It has become apparent that Fetzer is unwilling to consider contrary opinions and that he cannot discuss without schoolboy attempts at put-downs. I once respected Fetzer's ability to collate and analyze, but my respect has been diluted by his insistence that it will all become clear if we just have faith in his beliefs.

I have no beef with Haslam. I respect that he put his heart and soul into this book, and for all I know, the medical parts may have some substance. I have reservations about his mixing this all with the whole Ferrie and Oswald matter. I wish he had been more diligent in obtaining evidence, and that he was more willing to discuss these matters with people like you and me. And others. And I wish he had found a champion more interested in finding the truth than in proving himself right.

[Jack White]

Jim says that both he and Haslam believe in Judyth.

But I am compelled to point out that believing and believing in are two entirely different

concepts. Believing implies encountering a proven truth. Believing in implies FAITH

that an unproven truth is so.

And he uses the word TESTIMONY regarding Anna and David Lewis. I am led to believe that is

not so. As I understand it, they mention this in a video interview by Wim Dankbaar, who had a pecuniary

interest in anything which supported the JVB story. Nobody knows the details of this "interview", but

it was not "testimony".

Jack

This is great, Michael. What I have said (to the best of my recollection) is that DR. MARY'S MONKEY

is one of the best referenced works I have read written for THE GENERAL PUBLIC. It is far from the

most scholarly books I have read or published, for that matter. Please get your points straight. Ed

has told me more than one occasion that there is a general agreement between those involved with

Judyth that they should not make public statements until ME & LEE appears, no doubt because it is

chock full of new documents, records, and information. Judyth has been very guarded about saying

all she has to say out of concern for her own safety and well being, even though it is my advice that

the more she says, the less she has to fear, since there is less reason to take her out. My impression

is that the book is being printed and that we should not have much longer to wait for a major event!

I not only interviewed him on "The Real Deal" but we have spoken since. He, like me, believes in her.

Some of your questions perplex me, because I have already answered them. Certainly, having said

more than once that I regard you as among the more serious and subtle students of this case, I am

not inclined to neglect you. I find it most interesting that Ed Haslam has reported his own experience

of meeting an impostor "Judyth Vary Baker". It would be some time before he would discover this to

be the case, of course, only after "60 Minutes" contacted him. But that is quite stunning. Why would

the agency go to the trouble to create a fake "Judyth Vary Baker" unless the original one was actually

real and posed a threat to exposing its ops? Not all the evidence relevant to Judyth is to be found in

the pages of that book, of course. Her friend Anna Lewis has testified that she and her husband David

"double-dated" with Judyth and Lee in New Orleans. And her friend Kathy Santi, M.D., has written to

ask why she did not earn her medical degree at Tulane, which they had discussed back in Gainesville.

And the ongoing efforts to make her a "disappearing witness" are powerful proof of her authenticity.

That you would suggest I have claimed Ed's book "proves they were lovers" simply offends me, since

I cannot recall having ever made such a claim. Evidence of their intimacy derives from other sources.

As for your questions, he only met the real "Judyth Vary Baker" when "60 Minutes" brought them into

contact, which Howard Platzman has explained. As for not telling her that he was writing a book, you

seem to be confounding Judyth's initial encounters with him (when he did not mention that) with her

later knowledge about it (when he asked her to review what he had written). I wouldn't have thought

you couldn't figure that one out on your own. As for pursuing the other persons at the party where he

met the impostor "Judyth Vary Baker", I don't know if it has ever crossed his mind. It is an interesting

idea, however, and I will certainly discuss it with him. If you watched the YouTubes I have done with

Judyth, I don't think there is much doubt about her relationship with Lee. Some of the stories that

she tells (about the pronuciation of "New Orleans", for example) are spot-on. And if you listened to

Ed Haslam's four hours on "Coast to Coast AM", you would have no doubt that he believes in Judyth.

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...ey-part-ii.html

From the prologue of Dr Mary's Monkey:

You will find this book as much of a personal odyssey as a journalistic work. But that's what happens

when you investigate a murder only to discover an epidemic. Either way the destination is the same.

I will tell you why I am deeply suspicious of certain activities that occurred in New Orleans in the 1960's

and why you should be too. We will begin with what I personally saw and heard over the years. To that

we add years of research.

Then we get questions. Fair and honorable questions. Questions which

deserve answers. Questions which have their own purpose, their own energy, even their own dignity. (italics added)

Questions which will eventually help us coax this Orwellian monster out of its swamp of secrecy.

Ed Haslam seems to imply that Dr Mary's Monkey raises more questions than it answers. With regard

to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Vary Baker, that certainly seems to be the case to me.

Haslam leaves it to the readers' imagination as to whom will answer these questions.

On page 291 of DMM, Ed Haslam asked this question: "Did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963?"

Haslam does not ask the much more difficult question: Were LHO and JVB lovers?

Haslam had seven years from the time he first contacted Judyth Baker until the publication of Doctor Mary's Monkey

to research this question. He had ample opportunity to converse with JVB at will. And in seven years he could come up

with only two pieces of evidence: The Reily pay stubs and Dankbaar's interview with Anna Lewis. Seven years of research?

And that's the only evidence Haslam could provide to answer his own question?

Question: What research did Haslam conduct (primary or otherwise) regarding the alleged LHO/JVB affair during those seven years?

On page 287 of DMM Haslam asks another question: "It makes one wonder: Who really made 60M's decision to abort? And why?"

Haslam gives no indication he ever tried to find out. Two pages earlier, he gave a possible answer for why:

As the dimensions of the story grew, so did 60M's demands for hard evidence. 60M was not about

to risk its credibility over an unsupported story involving a homemade biological weapon and the accused

assassin of the President

without hard evidence. (italics added)

. This is when they contacted me, because

I had already written a book that sounded on-point. (In the next sentence, Haslam says that 60M had not yet read his book!)

Yes, they had my book, but no, they had not read it yet. I insisted that the 60M investigator read it, every word

cover-to-cover, which she later said that she did on her flight back to New York.

No, I did not have the hard evidence about this woman that they were looking for. (italics added)

But I never

said that I did. From my perspective, I was particularly concerned that 60M could easily discredit her story as a means of

discrediting my story. Such were my intitial thoughts.

Question: Which Judyth Baker is Haslam talking about in the last paragraph?

Question: Sixty Minutes contacted Haslam on their own volition, sent him a packet of materials detailing their

prospective story, and flew one of their unnamed investigators to interview him....all without reading his book?

Jim Fetzer has called Haslam's book one of the most scholarly and well-researched books that he has encountered.

Yet it was pointed out to him that Haslam's footnotes in the JVB chapters are rife with unsupported speculations.

(Such as Lee Oswald personally meeting Carlos Marcello several times in 1963 and David Ferrie knowing Jack Ruby

well enough to introduce him to JVB as Sparky Rubinstein). These episodes belong in the Appendix entitled Judyth's Story,

not in the footonotes of another chapter that attempts to ascertain the truthfulness of Haslam's witness.

Much earlier in this thread I spent a considerable amount of time trying to get Jim to answer my questions about

Dr Mary's Monkey. (Not the ones that appear above) Since this is the book that Jim has repeatedly touted

and insisted members read, I think that it is reasonable that he at least make an attempt to address the questions,

even if he prefers not to answer them. Jim did tell me that he referred them to Ed Haslam, but in the course of this thread

Haslam has made it clear that he does not feel it is productive to discuss the Judyth Baker story until her new book comes out.

In much abbreviated form, these were three of them:

Question: Even though Haslam had JVB "correct and corroborate" her story that he published in DMM, why did he

never divulge to her that he was writing a book in which she would play a key role? (That is what JVB claimed)

Question: When did Haslam contact Judyth Baker for the first time?

Question: Why has Haslam made no effort to find the people (including his girl friend at the time) that attended

the other JVB's party in 1972? They could have corroborated his story to 60 Minutes, or to readers of Dr Mary's Monkey.

It is both frustrating and irritating to me that neither Jim nor Ed Haslam want to address any of these rather simple questions.

"Fair and honorable questions. Questions which deserve answers. Questions which have their own purpose, their

own energy, even their own dignity."

During the course of this thread Jim Fetzer became aware of Ed Haslam's Dr Mary's Monkey and ever since that point

he has used it to suggest that it would answer questions and demonstrate that Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker were lovers.

Aside from repeating and refining Baker's story, Haslam's book does little to achieve that end.

[Jack White]

I find the insistence about ANOTHER JUDYTH VARY BAKER very troubling.

Even more troubling is that Haslam produces absolutely no evidence of such

except his memory. Even more troubling than this is that Jim concludes that

the CIA years ago concocted an IMPOSTER JVB especially to misdirect

future attempts by Haslam to expose a sinister plot. (which makes no sense,

if you stop long enough to think about it!)

This is the sort of thing that gives "conspiracy research" a bad reputation.

Jack

I am talking about the core of her account: of having been lured to New Orleans

by Alton Ochsner, of having met Lee H. Oswald early on, of having been taken to

visit Ochsner by Oswald, of meeting David Ferrie and Mary Sherman, of working

with them on a covert bioweapon project, of having a personal relationship with

Lee and such. DR. MARY'S MONKEY lays out the context for all of these events.

Ed Haslam has reiterated his confidence in Judyth on my show and C2C as well.

Living witnesses, such as Kathy Santi, M.D., have confirmed aspects of Judyth's

story. Others, such as Anna Lewis, have confirmed others. The history of the

"disappearing witness" and the existence of an impostor "Judyth Vary Baker"

are striking indications that what she is telling us is true. I know you specialize

in looking for minor inconsistencies across time, but given the treatment that

she has received across forums, they are not surprising and you exploit them.

Those who visit my blog can find not only Haslam's "Coast to Coast" interview

but also my interview with Haslam on "The Real Deal". I and my webmaster.

Lola, went to the trouble of making YouTubes out of our radio interview and

enclosed more than 70 photos and graphics supplementing what we were

discussing. It is not appropriate for person you to continue to post without

listening and viewing the videos, unless, of course, your objective is in fact

to obfuscate the evidence and discourage the study of what she has to tell us.

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...ey-part-ii.html

Well, if it was Platzman's mistake, then why are you holding it against Judyth?

I appreciated it when you said that the "Avary Baker" business was moot. But

when have you admitted that you have made a mistake or acknowledged she

is right about "double-dating", Lee's eye-color, or "the disappearing witness"?

I am not holding any of Platzman's confusion against Judyth. The three statements about what this cancer cocktail *was* cleary changed over time. None of them reflect SV-40 being the AIDS virus, in fact the one description that mentions SV-40 clearly states it is not related to the AIDS virus. What...do you think Howard wrote that stuff? Perhaps he was confused because it kept changing. :-)

The salient point is that her claims and tellings have not remained unchanged over time, as you asserted. Not by a long shot! You don't know the history and trail of her claims that have morphed over the last 10 years.

On "Avary" ... I call them the way I see them. And you glided right over that salient point as well ... She writes a review of Haslam's first book in January 2000 ... in October 2000, 9 mos later, she is emphatically telling Dave Reitzes that she has "NO BOOKS" ... that she doesn't need books because it''s all in her head. And, interestingly enough, it was not until *after* she had read Haslam's book that SV-40 became part of her story. Hello?

I do not acknowledge that she is "right" about double-dating or "the disappearing witness." On Oswald's eye color ... and anything else Harvey & Lee, she is entitled to her opinions after studying the materials ... just like any other researcher. Harvey & Lee stands or falls on its own merit, so does her story. IF Harvey & Lee is wrong ... that does not make Judyth right. They are two separate "theories."

Barb is counting on no one reading this carefully, because it shows Judyth admitting a mistake and correcting

her false impression that SV-40 was the same as AIDS. That turned out to be wrong, which she acknowledged.

That is showing more intellectual integrity than most of her critics on this thread, who never admit mistakes or

acknowledge when she is right about "double-dating" with Anna, Lee's eye-color, or "the disappearing witness".

I hope everyone reads carefully. And more carefully than you .... as the one admitting a mistake was Howard Platzman, as noted below, :

" 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."

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 :-)

[Jack White]

I just spent 30 minutes of random reading in DR. MARY'S MONKEY. I did not turn

immediately to the chapter on JVB.

What most interested me was the chapter on the LINEAR PARTICLE ACCELERATOR.

I found that the entire consideration of the machine as a murder weapon for killing

Dr. Mary was SPECULATION and QUESTIONS posed to himself by Haslam after

being informed by three mysterious unnamed men about the location of a possible

atom splitter device. He calls the men X, Y, and Z...great names for "witnesses".

They led him to an abandoned building near the US Public Health Service Hospital

which had long been empty. Based on the description of one of his witnesses that

the building was wired with high voltage wiring, Haslam concludes that this was

the location where Dr. Mary was murdered by someone using the particle accelerator.

Maybe.

This is the sum of his "evidence"...that an abandoned building that he was told

about by three unnamed men could have been where someone murdered Dr. Mary,

using the most unimaginable of weapons, and to cover the crime, her burned corpse

was transported to her house, and the secret lab was dismantled.

Even it it were featured on CSI: NEW ORLEANS I would find this script more fantasy

than fiction.

More later.

[Bill Byas]

SOME FURTHER REFLECTIONS ABOUT JUDYTH FROM MY PSY OPS EXPERT

NOTE: Given that I have tried to end this thread, I should have anticipated a blizzard of parting

shots, where I anticipate replying more when I am back in touch with Judyth. I am working on

proof that some of these autopsy photos have been faked. I ask anyone who may have copies

to please send them to me. I need to find another copy of a specific autopsy photograph that I

have but am unable to locate. I have asked Jack and some others to provide assistance, where

I will post my findings when I have marshaled the evidence. That it has happened, however, I

have no doubt. When Barb asks "Why in the world would anyone do that?", of course, it pains

me to hear it, since we both know only one person's credibility would thereby be cast into doubt.

I've received some further thoughts from my psy ops expert. Since so much of what appears

here is negative--in my opinion, without justification--I hope that no one is going to complain if

I post his positive review. I would also like to express my appreciate for some posts that came

from Lee Farley and from Todd Vaughan. It is reassuring that a few of those who are following

this thread are exercising some critical judgment, since most of you, in my view, are not. I am

concerned that I have not heard from Judyth since she departed from London on Tuesday, and

I will be relieved to know she is alive and well. My personal experiences with her, including our

collaboration on this thread, convince me beyond any doubt she is the person she claims to be.

FURTHER REFLECTIONS

Your work helping Judyth Vary present her story has generated a xxxxstorm among some whose research is not highly relevant or been shown to probably be down a rabbit hole to no-where. It is a hard landing for those who have spent so much time going in the wrong direction.

As I have said before, regardless of whether folks believe many of the individual details of Judyth's story, the proven presuppositions are important enough to take serious note:

1-Oswald was proven by docs to have been trained as a spy, and to use sex in his tradecraft, did so while stationed at Atsugi (maybe a training exercise, or pulled into a russian female honeypot as a precurser for later op in russia as a defector), got an STD, was treated for it, and was not punished as is typically the case.

2- Judyth was "lured" to New Orleans.

You guys say this over and over. Evidence please.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

As I am about to explain, there is a larger issue here than circumcision, though

I agree that that is a matter that Judyth should address. The concern which I

previously expressed toward Dean had less to do with circumcision and more

to do with faked autopsy photos. But then why should I find that surprising?

No. Judyth not knowing whether or not LHO was circumcised IS the issue. One cannot have an intimate relationship

and have to guess on that question. This issue is not a matter of any autopsy photos having been faked ... for what

purpose... to show an uncircumcised LHO? That some clown may have diddled with autopsy photos for their own purpose

or just to screw with people, maybe. What is the source of the photos, which ones are official matters, of course.

But the autopsy report says he was circumcised.

Judyth said he was not ... then later changed it to something akin to, 'of course he was, the autopsy report even reports that'.

Tilt. Capsized.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Since Judyth is currently unavailable, I spoke with Howard Platzman about

this, and neither of us can figure out why anyone would think that Judyth

would dissemble about something so basic as her marriage to Baker. Jack

is doing his best to build a case, but neither of us thinks that he has one.

I don't know why whomever suggested to Jack the possibility that they had already gotten married in Florida. It is easy

enough to check if anyone cares to do that. But when it comes to why Judyth would "dissemble about something so basic as her marriage to Baker" ... she did tell two distinctly different versions of her wedding day. Both told in great specific detail.

On thread page 151, post #2262, I replied to a question of Jack's saying this:

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.

That triggered a different memory in my head, so I did a little looking and found the original version from 2002. In it, she relates how they got to Mobile, stopped by the hospital to have their blood tests done, then went to the courthouse and got married, and then swung back by the hospital pharmacy to pick up her birth control pills.

Because I know about the premarital blood test (VDRL) from my personal laboratory work experience, which I had already also explained to Jack, I responded to Judyth's 2002 post saying this:

Hello, Judyth....

Am I reading this correctly ... you say you drove to Mobile, Alabama,

got the required blood test and got married .... all on the same

day?????

Thanks,

Barb :-)

Judyth responded with even more detail and was quite emphatic and specific:

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk, alt.conspiracy.jfk

From: electlad...@aol.com (Judyth V. Baker)

Date: 6 Jan 2002 18:55:43 -0500

Local: Sun, Jan 6 2002 4:55 pm

Subject: Re: A Judyth Blooper? WRONG! WHY WAS HER MARRIAGE ON MAY 2, MR. LEYDEN?

Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Yes, Barb--we sure did. Mobile is an easy drive from New Orleans. We

started before dawn, stopped at Providence Hospital, got our blood test

done about eight in the morning, had negative results in hand by two

o'clock, went through the tunnel, went to the courthouse, bought a

license, and by four o'clock, we were married. We returned quite late that

evening, but with that marriage certificate, I was later able to get birth

control pills. It seems we did not stop again at Providence Hospital for

these after all--at least I can;t prove the purchase on May 2 of birth

control pills. I did save one in its original wrapper--probably got them

later at Charity Hospital in New Orleans. I just checked my files, and

while I cannot prove where we bought the pills, I have ALL other

documents.

She goes on to add even more detail including saving "biologically relevant souvenirs" - the bandage

from her arm where the blood was drawn and one of her birth control pills taped to a postcard

from the restaurant where they ate ... or something. And she also said this:

I even

have the slip of paper from Providence Hospital, with the blood test

result and date, and the very bandage is with it that came from my arm

from the blood test --along with a little pink birth control

pill..biologically relevant souvenirs. I have very thorough records on

every single detail.

I cannot help but wonder if my question to her was the catalyst for the later change in her story as it appeared in her book a few years later. As I mentioned above, in the book version, she said she realized it would have been " clinically impossible" to have gotten the blood test results right away. So, despite writing in 2002 that she had all the dated documents and "very thorough records on every detail" ... the story changed. And it changed to a version that makes no sense given that the purpose of the blood test was to keep someone with syphilis from getting married. You get the needed health certificate after you pass the test, then you can buy your license and get married.

So, despite 2 different versions of the event, I am not certain we ever got the correct one. And while the details of her wedding day don't matter much in the grand scheme of things, what does matter is that she tells different stories .... both written with emphatic declaration, with specific detail ... and with claims of having the documents and records that detail it all.

If she can't get the details of her own wedding day straight in two tries ... how much confidence can anyone really have when she writes detailed accounts of things Oswald said or did, or what went on with mice & monkeys and anything else .... that it is any more accurate than either version of her wedding day stories?

There are no documents and reports that can be checked for verification as regards any of her story about the kitchen lab, the bioweapon ... or her love affair with LHO...and on and on. Without a track record of even the simplest claims she makes passing confirm/deny fact checking, there is a fatal credibility hurdle that neither she, nor anyone who just chooses to believe in her, can jump.

[Jack White]

I have been reading googled articles for nearly an hour, trying to comprehend

how a linear particle accelerator could be used to murder someone, leaving

them horribly burned. The only danger from an accelerator is radiation, which

happens in an instant.

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

This is a feeble response, counselor,...... Judyth has explained why there would be

minor variations in the handwriting sample, where it was written with a tiny

pencil on soft paper and the letters did not all reproduce from the fax. Were

you actually more interested in discovering the truth rather than saving face,

you might actually be making constructive suggestions instead of covering up

the existence of material evidence that supports her case.

What is feeble, is the ludicrous snicker and snort display of both you and Judyth on the podcast regarding having

the alleged Oswald handwriting examined by a professional. You noting you once took a graphology course and Judyth explaining her experience

and opinion on the writing she supposedly knows is Oswald's ... and discounting the need for a professional document examiner Oy. The good thing that came out of that, imo, is that anyone listening to the ramble, sputter, wave off is that it showed you both up, imo, for just what you are all about. Are *you* "actually more interested in discovering the truth rather than saving face"?

Even you should have learned by now, Jim, that there is nothing, nothing, nothing that Judyth cannot explain.:-)

This Pocket Aristotle is "material evidence" that exists and has the potential for supporting her case. Yet she refuses to have it examined by a professional ... and gets you on board snickering at the very idea! Doug, myself and others have made constructive suggestions ... a major one being getting that handwriting examined. It is not any of us doing any "covering up" of "material evidence" ... Judyth is refusing, and you are going along with her on it enthusiastically.

If you had something in your possession that could prove, once and for all, by independent professional documentation, that the Z film is fake, would you balk at having that exam done? I cannot fathom why anyone who knows their claim is true would not do the same.

It should be observed that no claim is a "fact" unless it happens to be

true. Indeed, in its stronger sense, "facts" are claims whose truth has

been verified. (James Fetzer,Sunday, Apr 5, 2009 8:37am Altgen's thread, yahoo group)

Hello?

[Barb Junkkarinen]

I am talking about the core of her account: of having been lured to New Orleans

by Alton Ochsner, of having met Lee H. Oswald early on, of having been taken to

visit Ochsner by Oswald, of meeting David Ferrie and Mary Sherman, of working

with them on a covert bioweapon project, of having a personal relationship with

Lee and such. DR. MARY'S MONKEY lays out the context for all of these events.

Ed Haslam has reiterated his confidence in Judyth on my show and C2C as well.

You've been asked several times by several people now to post what evidence you have for any

of these claims. You have not supplied anything other than Judyth's sayso ... and Haslam running

on Judyth's sayso ... for any of them.

Living witnesses, such as Kathy Santi, M.D., have confirmed aspects of Judyth's

story. Others, such as Anna Lewis, have confirmed others. The history of the

"disappearing witness" and the existence of an impostor "Judyth Vary Baker"

are striking indications that what she is telling us is true. I know you specialize

in looking for minor inconsistencies across time, but given the treatment that

she has received across forums, they are not surprising and you exploit them.

What exactly does Dr. Santi confirm? Have you seen a document she generated or have spoken

to her yourself? I owe Dean Hartwell a response on Anna Lewis ... and I will get to that soon. I will also

post something soon on Judyth as the mysterious "disappearing witness."

I do not "specialize" in "minor inconsistencies" ... but when you have been reading Judyth's posts, blogs, widely distributed emails and her book for several years, you become well aware of them. And "minor" isn't the appropriate descriptive word for most. If I "specialize" in anything regarding Judyth, it is that I undertook doing some basic fact checking on claims she has made that can be fact checked. That has not worked out well for Judyth.

It is not appropriate for person you to continue to post without

listening and viewing the videos, unless, of course, your objective is in fact

to obfuscate the evidence and discourage the study of what she has to tell us.

It is not appropriate for you to tell anyone what they must do before they can post their opinion ... or anything they have found that sheds light on her claims. I have listened to your interviews. And, unlike you, I have been reading Judyth's posts, and blogs and widely disseminated emails for years ...and I have read her book. I have also done fact checking on claims. I might suggest you need to do your homework, but that boat sailed long ago and you have clearly shown you are not interested in anything other than what Judyth tells you. Beating people over the head with your beliefs sans any evidence, ignoring legitimate questions people have, and attacking the messengers anytime something factual is posted that does not support Judyth's tales has not served you well, and it has been a disaster for Judyth's credibility as well as your own.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

This is very peculiar. Even his mother says he was left-handed, while

Marina, Robert, and John say right-handed. How could his mother be

wrong about something like this? It suggests to me that he may have

been ambidextrous. I don't see this as carrying weight against Judyth.

I did some reading on this when I was studying sniping, and had come to the conclusion a left-handed sniper would have had an advantage firing on the motorcade over a right-handed sniper. While Oswald's mother thought he was left-handed, the only photos of Oswald firing a rifle show him to be firing right-handed. His wife, brother, and half-brother, moreover, all swore he was right-handed. Robert Oswald explains this, furthermore, by acknowledging that HE was left-handed, and that his mother often got the two of them confused.

The record is pretty clear, then, that Oswald was right-handed. If Judyth claims he was left-handed, it suggests she read Marguerite's testimony and took it at face-value. OOPS.

Pat,

Seems we do agree on some things <g> ... and this is one of them. I agree ... Marguerite was confused and had trouble keeping the right handers and left handers in her family straight. She couldn't even tell them if Lee's father was right or left handed. It certainly does suggest Judyth read Marguerites testimony and simply ran with it. Big oops.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Michael, your posts are always calm, polite, matter of fact and impressive. This one is no exception ...

in fact it is exceptional. Outstanding. Powerful. Thank you for posting this.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Jim, with over 2300 posts on this thread it has simply become too unwieldly to go back and find all of your

exact comments about the scholarship and quality of Haslam's research. I do recall you using the words

for the general public in one instance, but the larger point is that you have always defended the scholarship

and research in Dr Mary's Monkey. Your comment about "getting my points straight" is gratuitous.

If you knew that there was a general agreement not to comment until JVB's new book comes out, why did you offer

to take those questions of mine to Ed? I had explained that I would rather you answer them; you are the one that

suggested it would be better if they (EH & JVG) did.

As far as answering my questions, you have not. You left it that you had contacted Ed Haslam about them and were

waiting for his reply. That is where things were left. If you dispute this, I will take the time and go back and find the post.

When did Haslam say he first contacted Judyth Baker? Your answer that Haslam only became aware

of the significance of two different JVB's after 60M contacted him goes without saying and was not responsive

at all to my question.

According to DMM it was after 60M decided not to air her story that he decided to contact Judyth Baker.

Do you agree with that? Please indulge me and refer to the bottom of page 287 of DMM.

I have watched virtually all of Haslam's videos. The more I watch Haslam, the less faith I have in him in terms

of his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers. In his book, he also claims as fact that Oswald met Marcello

at parties and that Ferrie introduced JVB to Sparky Rubebnstein. He can believe that if he wants to, but he

states it as if it were a proven fact in his footnotes, of all places. If he has no evidence or research of his own to

offer regarding his belief that Oswald and Baker were lovers, then his book is of questionable value to this thread,

as far as I am concerned.

Are you acknowledging now that Dr Mary's Monkey offers no proof (or research by Haslam, for that matter) that

Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker were lovers? If you had told me that six weeks ago, I would not have spent all this

time asking the questions that I have.

The mention of the interview with Anna Davis does appear in Haslam's book. I would suggest that you get your

points straight, but that comment might be taken to be gratuitous.

Jim, you wrote:

"As for not telling her that he was writing a book, you seem to be confounding Judyth's initial encounters with him

(when he did not mention that) with her later knowledge about it (when he asked her to review what he had written)"

No Jim. I have explained this carefully to you several times. Let me know if you

want me to go back and find it. In this thread, Judyth explained that she did not tell

Haslam that her book, Lee Harvey Oswald, was unauthorized by her and

contained errors. She offered an explanation as to her reasons that included Platzman.

She said that if she had known Haslam was working on a book, she would have told him.

Judyth Baker said that Haslam's book was a complete surprise to her.

Do you want me to go back and find that?

I am not concerned with Oswald's genitals, David Lifton's tape, marmosets, missing teeth,

Haslam's encounter with Ed Butler, how Mary Sherman died, John Armstrong, and other esoterica.

I have never discussed any of that on this thread. I am interested in whether or not her story is true about

she and Oswald being lovers and what reasons you have for referring members to Dr Mary's Monkey

to answer this question. I have simply claimed that Haslam presents no real evidence or proof that this was so.

You could have conceded that long ago and saved me some time and effort.

Jim, I have watched Judyth Baker's YouTube videos. I find them unconvincing, to be charitable.

I have met Ed Haslam, watched his interviews, including the one with Jim Marrs, and I have read

every post on this thread. I have listened to what you and others have posted. I have read Judyth Baker's

book Lee Harvey Oswald, which Haslam urged all his readers to do. I am waiting for her new book,

but based upon what you and Judyth have presented here, I do not expect any new revelations that will prove

(or even persuade) that she had a love affair with Lee Oswald.

In the prologue of DMM, Haslam writes about the History Channel's decision to withdraw from

circulation the episode that dealt with Judyth Vary Baker. His failure to mention that the entire three

episodes were withdrawn (due to pressure from LBJ's supporters) and leave the reader with the belief

that Baker's story was the only episode that was withdrawn is misleading, to say the least.

And Jim, do you believe that Sixty Minutes contacted Haslam on their own volition, sent him a packet

of materials detailing their prospective story, and sent one of their unnamed investigators to interview him....

all without reading his book? Does that even make sense to you?

I know that you and Ed Haslam have had extended contact with her, but people should not have to rely

on your faith. Her story demands evidence and proof. If after seven years of researching, Haslam was unable to

offer any proof (and none has been forthcoming after the publication of DMM), it is difficult to be

optimistic that her new book will convince anyone. I guess we will wait and see.

Not only that, I have claimed that there are inconsistencies and vagaries in Haslam's account.

I have always confined my comments only to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Baker. If Haslam

expects anyone to believe his account of meeting another Judyth Baker in 1972 with absolutely

no evidence other than his recollections, the rest of his unsupported statements need to be rock-solid

in order to afford him the benefit of the doubt.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

I find the insistence about ANOTHER JUDYTH VARY BAKER very troubling.

Even more troubling is that Haslam produces absolutely no evidence of such

except his memory. Even more troubling than this is that Jim concludes that

the CIA years ago concocted an IMPOSTER JVB especially to misdirect

future attempts by Haslam to expose a sinister plot. (which makes no sense,

if you stop long enough to think about it!)

This is the sort of thing that gives "conspiracy research" a bad reputation.

Jack

I agree, Jack. Haslam made no mention of the party or this person in his first book. After Judyth emerged, myself and at least one other person recall him relating that he met a person at this party who introduced herself as "Judyth" ...when he asked if that would be "Judy" she said, no, it's "Judyth." There was no mention of any middle or last name. This is our recollection. I quoted from an early Team Judyth email earlier in this thread. One person relates this same story and says they do not recall if he said anything about "Vary Baker" at that time. There are comments about "adulterated memories" and the possibility that a fuzzy memory became a firm and more complete memory after awhile. In short, it does not appear that Haslam said the name was "Judyth Vary Baker" at first. Yet now ... it has gone from an event not reported in his first book ... to a Judyth ... to becoming "Judyth Vary Baker" .... and on with a leap to a CIA planted impostor for some reason that appears not to have any...well...reason.

As you note, if one thinks about it, it makes no sense at all. In fact, it just sounds plain nutty.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Jack White]

So far I have only read a couple of chapters in Dr. Mary's Monkey. It is a fast and interesting read,

but so far I have noted a subtle literary device used with frequency. Haslam ASKS MANY THEORETICAL

QUESTIONS; then he tosses out what seem to him to be POSSIBLE ANSWERS to his own questions; then

later he STATES HIS POSSIBLE ANSWERS TO HIS OWN THEORETICAL QUESTIONS as being established

FACTS. This literary device is very noticeable in the chapter on the linear particle accelerator, where

he asks himself many "what if?" questions. Then he presents mystery experts X,Y, and Z who suggest

possible answers. Later, the possible answers are adopted as fact...the suspected particle accelerator

used in the suspected murder of Dr. Mary was suspected to be in an abandoned hospital building. Though

no EVIDENCE is presented, this building then becomes the place where a highly technical secret lab

was located doing highly secret CIA medical work, and somehow the accelerator was used by someone

to kill Dr. Mary...even though she died of burns, not radiation.

I then did some reading on particle accelerators, and they are highly technical extremely costly devices

which produce brief bursts of radiation, usually for theoretical atomic research using MAGNETISM for

accelerating subatomic particles. Usually, because of the immense costs and public monies involved,

their installation is highly publicized. That the CIA would own one and have it secretly installed in

an abandoned hospital building seems highly unlikely, and no EVIDENCE is presented to support it.

Jack

From the prologue of Dr Mary's Monkey:

You will find this book as much of a personal odyssey as a journalistic work. But that's what happens

when you investigate a murder only to discover an epidemic. Either way the destination is the same.

I will tell you why I am deeply suspicious of certain activities that occurred in New Orleans in the 1960's

and why you should be too. We will begin with what I personally saw and heard over the years. To that

we add years of research.

Then we get questions. Fair and honorable questions. Questions which

deserve answers. Questions which have their own purpose, their own energy, even their own dignity. (italics added)

Questions which will eventually help us coax this Orwellian monster out of its swamp of secrecy.

Ed Haslam seems to imply that Dr Mary's Monkey raises more questions than it answers. With regard

to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Vary Baker, that certainly seems to be the case to me.

Haslam leaves it to the readers' imagination as to whom will answer these questions.

On page 291 of DMM, Ed Haslam asked this question: "Did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963?"

Haslam does not ask the much more difficult question: Were LHO and JVB lovers?

Haslam had seven years from the time he first contacted Judyth Baker until the publication of Doctor Mary's Monkey

to research this question. He had ample opportunity to converse with JVB at will. And in seven years he could come up

with only two pieces of evidence: The Reily pay stubs and Dankbaar's interview with Anna Lewis. Seven years of research?

And that's the only evidence Haslam could provide to answer his own question?

Question: What research did Haslam conduct (primary or otherwise) regarding the alleged LHO/JVB affair during those seven years?

On page 287 of DMM Haslam asks another question: "It makes one wonder: Who really made 60M's decision to abort? And why?"

Haslam gives no indication he ever tried to find out. Two pages earlier, he gave a possible answer for why:

As the dimensions of the story grew, so did 60M's demands for hard evidence. 60M was not about

to risk its credibility over an unsupported story involving a homemade biological weapon and the accused

assassin of the President

without hard evidence. (italics added)

. This is when they contacted me, because

I had already written a book that sounded on-point. (In the next sentence, Haslam says that 60M had not yet read his book!)

Yes, they had my book, but no, they had not read it yet. I insisted that the 60M investigator read it, every word

cover-to-cover, which she later said that she did on her flight back to New York.

No, I did not have the hard evidence about this woman that they were looking for. (italics added)

But I never

said that I did. From my perspective, I was particularly concerned that 60M could easily discredit her story as a means of

discrediting my story. Such were my intitial thoughts.

Question: Which Judyth Baker is Haslam talking about in the last paragraph?

Question: Sixty Minutes contacted Haslam on their own volition, sent him a packet of materials detailing their

prospective story, and flew one of their unnamed investigators to interview him....all without reading his book?

Jim Fetzer has called Haslam's book one of the most scholarly and well-researched books that he has encountered.

Yet it was pointed out to him that Haslam's footnotes in the JVB chapters are rife with unsupported speculations.

(Such as Lee Oswald personally meeting Carlos Marcello several times in 1963 and David Ferrie knowing Jack Ruby

well enough to introduce him to JVB as Sparky Rubinstein). These episodes belong in the Appendix entitled Judyth's Story,

not in the footonotes of another chapter that attempts to ascertain the truthfulness of Haslam's witness.

Much earlier in this thread I spent a considerable amount of time trying to get Jim to answer my questions about

Dr Mary's Monkey. (Not the ones that appear above) Since this is the book that Jim has repeatedly touted

and insisted members read, I think that it is reasonable that he at least make an attempt to address the questions,

even if he prefers not to answer them. Jim did tell me that he referred them to Ed Haslam, but in the course of this thread

Haslam has made it clear that he does not feel it is productive to discuss the Judyth Baker story until her new book comes out.

In much abbreviated form, these were three of them:

Question: Even though Haslam had JVB "correct and corroborate" her story that he published in DMM, why did he

never divulge to her that he was writing a book in which she would play a key role? (That is what JVB claimed)

Question: When did Haslam contact Judyth Baker for the first time?

Question: Why has Haslam made no effort to find the people (including his girl friend at the time) that attended

the other JVB's party in 1972? They could have corroborated his story to 60 Minutes, or to readers of Dr Mary's Monkey.

It is both frustrating and irritating to me that neither Jim nor Ed Haslam want to address any of these rather simple questions.

"Fair and honorable questions. Questions which deserve answers. Questions which have their own purpose, their

own energy, even their own dignity."

During the course of this thread Jim Fetzer became aware of Ed Haslam's Dr Mary's Monkey and ever since that point

he has used it to suggest that it would answer questions and demonstrate that Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker were lovers.

Aside from repeating and refining Baker's story, Haslam's book does little to achieve that end.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT DR. MARY'S MONKEY AND MORE

I have noticed a technique used by Jack White throughout this thread. He likes to repeats posts to

which replies have already been posted AS THOUGH I HAD NOT ALREADY REPLIED. It is almost as

dishonest as misreporting the contents of Ed Haslam's book, which I can hardly believe he has now

begun reading. I would estimate that, if Jack had only read DR. MARY'S MONKEY, we could have

been spared between 50 and 100 posts based upon his simple ignorance. Now that he has finally

begun to read it, he is systematically misrepresenting its contents. Jack, please tell us WHY WAS

HASLAM DRAWN TO THE HOSPITAL AS ITS PROBABLE LOCATION? What were the physical features

of the building and of the basement that led him to infer that it was the location for the accelerator?

What is a more reasonable explanation for the features that are present there? And while you are

at it, why don't you describe THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE BODY OF DR. MARY SHERMAN that were

inconsistent with the location where it was found (in her apartment). Tell us exactly what Haslam

explains about her body and her bed and the smoldering mattress and why the setting in which she

was found could not possibly have been the cause of the damage to her body? In fact, this is one

of those examples where your massive ignorance generated a host of posts that were completely

unnecessary, if only you had read the book I had recommended. Your methodology is becoming

more and more transparent from post to post. Make a mass of posts based upon your ignorance

because you have refused to read the book, then attack anyone who questions the (increasingly

ridiculous) theory of "two Oswalds" by telling them READ THE BOOK! And now that you are at

least coming to the point of READING THE BOOK, you are MISREPRESENTING ITS CONTENTS.

I find your conduct here completely reprehensible. IF YOU WON'T ANSWER THE QUESTIONS

I AM RAISING, WHICH ARE EXPLAINED IN THE BOOK, THERE ARE ONLY TWO ALTERNATIVE

EXPLANATIONS: either you are not longer competent to address research in JFK or you have

gone over to the dark side. So spare me having to sort this out by demonstrating that you are

still minimally competent by answering the questions I have raised. My confidence in you has

taken a severe hit during this thread. Now you are on the verge of destroying it completely.

And while you are at it, why have you reposed Michael's post but not my reply? I can't wait to

hear. Either you didn't know they were there and continue to display your massive ignorance

or you know they are there but want to conceal their existence because you have gone over.

You have gotten a lot of mileage out of past posts based on your massive ignorance and now

you want to get more mileage out of grossly distorting the contents of Ed's book. Disgusting!

So far I have only read a couple of chapters in Dr. Mary's Monkey. It is a fast and interesting read,

but so far I have noted a subtle literary device used with frequency. Haslam ASKS MANY THEORETICAL

QUESTIONS; then he tosses out what seem to him to be POSSIBLE ANSWERS to his own questions; then

later he STATES HIS POSSIBLE ANSWERS TO HIS OWN THEORETICAL QUESTIONS as being established

FACTS. This literary device is very noticeable in the chapter on the linear particle accelerator, where

he asks himself many "what if?" questions. Then he presents mystery experts X,Y, and Z who suggest

possible answers. Later, the possible answers are adopted as fact...the suspected particle accelerator

used in the suspected murder of Dr. Mary was suspected to be in an abandoned hospital building. Though

no EVIDENCE is presented, this building then becomes the place where a highly technical secret lab

was located doing highly secret CIA medical work, and somehow the accelerator was used by someone

to kill Dr. Mary...even though she died of burns, not radiation.

I then did some reading on particle accelerators, and they are highly technical extremely costly devices

which produce brief bursts of radiation, usually for theoretical atomic research using MAGNETISM for

accelerating subatomic particles. Usually, because of the immense costs and public monies involved,

their installation is highly publicized. That the CIA would own one and have it secretly installed in

an abandoned hospital building seems highly unlikely, and no EVIDENCE is presented to support it.

Jack

From the prologue of Dr Mary's Monkey:

You will find this book as much of a personal odyssey as a journalistic work. But that's what happens

when you investigate a murder only to discover an epidemic. Either way the destination is the same.

I will tell you why I am deeply suspicious of certain activities that occurred in New Orleans in the 1960's

and why you should be too. We will begin with what I personally saw and heard over the years. To that

we add years of research.

Then we get questions. Fair and honorable questions. Questions which

deserve answers. Questions which have their own purpose, their own energy, even their own dignity. (italics added)

Questions which will eventually help us coax this Orwellian monster out of its swamp of secrecy.

Ed Haslam seems to imply that Dr Mary's Monkey raises more questions than it answers. With regard

to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Vary Baker, that certainly seems to be the case to me.

Haslam leaves it to the readers' imagination as to whom will answer these questions.

On page 291 of DMM, Ed Haslam asked this question: "Did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963?"

Haslam does not ask the much more difficult question: Were LHO and JVB lovers?

Haslam had seven years from the time he first contacted Judyth Baker until the publication of Doctor Mary's Monkey

to research this question. He had ample opportunity to converse with JVB at will. And in seven years he could come up

with only two pieces of evidence: The Reily pay stubs and Dankbaar's interview with Anna Lewis. Seven years of research?

And that's the only evidence Haslam could provide to answer his own question?

Question: What research did Haslam conduct (primary or otherwise) regarding the alleged LHO/JVB affair during those seven years?

On page 287 of DMM Haslam asks another question: "It makes one wonder: Who really made 60M's decision to abort? And why?"

Haslam gives no indication he ever tried to find out. Two pages earlier, he gave a possible answer for why:

As the dimensions of the story grew, so did 60M's demands for hard evidence. 60M was not about

to risk its credibility over an unsupported story involving a homemade biological weapon and the accused

assassin of the President

without hard evidence. (italics added)

. This is when they contacted me, because

I had already written a book that sounded on-point. (In the next sentence, Haslam says that 60M had not yet read his book!)

Yes, they had my book, but no, they had not read it yet. I insisted that the 60M investigator read it, every word

cover-to-cover, which she later said that she did on her flight back to New York.

No, I did not have the hard evidence about this woman that they were looking for. (italics added)

But I never

said that I did. From my perspective, I was particularly concerned that 60M could easily discredit her story as a means of

discrediting my story. Such were my intitial thoughts.

Question: Which Judyth Baker is Haslam talking about in the last paragraph?

Question: Sixty Minutes contacted Haslam on their own volition, sent him a packet of materials detailing their

prospective story, and flew one of their unnamed investigators to interview him....all without reading his book?

Jim Fetzer has called Haslam's book one of the most scholarly and well-researched books that he has encountered.

Yet it was pointed out to him that Haslam's footnotes in the JVB chapters are rife with unsupported speculations.

(Such as Lee Oswald personally meeting Carlos Marcello several times in 1963 and David Ferrie knowing Jack Ruby

well enough to introduce him to JVB as Sparky Rubinstein). These episodes belong in the Appendix entitled Judyth's Story,

not in the footonotes of another chapter that attempts to ascertain the truthfulness of Haslam's witness.

Much earlier in this thread I spent a considerable amount of time trying to get Jim to answer my questions about

Dr Mary's Monkey. (Not the ones that appear above) Since this is the book that Jim has repeatedly touted

and insisted members read, I think that it is reasonable that he at least make an attempt to address the questions,

even if he prefers not to answer them. Jim did tell me that he referred them to Ed Haslam, but in the course of this thread

Haslam has made it clear that he does not feel it is productive to discuss the Judyth Baker story until her new book comes out.

In much abbreviated form, these were three of them:

Question: Even though Haslam had JVB "correct and corroborate" her story that he published in DMM, why did he

never divulge to her that he was writing a book in which she would play a key role? (That is what JVB claimed)

Question: When did Haslam contact Judyth Baker for the first time?

Question: Why has Haslam made no effort to find the people (including his girl friend at the time) that attended

the other JVB's party in 1972? They could have corroborated his story to 60 Minutes, or to readers of Dr Mary's Monkey.

It is both frustrating and irritating to me that neither Jim nor Ed Haslam want to address any of these rather simple questions.

"Fair and honorable questions. Questions which deserve answers. Questions which have their own purpose, their

own energy, even their own dignity."

During the course of this thread Jim Fetzer became aware of Ed Haslam's Dr Mary's Monkey and ever since that point

he has used it to suggest that it would answer questions and demonstrate that Lee Oswald and Judyth Baker were lovers.

Aside from repeating and refining Baker's story, Haslam's book does little to achieve that end.

Edited May 9, 2010 by James H. Fetzer