Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

JIM ADDS TO HIS REFLECTIONS ON JACK'S METHODOLOGY

Since I am completely confident that Jack White has never watched "The Love Affair" or the nine You

Tube interviews I have done with Judyth or my two two-hour interviews or the interview with Anna

Lewis, with whom she "double-dated" with Lee in New Orleans, I am quite sure that not even reading

Ed Haslam's book, which he has finally begun to undertake, could fill in all of the gaps in his almost

complete unfamiliarity with some of the most basic evidence in this case. Could he identify the name

of Kathy Santi, for example, or of David Lewis? Or has he studied "the disappearing witness"? He is

so extreme that he even wants to discount Ed Haslam's personal experience as a witness with regard

to the existence of an impostor "Judyth Vary Baker"! What could be more biased and irresponsible?

There seems to be one reason and one reason only why Jack has any interest in Judyth Vary Baker,

which is that what she has to tell us about Lee Harvey Oswald threatens to undermine HARVEY & LEE,

which I am inclined to believe is going to turn out to be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the JFK

research community! And while the Zapruder film was indeed a "great hoax", it was not directed at

the JFK research community specifically in the way in which I believe this work has targeted us. Bear

in mind, we know that the CIA creates false histories so their undercover operatives can return to a

normal life. Judyth has explained that Lee told her that on more than one occasion. So to prove the

existence of "two Oswalds", they (Jack and John) would have had to prove the existence of THREE:

the man Judyth knew (whom they call "Havey"), the man they call "Lee", and the false history that

was created to allow the man Judyth knew to return to a normal life. They did not do that, but, in

my opinion, combined discoveries of a false documentary trail created by the agency with a variety

of research techniques, including leading witnesses and using unreliable testimony, to create the

image of a massive compilation. But the massiveness of the documentation Jack loves to cite does

not mean that HARVEY & LEE is a competent piece of research. RECLAIMING HISTORY is another

massively documented work with a staggering number of references and citations, but none of us

would be taken in on that account alone. I have already reported that, in the first five pages of

this book, the author cites the "index" to the 26 supporting volumes as though it ought to have

included references to the CIA (when it was only a name index) and ignores the fact that the 888-

page summary known as THE WARREN REPORT includes dozens of references to the CIA and, a

few pages later, talks about the FBI laundering Oswald's personal possessions by secretly taking

them to Washington, D.C., returning them and then, with great fanfare, loading them in a car to

take them to Washington again (allegedly for the first time) and talks about a report prepared by

the FBI "two weeks before the Warren Commission would be formed", which, as Pat Speer noted

at the time, was another blunder, since the commission was founded on 29 November 1963, not

to mention the absurdity of Lillian Murret, "Harvey"'s aunt, paying for "Lee"'s dental bill, which is

such a ridiculous story that Jack White was moved to claim that Lillian and Dutz, Robert, Marina,

and Marguerite ALL KNEW THERE WERE "TWO OSWALDS", EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THEM HAS

EVER UTTERED A PEEP. This is such a gratuitous stretch for which HE HAS NO DOCUMENTATION

that I suspect he knows this house of cards risks collapsing around him. Lola has therefore offered

a third alternative to my observation that he has either lost his competence or gone over to the dark

side, namely: that he is acting to protect his self-interest because Judyth's story conflicts with the

"two Oswalds". While that is very plausible and probably true, it is an EXPLANATION OF WHY HE

HAS LOST HIS COMPETENCE IN RELATION TO JFK RESEARCH, which is lamentable. Indeed, this is

quite stunning given his claims to have no bias against Judyth, as he has asserted repeatedly during

this thread. All in all, this is the kind of performance that gives conspiracy research a bad name.

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.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest that the building and installation of any linear particle accelerator would leave

a huge PAPER TRAIL and hundreds of WITNESSES who manufactured, installed, operated,

and then removed the complicated machine...unless it was classified TOP SECRET. Very

large sums of money were necessarily involved. Haslam produces no documents nor witnesses

for his speculation.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am becoming increasingly concerned about Jim. He seems to be under some sort of spell

where his normally brilliant judgment is becoming progressively impaired. He is obsessed with

JVB out of all proportion to her relative unimportance to solving the JFK murder. If her tales

had any relevance or importance, it would be a different matter. Even if her stories were

100% true, they are insignificant.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Barb:

My logical fear is that there will be many corrections in Judyth's book based upon the evidence and questions raised in this extremely long thread. In that respect, everyone of us, not just Jim, will have been "used" by Judyth to get her story airtight before her book comes out.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if her stories were 100% true, they are insignificant.

This is where I agree with Jack 100%

How does a very short affair with LHO and Judyth, as well as Judyth claiming to meet all these strange people come into play with helping to solve the assassination?

I dont need Judyth to make me believe Oswald knew Ferrie, I already believe that!

I dont need Judyth to tell me that Oswald knew Bannister, I already believe that!

I dont need Judyth to tell me that Ferrie knew Shaw, I already believe that!

Edited by Dean Hagerman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, Doug. (I was wondering how long it would take for someone to come around to stating the obvious, except I don't think Jim has been used at all. It always was a beta test (my first post I think early on) and druming up focus for forthcoming royalties.)

Edited by John Dolva
Link to post
Share on other sites

DW said:My logical fear is that there will be many corrections in Judyth's book based upon the evidence and questions raised in this extremely long thread. In that respect, everyone of us, not just Jim, will have been "used" by Judyth to get her story airtight before her book comes out.

That is called 'poisoning the well'.

Nonetheless, since Judyth's book is not out yet and this thread has revisited a number of issues, it is logical to ask whether or not there may be a connection. It will be interesting to see what, if any of the statements made in this thread, are incorporated into it.

Edited by Pamela Brown
Link to post
Share on other sites
Barb:

My logical fear is that there will be many corrections in Judyth's book based upon the evidence and questions raised in this extremely long thread. In that respect, everyone of us, not just Jim, will have been "used" by Judyth to get her story airtight before her book comes out.

Doug Weldon

Oh, Doug, absolutely ... without a doubt. This has been a "try it out, see how it flies" thing as much as it has been a well timed pre-release publicity thing. Overall, it has been a disaster for Judyth, imo. But I am sure she gleaned some trouble spots that need to be fixed or have an explanation ready for .... and myself and others have noted several changes that have already taken place in her story due to previously posted fact checking findings and arguments, as well as some new claims. Those have largely gone without comment on, but not unnoticed, by myself and others. As I posted early on in this thread and again not too many days ago ... I am not posting any findings or info not already "out there" ... and for good reason. I waited until after her first book came out to do and post fact checking findings, then when she announced a new book coming out, I stopped and have been on a little Judyth vacation .... not wanting to give her a heads up on anything else that has been, is in process or going to be fact checked. For the obvious reason just as you stated. :rolleyes:

What Fetzer doesn't realize, because he just plowed full speed ahead without knowing or looking into the history of her story, is that her team used to try ....often unsuccessfully ... to keep Judyth off of the net and from jibber jabbering away because she is forever saying/adding new and conflicting things. Enter Fetzer who posts for her ... but without knowing the history of her claims, and keeps putting her out there with a microphone in front of her face besides. It's been quite interesting!

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am becoming increasingly concerned about Jim. He seems to be under some sort of spell

where his normally brilliant judgment is becoming progressively impaired. He is obsessed with

JVB out of all proportion to her relative unimportance to solving the JFK murder. If her tales

had any relevance or importance, it would be a different matter. Even if her stories were

100% true, they are insignificant.

Jack

I worry that Jim accuses Lifton, Weldon, White and many others of changing from brilliant

researchers into terrible persons and worse researchers. None of us has changed. What has

changed is that Jim's judgment has become impaired because of his obsession with this

minor blip on the radar, which seems to him to be a 747, but is really just a bayou mosquito.

I hope that he takes a long vacation and comes back refreshed and is the old Jim who was

doing such great work till he got sidetracked with his ill advised sponsorship of dubious

claims. I hope his reputation is not irreparably damaged...for many valuable studies are

dependent on his talent for editorship.

He should not discuss the subject further till the book is released and we can all see

and discuss a single statement and not an ever-moving target.

Slow down, Jim. Stand back and look at this objectively. Examine all the counterclaims.

Many have merit. Take it easy, friend.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...