Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Doug,

You know I regard you highly and usually support you. Madeleine must have found something about you

that she didn't like. I hardly think that your non-interviews with Madeline offset my many conversations,

her book, Billy Sol Estes' book, Nigel's research, and other sources I have cited in support her version of

events. I don't want to insult you, but I don't think you possess the foundation to draw any conclusions

about Madeleine or about Judyth. If you have been following this thread, many others--who include Jim

Marrs, Wim Dankbaar, and Ed Haslam, for example--who have dealt with Judyth believe in her, as do I.

Listening to Barb about Judyth is a colossal blunder and, if you have any idea what you are talking about,

the previous books were not ones that she had approved or authorized. I am having extensive dealings

with her and if she is not "the real deal", I will eat my hat (figuratively speaking, since I don't wear one).

This reminds me of Doug Horne's "pet peeves" from Vol. V of INSIDE THE ARRB (page 1801), where he

dumps on the very idea that 9/11 was an inside job! I can assure you that, if he had studied 9/11 with

anything like the diligence he has JFK, that would not be his opinion. We must all learn the limitations

of our competence. In my opinion, the two Dougs, for all their excellence, are still groping for theirs.

Jim

From 'James H. Fetzer' post='186154' date='Mar 8 2010, 02:17 PM';

Judyth already rebutted this drivel about "Cancun", Barb. Don't you have anything better than to recycle?

I almost hate to say it, but your are giving Judyth's critics a bad name. Maybe you need to reread the thread.

From 'Pamela McElwain-Brown' post='186159' date='Mar 8 2010, 09:32 PM':

Barb has devoted years of time and effort trying to find any sort of tidbit which can then be distorted and then 'used' against Judyth. Your objective presentation of Judyth's information is just raining on her parade. You can anticipate that the level of rhetoric of her responses will be proportionate to the damage being inflicted.

From 'Karl Kinaski' post='186164' date='Mar 8 2010, 11:11 PM':

Looks like you re on the ropes, Barb. Your beaten. Get over it...

This thread is the final punch for the Judyth-bashing-trolls all over the internet!

Congrats to Starsky and Hutch aka Jim and Judyth.

KK

From Jack White:

This nonsense shows a total lack of understanding.

On the SAME DATE it is documented that ONE MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at Paul's Shoe Store in Fort Worth while

Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School.

On that SAME DATE it is documented that ANOTHER MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at a hosiery store on Canal Street in New

Orleans while another Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard Junior

High School.

This information has NOTHING to do with photo analysis nor

forensic analysis nor medical analysis as NONSENSICALLY stated

above. Two LHOs, two Marguerites, same date, different cities.

That is as simple an explanation as can be made.

Any other interpretation is NONSENSE!

Read the book.

Jack

From Doug Weldon:

I am not convinced yet by either Judyth or Madeline Brown. I can specify reasons but it boils down to a lack of corroboration. In regards to Judyth her account of Oswald appears to make him so sophisticated, suave, and living such a life that it makes the fictional James Bond look like a street urchin in comparison. I respect other opinions and hopefully this is not seen as bashing anyone but I am very far from being persuaded. I have to agree with Jack's observations above.

Best,

Doug Weldon

From 'James H. Fetzer' post='186292' date='Mar 9 2010, 09:55 PM':

Well, Doug, as one who had more than one hundred conversations with Madeleine, who has read her book

and interviewed her at Lancer (1999), which should be available from the production company, and whose

account of the Murchison ratification meeting the night before was corroborated by Nigel Turner and can be

found in "The Guilty Men" segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" and whose incrimination of Lyndon has

been directly substantiated by Billy Sol Estes, A TEXAS LEGEND, and E. Howard Hunt, "The Last Confession

of E. Howard Hunt" in ROLLING STONE, and indirectly by Barr McClellan, BLOOD, MONEY, POWER, I believe

you have just the least bit exceeded the scope of your competence. I support you when you are right and

fault you when you are wrong. I think this is one of those times where you haven't done your homework.

From Doug Weldon:

Jim:

We can agree to disagree. If I could see one copy of a newspaper where Madeline said an account of the Murchison party was posted I could accept her account. Until then I cannot. I would like to accept her account because it supports all of the evidence I have including the overwhelming culpability of LBJ. Madeline was a witness who enjoyed her celebrity. It is not a criticism, but an observation. In 1998 you went to a lot of trouble to arrange a meeting between Madeline and myself. She knew I was an attorney. I did have some tough questions for her. She did not show up for that meeting. Then I saw her at dinner at Lancer and with your assistance we arranged another meeting. Again she did not show. I later phoned her. Again, she made an excuse not to talk. I made one more attempt months later and again I was thwarted. I saw her on a television show years before about President's mistresses and no mention was made of the LBJ incident. I do not question that she was LBJ's mistress but beyond that I cannot use her account. The other thing that bothers me is that if she loved LBJ so much why would she do so much to destroy his reputation? The jury is still out for me on her. It's like James Files demanding a trial so he could prove he shot Kennedy. What would be the result if he was successful? He could get the death penalty.

Judyth creates a lot of concern for me. The dialog that supposedly transpired between her and Lee would be laughable if it was written for the worst "B" movie ever made. I am not dismissing either of them. Either account would support many of the things I believed happened. I know you had a close relationship with Madeline. I will agree she was a very interesting woman. I hope I can find the proofs to agree with you.

Best,

Doug Weldon

[Jack White]

Judyth responds to Jack about "Harvey and Lee":

Check this photo against attached photos....

Is there more than one 'Judyth'? The lab one is a giveaway, but check it against this:

Would Jack White have decided that we were two--or even three?--different people?

I'll give you the answers to the photos after you look at all of them...The truth is easy to see......

Meanwhile...I am not allowed to download Jack's 'fat face' because I am not a member--they once

sent a collection of some forty photos and ordered, almost, rather than asked, me which ones were

Lee and which ones were Harvey.

This forces me to agree that there is a distinction that I accept.

I do not.

This is a logical trap.

"Which one did you know, Harvey or Lee?" is a rigged question. It assumes that some are "Harvey"

and some are "Lee" and, if I refuse to answer, I'm a cur.

But they are forcing me to make their logical differentiation.

I refuse to do so because they are forcing their logic based on how the arranged they photos.

You might ask (not Jack, who has seen my photos) an outsider--which ones are me and which are

an imposter?

It assumes an imposter.

And they assume an imposter that existed since childhood.

They are in error.

Please give me time to show it.

Do you understand why I just pointed out ones that I was sure were Lee? And by that, I meant

'Harvey' to them?

By stacking the deck with just two responses, they leave no room for discussion.

He's doing the same thing again, asking me which one it is, in the 'fat face'.

It is the wrong question.

It is not 'who did she know --Harvey? Or did she know Lee'?'

It is dangerous.

It is catching.

Above all, I have strong reasons to contend with it.

And will.

[NOTE: Having taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years, I can confirm that

Judyth is on impeccable logical grounds in objecting that she is being presented with a conclusion to

which she should not assent. This is known as "the complex (or leading) question", which begs the

question (by taking for granted what needs to be proven on independent grounds). It is like asking,

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" or, perhaps, "Do you prefer to purchase the red Buick or the burgundy?"

You cannot answer "Yes" or "No" to the first questions without admitting you have beaten your wife or

"Red" or "Burgundy" to the second without acknowledging that you are going to buy a Buick. Likewise,

you cannot answer "Harvey" or "Lee" without granting that there were two Oswalds, Harvey and Lee.]

==Please tell Jack White that he forces me into a logical bind when he asks 'which' man I knew and loved.

He attempts to have me answer in his mode, that Lee was 'one' or the 'other' -- I refuse to respond to this

loaded question, which forces many errors into the big picture. Instead, I will present, one by one, my

arguments as to why the Armstrong thesis must be re-evaluated and in many aspects (not all, by any

means, since impersonators were frequent)--ultimately discarded.

Not a single bit of Armstrong's research and hard work--all those records he accumulated-- has actually

unearthed a single verified living member of this 'second Oswald's' family. Were they murdered afterwards?

Vanished forever? Maybe?

But there are better explanations.

One of the best is that Armstrong is wrong.

We have Donald Norton, who says he impersonated Oswald, He does not resemble either 'Lee' or 'Harvey',

however. Does Armstrong or Jack White assign him as 'Lee' or 'Harvey'? I refuse to pick out 'Harvey' or 'Lee'

as the person I knew and loved in New Orleans.

However, I promise to explain why, in the blogs.

Hopefully, we can get back to Lee Oswald, why he had to die, and why it matters, instead of mulling over photos that never,

unlike Abraham Bolden or Jim Douglass or Doug Horne or Jim Fetzer, actually brought us new information that jives together

and moves the case forward.

What it did, in a royal way, was to divert form the big picture.

These keep us going in circles.

Which one do 'you' think is 'Lee' and which one do 'you' think is 'Harvey'--shown this photo or that, Jim? Lola?

It's a trap.

Maybe unintentional, but the man never met me, ignored me.

His research cannot be trusted to be as thorough as Jack wishes us to believe.

There are gaping errors in logic. Including trying to force a witness to fall into the 'Lee' and 'Harvey' ID game.

This nonsense shows a total lack of understanding.

On the SAME DATE it is documented that ONE MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at Paul's Shoe Store in Fort Worth while

Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School.

On that SAME DATE it is documented that ANOTHER MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at a hosiery store on Canal Street in New

Orleans while another Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard Junior

High School.

This information has NOTHING to do with photo analysis nor

forensic analysis nor medical analysis as NONSENSICALLY stated

above. Two LHOs, two Marguerites, same date, different cities.

That is as simple an explanation as can be made.

Any other interpretation is NONSENSE!

Read the book.

Jack

Jack. The game with identities is well known in that never ending murder case. There were 4 to 6 Oswalds, (the Bolton-Ford Ossi, N.O, the Lincoln-Mercury Ossi, Dallas, the Odio-Ossi, Dallas, the firering ranch Ossi, Dallas, the mexico-city Ossi etc...), at last two JVBers, the Haslam-JVB, and the real one, and maybe there where two moms of Ossi. Jim and Judyth just say this, and I agree: there was no Oswald-CLON, which is, as far as I understand, the main-idea of the Armstrong book...according to Prouty the CIA started to create an Oswald 201 file in Dec 1960. One purpose of such a file is to create parallel résumés of one person. It is flashy that the first documented incident with a false Oswald occurred just a month later in Oswalds Hometown N.O., on 20.1.1961, the day JFK was sworn into office.

I do not believe, there was any need or intention to play the game of identities prior.

To me the Oswald-Clon theorie is worthless. I am happy with the well documented appearances of Oswald-copycats. (Some of them looked completely different!...mexico city Ossi... )

Since I am not familiar with the Armstrong book: did Armstrong explain, why there was a need to create an Oswald-Clon well back in the fifties, when Ike was president, and nobody on earth knew who would be the next man in the O-Office?

PS The final proof of the JVBs Story, to me, was, when Haslam realized, in 2000 I think, that his monkey-virus story fit 100 percent with Judyths story. Note: they never met before, (except this strange incident with that false Judyth!)and they came out with their storys independently.

KK

More total nonsense.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It's not "nonsense", Jack. It's a counterexample to the methodology

that you and John have used to established the existence of the "two

Oswalds", the "two Marguerites" and who knows what other doubles.

She makes excellent points about interpreting photographs, which is

your own area of specialization. But Judyth knows a lot about it, too.

Judyth responds to Jack about "Harvey and Lee":

Check this photo against attached photos....

Is there more than one 'Judyth'? The lab one is a giveaway, but check it against this:

Would Jack White have decided that we were two--or even three?--different people?

I'll give you the answers to the photos after you look at all of them...The truth is easy to see......

Meanwhile...I am not allowed to download Jack's 'fat face' because I am not a member--they once

sent a collection of some forty photos and ordered, almost, rather than asked, me which ones were

Lee and which ones were Harvey.

This forces me to agree that there is a distinction that I accept.

I do not.

This is a logical trap.

"Which one did you know, Harvey or Lee?" is a rigged question. It assumes that some are "Harvey"

and some are "Lee" and, if I refuse to answer, I'm a cur.

But they are forcing me to make their logical differentiation.

I refuse to do so because they are forcing their logic based on how the arranged they photos.

You might ask (not Jack, who has seen my photos) an outsider--which ones are me and which are

an imposter?

It assumes an imposter.

And they assume an imposter that existed since childhood.

They are in error.

Please give me time to show it.

Do you understand why I just pointed out ones that I was sure were Lee? And by that, I meant

'Harvey' to them?

By stacking the deck with just two responses, they leave no room for discussion.

He's doing the same thing again, asking me which one it is, in the 'fat face'.

It is the wrong question.

It is not 'who did she know --Harvey? Or did she know Lee'?'

It is dangerous.

It is catching.

Above all, I have strong reasons to contend with it.

And will.

[NOTE: Having taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years, I can confirm that

Judyth is on impeccable logical grounds in objecting that she is being presented with a conclusion to

which she should not assent. This is known as "the complex (or leading) question", which begs the

question (by taking for granted what needs to be proven on independent grounds). It is like asking,

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" or, perhaps, "Do you prefer to purchase the red Buick or the burgundy?"

You cannot answer "Yes" or "No" to the first questions without admitting you have beaten your wife or

"Red" or "Burgundy" to the second without acknowledging that you are going to buy a Buick. Likewise,

you cannot answer "Harvey" or "Lee" without granting that there were two Oswalds, Harvey and Lee.]

==Please tell Jack White that he forces me into a logical bind when he asks 'which' man I knew and loved.

He attempts to have me answer in his mode, that Lee was 'one' or the 'other' -- I refuse to respond to this

loaded question, which forces many errors into the big picture. Instead, I will present, one by one, my

arguments as to why the Armstrong thesis must be re-evaluated and in many aspects (not all, by any

means, since impersonators were frequent)--ultimately discarded.

Not a single bit of Armstrong's research and hard work--all those records he accumulated-- has actually

unearthed a single verified living member of this 'second Oswald's' family. Were they murdered afterwards?

Vanished forever? Maybe?

But there are better explanations.

One of the best is that Armstrong is wrong.

We have Donald Norton, who says he impersonated Oswald, He does not resemble either 'Lee' or 'Harvey',

however. Does Armstrong or Jack White assign him as 'Lee' or 'Harvey'? I refuse to pick out 'Harvey' or 'Lee'

as the person I knew and loved in New Orleans.

However, I promise to explain why, in the blogs.

Hopefully, we can get back to Lee Oswald, why he had to die, and why it matters, instead of mulling over photos that never,

unlike Abraham Bolden or Jim Douglass or Doug Horne or Jim Fetzer, actually brought us new information that jives together

and moves the case forward.

What it did, in a royal way, was to divert form the big picture.

These keep us going in circles.

Which one do 'you' think is 'Lee' and which one do 'you' think is 'Harvey'--shown this photo or that, Jim? Lola?

It's a trap.

Maybe unintentional, but the man never met me, ignored me.

His research cannot be trusted to be as thorough as Jack wishes us to believe.

There are gaping errors in logic. Including trying to force a witness to fall into the 'Lee' and 'Harvey' ID game.

This nonsense shows a total lack of understanding.

On the SAME DATE it is documented that ONE MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at Paul's Shoe Store in Fort Worth while

Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School.

On that SAME DATE it is documented that ANOTHER MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at a hosiery store on Canal Street in New

Orleans while another Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard Junior

High School.

This information has NOTHING to do with photo analysis nor

forensic analysis nor medical analysis as NONSENSICALLY stated

above. Two LHOs, two Marguerites, same date, different cities.

That is as simple an explanation as can be made.

Any other interpretation is NONSENSE!

Read the book.

Jack

Jack. The game with identities is well known in that never ending murder case. There were 4 to 6 Oswalds, (the Bolton-Ford Ossi, N.O, the Lincoln-Mercury Ossi, Dallas, the Odio-Ossi, Dallas, the firering ranch Ossi, Dallas, the mexico-city Ossi etc...), at last two JVBers, the Haslam-JVB, and the real one, and maybe there where two moms of Ossi. Jim and Judyth just say this, and I agree: there was no Oswald-CLON, which is, as far as I understand, the main-idea of the Armstrong book...according to Prouty the CIA started to create an Oswald 201 file in Dec 1960. One purpose of such a file is to create parallel résumés of one person. It is flashy that the first documented incident with a false Oswald occurred just a month later in Oswalds Hometown N.O., on 20.1.1961, the day JFK was sworn into office.

I do not believe, there was any need or intention to play the game of identities prior.

To me the Oswald-Clon theorie is worthless. I am happy with the well documented appearances of Oswald-copycats. (Some of them looked completely different!...mexico city Ossi... )

Since I am not familiar with the Armstrong book: did Armstrong explain, why there was a need to create an Oswald-Clon well back in the fifties, when Ike was president, and nobody on earth knew who would be the next man in the O-Office?

PS The final proof of the JVBs Story, to me, was, when Haslam realized, in 2000 I think, that his monkey-virus story fit 100 percent with Judyths story. Note: they never met before, (except this strange incident with that false Judyth!)and they came out with their storys independently.

KK

More total nonsense.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It gives me no pleasure to find myself on the opposite side from Jack,

but unless the evidence has established the separate existence of "the

two Oswalds", for anyone else, posing the question, "Which one is this,

Harvey or Lee?", is a leading or complex question that takes for granted

something that needs to be established on independent ground. Since

Judyth is not convinced that there were "two Oswalds"--and neither am

I nor is Karl Kinaski, whose rebuttal above I consider to be brilliant--for

Jack to be insisting that Judyth is committing some kind of blunder is

completely unjustified. Indeed, she has good reasons for skepticism on

this score, where she will return to this issue again and in greater detail.

Meanwhile . . .

From Judyth:

Jack White keeps repeating ad nauseum, that I have no information useful concerning the Kennedy assassination. I was the first person, my editors and Haslam and others believe, to link together everything happening in New Orleans and, indeed, to suggest that the plot to kill Kennedy may have been hatched there and moved to Dallas. Further--and this is important, Jim--the role of Dr. Ochsner and the hospitals involved in the case has NEVER been thoroughly investigated.

I will point out what so many note, with additional comment:

JACK RUBY AND PARKLAND

a) Jack Ruby was injected with cancer cells while in prison.

Ruby stood before x-ray machines for 45 minutes upon entering Parkland.

c) Medical neglect and medical abuse of Ruby took place at Parkland. (I can prove this, even though most researchers are unaware, but I worked an entire summer in a cancer research center observing how patients are SUPPOSED to be treated for cancer--where Ruby was all but executed at Parkland.)

And, most importantly, WHO TOOK CARE OF RUBY IN THE HOSPITAL? I KNOW.

Before we go further, witness Debbee Reynolds was assigned for me to hunt up all the medical records in the paper and elsewhere that she could. Her father, at the same time, was in the hospital, so she closed her home for a few weeks and left her home--which is in Garland outside of Dallas--and went to live with her mom so she could see her dad in the hospital.

At this same time, she spent hours in the Dallas library's JFK collection and spent time going through newspaper articles.

We thus found that the preponderance of physicians working with Ruby had BEEN BROUGHT IN FROM ANOTHER HOSPITAL.

This special 'team' made certain that Ruby would die of his injected cancer.

Over time, they tried to state that he died from 'an embolism' (blood clot) trying to avoid any mention of cancer, but Jack Ruby had told everyone who visited him in the hospital, not just Maddox and a few others, that he had been injected with cancer.

His statements were pooh-poohed even while he died of it.

ALTON OCHSNER

The doctors brought in were largely from a sister hospital, M.D. Anderson, and most of them had ties to Dr. Alton Ochsner, who, by the way, was a member of the Eugenics Society. Ochsner's ties to Germany are strong--besides heritage, he interned in Germany.

Further, Ochsner knew Charles Thomas, my new witness, whom I mentioned had a German accent when he spoke English. Charles Thomas expedited Lee Oswald's 24-hour new passport, though the one turned in to for inspection was covered with Soviet Union stamps from Moscow (Russia) as well as Belarus (USSR).

Lee wrote plainly his intent on the new passport application his intention to travel to Cuba and to the USSR. Under no ordinary circumstances during the Cold war could anyone get a passport indicating these travel intentions, and to obtain the passport in 24 hours was necessary.

As for cover stories, a small article was placed in the newspaper a week or so in advance, saying passports were going to be speeded up in New Orleans and, along with Lee's, some dozen or so other passports were also hurried through the process in 24 hours. So was I told--and decades later, I found the newspaper article.

CHARLES THOMAS

Ochsner knew Thomas, former Customs Agent living in Miami and working at that time undercover for the CIA with anti-Castro Cubans and the mafia. I have photos from his family of Cubans with whom he worked, as well as mafia members, one of whom I was able to identify as being inside a LOOK Magazine expose of the mafia.

Ochsner, in other words, probably brought Charles Thomas in from Miami to expedite the passport so that Lee Oswald would feel comfortable with the operation--in fact, he was proud and therefore introduced me to Thomas--- but this would make it all the easier for Lee Oswald to believe that, when he went to Mexico City, he had all this cooperation.

When Lee was betrayed in Mexico City--and he bitterly realized that he had been used, even made to go to Mexico City, at the very least--where his actions to try to get the bioweapon into Cuba were blocked, but not until a record was made that he had been to the Cuban diplomats there....

And that he would then seem to be truly pro-Castro, a set-up he later realized worked against him in Dallas when he was invited into the assassination ring. He knew then that he was going to die. To his everlasting credit, he didn't run. Had he done so, his family and I would not be alive today.

Please carefully read what I write next

RUTH PAINE

Originally, Marina was going to have her baby in a different hospital, but Ruth Paine had her switched over to Parkland Hospital.

Now everyone there who might have interest saw what Lee Oswald looked like, for he went there to see his newborn baby on Monday afternoon there after work. I have already told you--or maybe my research team at Trine day--that Ruth Paine manipulated it so he could not be with his wife when she delivered her baby.

Much about Ruth Paine remains uninvestigated, especially unsigned typed material she claims Lee Oswald wrote and other things found in her garage, that implicated him, which have unknown true origins.

M.D. ANDERSON

Ochsner trained many Parkland doctors and M.D. Anderson’s, as well.

I believe the bioweapon was used on Jack Ruby at Parkland.

I know M.D. Anderson had the bioweapon because Lee got a handoff--fresh bioweapon materials--from M.D. Anderson on his way to Mexico City. And he did take a bus from Houston to Mexico.

It is material such as this that is missing from the book because it 'slows the story down' and adds so many pages that the average reader gets entirely bogged down....And it means very little to the average reader. The book is intended to portray Lee Oswald, not covert operations. It is by no means representing everything I know.

The 'big book' by Livingstone was severely limited because Livingstone and I fought about how much of a role the CIA played. Livingstone believes they were not directly involved and therefore called me a 'bitch' for arguing with him about it. Instead of respecting my information as a witness, he preferred to not even mention some of my beliefs in the book.

And your expert friend will possibly say that my beliefs are not important, either. Nevertheless, they come from long thought and from personal knowledge of what Lee and I went through in New Orleans.

So I give this to you.

[Doug Weldon]

Doug,

You know I regard you highly and usually support you. Madeleine must have found something about you

that she didn't like. I hardly think that your non-interviews with Madeline offset my many conversations,

her book, Billy Sol Estes' book, Nigel's research, and other sources I have cited in support her version of

events. I don't want to insult you, but I don't think you possess the foundation to draw any conclusions

about Madeleine or about Judyth. If you have been following this thread, many others--who include Jim

Marrs, Wim Dankbaar, and Ed Haslam, for example--who have dealt with Judyth believe in her, as do I.

Listening to Barb about Judyth is a colossal blunder and, if you have any idea what you are talking about,

the previous books were not ones that she had approved or authorized. I am having extensive dealings

with her and if she is not "the real deal", I will eat my hat (figuratively speaking, since I don't wear one).

This reminds me of Doug Horne's "pet peeves" from Vol. V of INSIDE THE ARRB (page 1801), where he

dumps on the very idea that 9/11 was an inside job! I can assure you that, if he had studied 9/11 with

anything like the diligence he has JFK, that would not be his opinion. We must all learn the limitations

of our competence. In my opinion, the two Dougs, for all their excellence, are still groping for theirs.

Jim

From 'James H. Fetzer' post='186154' date='Mar 8 2010, 02:17 PM';

Judyth already rebutted this drivel about "Cancun", Barb. Don't you have anything better than to recycle?

I almost hate to say it, but your are giving Judyth's critics a bad name. Maybe you need to reread the thread.

From 'Pamela McElwain-Brown' post='186159' date='Mar 8 2010, 09:32 PM':

Barb has devoted years of time and effort trying to find any sort of tidbit which can then be distorted and then 'used' against Judyth. Your objective presentation of Judyth's information is just raining on her parade. You can anticipate that the level of rhetoric of her responses will be proportionate to the damage being inflicted.

From 'Karl Kinaski' post='186164' date='Mar 8 2010, 11:11 PM':

Looks like you re on the ropes, Barb. Your beaten. Get over it...

This thread is the final punch for the Judyth-bashing-trolls all over the internet!

Congrats to Starsky and Hutch aka Jim and Judyth.

KK

From Jack White:

This nonsense shows a total lack of understanding.

On the SAME DATE it is documented that ONE MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at Paul's Shoe Store in Fort Worth while

Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School.

On that SAME DATE it is documented that ANOTHER MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at a hosiery store on Canal Street in New

Orleans while another Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard Junior

High School.

This information has NOTHING to do with photo analysis nor

forensic analysis nor medical analysis as NONSENSICALLY stated

above. Two LHOs, two Marguerites, same date, different cities.

That is as simple an explanation as can be made.

Any other interpretation is NONSENSE!

Read the book.

Jack

From Doug Weldon:

I am not convinced yet by either Judyth or Madeline Brown. I can specify reasons but it boils down to a lack of corroboration. In regards to Judyth her account of Oswald appears to make him so sophisticated, suave, and living such a life that it makes the fictional James Bond look like a street urchin in comparison. I respect other opinions and hopefully this is not seen as bashing anyone but I am very far from being persuaded. I have to agree with Jack's observations above.

Best,

Doug Weldon

From 'James H. Fetzer' post='186292' date='Mar 9 2010, 09:55 PM':

Well, Doug, as one who had more than one hundred conversations with Madeleine, who has read her book

and interviewed her at Lancer (1999), which should be available from the production company, and whose

account of the Murchison ratification meeting the night before was corroborated by Nigel Turner and can be

found in "The Guilty Men" segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" and whose incrimination of Lyndon has

been directly substantiated by Billy Sol Estes, A TEXAS LEGEND, and E. Howard Hunt, "The Last Confession

of E. Howard Hunt" in ROLLING STONE, and indirectly by Barr McClellan, BLOOD, MONEY, POWER, I believe

you have just the least bit exceeded the scope of your competence. I support you when you are right and

fault you when you are wrong. I think this is one of those times where you haven't done your homework.

From Doug Weldon:

Jim:

We can agree to disagree. If I could see one copy of a newspaper where Madeline said an account of the Murchison party was posted I could accept her account. Until then I cannot. I would like to accept her account because it supports all of the evidence I have including the overwhelming culpability of LBJ. Madeline was a witness who enjoyed her celebrity. It is not a criticism, but an observation. In 1998 you went to a lot of trouble to arrange a meeting between Madeline and myself. She knew I was an attorney. I did have some tough questions for her. She did not show up for that meeting. Then I saw her at dinner at Lancer and with your assistance we arranged another meeting. Again she did not show. I later phoned her. Again, she made an excuse not to talk. I made one more attempt months later and again I was thwarted. I saw her on a television show years before about President's mistresses and no mention was made of the LBJ incident. I do not question that she was LBJ's mistress but beyond that I cannot use her account. The other thing that bothers me is that if she loved LBJ so much why would she do so much to destroy his reputation? The jury is still out for me on her. It's like James Files demanding a trial so he could prove he shot Kennedy. What would be the result if he was successful? He could get the death penalty.

Judyth creates a lot of concern for me. The dialog that supposedly transpired between her and Lee would be laughable if it was written for the worst "B" movie ever made. I am not dismissing either of them. Either account would support many of the things I believed happened. I know you had a close relationship with Madeline. I will agree she was a very interesting woman. I hope I can find the proofs to agree with you.

Best,

Doug Weldon

I am having extensive dealings

with her and if she is not "the real deal", I will eat my hat (figuratively speaking, since I don't wear one).

Jim:

None of us are ever going to totally agree with each other on everything. I don't judge Madeline because she may not have liked me. She would have joined the company of too many others if I used that as a criteria. I am familiar with Judyth. She e-mailed me years ago and I followed her story. I hope you are right but if I was in your shoes I would be more comfortable wearing a hat made out of chocolate cake. I was one of the people Armstrong bounced things off of when he gathered the material for his book. Some things he thought were significant did not impress me but there were other aspects I found startling. Everyone should read his book. Judyth is a very interesting and extremely bright woman. It would be nice if her story is true but I remain a skeptic. I will watch how this develops.

Best,

Doug

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

For an attorney who appreciates the importance of witness testimony and who knows that documents

and photographs can easily be faked, especially by agencies with the resources of the CIA, it simply

dumbfounds me that you are adopting this attitude. Did you understand the point that Judyth was

making with the photographs she supplied? She herself looked sufficiently different in these various

photos that, if one were so inclined, you could argue there were "two Judyths". Personally--and I've

shared this with Jack--I strongly suspect that some of his photos of "Lee" and some of his photos of

"Harvey" have been faked, which I predict will be verified in subsequent exchanges that will appear

in the course of this thread. I am beginning to wonder how much proof it would take for you or for

Jack to admit that there may be some difficulties with the "two Oswald's" scenario, which Jack, not

surprisingly, insists is NOT "a scenario" but a fact. Well, like you re Judyth, I am yet to be convinced.

Doug,

You know I regard you highly and usually support you. Madeleine must have found something about you

that she didn't like. I hardly think that your non-interviews with Madeline offset my many conversations,

her book, Billy Sol Estes' book, Nigel's research, and other sources I have cited in support her version of

events. I don't want to insult you, but I don't think you possess the foundation to draw any conclusions

about Madeleine or about Judyth. If you have been following this thread, many others--who include Jim

Marrs, Wim Dankbaar, and Ed Haslam, for example--who have dealt with Judyth believe in her, as do I.

Listening to Barb about Judyth is a colossal blunder and, if you have any idea what you are talking about,

the previous books were not ones that she had approved or authorized. I am having extensive dealings

with her and if she is not "the real deal", I will eat my hat (figuratively speaking, since I don't wear one).

This reminds me of Doug Horne's "pet peeves" from Vol. V of INSIDE THE ARRB (page 1801), where he

dumps on the very idea that 9/11 was an inside job! I can assure you that, if he had studied 9/11 with

anything like the diligence he has JFK, that would not be his opinion. We must all learn the limitations

of our competence. In my opinion, the two Dougs, for all their excellence, are still groping for theirs.

Jim

From 'James H. Fetzer' post='186154' date='Mar 8 2010, 02:17 PM';

Judyth already rebutted this drivel about "Cancun", Barb. Don't you have anything better than to recycle?

I almost hate to say it, but your are giving Judyth's critics a bad name. Maybe you need to reread the thread.

From 'Pamela McElwain-Brown' post='186159' date='Mar 8 2010, 09:32 PM':

Barb has devoted years of time and effort trying to find any sort of tidbit which can then be distorted and then 'used' against Judyth. Your objective presentation of Judyth's information is just raining on her parade. You can anticipate that the level of rhetoric of her responses will be proportionate to the damage being inflicted.

From 'Karl Kinaski' post='186164' date='Mar 8 2010, 11:11 PM':

Looks like you re on the ropes, Barb. Your beaten. Get over it...

This thread is the final punch for the Judyth-bashing-trolls all over the internet!

Congrats to Starsky and Hutch aka Jim and Judyth.

KK

From Jack White:

This nonsense shows a total lack of understanding.

On the SAME DATE it is documented that ONE MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at Paul's Shoe Store in Fort Worth while

Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School.

On that SAME DATE it is documented that ANOTHER MARGUERITE

OSWALD worked at a hosiery store on Canal Street in New

Orleans while another Lee Harvey Oswald attended Beauregard Junior

High School.

This information has NOTHING to do with photo analysis nor

forensic analysis nor medical analysis as NONSENSICALLY stated

above. Two LHOs, two Marguerites, same date, different cities.

That is as simple an explanation as can be made.

Any other interpretation is NONSENSE!

Read the book.

Jack

From Doug Weldon:

I am not convinced yet by either Judyth or Madeline Brown. I can specify reasons but it boils down to a lack of corroboration. In regards to Judyth her account of Oswald appears to make him so sophisticated, suave, and living such a life that it makes the fictional James Bond look like a street urchin in comparison. I respect other opinions and hopefully this is not seen as bashing anyone but I am very far from being persuaded. I have to agree with Jack's observations above.

Best,

Doug Weldon

From 'James H. Fetzer' post='186292' date='Mar 9 2010, 09:55 PM':

Well, Doug, as one who had more than one hundred conversations with Madeleine, who has read her book

and interviewed her at Lancer (1999), which should be available from the production company, and whose

account of the Murchison ratification meeting the night before was corroborated by Nigel Turner and can be

found in "The Guilty Men" segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" and whose incrimination of Lyndon has

been directly substantiated by Billy Sol Estes, A TEXAS LEGEND, and E. Howard Hunt, "The Last Confession

of E. Howard Hunt" in ROLLING STONE, and indirectly by Barr McClellan, BLOOD, MONEY, POWER, I believe

you have just the least bit exceeded the scope of your competence. I support you when you are right and

fault you when you are wrong. I think this is one of those times where you haven't done your homework.

From Doug Weldon:

Jim:

We can agree to disagree. If I could see one copy of a newspaper where Madeline said an account of the Murchison party was posted I could accept her account. Until then I cannot. I would like to accept her account because it supports all of the evidence I have including the overwhelming culpability of LBJ. Madeline was a witness who enjoyed her celebrity. It is not a criticism, but an observation. In 1998 you went to a lot of trouble to arrange a meeting between Madeline and myself. She knew I was an attorney. I did have some tough questions for her. She did not show up for that meeting. Then I saw her at dinner at Lancer and with your assistance we arranged another meeting. Again she did not show. I later phoned her. Again, she made an excuse not to talk. I made one more attempt months later and again I was thwarted. I saw her on a television show years before about President's mistresses and no mention was made of the LBJ incident. I do not question that she was LBJ's mistress but beyond that I cannot use her account. The other thing that bothers me is that if she loved LBJ so much why would she do so much to destroy his reputation? The jury is still out for me on her. It's like James Files demanding a trial so he could prove he shot Kennedy. What would be the result if he was successful? He could get the death penalty.

Judyth creates a lot of concern for me. The dialog that supposedly transpired between her and Lee would be laughable if it was written for the worst "B" movie ever made. I am not dismissing either of them. Either account would support many of the things I believed happened. I know you had a close relationship with Madeline. I will agree she was a very interesting woman. I hope I can find the proofs to agree with you.

Best,

Doug Weldon

I am having extensive dealings with her and if she is not "the real deal", I will eat my hat (figuratively speaking, since I don't wear one).

Jim:

None of us are ever going to totally agree with each other on everything. I don't judge Madeline because she may not have liked me. She would have joined the company of too many others if I used that as a criteria. I am familiar with Judyth. She e-mailed me years ago and I followed her story. I hope you are right but if I was in your shoes I would be more comfortable wearing a hat made out of chocolate cake. I was one of the people Armstrong bounced things off of when he gathered the material for his book. Some things he thought were significant did not impress me but there were other aspects I found startling. Everyone should read his book. Judyth is a very interesting and extremely bright woman. It would be nice if her story is true but I remain a skeptic. I will watch how this develops.

Best,

Doug

Edited March 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

I am skeptical that anyone who has not read Armstrong's book can comment on it accurately.

Jim has been my friend for about 15 years, and we do not always see things the same. I

strongly disagree with him that O.J. Simpson murdered two persons, but is covering for the

actual killer, his son Jason. I disagree with Jim on the Theory of Evolution. I now disagree

with him on JVB and the research of John Armstrong. I have studied the two Oswalds for

40+ years and claim some expertise in the matter. I watched every minute of the Simpson

trial and have read a couple of books on it, and claim some expertise. I have read Armstrong's

book at least four times, and know what it is about. I am NOT an expert on JVB because I

judge any information she has to offer is insignificant.

I trust our friendship can survive these latest challenges. Jim is one of the brightest people

researching what got the nation in the bad shape it is in today. But in pursuing JVB with

the same passion he pursues things that really matter, he is going down a fruitless trail,

which even if the JVB story is 100 percent true, adds nothing to the JFK evidence.

Jack

[Doug Weldon]

I am skeptical that anyone who has not read Armstrong's book can comment on it accurately.

Jim has been my friend for about 15 years, and we do not always see things the same. I

strongly disagree with him that O.J. Simpson murdered two persons, but is covering for the

actual killer, his son Jason. I disagree with Jim on the Theory of Evolution. I now disagree

with him on JVB and the research of John Armstrong. I have studied the two Oswalds for

40+ years and claim some expertise in the matter. I watched every minute of the Simpson

trial and have read a couple of books on it, and claim some expertise. I have read Armstrong's

book at least four times, and know what it is about. I am NOT an expert on JVB because I

judge any information she has to offer is insignificant.

I trust our friendship can survive these latest challenges. Jim is one of the brightest people

researching what got the nation in the bad shape it is in today. But in pursuing JVB with

the same passion he pursues things that really matter, he is going down a fruitless trail,

which even if the JVB story is 100 percent true, adds nothing to the JFK evidence.

Jack

Jack:

Great post! Just to confuse things further, I am very religious but evolution does not threaten my faith. I also followed the O.J. trial intensely and have read a number of books and much on the case but I strongly believe that O.J. got away with murder. Otherwise, we are all in complete agreement. I believe friendships can survive also.

Best,

Doug

[Jack White]

I am skeptical that anyone who has not read Armstrong's book can comment on it accurately.

Jim has been my friend for about 15 years, and we do not always see things the same. I

strongly disagree with him that O.J. Simpson murdered two persons, but is covering for the

actual killer, his son Jason. I disagree with Jim on the Theory of Evolution. I now disagree

with him on JVB and the research of John Armstrong. I have studied the two Oswalds for

40+ years and claim some expertise in the matter. I watched every minute of the Simpson

trial and have read a couple of books on it, and claim some expertise. I have read Armstrong's

book at least four times, and know what it is about. I am NOT an expert on JVB because I

judge any information she has to offer is insignificant.

I trust our friendship can survive these latest challenges. Jim is one of the brightest people

researching what got the nation in the bad shape it is in today. But in pursuing JVB with

the same passion he pursues things that really matter, he is going down a fruitless trail,

which even if the JVB story is 100 percent true, adds nothing to the JFK evidence.

Jack

Jack:

Great post! Just to confuse things further, I am very religious but evolution does not threaten my faith. I also followed the O.J. trial intensely and have read a number of books and much on the case but I strongly believe that O.J. got away with murder. Otherwise, we are all in complete agreement. I believe friendships can survive also.

Best,

Doug

Doug...thanks! Have you read THE ESSENTIAL OJ book by Bill Dear, OJ IS GUILTY, BUT NOT OF MURDER?

Google it to read all about it, such as http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/00554.htm

It presents the solution to the case, just as I had already figured it out from watching every minute of the

OJ trial on Court TV. You cannot know the case without reading Dear's book...just like you cannot understand

Lee Harvey Oswald without reading Armstrong's book.

Now, let me ask you to be a lawyer cross examining Judyth Baker. Show her these NINE PHOTOS OF MEN

which official government documents say are all LEE HARVEY OSWALD. Pose the question to her:

"Ms. Baker, which of these photos most closely depicts the man you say was your lover?"

Fair question for a lawyer?

If she DECLINES to answer, what would your next line of questioning be?

Jack

PS. I do not consider THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION to be a religious matter. Introducing religion into

evolution discussion is like introducing JVB into JFK discussion.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Jack White

[Doug Weldon]

I am skeptical that anyone who has not read Armstrong's book can comment on it accurately.

Jim has been my friend for about 15 years, and we do not always see things the same. I

strongly disagree with him that O.J. Simpson murdered two persons, but is covering for the

actual killer, his son Jason. I disagree with Jim on the Theory of Evolution. I now disagree

with him on JVB and the research of John Armstrong. I have studied the two Oswalds for

40+ years and claim some expertise in the matter. I watched every minute of the Simpson

trial and have read a couple of books on it, and claim some expertise. I have read Armstrong's

book at least four times, and know what it is about. I am NOT an expert on JVB because I

judge any information she has to offer is insignificant.

I trust our friendship can survive these latest challenges. Jim is one of the brightest people

researching what got the nation in the bad shape it is in today. But in pursuing JVB with

the same passion he pursues things that really matter, he is going down a fruitless trail,

which even if the JVB story is 100 percent true, adds nothing to the JFK evidence.

Jack

Jack:

Great post! Just to confuse things further, I am very religious but evolution does not threaten my faith. I also followed the O.J. trial intensely and have read a number of books and much on the case but I strongly believe that O.J. got away with murder. Otherwise, we are all in complete agreement. I believe friendships can survive also.

Best,

Doug

Doug...thanks! Have you read THE ESSENTIAL OJ book by Bill Dear, OJ IS GUILTY, BUT NOT OF MURDER?

Google it to read all about it, such as http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/00554.htm

It presents the solution to the case, just as I had already figured it out from watching every minute of the

OJ trial on Court TV. You cannot know the case without reading Dear's book...just like you cannot understand

Lee Harvey Oswald without reading Armstrong's book.

Now, let me ask you to be a lawyer cross examining Judyth Baker. Show her these NINE PHOTOS OF MEN

which official government documents say are all LEE HARVEY OSWALD. Pose the question to her:

"Ms. Baker, which of these photos most closely depicts the man you say was your lover?"

Fair question for a lawyer?

If she DECLINES to answer, what would your next line of questioning be?

Jack

PS. I do not consider THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION to be a religious matter. Introducing religion into

evolution discussion is like introducing JVB into JFK discussion.

Jack:

I have not read that book but I will. Your question of Judyth would be very fair. She would not be able to decline to answer that question in a court.(she could say none of them) If she refused I would ask the judge to order her to answer the question. If she again refused the court could hold her in contempt and depending on the nature of the proceedings everything could be dismissed or she could even be subjected to jail. I do find it interesting that people who believe Judyth become very passionate about her. When Judyth e-mailed me years ago she just asked me to be fair and open in considering her story. I thought it was a very decent approach. I have tried to be open but if she is accurate about their dialog I would find it hard to believe that even the worst of soap operas would try to convince anyone that people would talk that way. I do also tend to agree that even if it could be proved that they had an affair it would not add much to studying the assassination.

John's work is very complicated but, as you noted, does not simply rely on photographs but even WC documents. I believe even the most skeptical of John, after examining his evidence, would have to conclude that something is very amiss. I did not find Ventura's on the Tru TV site but did find it on youtube. The Denver airport on the 2012 show is very disturbing to me. I wish someone could explain it. I tend to agree with your P.S.

Best,

Doug

[Jack White]

I am skeptical that anyone who has not read Armstrong's book can comment on it accurately.

Jim has been my friend for about 15 years, and we do not always see things the same. I

strongly disagree with him that O.J. Simpson murdered two persons, but is covering for the

actual killer, his son Jason. I disagree with Jim on the Theory of Evolution. I now disagree

with him on JVB and the research of John Armstrong. I have studied the two Oswalds for

40+ years and claim some expertise in the matter. I watched every minute of the Simpson

trial and have read a couple of books on it, and claim some expertise. I have read Armstrong's

book at least four times, and know what it is about. I am NOT an expert on JVB because I

judge any information she has to offer is insignificant.

I trust our friendship can survive these latest challenges. Jim is one of the brightest people

researching what got the nation in the bad shape it is in today. But in pursuing JVB with

the same passion he pursues things that really matter, he is going down a fruitless trail,

which even if the JVB story is 100 percent true, adds nothing to the JFK evidence.

Jack

Jack:

Great post! Just to confuse things further, I am very religious but evolution does not threaten my faith. I also followed the O.J. trial intensely and have read a number of books and much on the case but I strongly believe that O.J. got away with murder. Otherwise, we are all in complete agreement. I believe friendships can survive also.

Best,

Doug

Doug...thanks! Have you read THE ESSENTIAL OJ book by Bill Dear, OJ IS GUILTY, BUT NOT OF MURDER?

Google it to read all about it, such as http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/00554.htm

It presents the solution to the case, just as I had already figured it out from watching every minute of the

OJ trial on Court TV. You cannot know the case without reading Dear's book...just like you cannot understand

Lee Harvey Oswald without reading Armstrong's book.

Now, let me ask you to be a lawyer cross examining Judyth Baker. Show her these NINE PHOTOS OF MEN

which official government documents say are all LEE HARVEY OSWALD. Pose the question to her:

"Ms. Baker, which of these photos most closely depicts the man you say was your lover?"

Fair question for a lawyer?

If she DECLINES to answer, what would your next line of questioning be?

Jack

PS. I do not consider THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION to be a religious matter. Introducing religion into

evolution discussion is like introducing JVB into JFK discussion.

Jack:

I have not read that book but I will. Your question of Judyth would be very fair. She would not be able to decline to answer that question in a court.(she could say none of them) If she refused I would ask the judge to order her to answer the question. If she again refused the court could hold her in contempt and depending on the nature of the proceedings everything could be dismissed or she could even be subjected to jail. I do find it interesting that people who believe Judyth become very passionate about her. When Judyth e-mailed me years ago she just asked me to be fair and open in considering her story. I thought it was a very decent approach. I have tried to be open but if she is accurate about their dialog I would find it hard to believe that even the worst of soap operas would try to convince anyone that people would talk that way. I do also tend to agree that even if it could be proved that they had an affair it would not add much to studying the assassination.

John's work is very complicated but, as you noted, does not simply rely on photographs but even WC documents. I believe even the most skeptical of John, after examining his evidence, would have to conclude that something is very amiss. I did not find Ventura's on the Tru TV site but did find it on youtube. The Denver airport on the 2012 show is very disturbing to me. I wish someone could explain it. I tend to agree with your P.S.

Best,

Doug

Thanks, Doug. I find your "legal" opinion very valid.

I hope you will read the Bill Dear book.

I missed the Ventura show on the Denver airport...but do know a little about the allegations of the underground

facilities there. I remember the airport was millions over budget and years late in opening. I will watch the show.

On evolution...I welcome any scientific study of the THEORY of evolution; I oppose ANY study of evolution in

which an either/or stance of RELIGION VS. EVOLUTION is the topic. Religious thought is irrelevant to the

creation of the universe. I believe in adherence to religious principles. But myths woven by ancient peoples

to try to understand all things have no scientific basis and are irrelevant to our understanding of the universe.

Thanks.

Jack

Edited March 10, 2010 by Jack White

[Barb Junkkarinen]

... and, if you have any idea what you are talking about,

the previous books were not ones that she had approved or authorized.

Anyone who knows about Judyth and the promotion of her story over the last 10 years, knows that Martin Shackelford

was long her most ardent supporter and promoter. Rarely was there any change in the story, any excuse, any tidbit of information

from Judyth that he would not defend. It was a very rare occasion when Martin would say anything contrary to Judyth ...

both before, and after, her book came out and then, was pulled.

Judyth was actively promoting the book even as it came out. She was involved in

discussions, writing prolifcally as everyone knows she can, defending her book and telling people where to get it, etc. Even blogs and on websites where she was writing these things about it being unauthorized, she was still promoting it, posting the site where people could order the book. Then suddenly, the book was pulled. I don't recall how many months it was on the market. Martin once posted it was available for like 15 or 18 months.

Finally, after some time and cyber space being filled with Judyth's charges, Martin spoke out. Long after this post, until sometime last year when he disappeared from the research community online completely, he was still defending Judyth's story. But he had spoken candidly several times about what went wrong with the book deal. Here is one of his posts explaining the problem and why the book was pulled. He was one who worked with Judyth the whole time, he was on the inside of this. Jim has posted Judyth's comments about the book being "unauthorized." She has written all over the net how they published it behind her back, that there was no contract, etc. So, here is Martin's side of that story for people to consider.

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

From: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>

Date: 14 Apr 2008 11:35:12 -0400

Local: Mon, Apr 14 2008 7:35 am

Subject: Re: JUDYTH: The Roswell Park evidence: and an answer to a question

As she corrected the text, and it was published with her corrections (so

much for her claim that the book was "incomplete"--perhaps she means it

wasn't the entire original 1500 page version), the "unauthorized" comment simply

means that she tried to back out of the contract and was unable to do so--the

"behind her back" comment refers to the same thing.

Her "objections" had nothing to do with the book's contents.but with the

fact that Livingstone published the book after they had a dispute,and he

declined to accept a $500 payoff to drop the project and give her

his edit--AND his introduction, after he had put considerably more into the

book.

As she was in a hurry, in October 2004, to get the book published, she

can hardly blame Livingstone or myself for getting it out in 2006 as us

"rushing" it.

She didn't sue anybody because she had no grounds on which to do so. Her

lawyer made that clear to her after he tried to impose a ridiculous

alternative contract on Livingstone.

She hadn't received royalties because the book's expenses hadn't yet been

fully paid. She had rejected a more reasonable alternative contract by

which she would have begun receiving partial royalties right away. Had

she not gotten the book canceled, she would have begun receiving royalties

within a few months.

When she couldn't impose a ridiculous alternative contract on Livingstone

(first her version, and then her lawyer's even worse substitute version),

she tried to "withdraw permission" by unilaterally canceling the original

contract AFTER everyone had performed as the contract required. This you

can't legally do.

The contracts she is talking about:

Livingstone's contract: he offered her an alternative contract . She

rejected this. It included the following provisions:

1) She would receive 50% of the royalties from the start, the other 50%

going to pay off the book's costs.

2) After one year, she would be free to take the text to another publisher

if she found a better publishing deal, as long as the book's costs were paid.

3) Royalty statements would go to her, so she would be able to keep track of

the amounts adequately.

4) All subsidiary rights would belong solely to her.

5) Written guarantee that she had the final edit rights [which she was

granted even after rejecting the alternative contracts]

6) She had to accept responsibility if the book contained any libel.

7) The book would be published as "A Harrison Edward Livingstone Book,"

rather than self-published.

[He kept trying to offer her a better contract as late as January 2006]

Her re-write of the contract (AFTER saying she accepted the final draft

offered by Livingstone--then going silent for a week) included:

1) A detailed, searchable index (with no provision for paying for it)

2) Livingstone's costs to be "deducted from" money that had already

been spent--in other words, from no actual source.

3) Royalties to go directly to her--she would decide who got reimbursed.

[it made her angry that Livingstone might receive ANYTHING.]

4) She claimed that Livingstone owed HER $19,000, due to his "actions"

which she "estimated" cost her that amount.

Her lawyer's contract:

1) Referred to Livingstone simply as a "packager," implying that he did no

editing.

2) Added several new expenses that Livingstone was expected to pay.

3) Reduced the amount to be paid to Livingstone for his expenses.

4) Canceled her repeated commitment to repay the investors.

5) Livingstone's editing to be "at his own expense."

6) Livingstone to take legal responsibility for any libel in the book.

7) Demand that the price of the book be lowered (it is set by the POD,

not by Livingstone).

8) ALL free copies of the book to go to Judyth.

As a result, no substitute contract was agreed upon, and the original

contract remained in effect, and under it the book was published.

Martin

Barb :-)

[Pat Speer]

Jack,

You, more than anyone else, are convincing me that Judyth has never received a fair shake. So far as I have been able to discern, EVERY POINT YOU HAVE MADE AGAINST HER HAS BEEN WRONG. [i have italicized two lines here where I inferred she was quoting from others. Those are my italics.] Consider the following:

From Judyth:

Look at this, and then see how my testimony has been twisted by prejudice:

I Led Three Lives premiered in 1953. Robert Oswald joined the Marines in 1952. So when I say Pat Speer is having a back and forth with Stalin's New Soviet . . .

Jack White gave you the pitch--and that comes from not talking to me or reading my statements carefully--that through much labor of love I write yet again. See, this is the stuff that has been erased, Jim and Lola---and now I have to go through it all over again!

Anyway, Jack says I fell for Robert Oswald's "lie" and ten made up my own. (By the way, psychologically, all this does sink into your soul, as you read these attacks.) He says Lee Oswald did not see and love "I Led Three Lives" as Robert said, which was his favorite show, because "Robert was in the Marines by 1952, and the show came out in 1953."

Robert said Lee saw it in Texas.

His memory is flawed, that's all. Lee saw it in New York and probably told Robert he watched it and loved it when Robert visited them in Texas on leave. That is my educated guess.

White says I have somehow fallen for the Robert Oswald fabrication.

But, as I told you on the phone BEFORE Jack White brought this up, Lee told me he saw "I Led Three Lives" in New York, which is why he looked to see if it was 'still playing' in New York, when he spotted the TV guide on the back of my article.

I just spent two hours reading this entire thread. Perhaps it was a waste of time...time will tell...

I am curious nonetheless, as to how my name appeared in this thread in association with Stalin... ??? Is this a snippet from some earlier post which I somehow missed reading?

[Glenn Viklund]

First a note: All markings in bold and italic are done by me today.

Basic facts:

1. Judyth Vary Baker applied for political asylum in Sweden in the early fall of 2007.

2. This was denied later that fall.

3. She immediately appealed this decision.

4. This appeal was denied, in the early summer of 2008, and she had to leave the country shortly thereafter.

5. Her judicial status during this entire process was that of an asylum seeker.

End of story.

It is truly fantastic that these five simple, and crystal clear facts, can turn into something quite different. But just to remove any further question marks surrounding this issue, let me also point these things out:

1. JVB was granted nothing in Sweden. She received the same standard treatment as ALL other asylum seekers. The process is extremely well defined and easy to understand.

2. That is: She was granted no ”provisional political asylum”, because no such thing exists. In fact, she was granted nothing at all on top of what all asylum seekers are entitled to.

3. That also means that her files and documentation are publicly available – precisely as they are in ALL these cases.

4. She received no ”special treatment” whatsoever. No additional secrecy, no special benefits, economic or otherwise.

5. Her story – as fantastic as it may be – was dealt with according to the regular, standard process. No more, no less.

6. The only substancial, formal decisions authorites made in her case, was that she was denied political asylum, twice.

7. In accordance with the last denial, she had to leave the country. She complied and left the country shortly thereafter.

How do I know this? Because I obtained all documents from the two courts involved and read the entirety of this issue. It required perhaps 3 to 4 phone calls and something like 4 hours to do. So the effort should by no means be exaggerated. It's all well documented and leaves no room for misunderstandings. On top of this I also spoke with relevant officials on a couple of occasions. These documents were also provided to John McAdams and the mod forum.

When, in december of 2008, I provided these facts to the mod group (McAdams) these were some of the responses, all from december, 2008:

”Pamela, december 13, 2008:

”Apologists don't like logic, Martin, as it exposes their fallacies for what they are.  McAdams and Barb seem to be frantic about this article.  Perhaps they have begun to grasp that there is more to it than meets the eye, and that their denials of Judyth being involved in an asylum process in Sweden, much less having any need for asylum, have been put into a larger context. ”

I wrote:

> The argument that JVB does have received a grant on appeal is incorrect.

> She did not. She was denied this as of June 2008, and according to

> official records she left Sweden in July, 2008. These simple facts can

> easily be verified through the Swedish Migration Board.

Anthony Marsh, december 13, 2008:

Then how do you explain the grant of asylum she has?

I wrote:

”Glenn Viklund [glenn54.vikl...@dataphone.se] wrote:

> One last thing. The document published by Tony is just a request for her

> to come in to the immigration authorities. It's got nothing to do with her

> appeal, or her being granted on appeal. On the contrary, this document is

> what any asylum seeker would receive after having been denied asylum. They

> want to arrange for her trip back home - which probably means that they

> will pay for her trip to wherever she is going when leaving Sweden.

Anthony Marsh:

It is a stay of the deportation order. ”

Pamelas answer to the same statement from me:

”And of course you seem comfortable taking a piece of information and

claiming that it defines the situation.  You also seem comfortable begging

the real questions; namely, what was the process that took place, and what

were the results of that process.  You might want to go back and do some

more researching rather than jumping to conclusions. ”

Comment: Now then, which one of us did in fact jump to conclusions here? As I've seen your stubbornness many times before, I don't expect you to admit one iota of misrepresentation on your part. Even though you filed posting after posting with incorrect information. If you still think I somehow misrepresented something or jumped to conclusions, now's the time to clearify what that might have been.

”Martin Shackelford:

>I think the confusion here is between temporary asylum (which she

>received) and permanent asylum (which she didn't appeal to get as

>she had already landed a job elsewhere).”

and:

>I didn't have the letter granting asylum until after the Florida article

>made it an issue. I have now provided it to Tony to post. Wrong again,

>Barb.

My reply:

There is no such thing as a temporary asylum. You get to stay in the

country where you have applied for asylum ­ if your case is considered

at all, some aren’t ­ while your case is being investigated and

subsequently decided. As far as asylum, you ether get it or you don’t.

During the time the matter is under investigation you do not have the

rights that a grant will give you. You can’t work, you have to notify your

movements to the authorities if you live at your own expense, etc. When

granted asylum you get a Permanent Resident Permit (PUT), then you pretty

much have all the rights of anybody else living in the country in

question. ”

”Pamela again:

>It seems there was no process in place at that time to grant asylum from

>the US -- after all, we are not supposed to be a banana republic that goes

>after its citizens.  Therefore, a new path might have to be forged.

My comment:

Of course there is a process. I’ve described a few details about it in my postings regarding JVB. There’s nothing formally special with JVB seeking asylum in Sweden. It is unusual that an American citizen is applying for asylum in Sweden, that´s very true. Perhaps she also presented a very special story, that might also be true. But apart from this, everything in this case has been following the lines of any asylum seeker. ”

I note that ”provisional asylum” is still today a frequently used description in various forums, even though this term does not exist. ASYLUM SEEKER, folks. It really isn't that hard. Try it, it works and above all – it is the correct description of her status during her stay in Sweden. She provided an ID in this thread with a photo.”ASYLSÖKANDE”, which is the Swedish word for ASYLUM SEEKER.

Pamela still insists on asylum, plain and simple(from this thread):

”You seem to have it backwards. Judyth was targeted in the US and believed she had no alternative but to seek asylum outside of the US. She was then hunted down while she was in asylum.”

Which of course, she never was. Period.

But I must agree, to keep using this descriptions sounds a whole lot better. Government approval, so to speak, makes her case undoubtfully much more credible. Then Judyth can continue to tell everyone who asks – just as she is in this thread – how a whole plutoon of various nasty people, in the US, in Hungary and in the Netherlands kept chasing her – and how she therefore ”was in asylum”. Government approval – Wow! Who can argue with that?

ASYLUM SEEKER, the correct description of her status, on the other hand, god and behold, is used to define africans, arabs and such. Doesn't quite have the same shine to it, now does it, Pamela? If I check in five years from now, I'm sure you will still be very happy in all of these forums to volunteer information about how Judyth was in asylum in Sweden. Prudently avoiding the correct description – ASYLUM SEEKER.

ASYLUM SEEKERS have basically no rights, can't work and are under constant guidance and observation of the authorities, whereas anyone who's been granted asylum have no such restrictions, and pretty much can do everything any other citizen can. Work, travel, buy a home, get married – anything...

What all of this shows is that neither one of the three persons commenting above, knew anything about how an asylum process work. ”Deportation order”, ”permanent asylum”, ”temporary asylum”, ”provisional asylum” - all terms that are nonsensical and does not exist in a judicial context of this.

Nevertheless systematically used by Pam, Tony and Martin. Fair enough, not many people knows much about asylum, but then why would anyone of them argue in vain about things of which they have no knowledge? That's far less excusable. Besides the obvious fact that they will have to live with the embarrassment of having talked a lot of nonsense with regards to this.

And what it also tells me, is that they surely must have been getting this information from JVB herself. And - that they accepted this at face value. As anyone can see, it is filled with errors. About what she was granted and what she was not granted. About what she was denied. About her status.

About the document they provided, where a rather insignificant summon to a meeting is presented as a grant of asylum. The intellectual level of this kind of argumentation is that of a rather naive child.

With friends like these, JVB does not need enemies, that's clear to me. I was the ONLY one person providing the correct facts into the debate. And yet, I got hammered by these people. They questioned my motives, my nationality and my research capabilities (see Pam above, for example). They hinted that I must be part of the ”McAdams team”, and therefore having all kinds of dark, suspicious agendas. What other motives could there possibly be for someone providing some facts??

Thank you very much, Pamela, Martin and Anthony. You certainly made a newcomer in the debate feel warmly welcome. The fact that I happened to be the one who exposed and caught the three of you with your whole hand buried in the jam jar, has got nothing to do with it I suppose?

Well, I'll just say one thing to them: If the rest of your research regarding the JFK assn. have any resemblance – ANY RESEMBLANCE – to the way you've dealt with the facts about JVBs asylum issue, then your credibility as researchers is extremely low. I have no idea why Shackelford haven't been seen for sometime online. If however, this has got anything to do with the huge fiasco in relation to Judyth's asylum issue, and he now might be reconsidering some of his actions, then all credit to him.

But let's also have a look at what JVB says herself, earlier in this thread:

About me:

”They contacted a Swede in Sweden to get more information, as online you cannot get into even public files easily....he claimed he was a 'lurker' --

a Swede, no less! on the newsgroup, though he never posted before, and after a couple posts, never would again.”

Lots of errors here. I contacted McAdams, on my own initiative. As I've explained, I've been following the JFK debate for a long time, and found it interesting that JVB was in Sweden. I realised that I could quite easily check some of the things that were furiously debated regarding her asylum process, at that time. And yes - I have made a few posts after dec -08, but I've mainly remained a reader of the forum. Yes - a lurker, if you insist...

”REPORT ON WHAT HE COULD FIND OUT ABOUT MY CASE AND MY PRIVATE FILES. THEY EVEN PUBLISHED MY CASE FILE NUMBER ON THE INTERNET.”

These files are not your private domain at all. They are official records, held at the courts involved and are publicly available to anyone who asks for them. You are no exception from the rule, whatsoever. You will need to learn a few things about The Swedish principle of public access to records. It is part of our constitution and cannot be fiddled with.

”question: Since I came from Hungary, a Schengen country. WHY WASN'T I MMEDIATELTY DEPORTED BACK TO HUNGARY, TO HAVE THEM HANDLE MY REQUEST, SAVING SWEDEN A LOT OF MONEY AND INVESTIGATION TIME?

Not so, most likely this was because your time in Hungary had ran out. In which case you – and everyone else – coming from any other Schengen country would have to be considered for the asylum process in Sweden. But lets give you the benefit of doubt here: what kind of permit did you have during your stay in Hungary? As you seem to have copies of mostly everything, just Xerox it and publish it in this thread. Should be a quick thing.

”answer: I CAME WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT MY LIFE WAS IN DANGER IN HUNGARY. question: WHY WAS I NOT THEREFORE IMMEDIATELY DEPORTED TO MY HOME COUNTRY, THE UNITED STATES? answer: I CAME WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT MY LIFE WAS IN DANGER IN THE UNITED STATES.”

Well, the process of Political Asylum is about protection from something. Nothing particular about your claim here. The definition of political asylum is that you are on the run. That's what you claimed – from a whole lot of things by the way, when reading your lengthy story sometimes unclear exactly from whom or what - and that's what they considered during the process.

”BEFORE IT WAS ERASED, WE READ THAT MCADAMS HIMSELF (OR SOMEBODY FOR MCADAMS) CONTACTED THIS 'GENTLEMAN' WHO OTHERWISE REMAINS UN-NAMED.”

Again: I contacted McAdams. My name was out in the open, just as it still is. Nothing secret about that, and there never was. Exactly what you are referring to as ”erased” I'm not sure. None of the court files, or any info within those, mentioned in this thread have been erased.

”MY SWEDISH FRIENDS WERE VERY UPSET, BECAUSE MY FILE NUMBER WAS NOT EASY TO GET. .THEY COULD NOT GET IT. ”

Well, too bad. It shouldn't take anyone more than a few phone calls.

”I WAS TOLD MY FILE NUMBER WOULD 'ALWAYS' REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND THAT ANYTHING I PUT IN THAT FILE WOULD REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL, FOREVER”

Highly unlikely that anyone told you this. The process is the same for all, and your case was in every respect treated according to standard practice. I don't believe a word of this. What was the officials name? The probability of your case being exempt from our constitutional laws are so miniscule that it is neglectable.

”LET'S SEE...THE MAN WHO POSTS THE INFORMATION --IT IS THE FIRST TIME HE POSTS ON MCADAMS' NEWSGROUP. HE CLAIMS TO BE A LURKER WHO LIVES IN SWEDEN. HE VANISHES AFTER DELIVERING HIS INFORMATION. YOU NEVER HEAR FROM THE 'GENTLEMAN' AGAIN-- ”

Here we go. If nothing else works – then kill the messenger. Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm way more of an ordinary Swedish citizen then you try to imply here. And, I didn't ”lurk”, I didn't ”vanish” - and yes, they did hear from me again. Just a question Judyth, why do you engage in this kind of crap? If you have facts and evidence to present in the JFK-case, then do so and quit this kind of rubbish.

For obvious reasons I do understand that I took you by surprise. ”Oooops, someone in Sweden who actually brought the facts into the debate..Darn!”

”BARB DOES NOT GO ON TO TELL THE READERS THAT I WAS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO APPEAL FOR A THIRD TIME AND COULD HAVE STAYED POSSIBLY UP TO A YEAR OR TWO LONGER.”

This is absolute nonsense. Only in the extremely rare ”precedential” case is it possible to appeal. As I'm sure your lawyer made clear to you, this case has nothing special to it, and could thus certainly not fit such an appeal to ”Migrationsöverdomstolen”.

Besides this, NOBODY can appeal a third, consecutive time. Yes, you can leave the country for three months, then come back and apply once more, but that's an entirely different story. And, the odds for you even getting considered once again a second time around, are miniscule, unless some new, and very, very significant facts have come up. On the contrary, there's a strong possibility that you would get thrown out upon arrival.

”COULD HAVE STAYED POSSIBLY UP TO A YEAR OR TWO LONGER.”

Ridiculous. Where do you possibly get stuff like this from? Your statements seem to want to describe this whole thing as something that was set according to YOUR timelines and YOUR agenda.

The authorities are deciding these matters, and everything related to them. To even suggest that you told them - May 15, and that they subsequently complied to this and kept the process going until you were ready to leave the country (which you stated elsewhere in this thread) is absolutely outlandish. Asylum seekers comply to decisions, timelines, methods and standards set by the authorities. It's outrageus that you insists that your case was so special that this worked the other way around. Once again your fantasies are no doubt playing games with your mind.

Again and again I've noticed that you are talking about the complexity of your asylum case. Which according to you is the reason that this thing lasted for ten months – the duration of your stay in Sweden.

Not much could be farther from reality. The main reason that all af these cases, including appeals, takes time, is that these court constantly have a reasonable back log. Sometimes correspondance and double checking of details might require some time to complete. But read their decisions in your case, both courts rejected your claims, hands down. The discussions regarding your issue should, in my view, have been a fairly easy process. I'd guess that out of the ten months from start to finish, only at the most a couple of weeks constituted actual, active work with the case.

Complexity is when asylum cases takes two to three years to resolve. People coming from for example Africa and other countries where it's extremely hard to verify just about anything of the applicants claims.

”THESE ARE NOT SINCERE RESEARCHERS. I A SURE THAT JACK WHITE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS SINCERE. PROBABLY OTHERS WHO JUMPED ALL OVER ME. FOR THEY HAD READ DAMNING EXCERPTS. I DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT MY SIDE OF THINGS.”

Well, to this I can only say that judging from this experience, you need to take a very careful look at some of those who claims to be your friends, among JFK researchers.

”I URGE YOU TO SAVE THIS FOR THE RECORD AND THEN PLEASE GO ON TO WHAT IS TRULY IMPORTANT, ”

I agree, but probably for totally different reasons, and including this posting of mine.

And of course. Your passport. No stamps. Another border crossing, and still no stamps. Certainly this is because you ”have protection”. Certainly this is because authorities all over Europe and elsewhere have your name on lists that tells them to ”protect” you. Of course they do, even though no such decision has ever been made anywhere.

Of course, even though the ONLY ONE COUNTRY that ever looked at these arguments of you being ”hunted” and more, said they did not believe a word of these claims – here's exactly what they wrote:

”Judyth Vary Baker has not shown that any likelyhood of her native country lacking the will or the capabilities to protect her, exists.” End quote. Anyone who takes the time to read the upper courts decision will certainly see that she tried to prove just that. A monumental cascade of reasons is what she presented them with. None, of course, that made any impression on either one of the two courts involved in Judyth's case..

Again: The US does not lack the will or the capability to protect her.

And yet. You are consistently running around the Internet, claiming that your passport is not stamped ”because of your protection”. Thousands and thousands of people, daily, crosses these borders without having their passports stamped. Oh yes – they must all be under special attention, special protection as they are all being hunted by all kinds of dark forces. Customs have long lists with people, and are just waiting to let them pass borders in secrecy. Judyth, please be so kind as to give your readers the benefit of doubt – I'm pretty sure not all of them are complete idiots. These claims of yours are absurd.

Finally: In every post related to the asylum issue, JVBs way of describing events is showing the same, very troublesome pattern – SHE sets the stage, SHE told authorities what to do. That is, she told authorities when she could leave the country, they adjusted, SHE CHOOSE to finally leave, she choose not to stay for another ”one to two years”, she got special protection, she received special treatment regarding her files, she got her name changed, she got extra weeks after the final decision was made. And so forth, on and on. I'm sure I've missed a number of things that were very special, only to be received by Judyth. I'm wondering if not even the nowadays exiled (Paris) wife to the former shah of Iran would be slightly impressed if she saw all of the measures that is constantly being taken on behalf of Judyth Baker? But then again, her list of enemies is probably very short in comparison to Judyth's.

And the remarkable thing is that nothing of this is true. When you walk through the official records this is very easily determined. The only ”special” thing about her application for political asylum in Sweden, was that she was, and is, an American citizen. I don't have the numbers, but I remember seing an article a few years back when this was discussed. Apart from a few Vietnam-deserters back in the seventies, there has been basically no such applications for asylum in Sweden from Americans. (The rarity probably equals that of LHO applying for a Soviet visa, btw...)

They might have cut her a little slack here and there about minor things, sure. But that's something else. What she's saying is that everything in this procedure – well OK, perhaps not the final decisions...- was outlined by her, and set according to her choices. She choose this and she choose that, when in fact all that happened was that she didn't have slightest choice but to follow procedure. Her description is ridiculous, these things does not work that way. I was mentor to a chinese exchange student in Sweden back in -87, he eventually applied for asylum – which was approved in the end, btw – so in assisting him in that case I got a bit of knowledge about these procedures.

The reason for this behavior on Judyth's part, as I see it, is what I basically said above to Pamela: It looks much better, when having to describe this, if you can convince others of your importance – or maybe I should say if the importance of the related issue in question is perceived as high. In fact, if you can claim that a certain country's authorities viewed things with such a high degree of importance, even better. Who could argue with that?

However, the correct story about this looks very different. Her case was just one of many, and she was treated – in every possible respect – just like any other asylum seeker. No extras or benefits and no extra obligations. Period.

When I first read about JVB and her story, I did not have any strong opinions on whether she was credible or not. Having gone through this thing with the asylum issue, this has changed radically, as far as I'm concerned. She is continously twisting facts, presenting things in such a way that it very often is difficult to debunk, or to even argue with her statements. And in this case, she has also stated things that are quite simply not true. Probably because she thought no one would ever have a closer look at it.

The more important thing about this, however, is that I find it extremely hard to believe that Judyth's systematic and repeatedly dishonest behavoir should be limited to the asylum issue, exclusively. On the contrary, the more I've read from her statements about various JFK-issues, her pattern of reasoning has become abundantly clear.

Step one is the claim. Step two is changing her story in the details when proven wrong, always done without any acceptance of misrepresentation or lying, of course. Such things are always what others are engaged in, never Judyth. Step three is the twisting of facts, the smoke screens, the gathering of new, irrelevant facts. Step four is the complete revision of the entire subject. And by now things have advanced so much that what she now claims, is normally miles away from the original claim. And the wheel starts turning all over again, on and on. The quagmire, once again.

Well, Judyth. I did check your story about the asylum process and it is not flattering on your part. I've accordingly concluded that there is no reason not to believe that your entire story of the involvement with LHO and the rest is simply one huge hoax. I've naturally for years seen the huge controversy about your claims and this chapter prompted me to make up my mind. I will regard anything you come up with as untruthful and of this I will tell anyone who asks. And why. Your behavior related to the asylum issue is simply disgraceful.

I have no desire to shove this opinion down people's throats'. The facts about the asylum process are there for everyone to see. I've drawn my conclusions from this and above I've made the reasons for those conclusions clear.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

A post of mine about Glenn Viklund seems to be missing, where I

explained that Viklund has been selective in attempting to smear me

by only using parts of our correspondence. Based upon my experience

with him, which I have documented here, he is a highly dubious source.

Compare what he posted there with our complete correspondence:

Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:41:01 -0600 [03/07/2010 06:41:01 PM CST]

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To: "Glenn Viklund" <flexus54@riksdalern.se>

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: Regarding Judyth

Glenn,

Those caught up in unusual circumstances with high stakes often come

to believe that they were being treated differently. I would think

it is as likely that you are misinterpreting the situation as that

she is. But I am glad to have your input. Write again if you like.

Many thanks!

Jim

Quoting "Glenn Viklund" <glenn54.viklund@dataphone.se>:

Jim

The point of me providing facts was not to make a statement. It is quite amazing that

this question comes up. "If you don't take side, you cannot be a participant in this

discussion"..I hope it's not what you're implying here..

I'll give a couple of very fresh examples (from what you just posted):

"YOU SEE THAT IN THIS CASE, INHIBITION WAS DENIED, THOUGH THE PERSON FEARED TORTURE ON

BEING RETURNED TO VENEZUELA WITH CHAVEZ IN POWER. HOWEVER, I WAS GRANTED INHIBITION."

She's making a hen out of a feather. This is exactly what ALL asylum seekers get; the

don't get thrown out once it has been decided that their case requires additional

investigation. Nothing particular about that, which is what she seems to imly here. Not

so. You see, when I read - a year ago - her description of all of this - it often came

down do "special treatment", "special case" and so forth.

Today, she asks: Why was I not thrown out immediately??

Well now, dear Judyth. Think again and think right.

Pick ANY western country where a 65-year old woman is applying for political asylum -

referring to the Kennedy assn, CIA, Castro, the Mafia etc - and you will find that ALL

OF THEM, would have done precisely what Swedish authorities did. "This is so strange

that it requires further investigation". Heck, this would be done exactly the same

anywhere in the west - as long as it was NOT an african, asian, middle eastern or

such...telling this incredible story.

This goes on and on in her argumentation, it's a lot of words but not a lot of

substance. And very often she is misrepresting the truth or outright lying.

I have no "side" to obey here, I'm just trying to get some facts straight and to get

some misrepresentations out. That's all. However hard that seems to be to grasp.

Best regards,

Glenn Viklund

----- Original Message ----- From: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

To: "Glenn Viklund" <flexus54@riksdalern.se>

Cc: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 12:25 AM

Subject: Re: Regarding Judyth

Glenn,

You mean that at the time you were a 'lone nutter'? or that today

you remain convinced that Lee Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK?

I'm just trying to get a fix on why you would go there. I am glad

to have information from multiple sources. Thanks for writing me.

Best wishes,

Jim

Quoting "Glenn Viklund" <glenn54.viklund@dataphone.se>:

Jim,

The reason I contacted McAcams was simply that his site made a whole lot more sense,

in terms of objectivity, than a few others I viewed at the time. Dankbaar and others

did not make too much sense.

Be it as it may, if yopu discredit me on account of where I choose to provide this

information, well, there's not much I can do about that.

This is exactly why I've refrained from commenting over the years; this thing is so

infected, black or white, you can't even provide info before you get discredited.

It is a shame, really.

But there you go, as you have no faith in what I'm providing, I'll not bother you

again.

Best regards,

Glenn Viklund

----- Original Message ----- From: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

To: "Glenn Viklund" <flexus54@riksdalern.se>

Cc: <jfetzer@d.umn.edu>

Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 11:28 PM

Subject: Re: Regarding Judyth

Glenn,

That you would consort with McAdams, who is a notorious phony and fake,

completely discredits you in my eyes. I am sorry to say that, but why

in the world do you deal with a man who has falsified the whole case?

Let me have your answer.

Jim

Quoting "Glenn Viklund" <glenn54.viklund@dataphone.se>:

Jim,

I'm following your thread at the education forum. I tried to provide all relevant

facts to her asylum process in Sweden, back in dec of 2008.

As you can see, the facts as presented by JVB about this are far from truthful, to

put it mildly.

Now, I tried to become a registred member but that is not allowed anymore, so

therefore I cannot participate in this discussion. But let me just say - I contacted

McAdams myself. I've been a keen follower of the JFK thing for decades. The only

reason I ever got into the debate was that JVB was in Sweden. I thought that was

interesting, and as she was such a controversial figure in this I decided to check a

few things up.

Which of course is quite easy to do as a native. (and still is btw, what JVB says

today is not true, the file number and her name is still there, publicly available,

just as it was a little more than a year ago when I got this information, nothing

special at all about her files, this is the way every asylum seeker is handled..)

Most of which turned out strongly on the negative side, as far as JVB.

She has obviously read my postings at McAdams forum, and thus she is well aware of my

statement that "I do not know whether she's telling the truth about LHO or not", that

I clearly stated when Pam, Anthony Marsh and Martin Shackelford jumped on me for

providing these facts.

Best regards

Glenn Viklund

Sweden

I have no desire to shove this opinion down people's throats. The facts about Glenn

Viklund's posts are there for everyone to see. I've drawn my own conclusions from

this and in what I have presented I've made the reasons for those conclusions clear.

First a note: All markings in bold and italic are done by me today.

Basic facts:

1. Judyth Vary Baker applied for political asylum in Sweden in the early fall of 2007.

2. This was denied later that fall.

3. She immediately appealed this decision.

4. This appeal was denied, in the early summer of 2008, and she had to leave the country shortly thereafter.

5. Her judicial status during this entire process was that of an asylum seeker.

End of story.

It is truly fantastic that these five simple, and crystal clear facts, can turn into something quite different. But just to remove any further question marks surrounding this issue, let me also point these things out:

1. JVB was granted nothing in Sweden. She received the same standard treatment as ALL other asylum seekers. The process is extremely well defined and easy to understand.

2. That is: She was granted no ”provisional political asylum”, because no such thing exists. In fact, she was granted nothing at all on top of what all asylum seekers are entitled to.

3. That also means that her files and documentation are publicly available – precisely as they are in ALL these cases.

4. She received no ”special treatment” whatsoever. No additional secrecy, no special benefits, economic or otherwise.

5. Her story – as fantastic as it may be – was dealt with according to the regular, standard process. No more, no less.

6. The only substancial, formal decisions authorites made in her case, was that she was denied political asylum, twice.

7. In accordance with the last denial, she had to leave the country. She complied and left the country shortly thereafter.

How do I know this? Because I obtained all documents from the two courts involved and read the entirety of this issue. It required perhaps 3 to 4 phone calls and something like 4 hours to do. So the effort should by no means be exaggerated. It's all well documented and leaves no room for misunderstandings. On top of this I also spoke with relevant officials on a couple of occasions. These documents were also provided to John McAdams and the mod forum.

When, in december of 2008, I provided these facts to the mod group (McAdams) these were some of the responses, all from december, 2008:

”Pamela, december 13, 2008:

”Apologists don't like logic, Martin, as it exposes their fallacies for what they are.  McAdams and Barb seem to be frantic about this article.  Perhaps they have begun to grasp that there is more to it than meets the eye, and that their denials of Judyth being involved in an asylum process in Sweden, much less having any need for asylum, have been put into a larger context. ”

. . .

I have no desire to shove this opinion down people's throats'. The facts about the asylum process are there for everyone to see. I've drawn my conclusions from this and above I've made the reasons for those conclusions clear.

Edited March 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer