Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

Jack,

You are telling me that the color photo I have posted, which I was sent by

Dean Hagerman, was in the original set you have had for 30+ years? Yet

it appears to show different equipment than in the black-and-whites, which

I agree to be authentic. The one I have had for years is also a black-and-

white, but with his member laying to the right (from the point of view of

the camera) or to the left (from the point of view of the body). What is

the possible explanation for the difference in the images in these photos?

Do you also agree that the question of circumcision is moot? If you ask,

"Was he (completely) circumcised?", the answer is "No". I you ask, "Was

he (partially) circumcised?", the answer is "Yes". So the question, "Was he

circumcised?" has no definite answer. I therefore consider the question to

be irrelevant to this investigation from this point forward. My concern is

not with the black-and-whites, Jack, but only with the color photo, which

Dean Hagerman agrees shows a much smaller member than the others.

Jim

P.S. In the sense in which I am using the term, "a moot point" is one of

little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic. With regard to

the question of whether or not he shaved his pubs, which is not moot,

Lola has discussed this with Judyth, who told her that Lee did not shave

his public area. Their best guess was that this was done to create the

impression that he might have been gay. Lola and I had a conversation

about this today because of the interest generated by these photographs.

Jim...I do not know why the John Wood FBI set does not contain the penis

shot. It was in the set that I borrowed from Gary Shaw and copied more

than 30 years ago. I even used it in my slide presentations. It is not a

fake. I assume all copies of it on the internet came from me posting it

on a forum many years ago. If I have had it for 30+ years, how can ypu

propose that it is fake? I assume the FBI set is in the National Archives.

I did not fake the photo.

Jack

PS...I am more curious about the shaved public hairs than the size of

the machinery. Please ask JVB about the shaved area.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

lol

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

Anyone reading the whole email from which you are extracting a quote would

see that the "unauthorized book" was not Haslam's but Livingstone's. Do you

and Barb think that, by posting reinforcing comments, you can put one over on

the members of this thread? I invite anyone to go back to Hogan's earlier post

about this and read it through for themselves. It is very clear (by the time that

you reach the end of the email) that she was talking about Livingstone's book,

not Ed's. This is a nice example of the shoddy efforts being expended by those

who fear that Judyth's story may be taken seriously, which it certainly should be.

In fact, I have made this point (about the book under consideration) previously.

I have shortened Judyth's reply. This is the pertinent paragraph:

"In addition, I did not know Haslam was writing another book. It came as a complete surprise,

or otherwise I would have warned him about the unauthorized status of the book."

So my question remains: Even though Haslam had JVB "correct and corroborate" her story that he published in DMM,

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

Good question, Michael. Judyth knew he was an author, she had reviewed his book on Amazon in January 2000. What year did they meet again? And does Haslam say when he decided to write another book?

And having Haslam interested in her story, whether he was writing another book or not ... why would Judyth tell him to read her book and not tell him it was unauthorized if it is so error ridden and incomplete?

Bests,

Barb :-)

They met by telephone in 2000. Haslam writes of meeting her in person at a restaurant in Bradenton, Florida in 2001.

Judyth Baker's aging mother lived in Bradenton. I don't recall if Haslam said when he decided to write another book.

As for your last question, I believe Judyth Baker answered it here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=189339

I intend to post more about this later. Thanks for your comment, Barb.

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

Aren't you the same one who posted the massively ignorant suggestion

that Oswald might have had an erection from his swift and violent death,

which demonstrates that you do not even know that Oswald did not die

on the spot--that his death was not "swift and violent"--but that he lived

for nearly 2 hours? He was shot at 11:21 AM and only pronounced dead

at 1:07 PM. Chuck Crenshaw, M.D., was the one responsible for treating

him in Trauma Room #2 after he had been brought to Parkland Hospital

in the ambulance. I can't believe you know so little about his death when

you are making posts about it. No one should take you seriously again.

Yesterday, 07:34 AM

Post #2472

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 5418

Joined: 26-June 05

From: OZ

Member No.: 3136

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_erection

''Spinal cord injuries are known to be associated with priapism''

''Other causes of death may also result in these effects, including fatal gunshot wounds to the brain, damage to major blood vessels, or violent death by poisoning. Forensically, a postmortem priapism is an indicator that death was likely swift and violent.''

lol
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim wrote:

Jack,

You are telling me that the color photo I have posted, which I was sent by

Dean Hagerman, was in the original set you have had for 30+ years? Yet

it appears to show different equipment than in the black-and-whites, which

I agree to be authentic. The one I have had for years is also a black-and-

white, but with his member laying to the right (from the point of view of

the camera) or to the left (from the point of view of the body). What is

the possible explanation for the difference in the images in these photos?

Yes, Jim...I have said that three times previously. This is the fourth time.

I have had that slide for 30+ years and am the likely source of the scan

which Dean sent to you. I used the slide for many years in my slide

presentation. I copied it from J.Gary Shaw's set in the 1970s. It is a color

slide taken by the FBI. I will leave the interpretation to you. I have never

seen an image like the one you describe.

Please ask JVB about the shaved hairs. I doubt that it was done in an

attempt to save his life. :)

Jack

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

Jack,

It does not appear to be of the same equipment. The size of his member

and the size of his testicles (or testicle, as I take it you were implying) do

not appear to be the same in the color photograph and in the black-and-

whites. I know you would never fake any photograph, no matter what

benefit you might derive therefrom. Please do a study of these photos

and tell me if you conclude that they are of the same person. Dean and

I both believe they are quite different. Please make a comparative study.

You appear to have not read the "P.S." to my previous post. I repeat it:

P.S. In the sense in which I am using the term, "a moot point" is one of

little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic. With regard to

the question of whether or not he shaved his pubs, which is not moot,

Lola has discussed this with Judyth, who told her that Lee did not shave

his public area. Their best guess was that this was done to create the

impression that he might have been gay. Lola and I had a conversation

about this today because of the interest generated by these photographs.

Jim

Jim wrote:

Jack,

You are telling me that the color photo I have posted, which I was sent by

Dean Hagerman, was in the original set you have had for 30+ years? Yet

it appears to show different equipment than in the black-and-whites, which

I agree to be authentic. The one I have had for years is also a black-and-

white, but with his member laying to the right (from the point of view of

the camera) or to the left (from the point of view of the body). What is

the possible explanation for the difference in the images in these photos?

Yes, Jim...I have said that three times previously. This is the fourth time.

I have had that slide for 30+ years and am the likely source of the scan

which Dean sent to you. I used the slide for many years in my slide

presentation. I copied it from J.Gary Shaw's set in the 1970s. It is a color

slide taken by the FBI. I will leave the interpretation to you. I have never

seen an image like the one you describe.

Please ask JVB about the shaved hairs. I doubt that it was done in an

attempt to save his life. :)

Jack

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites
BB said:How do you know? Barb quoted Judyths' own words that Judyth changed her story about aids and monkey virus and Fetzer completely scrambled what Barb said. It looks like he did'nt LISTEN at all.

It was probably the other way around. It can be frustrating having story laid upon story about what some claim Judyth said that caused her 'story to change' v what Judyth actually said in context and later explained more fully or <gasp> even used different words.

But Barb J showed us Judyth's exact words saying 3 different things in exactly the same context:

Version 1: Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance: Outline of the Conspiracy": "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the AIDS virus."

Version 2: Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance," alternate draft provided to Robert Vernon, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004: "The serum in which the cancer cells were placed included a virus that knocks out the immune system, thus enhancing the strength of the already powerful cancer cells. This material -- scraped from the kidney's [sic] of sick monkeys -- was, in fact, the PRECURSOR OF THE AIDS virus.

Version 3: Rene Zwaap, "An American Hero," De Groene Amsterdammer, June 21, 2003 (based on an interview with Judyth Vary Baker), automated translation, posted by John McAdams to alt.assassination.jfk, July 8. 2003: "[Oswald] got a hurry course over it go around with the transport of living cancer cells, that in a special chemical liquid living could become hold. By that technique was worked with SV-40, material that were pulled from the kidneys [of monkeys], that also became uses by the development of the polio vaccine. The target of the operation was Castro with it to infect. He stood known as a lover of cigars and nobody will it thus strangely of look up as he lung cancer would get."

Is sv40 the same as aids? I did a google seacrch and it looks like the answer is NO

You seem unaware that "Deadly Alliance" was purloined. Anything coming from it is open to question and those using it to 'quote Judyth' are just adding to the problem. So, this remains a strawman. Judyth's authorized book should provide the explanation that can be used as reference.

Your saying the docs are altered?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Judyth responds

Dear Gary:

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond to this.

1) In October, 2000, Conway and I were not friends. I would not have used Conway as an example to Mr. Reitzes. I am not in the habit of bringing up private matters as "examples."

2) Note that only Howard Platzman is cc'd. However, I always cc'd Martin Shackelford as well.

3) Reitzes has written large, complex website attacks against me, employing stolen emails, emails with quotes taken out of contex entirely, and so on. We have seen "quotes" where he has posted "emails" supposedly from me but replete with so many typos that they were hardly legible. The email he cites is poorly written--does it really sound like me, Gary?

4) with all he above, you might still wonder if the email could be a legitimate one in its entirety--it is true that I did write Reitzes several times, after all--but ask yourself why this 'gem' is NOT MENTIONED IN ANY OF HIS WEBSIES ATTACKING ME? It might be added to one of his atack sites NOW, but until now, it wasn't to be seen anywhere? WHY?

Answer: it has been altered, oh-so-conveniently, Gary. I NEVER bring up private matters such as this about Lee. To Mr. Chapman, in response to his statement that I had AGREED WITH DEBRA CONWAY--this was ten months earlier, mind you--that Lee had not been circumcized (and of course, I'd read the autopsy, so how could I have made such an 'error' even if I were not telling the truth? The subject is too important!)--was worried about Debra AT THAT TIME, -- for she had told me how important Lancer was to her--she had formerly been a merchandising agent (1994) and Lancer at this time was only 5 years old--she was building her reputation, she old me. Was going to move from California and "take Mary ferrell's place." She confided to me that she helped David Lifton for two years writing his biography on Oswald. I did not know who Chapman was. I had to worry that he might be trying to destroy her reputation, for she had told me she had received autopsy photos of Lee and had shown them recently, with a black patch over the private area. What if she had received fakes??? I have always stated such, Gary. Yes, that was my thought, and to protect her, I refused to tell Chapman a single detail except what I had said to Debra--that he was 'well-endowed.' Even THAT --'his' very size--seems now to be altered in photos from the original. Dr. Fetzer agreed with me when I did recently decribe Lee in the very same terms--"well endowed." He expressed his concern because he'd seen an altered full-body autopsy photo of Lee recently.

Now, Gary, you will not find any such statement as Mr. Reitzes pretends I made residing with Dr. Platzman, Martin Shackelford, or anyone else who is reputable. However, if you believe Mr. Reitzes to be reputable -- he once wrote some good stuff, yes--but then 'turned'--interestingly, in an email to ME he said McAdams was paying for his website. Just think to yourself: Reitzes threw everything at me but the kitchen sink on his websites. For years.

Except for this.

I do hope you will consider that.

If you read his "Judyth saniizes her story" you wll see some of the malice Mr. Reitzes has. He faults me for removing some information from my high school website. But understand -- I had used up ALL the room there, and to update it, had to remove some things. I removed items rather at random to make room for an update. THIS he called 'sanitizing' my story! He took great pains to try to 'prove' how terrible that was, when I did it without much thought. After all, this was to my high school friends.

Please write to me at emaildeleted@yahoo.com and I will answer all questions. I would prefer that you erase my email address, though, from common view.

I urge you to consider that it took ten years for Mr. Reitzes to come up with this one.

best regards always--JVB

My first thoughts on this:

Judyth Baker maintains that the email in question was either invented or altered by Dave Reitzes. I would certainly urge Mr. Reitzes to release the entire unedited email. It is true that Dave Reitzes is a Lone Nutter affiliated with John McAdams. I do find it difficult to believe that he would simply invent an email from Judyth, who admits to having sent him emails in the past.

Judyth writes, "We have seen "quotes" where he has posted "emails" supposedly from me but replete with so many typos that they were hardly legible. The email he cites is poorly written--does it really sound like me, Gary?" Yes, I am afraid it does. Judyth Baker is an intelligent and educated woman but most of her emails appear to be hurriedly written and contain numerous typos. She has also suffered from eye and other health problems.

Her strongest point is that even if she were faking it would not make sense for her

to simply guess as to whether LHO was circumsized or not, especially since that information was in the autopsy record.

A very simple response to your last point is that Judyth may have viewed the autopsy photos where it appears that Oswald may have been circumsized and used that as a basis for her response. She is admitting here that she had read the autopsy report but she may just be remembering the photo(s). Judyth is essentially admitting that she has read everything about Oswald. Who is more likely to create an elaborate story inserting themselves in the story, an intelligent and educated woman who has read everything about the subject or an average person who has read nothing? To me, Judyth's response is odd. I woud expect one to say Of course, I am right, I SAW and was intimate with that person. Instead she says, how could I be wrong, it's in the autopsy report. Reitzes would not have made an isssue of this likely because he had not seen seen the autopsy photos or read the autopsy report to even know it was an issue. I am not a fan of Reitzes and communicated with him years ago but I have no reason to believe he would alter the e-mail. Why? Did he anticipate this would become an issue 10 years later?

It also makes no sense with the circumcision issue where Judyth says "I NEVER bring up private matters such as this about Lee." She would be too private and lady-like to say whether he was circumsized but would have no hesitation about telling people he was well endowed?

Because someone declares something moot it doesn't make it moot. It's like the Wizard of Oz saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." In 31 years I had not read the autopsy report and had only seen a couple of photographs. IMHO the black and white photos appear to be the same and none seem unusual.If I can think of a tactful way to approach it I will ask Marina. I thought Armstrong had asked Marina some questions of a sexual nature about Oswald. I cannot think of a person I would rather cross examine more than Judyth, in person, where she cannot ignore questions, refuse to produce proofs, or reflect and twist and dodge and give a thought- out response in an e-mail.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim. Read: ...spinal cord injuries ... damage to major blood vessels ... , ...indicator .. duh. BTW you declared me not to be taken seriously or listened to about 4 years ago already, so what exactly was it about my post that necessitated repeating it?

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

Jack,

Something else that puzzles me is your report that you have used some

of these photos in your slide presentation for some 30+ years. I've had

the impression that dealing with these issues was not something that you

were comfortable with. When I first began asking about the photographs,

you had trouble finding them. Now you are telling me that you have used

some as part of your slide presentation for some 30+ years? I don't get it,

Jack. This seems inconsistent with your character. Please tell me more.

Why were any such slides part of your presentation? Thanks very much!

Jim

Jack,

It does not appear to be of the same equipment. The size of his member

and the size of his testicles (or testicle, as I take it you were implying) do

not appear to be the same in the color photograph and in the black-and-

whites. I know you would never fake any photograph, no matter what

benefit you might derive therefrom. Please do a study of these photos

and tell me if you conclude that they are of the same person. Dean and

I both believe they are quite different. Please make a comparative study.

You appear to have not read the P.S. to my previous post. I repeat it:

P.S. In the sense in which I am using the term, "a moot point" is one of

little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic. With regard to

the question of whether or not he shaved his pubs, which is not moot,

Lola has discussed this with Judyth, who told her that Lee did not shave

his public area. Their best guess was that this was done to create the

impression that he might have been gay. Lola and I had a conversation

about this today because of the interest generated by these photographs.

Jim

Jim wrote:

Jack,

You are telling me that the color photo I have posted, which I was sent by

Dean Hagerman, was in the original set you have had for 30+ years? Yet

it appears to show different equipment than in the black-and-whites, which

I agree to be authentic. The one I have had for years is also a black-and-

white, but with his member laying to the right (from the point of view of

the camera) or to the left (from the point of view of the body). What is

the possible explanation for the difference in the images in these photos?

Yes, Jim...I have said that three times previously. This is the fourth time.

I have had that slide for 30+ years and am the likely source of the scan

which Dean sent to you. I used the slide for many years in my slide

presentation. I copied it from J.Gary Shaw's set in the 1970s. It is a color

slide taken by the FBI. I will leave the interpretation to you. I have never

seen an image like the one you describe.

Please ask JVB about the shaved hairs. I doubt that it was done in an

attempt to save his life. :wacko:

Jack

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

Doug,

Why don't you agree that the question of circumcision is moot? If you ask,

"Was he (completely) circumcised?", the answer is "No". If you ask, "Was

he (partially) circumcised?", the answer is "Yes". So the question, "Was he

circumcised?" has no definite answer. I therefore consider the question to

be irrelevant to this investigation from this point forward. My concern is

not with the black-and-whites, Doug, but only with the color photo, which

Dean Hagerman agrees shows a much smaller member than the others.

Jim

Judyth responds

Dear Gary:

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond to this.

1) In October, 2000, Conway and I were not friends. I would not have used Conway as an example to Mr. Reitzes. I am not in the habit of bringing up private matters as "examples."

2) Note that only Howard Platzman is cc'd. However, I always cc'd Martin Shackelford as well.

3) Reitzes has written large, complex website attacks against me, employing stolen emails, emails with quotes taken out of contex entirely, and so on. We have seen "quotes" where he has posted "emails" supposedly from me but replete with so many typos that they were hardly legible. The email he cites is poorly written--does it really sound like me, Gary?

4) with all he above, you might still wonder if the email could be a legitimate one in its entirety--it is true that I did write Reitzes several times, after all--but ask yourself why this 'gem' is NOT MENTIONED IN ANY OF HIS WEBSIES ATTACKING ME? It might be added to one of his atack sites NOW, but until now, it wasn't to be seen anywhere? WHY?

Answer: it has been altered, oh-so-conveniently, Gary. I NEVER bring up private matters such as this about Lee. To Mr. Chapman, in response to his statement that I had AGREED WITH DEBRA CONWAY--this was ten months earlier, mind you--that Lee had not been circumcized (and of course, I'd read the autopsy, so how could I have made such an 'error' even if I were not telling the truth? The subject is too important!)--was worried about Debra AT THAT TIME, -- for she had told me how important Lancer was to her--she had formerly been a merchandising agent (1994) and Lancer at this time was only 5 years old--she was building her reputation, she old me. Was going to move from California and "take Mary ferrell's place." She confided to me that she helped David Lifton for two years writing his biography on Oswald. I did not know who Chapman was. I had to worry that he might be trying to destroy her reputation, for she had told me she had received autopsy photos of Lee and had shown them recently, with a black patch over the private area. What if she had received fakes??? I have always stated such, Gary. Yes, that was my thought, and to protect her, I refused to tell Chapman a single detail except what I had said to Debra--that he was 'well-endowed.' Even THAT --'his' very size--seems now to be altered in photos from the original. Dr. Fetzer agreed with me when I did recently decribe Lee in the very same terms--"well endowed." He expressed his concern because he'd seen an altered full-body autopsy photo of Lee recently.

Now, Gary, you will not find any such statement as Mr. Reitzes pretends I made residing with Dr. Platzman, Martin Shackelford, or anyone else who is reputable. However, if you believe Mr. Reitzes to be reputable -- he once wrote some good stuff, yes--but then 'turned'--interestingly, in an email to ME he said McAdams was paying for his website. Just think to yourself: Reitzes threw everything at me but the kitchen sink on his websites. For years.

Except for this.

I do hope you will consider that.

If you read his "Judyth saniizes her story" you wll see some of the malice Mr. Reitzes has. He faults me for removing some information from my high school website. But understand -- I had used up ALL the room there, and to update it, had to remove some things. I removed items rather at random to make room for an update. THIS he called 'sanitizing' my story! He took great pains to try to 'prove' how terrible that was, when I did it without much thought. After all, this was to my high school friends.

Please write to me at emaildeleted@yahoo.com and I will answer all questions. I would prefer that you erase my email address, though, from common view.

I urge you to consider that it took ten years for Mr. Reitzes to come up with this one.

best regards always--JVB

My first thoughts on this:

Judyth Baker maintains that the email in question was either invented or altered by Dave Reitzes. I would certainly urge Mr. Reitzes to release the entire unedited email. It is true that Dave Reitzes is a Lone Nutter affiliated with John McAdams. I do find it difficult to believe that he would simply invent an email from Judyth, who admits to having sent him emails in the past.

Judyth writes, "We have seen "quotes" where he has posted "emails" supposedly from me but replete with so many typos that they were hardly legible. The email he cites is poorly written--does it really sound like me, Gary?" Yes, I am afraid it does. Judyth Baker is an intelligent and educated woman but most of her emails appear to be hurriedly written and contain numerous typos. She has also suffered from eye and other health problems.

Her strongest point is that even if she were faking it would not make sense for her

to simply guess as to whether LHO was circumsized or not, especially since that information was in the autopsy record.

A very simple response to your last point is that Judyth may have viewed the autopsy photos where it appears that Oswald may have been circumsized and used that as a basis for her response. She is admitting here that she had read the autopsy report but she may just be remembering the photo(s). Judyth is essentially admitting that she has read everything about Oswald. Who is more likely to create an elaborate story inserting themselves in the story, an intelligent and educated woman who has read everything about the subject or an average person who has read nothing? To me, Judyth's response is odd. I woud expect one to say Of course, I am right, I SAW and was intimate with that person. Instead she says, how could I be wrong, it's in the autopsy report. Reitzes would not have made an isssue of this likely because he had not seen seen the autopsy photos or read the autopsy report to even know it was an issue. I am not a fan of Reitzes and communicated with him years ago but I have no reason to believe he would alter the e-mail. Why? Did he anticipate this would become an issue 10 years later?

It also makes no sense with the circumcision issue where Judyth says "I NEVER bring up private matters such as this about Lee." She would be too private and lady-like to say whether he was circumsized but would have no hesitation about telling people he was well endowed?

Because someone declares something moot it doesn't make it moot. It's like the Wizard of Oz saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." In 31 years I had not read the autopsy report and had only seen a couple of photographs. IMHO the black and white photos appear to be the same and none seem unusual.If I can think of a tactful way to approach it I will ask Marina. I thought Armstrong had asked Marina some questions of a sexual nature about Oswald. I cannot think of a person I would rather cross examine more than Judyth, in person, where she cannot ignore questions, refuse to produce proofs, or reflect and twist and dodge and give a thought- out response in an e-mail.

Doug Weldon

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

Why don't you agree that the question of circumcision is moot? If you ask,

"Was he (completely) circumcised?", the answer is "No". I you ask, "Was

he (partially) circumcised?", the answer is "Yes". So the question, "Was he

circumcised?" has no definite answer. I therefore consider the question to

be irrelevant to this investigation from this point forward. My concern is

not with the black-and-whites, Doug, but only with the color photo, which

Dean Hagerman agrees shows a much smaller member than the others.

Jim

Judyth responds

Dear Gary:

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond to this.

1) In October, 2000, Conway and I were not friends. I would not have used Conway as an example to Mr. Reitzes. I am not in the habit of bringing up private matters as "examples."

2) Note that only Howard Platzman is cc'd. However, I always cc'd Martin Shackelford as well.

3) Reitzes has written large, complex website attacks against me, employing stolen emails, emails with quotes taken out of contex entirely, and so on. We have seen "quotes" where he has posted "emails" supposedly from me but replete with so many typos that they were hardly legible. The email he cites is poorly written--does it really sound like me, Gary?

4) with all he above, you might still wonder if the email could be a legitimate one in its entirety--it is true that I did write Reitzes several times, after all--but ask yourself why this 'gem' is NOT MENTIONED IN ANY OF HIS WEBSIES ATTACKING ME? It might be added to one of his atack sites NOW, but until now, it wasn't to be seen anywhere? WHY?

Answer: it has been altered, oh-so-conveniently, Gary. I NEVER bring up private matters such as this about Lee. To Mr. Chapman, in response to his statement that I had AGREED WITH DEBRA CONWAY--this was ten months earlier, mind you--that Lee had not been circumcized (and of course, I'd read the autopsy, so how could I have made such an 'error' even if I were not telling the truth? The subject is too important!)--was worried about Debra AT THAT TIME, -- for she had told me how important Lancer was to her--she had formerly been a merchandising agent (1994) and Lancer at this time was only 5 years old--she was building her reputation, she old me. Was going to move from California and "take Mary ferrell's place." She confided to me that she helped David Lifton for two years writing his biography on Oswald. I did not know who Chapman was. I had to worry that he might be trying to destroy her reputation, for she had told me she had received autopsy photos of Lee and had shown them recently, with a black patch over the private area. What if she had received fakes??? I have always stated such, Gary. Yes, that was my thought, and to protect her, I refused to tell Chapman a single detail except what I had said to Debra--that he was 'well-endowed.' Even THAT --'his' very size--seems now to be altered in photos from the original. Dr. Fetzer agreed with me when I did recently decribe Lee in the very same terms--"well endowed." He expressed his concern because he'd seen an altered full-body autopsy photo of Lee recently.

Now, Gary, you will not find any such statement as Mr. Reitzes pretends I made residing with Dr. Platzman, Martin Shackelford, or anyone else who is reputable. However, if you believe Mr. Reitzes to be reputable -- he once wrote some good stuff, yes--but then 'turned'--interestingly, in an email to ME he said McAdams was paying for his website. Just think to yourself: Reitzes threw everything at me but the kitchen sink on his websites. For years.

Except for this.

I do hope you will consider that.

If you read his "Judyth saniizes her story" you wll see some of the malice Mr. Reitzes has. He faults me for removing some information from my high school website. But understand -- I had used up ALL the room there, and to update it, had to remove some things. I removed items rather at random to make room for an update. THIS he called 'sanitizing' my story! He took great pains to try to 'prove' how terrible that was, when I did it without much thought. After all, this was to my high school friends.

Please write to me at emaildeleted@yahoo.com and I will answer all questions. I would prefer that you erase my email address, though, from common view.

I urge you to consider that it took ten years for Mr. Reitzes to come up with this one.

best regards always--JVB

My first thoughts on this:

Judyth Baker maintains that the email in question was either invented or altered by Dave Reitzes. I would certainly urge Mr. Reitzes to release the entire unedited email. It is true that Dave Reitzes is a Lone Nutter affiliated with John McAdams. I do find it difficult to believe that he would simply invent an email from Judyth, who admits to having sent him emails in the past.

Judyth writes, "We have seen "quotes" where he has posted "emails" supposedly from me but replete with so many typos that they were hardly legible. The email he cites is poorly written--does it really sound like me, Gary?" Yes, I am afraid it does. Judyth Baker is an intelligent and educated woman but most of her emails appear to be hurriedly written and contain numerous typos. She has also suffered from eye and other health problems.

Her strongest point is that even if she were faking it would not make sense for her

to simply guess as to whether LHO was circumsized or not, especially since that information was in the autopsy record.

A very simple response to your last point is that Judyth may have viewed the autopsy photos where it appears that Oswald may have been circumsized and used that as a basis for her response. She is admitting here that she had read the autopsy report but she may just be remembering the photo(s). Judyth is essentially admitting that she has read everything about Oswald. Who is more likely to create an elaborate story inserting themselves in the story, an intelligent and educated woman who has read everything about the subject or an average person who has read nothing? To me, Judyth's response is odd. I woud expect one to say Of course, I am right, I SAW and was intimate with that person. Instead she says, how could I be wrong, it's in the autopsy report. Reitzes would not have made an isssue of this likely because he had not seen seen the autopsy photos or read the autopsy report to even know it was an issue. I am not a fan of Reitzes and communicated with him years ago but I have no reason to believe he would alter the e-mail. Why? Did he anticipate this would become an issue 10 years later?

It also makes no sense with the circumcision issue where Judyth says "I NEVER bring up private matters such as this about Lee." She would be too private and lady-like to say whether he was circumsized but would have no hesitation about telling people he was well endowed?

Because someone declares something moot it doesn't make it moot. It's like the Wizard of Oz saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." In 31 years I had not read the autopsy report and had only seen a couple of photographs. IMHO the black and white photos appear to be the same and none seem unusual.If I can think of a tactful way to approach it I will ask Marina. I thought Armstrong had asked Marina some questions of a sexual nature about Oswald. I cannot think of a person I would rather cross examine more than Judyth, in person, where she cannot ignore questions, refuse to produce proofs, or reflect and twist and dodge and give a thought- out response in an e-mail.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

I understand your point about the color photograph. The testicles appear similar but there is a legitimate question about the appearance of the penis. It would be important to know when that photo became available and what the origin was. I had never heard of partial cicumcision but I found this on the internet:

" There is such a thing as a partial circumcision, though it's not common in the US (but far more common in Europe, for instance, when circumcisions are performed)."

My immediate thought was the Harvey-Lee scenario but who knows? The important point is that Judyth is now stating essentially, "of course he was circumsized, it was in the autopsy report." I never said anything contrary."

Your point is valid but once again Judyth has muddied her own credibility. She has provided a definitive response to conform to the autopsy rather than something she would know from her own experience. She is contradicting your point. Judyth is very precise. Look at her description of Oswald's eye-color. Don't you think she could describe a partial circumcision, if indeed that is what it was.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites

blood drains, his back would be pretty purple by now, slowly the foreskin envelopes, a partial circumcision is seen

Link to post
Share on other sites
blood drains, his back would be pretty purple by now, slowly the foreskin envelopes, a partial circumcision is seen

John:

I have been to several autopsies. I have never seen such a phenomena as the back turning purple or the foreskin changing but I suppose it could occur.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I observe another irony has developed in this thread, namely, that even though the majority of those engaged in this topic are unconvinced of Oswald's guilt, still even the most private details about this "innocent man" are bared for public scrutiny. This isn't how an innocent man is usually treated by his defenders. He (through his memory) is being treated as a "thing" with little or no respect. I understand that "the dead" have no rights, legal or otherwise, but that's not my point. We are witnessing both sides (not just the prosecution) "cross examine" the physical attributes of the suspect's genitals.

I find this highly disturbing. Don't misunderstand, I am not a prude by any means. But this display is nearly animalistic in its disregard of common decency.

If "humanizing the accused assassin" is one big reason that Judyth's story is important, how did a thread dedicated to supporting Judyth's story degenerate to a point that now treats him as a laboratory specimen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...