Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Michael Hogan]

Monk,

.....In describing his eye color, tooth being replaced, etc. it is all very clinical and does dehumanize the person.

However, it also references Judyth's credibility which is the subject of this thread. However, your point is well taken.

Some might argue it is Jim Fetzer's credibility which is the subject of this thread.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Doug,

She did (at one point in time) say as much to me or I would not have made

the suggestion. I think she has been so beaten up on other forums that it

was a matter of self-preservation that she research the case. I agree that

makes her a "damaged witness". It does not make her story false. I have

no reason to doubt her and many reasons to believe her. Certainly, nothing

advanced on this forum yet has caused me to change my opinion about her,

and I have overwhelmingly more experience with her than anyone else here.

Jim

Doug,

Partial circumcision is apparently rather common. Enter "circumcision, partial",

and get http://www.askmen.com/dating/dzimmer_100/1...ve_answers.html

I appreciate your agreement that there appears to be a difference between the

color and the black-and-whites. I have asked Jack to do a comparative study.

I also agree that sometimes Judyth muddles her own credibility, and that this is

one of those occasions. It doesn't mean her story is false, but it has that effect.

I think their sexual relationship may have been conducted more in the dark than

many couples today. I also think the question, as usually asked, has no answer.

I think she wasn't sure based on her own experience because he was only partially

circumcised. If even you don't know that, she might now have known what to say.

Under those conditions, she may have used the autopsy report to settle a question

about which she was uncertain how to answer, lest she be rejected on that account.

Jim

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

Jim:

Your points are well taken but this is why a witness, to be credible, should only describe what they saw or knew. If they do not know. they should say they do not know or describe what they saw, not reference their research and what they discovered there. It diminishes the credibility of the witness and calls into question, what they saw, if anything. Judyth goes the step further and correlates her research with her memories. You can't conjecture and respond for her. If the situation was they were always in the dark when they were intimate then why not simply say so.

Doug Weldon

Edited May 13, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

Run ALL of the recent posts (on the "Study of the Guilty's Genitals" --a euphemism for de-humanization & de-personalization) by your PSYOPS EXPERT. It all stinks of mind kontrol. I do not say this lightly. It has a signature of deliberately induced cognitive dissonance.

Or perhaps...its just madness (a euphemism for insanity).

This was very clever. I don't like it. How and when did Oswald become "worthy" of being treated as though he really DID murder JFK? I could understand it, marginally, in 1963/1964 due to Group Trauma Response -- But I don't "get it" when it happens in this thread!

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk,

Obviously, because Judyth's credibility has been challenged on the ground that,

if she had the relationship she maintains, then she should know the answers to

these questions. Interestingly, the situation is actually more complex than one

would have supposed. I knew her description of Oswald as having "impressive

equipment" was true, because I have an autopsy photo in my possession (and I

suppose now I have to start searching for it) that confirms it. The circumcision

question, moreover, appears to have no answer as it is usually meant, because

he appears to have been partially rather than completely circumcised. Judyth

has received no respect on this thread from most of her critics. It comes as no

surprise to me! Her story humanizes Oswald. Her treatment is another matter.

Jim

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?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Monk,

I am not surprised it has come this far. I was aware there was a question

about circumcision long ago. I am only surprised that, if her critics were

disposed to think it was the crucial question, they didn't bring it up long

ago. Now Michael Hogan is saying that it is MY CREDIBILITY that is on

the line. Well, I think that is true for everyone here, including him. And

in my opinion his (Hogan's) credibility has take some hits. Misquoting me

does not tarnish my credibility but that of the one who misquotes, in case

he hasn't figured it out. This is but one more test of whether she knew LHO.

Jim

Jim,

Run ALL of the recent posts (on the "Study of the Guilty's Genitals" --a euphemism for de-humanization & de-personalization) by your PSYOPS EXPERT. It all stinks of mind kontrol. I do not say this lightly. It has a signature of deliberately induced cognitive dissonance.

Or perhaps...its just madness (a euphemism for insanity).

This was very clever. I don't like it. How and when did Oswald become "worthy" of being treated as though he really DID murder JFK? I could understand it, marginally, in 1963/1964 due to Group Trauma Response -- But I don't "get it" when it happens in this thread!

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk,

Obviously, because Judyth's credibility has been challenged on the ground that,

if she had the relationship she maintains, then she should know the answers to

these questions. Interestingly, the situation is actually more complex than one

would have supposed. I knew her description of Oswald as having "impressive

equipment" was true, because I have an autopsy photo in my possession (and I

suppose now I have to start searching for it) that confirms it. The circumcision

question, moreover, appears to have no answer as it is usually meant, because

he appears to have been partially rather than completely circumcised. Judyth

has received no respect on this thread from most of her critics. It comes as no

surprise to me! Her story humanizes Oswald. Her treatment is another matter.

Jim

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?

Edited May 13, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

For me, NONE of this is about MY credibility! NOT ONE OUNCE... Nor for me is it about Jack's, or Michael's, or Doug's, or Tink's, or Junk's, or even Judyth's...it is about discovering the truth for me--as it is for you [presumptive]. However, Judyth's credibility does come into play at this juncture because she claims to be a witness. Her pending status as a witness is therefore dependent upon her credibility.

That is the difference.

Her credibility is on the line.

NOT YOUR'S -- NOT JACK'S -- NOT ANYONE ELSE'S

Let's try to keep it that way otherwise it will no longer be about the truth...

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk,

I am not surprised it has come this far. I was aware there was a question

about circumcision long ago. I am only surprised that, if her critics were

disposed to think it was the crucial question, they didn't bring it up long

ago. Now Michael Hogan is saying that it is MY CREDIBILITY that is on

the line. Well, I think that is true for everyone here, including him. And

in my opinion his (Hogan's) credibility has take some hits. Misquoting me

does not tarnish my credibility but that of the one who misquotes, in case

he hasn't figured it out. This is but one more test of whether she knew LHO.

Jim

Jim,

Run ALL of the recent posts (on the "Study of the Guilty's Genitals" --a euphemism for de-humanization & de-personalization) by your PSYOPS EXPERT. It all stinks of mind kontrol. I do not say this lightly. It has a signature of deliberately induced cognitive dissonance.

Or perhaps...its just madness (a euphemism for insanity).

This was very clever. I don't like it. How and when did Oswald become "worthy" of being treated as though he really DID murder JFK? I could understand it, marginally, in 1963/1964 due to Group Trauma Response -- But I don't "get it" when it happens in this thread!

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk,

Obviously, because Judyth's credibility has been challenged on the ground that,

if she had the relationship she maintains, then she should know the answers to

these questions. Interestingly, the situation is actually more complex than one

would have supposed. I knew her description of Oswald as having "impressive

equipment" was true, because I have an autopsy photo in my possession (and I

suppose now I have to start searching for it) that confirms it. The circumcision

question, moreover, appears to have no answer as it is usually meant, because

he appears to have been partially rather than completely circumcised. Judyth

has received no respect on this thread from most of her critics. It comes as no

surprise to me! Her story humanizes Oswald. Her treatment is another matter.

Jim

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?

[Jack White]

Jim...I told you that I have over 10,000 slides in sleeves in four storage boxes

plus about 30 Carousel trays. I see nothing odd that I cannot locate any slide

instantly. Many of the trays are at Baylor being copied. I have no access to

them at the moment. I have 3 Macintosh computers plus three external hard

drives with stored images. I have a total of more than 100,000 images on

the computers and hard drives. Finding a particular image is dependent on

remembering the file name. I could not find the image you wanted because

the source used a space in the file name...LHO_AUTOPSY, and I was looking

for LHOAUTOPSY. I do not know why you find that hard to understand. I have

had no problem dealing with ANY of the autopsy photos, and had used them

in my slide shows for years, plus the ones taken at the funeral home. I do

not understand why you find this inconsistent with my character. You are seeing

shadows when none are there, Jim.

Jack

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.

Jack

Edited May 13, 2010 by Jack White

[Jack White]

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?

Greg...in theory I agree. However, in historical and murder investigations, it is common to deal

with human remains. Some are very gruesome. Some are never seen by the public, only juries.

But they exist. I have read about, but have NOT seen, the bodies of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman,

and even the descriptions are horrid...but the jurors were shown the photos, if I recall right.

LHO has been dead 45 years...long enough to make him a historical figure and "lab specimen."

Jack

[Jack White]

I do not remember ever saying LHO was UNcircumcised. I have the autopsy report, which I read many years ago

saying he was. If I said such, it was a mistake of some sort.

Jack

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?

Monk:

It does appear very "clinical." i do not even know where this originated but I went back through the thread and found this:

Jack,

I want to come back to this question when I have more evidence available to me.

In the meanwhile, how do you know that "Lee" was uncircumcised? Something

very strange is going on here and some form of photographic fakery appears to

have taken place. I consider this to be a significant issue and am going to pursue

it. I will discuss this with Judyth and conduct more research on the photographs.

Jim

In describing his eye color, tooth being replaced, etc. it is all very clinical and does dehumanize the person. However, it also references Judyth's credibility which is the subject of this thread. However, your point is well taken.

Doug Weldon

[Jack White]

I have had this at least 20 years.

Jack

[Greg Burnham]

In theory you agree? In theory? Wow. That takes the cake. Let's move this from the theoretical to the more concrete then. This is not a trial. You and Jim are not on the jury nor are you prosecutors or defense counsel. Neither of you are private investigators nor are you detectives in law enforcement.

That said, remember, LHO IS innocent. Why? Because in this country, last I checked, a suspect IS (considered/treated) innocent until proven otherwise IN A COURT OF LAW! There was no trial for Lee Oswald--and there never will be a trial for him. He is therefore INNOCENT by our standards of jurisprudence--and is NOT deserving of being condemned, even in memory [READ:HISTORICALLY].

If he is to be considered innocent, his memory should not be sentenced to a punishment that reduces him to the status of a lone, worthless, deranged, no-count, good for nothing, murderer...who can be easily disregrded as "not worthy of respect" -- Hasn't the official record already done that to him through its distortion of his character? Why would we contribute to such an image here?

I find it EQUALLY appalling that Jack, Jim, and Judyth don't realize this! Each of you claim that he is NOT GUILTY, yet you treat him as if he is guilty (in the sense of treating his memory as "not being worthy of respect") in order to prove a point about Judyth's credibility. However, both you and Jim agree that irrespective of whether or not her story is true or false--Oswald is still innocent!

The ONLY potential relevance her story has to JFK (this forum's focus) is her corroberation of LHO's innocence. So why would you guys throw LHO under the bus by treating him in a less than respectful manner? Why would two well respected researchers who are: 1) on the same side of the big picture, and 2) who believe LHO is innocent--somehow forget that they already agree on this subject? (BTW: Judyth is NOT the subject...JFK is!)

Is it really worth it for either of you to participate in an exercise that denigrates OSWALD (who you claim does not deserve it) in order to prevail in an argument about the credibility of another who also agrees that Oswald was innocent and therefore also agrees that Oswald doesn't deserve such treatment? And why would Judyth, of all people, participate in such folly at the expense of the memory of her beloved? Why?

What gives here?

GO_SECURE

monk

Greg...in theory I agree. However, in historical and murder investigations, it is common to deal

with human remains. Some are very gruesome. Some are never seen by the public, only juries.

But they exist. I have read about, but have NOT seen, the bodies of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman,

and even the descriptions are horrid...but the jurors were shown the photos, if I recall right.

LHO has been dead 45 years...long enough to make him a historical figure and "lab specimen."

Jack

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?

Edited May 13, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Doug Weldon]

Doug,

She did (at one point in time) say as much to me or I would not have made

the suggestion. I think she has been so beaten up on other forums that it

was a matter of self-preservation that she research the case. I agree that

makes her a "damaged witness". It does not make her story false. I have

no reason to doubt her and many reasons to believe her. Certainly, nothing

advanced on this forum yet has caused me to change my opinion about her,

and I have overwhelmingly more experience with her than anyone else here.

Jim

Jim:

I sincerely appreciate this posting. I respect that you have so much experience with her. I did follow Rich's forum with her but not the other forums. My point throughout this thread has always been that she is a "damaged" witness and that for someone trying to weigh her story it is virtually impossible to discern where truth might end and research began. It does not mean that the substance of her story is false. When something is not believeable in court or the credibility of a witness is impeached, a jury is usually instructed that they can choose not to believe that part of the witnesses' testimony or disregard everything. For me, this has been compounded by Judyth dodging questions , refusing to provide evidence she says she has in her possession,i.e., the Mary Ferrell tapes. or to have the allleged Oswald handwriting analyzed. You initially agreed that the latter was important. In this instance she should have responded with the truth if that was what she told you. It is suspicious when a human being has an answer for everything. The average witness who has not researched anything portrays a much better image to the neutral observor. I respect that you believe her story. In light of such things I have outlined I cannot at this time. I hope you can respect that we can disagree and still be friends. I can talk with Marina but must respect boundaries with her. She did tell me that it was true that Lee was physically abusive to her. Marina is in some ways like Judyth. She is extremely intelligent, is the best of any person I have ever talked with in my life at steering a conversation, and can be evasive and vague when she wants to be. My only hope is that the truth will be known. If Judyth is correct it is an extremely important account. If she is fabricating the story she is doiing irreparable harm to those who seek truth and how we are viewed by the general public, who will ultimately be the arbiters of truth.

Doug Weldon

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

In post #2458, you made the following observation as a postscript and

I reposted it in #2461 QUOTE (Jack White @ May 12 2010, 02:05 AM):

Edit: On close inspection, IMO the penis appears uncircumcised. (foreskin

appears to overlap glans.) However, autopsy report says otherwise.

The letter mentions 2 photos; however, they were virtually identical,

with only the persons in the background having moved.

You were describing your own observations based upon the photo you had

just posted--and you were correct. The foreskin does overlap the glans,

but only partially. I therefore believe he was only partially circumcised,

which is why the question, "Was he circumcised?", has no definite answer.

If it is intended in the sense, "Was he (completely) circumcised?", then the

answer appears to be, "No!" But if the question is intended in the sense,

"Was he (partially) circumcised?", then the answer appears to be, "Yes!"

For this reason, I consider the question to be moot (no longer relevant).

Jim

I do not remember ever saying LHO was UNcircumcised. I have the autopsy report, which I read many years ago

saying he was. If I said such, it was a mistake of some sort.

Jack

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?

Monk:

It does appear very "clinical." i do not even know where this originated but I went back through the thread and found this:

Jack,

I want to come back to this question when I have more evidence available to me.

In the meanwhile, how do you know that "Lee" was uncircumcised? Something

very strange is going on here and some form of photographic fakery appears to

have taken place. I consider this to be a significant issue and am going to pursue

it. I will discuss this with Judyth and conduct more research on the photographs.

Jim

In describing his eye color, tooth being replaced, etc. it is all very clinical and does dehumanize the person. However, it also references Judyth's credibility which is the subject of this thread. However, your point is well taken.

Doug Weldon

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Doug,

Please don't bow out. This is among the most useful exchanges I have had in

the history of this thread. Please tell me why you do not weigh the testimony

of living witnesses like Kathy Santi and Anna Lewis? Kathy confirms Judyth's

plans to pursue a medical career at Tulane and her reasons for moving to NO.

You can find it in Judyth's YouTube about making her transition from Gainesville,

which is #1 of the set of 6. Anna Lewis has testified that she and her husband,

David, "double-dated" with Judyth and Lee. It is archived on one of my blogs.

You have said that you have reviewed all of the evidence, but perhaps there is

some that you have inadvertently missed. The five consecutive important posts

that I put up a while back included one on "The Disappearing Witness". I have

been rather astonished that the only comment about that has come from Jim

DiEugenio, who was defending interviews of witnesses by associates of his that

in this case mistakenly place more weight on later testimony than on earlier. I

consider this to be important evidence of her traveling with Lee. Why don't you?

If I may say so, your non-acknowledgment of evidence that provides powerful

support for Judyth's story has caused me acute distress. When Lifton went after

her, she had to correct him about the date of Lee's arrival in New Orleans! When

Jack has cited HARVEY & LEE to establish the existence of "two Oswalds", Judyth

and I discovered a hole in reports about "Lee"'s dental work having been paid for

by "Harvey"'s Aunt Lillian. If you agree that Judyth has done good work, such as

in relation to her eye-color study, why don't you grant that any weight? I find her

having more persuasive reasons for her authenticity than her critics for denying it.

Jim

Doug,

She did (at one point in time) say as much to me or I would not have made

the suggestion. I think she has been so beaten up on other forums that it

was a matter of self-preservation that she research the case. I agree that

makes her a "damaged witness". It does not make her story false. I have

no reason to doubt her and many reasons to believe her. Certainly, nothing

advanced on this forum yet has caused me to change my opinion about her,

and I have overwhelmingly more experience with her than anyone else here.

Jim

Jim:

I sincerely appreciate this posting. I respect that you have so much experience with her. I did follow Rich's forum with her but not the other forums. My point throughout this thread has always been that she is a "damaged" witness and that for someone trying to weigh her story it is virtually impossible to discern where truth might end and research began. It does not mean that the substance of her story is false. When something is not believeable in court or the credibility of a witness is impeached, a jury is usually instructed that they can choose not to believe that part of the witnesses' testimony or disregard everything. For me, this has been compounded by Judyth dodging questions , refusing to provide evidence she says she has in her possession,i.e., the Mary Ferrell tapes. or to have the allleged Oswald handwriting analyzed. You initially agreed that the latter was important. In this instance she should have responded with the truth if that was what she told you. It is suspicious when a human being has an answer for everything. The average witness who has not researched anything portrays a much better image to the neutral observor. I respect that you believe her story. In light of such things I have outlined I cannot at this time. I hope you can respect that we can disagree and still be friends. I can talk with Marina but must respect boundaries with her. She did tell me that it was true that Lee was physically abusive to her. Marina is in some ways like Judyth. She is extremely intelligent, is the best of any person I have ever talked with in my life at steering a conversation, and can be evasive and vague when she wants to be. My only hope is that the truth will be known. If Judyth is correct it is an extremely important account. If she is fabricating the story she is doiing irreparable harm to those who seek truth and how we are viewed by the general public, who will ultimately be the arbiters of truth.

Doug Weldon

Edited May 13, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

I mistook what you were saying here, which is not that he had only one

testicle but that he may have had a form of varicose veins of the scrotum:

The idiopathic varicocele occurs when the valves within the veins along the spermatic cord do not work properly. This is essentially the same process as varicose veins, which are common in the legs. This results in backflow of blood into the pampiniform plexus and causes increased pressures, ultimately leading to damage to the testicular tissue.

Varicoceles develop slowly and may not have any symptoms. They are most frequently diagnosed when a patient is 15–30 years of age, and rarely develop after the age of 40. They occur in 15-20% of all males, and in 40% of infertile males.

98% of idiopathic varicoceles occur on the left side, apparently because the left testicular vein runs vertically up to the renal vein, while the right testicular vein drains directly into the inferior vena cava. Isolated right sided varicoceles are rare, and should prompt evaluation for an abdominal or pelvic mass (see secondary varicocele, below).

That comes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varicocele. And of course in

the autopy report by Earl Rose, which you have posted in #2537, he notes

"The testes are descended", so I was mistaken in thinking you had said that

he was missing a testicle, which would have raised other questions on its own.

Jim

Regarding the LHO scrotum, he apparently suffered from either a

single or double varicocele or hydrocele, or both. There are operations

to correct both of these malfunctions. I am not a doctor and do not

play one on tv. But ask any doctor.

Jack

Edited May 13, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Monk,

I am a bit taken aback that you and Michael Hogan should confound

(1) evaluating the truth of Judyth's story with (2) the humanizing of

Oswald that her story represents. This is not a subtle distinction and

I am really surprised you are failing to acknowledge it. Some of her

critics, especially Barb Junkkarinen, have been going after Judyth on

the ground that she has purportedly been inconsistent about whether

or not the man she knew was circumcised. No less an eminence than

Doug Weldon has declared that this was the coup de grace for taking

her story seriously. This has been brewing for some time, but I only

find you raising these protests after attempts are made to resolve it.

What is most interesting here is that the evidence suggests that Lee

was partially rather than completely circumcised. Even Jack has said

that he appeared to be uncircumcised when viewing one of the black-

and-whites, with which I agree. If he was only partially circumcised,

however, then the question, "Was he circumcised?", has no definite

answer. I am going to presume that you are reading the posts in which

I have addressed this question, which I have now done several times.

What this means is that it is ambiguous and has more than one truthful

answer, where Judyth's integrity is not at stake even if she answered it

differently on different occasions. Jack or I might both answer similarly.

No one here, to the best of my knowledge, believes that the man she

knew was even a shooter, much less "the lone, demented assassin".

We know the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon and

cannot have fired the shots that killed JFK. We also know multiple co-

workers reported seeing him in or around the 2nd floor lunchroom at

11:50, Noon, 12:15, and as late as 12:25, where he was confronted by

Officer Baker within 90 seconds of the assassination, which took place

at 12:30. So his guilt is not in question. What we are attempting to do

is evaluate Judyth's credibility, since what she has to tell us makes an

important difference to understanding the man accused of the crime.

Jim

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?

Greg Burnham is 100% correct.

Edited May 13, 2010 by James H. Fetzer