Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

Guest James H. Fetzer

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

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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

You suppose right and it doesn't have to be the back, it's whatever part of the body is lowest as gravity pulls the blood down. The foreskin doesn''t change, the volume of blood in his xxxxx changes.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who claimed that the "unauthorized book" was Haslam's?

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
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

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?

Greg Burnham is 100% correct.

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

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 by James H. Fetzer
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?

What you said deserves to be repeated.

I am thoroughly disgusted and feel that this has gone way too far. I have asked the other moderators for input on corrective action.

Kathy

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

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?

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

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :wacko:

Jack

Edited by Jack White
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...