Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

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

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Greg Burnham
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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

I repeat:

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.

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

If you didn't mean to imply it was Haslam's, I don't see the point of the post.

And from reading it through, it is apparent that it was not Haslam's book but

Livingstone's to which she was making reference. And now you compound it

with repetitive posts about a post that seems to have had no useful purpose?

My confidence in your scholarly ability has been further corroded. Not only

do you misrepresent my remarks about Ed Haslam's book but you appear to

be going out of your way to try to make mountains out of molehills. Is that

what you are doing here? Because that is the pattern that is now emerging.

I repeat:

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All,

Everyone has been looking at and discussing 4 post-mortem photographs of LHO without putting them into their proper chronological context (i.e., when they were taken in relation to each other) which may be very important in analyzing their content.

I’ll try and do that here.

For the sake of the discussion I’ll identify the photos as follows:

1. The COLOR autopsy photos, specifically the one of LHO’s penis, which we’ll call LHO AUTOPSY COLOR PENIS. My understanding is that this one photograph out of a series of autopsy photographs taken either by the Dallas County Medical examiner or an FBI agent who was present during the autopsy.

2. The two BW photos of LHO in the morgue, which we’ll call LHO MORGUE BW 1 and LHO MORGUE BW2. They are quite obviously sequential photographs taken by the same cameraman/camera.

3. The one BW photo of LHO in the morgue with the towel over his lower body, taken by the Dallas Police Department, which we’ll call LHO MORGUE BW3-DPD. We know this is a DPD photograph because it is s photo is present in the DPD files and appeared in both Curry’s book JFK Assassination File and Judy Bonner’s book Investigation of a homicide, both of which relied heavily on DPD photographs.

After examining the photographs carefully and looking at all of the “clues” within the photographs, here’s the sequence in which I believe that they must have been taken and what each one shows.

PRE-AUTOPSY

PHOTO - LHO AUTOPSY COLOR PENIS

penis points to right

gunshot entry wound NOT excised

other autopsy photos from this time show that the gunshot entry wound is NOT excised, that there appears to be no Y-incision, and that the sutures are similar to LHO MORGUE BW 1 and 2 below

PRE-AUTOPSY BUT AFTER GUN SHOT WOUND HAS BEEN EXCISED

PHOTO - LHO MORGUE BW 1

2 men in scene

penis points downward

left hand is touching the body

gunshot entry wound is excised

possibly no Y-incision on right

untrimmed and loose sutures

rib cage looks normal

abdomen looks full

PHOTO - LHO MORGUE BW 2

6 men in scene (two of same men from above)

penis points to right

left hand away from body

gunshot entry wound is excised

untrimmed and loose sutures

rib cage looks normal

abdomen looks full

POST-AUTOPSY

PHOTO - LHO MORGUE BW 3 - DPD

gunshot entry wound is excised

complete Y-incision

trimmed and tightened sutures that appear significantly different from all of the above photos

rib cage looks like ribs have been cut

abdomen looks sunken

I’ll be interested to see what comments and analysis this draws

Todd

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be able to answer this question without

attempting to deflect it:

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

It is you that made the charge that it was I that made a blunder.

I never implied that it was Haslam's. Yet you continued to

repetitively make this false claim.

It is not a case of making a mountain out of a molehill. Believe me,

I am prepared to show that is not the case.

I am not going to let you spread falsehoods about what I have written and then

try to avoid acknowledging it is you that is wrong.

You have stated in the past if you are shown to be wrong, you will admit it and

correct it. We will see.

If you didn't mean to imply it was Haslam's, I don't see the point of the post.

And from reading it through, it is apparent that it was not Haslam's book but

Livingstone's to which she was making reference. And now you compound it

with repetitive posts about a post that seems to have had no useful purpose?

My confidence in your scholarly ability has been further corroded. Not only

do you misrepresent my remarks about Ed Haslam's book but you appear to

be going out of your way to try to make mountains out of molehills. Is that

what you are doing here? Because that is the pattern that is now emerging.

I repeat:

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.

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

What is the point of your post is that wasn't it? I cannot see any other.

And you can set a sterling example by acknowledging that you have

seriously misrepresented my characterization of DR. MARY'S MONKEY,

as I have pointed out to you several times now. You are just a bit on

the tardy side when it comes to admitting your own "false claims", so

I am prepared to be highly unimpressed with more coming from you.

You should be able to answer this question without

attempting to deflect it:

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

It is you that made the charge that it was I that made a blunder.

I never implied that it was Haslam's. Yet you continued to

repetitively make this false claim.

It is not a case of making a mountain out of a molehill. Believe me,

I am prepared to show that is not the case.

I am not going to let you spread falsehoods about what I have written and then

try to avoid acknowledging it is you that is wrong.

You have stated in the past if you are shown to be wrong, you will admit it and

correct it. We will see.

If you didn't mean to imply it was Haslam's, I don't see the point of the post.

And from reading it through, it is apparent that it was not Haslam's book but

Livingstone's to which she was making reference. And now you compound it

with repetitive posts about a post that seems to have had no useful purpose?

My confidence in your scholarly ability has been further corroded. Not only

do you misrepresent my remarks about Ed Haslam's book but you appear to

be going out of your way to try to make mountains out of molehills. Is that

what you are doing here? Because that is the pattern that is now emerging.

I repeat:

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Todd. This seems to be a good summary. Let me add that Gary Shaw told me, if memory serves,

that the color slide set came from the FBI. I believe the poor quality is a clue to this. Autopsy photos

by a medical examiner would not be of such poor quality. All of these photos have ID numbers in the photos.

However, they MAY have been made by the medical examiner, and the FBI merely got a set. In addition to these,

in Shaw's set (as well as Wood's) there were another 8 or 10 taken in the funeral home.

Jack

All,

Everyone has been looking at and discussing 4 post-mortem photographs of LHO without putting them into their proper chronological context (i.e., when they were taken in relation to each other) which may be very important in analyzing their content.

I’ll try and do that here.

For the sake of the discussion I’ll identify the photos as follows:

1. The COLOR autopsy photos, specifically the one of LHO’s penis, which we’ll call LHO AUTOPSY COLOR PENIS. My understanding is that this one photograph out of a series of autopsy photographs taken either by the Dallas County Medical examiner or an FBI agent who was present during the autopsy.

2. The two BW photos of LHO in the morgue, which we’ll call LHO MORGUE BW 1 and LHO MORGUE BW2. They are quite obviously sequential photographs taken by the same cameraman/camera.

3. The one BW photo of LHO in the morgue with the towel over his lower body, taken by the Dallas Police Department, which we’ll call LHO MORGUE BW3-DPD. We know this is a DPD photograph because it is s photo is present in the DPD files and appeared in both Curry’s book JFK Assassination File and Judy Bonner’s book Investigation of a homicide, both of which relied heavily on DPD photographs.

After examining the photographs carefully and looking at all of the “clues” within the photographs, here’s the sequence in which I believe that they must have been taken and what each one shows.

PRE-AUTOPSY

PHOTO - LHO AUTOPSY COLOR PENIS

penis points to right

gunshot entry wound NOT excised

other autopsy photos from this time show that the gunshot entry wound is NOT excised, that there appears to be no Y-incision, and that the sutures are similar to LHO MORGUE BW 1 and 2 below

PRE-AUTOPSY BUT AFTER GUN SHOT WOUND HAS BEEN EXCISED

PHOTO - LHO MORGUE BW 1

2 men in scene

penis points downward

left hand is touching the body

gunshot entry wound is excised

possibly no Y-incision on right

untrimmed and loose sutures

rib cage looks normal

abdomen looks full

PHOTO - LHO MORGUE BW 2

6 men in scene (two of same men from above)

penis points to right

left hand away from body

gunshot entry wound is excised

untrimmed and loose sutures

rib cage looks normal

abdomen looks full

POST-AUTOPSY

PHOTO - LHO MORGUE BW 3 - DPD

gunshot entry wound is excised

complete Y-incision

trimmed and tightened sutures that appear significantly different from all of the above photos

rib cage looks like ribs have been cut

abdomen looks sunken

I’ll be interested to see what comments and analysis this draws

Todd

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.

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...