Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Mike Williams]

I think the photos--in this instance--seeing as they appear to be inconsistent--are of a legitimate interest to researchers.

While Oswald's dingy may be offensive to some, this is THEIR problem, which should not become OUR problem. It was the FEAR of offensive photos, after all, that supposedly led to Earl Warren's refusing to let Dr. Humes study the photos of Kennedy, which resulted in much confusion, and helped make this forum a necessity.

One can't shy away from the gruesome in one's pursuit of truth, IMO. In my research, I have read hundreds of forensic publications, and have seen thousands of disgusting photos. Kids shot in the face with shotguns. Heads squashed by truck tires, and then stitched back together. Shrapnel wounds. Bodies pulled from lakes covered with leaches. Bodies found in basements covered with maggots. It's horrific. And yet the more horrific, the more likely it is to be published.

There are websites devoted to this stuff. News footage from around the world of gruesome car accidents. Heads in the road.

The dead have no privacy rights. News organizations sell their footage without obtaining releases. Forensic Pathologists retain the most gruesome photos for their personal records and then publish them in journals. No releases needed. Morgue employees sell their photos to the tabloids.

(Beyond Kennedy and Oswald, the autopsy photos of Marilyn Monroe, Tupac Shakur, John Lennon, etc. can be found on the internet.)

When you're dead, you are meat. Meat can be studied. And consumed.

As a compromise, however, I suggest that Jack and Jim or anyone wishing to refer back to photos of Oswald's dingy simply provide a link to said photo within their post. That way only those wanting to see the image will be subjected to it...

Pat,

If you wanna consume it go for it.

I have no issue with the study, but perhaps a better choice of arena would be better suited. Why not use Fetzers site? I mean hell no one goes there anyhow.

[Jack White]

Precisely, Monk!

Jack

Jim,

If Judyth's story, as it relates to JFK's assassination, offers me nothing further, save for the confirmation of a fact (LHO'S innocence) of which I am already fully convinced--for me, it is irrelevant. I don't need or want more information about the guy who didn't do it.

She had an affair with a partially spliced married man who was innocent of murder, but guilty of adultry. So what? However, that's just my take on it. This is the reason that I didn't expend the considerable time, energy, and funds required to confirm her story from the beginning. In my view, I would learn nothing of importance that I didn't already know--and at best, I'd discover details of an affair I didn't care to know. Information about his genitals is one such detail.

GO_SECURE

monk

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.

[Jack White]

Any child by age ten should understand that boys and men have a body part

called a penis, which serves more than one bodily function, as do the nose

and mouth. It is a body part in the same way that arms, legs, hands, feet,

neck, etc. are. It is nothing to be ashamed of nor embarrassed about, but

neither is it something to be flaunted. It is a fact of life.

Instead of telling a child about birds and bees, get a couple of family dogs.

A child with dogs will quickly learn the facts of life. I saw one of our dogs

get pregnant, and actually witnessed the birth of her 5 puppies; it was better

than a sex education course (which were not taught in the 1940s). Being

a dog owner makes for an informed, responsible, and educated child.

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

A response from Dave Reitzes to Judyth's accusation he altered an e-mail. Please note that the entire e-mail in question is included below, as well as a couple other e-mails showing what led into her e-mailing him. I have bolded the paragraph where she mentions Debra asking her if O was circumcised and her parenthetical "no" ... and I have also bolded a sentence later down where she notes that Martin is NOT copied on all her emails because I see where she has used Martin not being copied on this email as some sort of proof it is fake. - Barb :-)

All of the following is from Dave, who has also posted this on the mod group:

Some background:

As I posted about a couple days ago at this newsgroup (although these posts never showed up on Google Groups, for some reason), Barb Junkkarinen recently noticed that Judyth has contradicted herself on the issue of whether Lee Harvey Oswald, supposedly her lover, was circumcised.

Here's what Judyth told me in 2000:

<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------

Subj: Re: test

Date: 10/6/00 3:49:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Americanwebworks

To: Dreitzes

CC: Howpl

[...]

i am not interested in maing any money or peddling a book. I got an agent hoping to get the book i wrote--which put everything down in detail before i talked to anybody, and then had a professor keep a truncated version of it in caseanything happened to me--that shows i have never deviated from my account from the first. however, if people ask me something, i will add information. For exakple, Debra Conway asked me intimate questions about Lee, since she knew information from things i never knew existed. Example: was lee circumcized? (no). The pointnis that whatever i might not have thought to put down, if somebody asked, i emailed them, usually with a witness (John, kelly, Sarah, cassie, etc.) present, so that there was proof i wasn;t 'looking it up.' i have NO books, Dave.

<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------

Barb noticed that Judyth said quite the opposite in a 2009 e-mail to Rich DellaRosa, posted by Rich at his JFKresearch forum:

http://jfkresearch.com/forum3/index.php?topic=8550.0

<QUOTE ON>----------------------------------------

Rich DellaRosa

Judyth Vary Baker

« on: April 10, 2009, 02:43 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Folks,

Today I received this bizarre email purportedly from Judyth Vary Baker.

I had not had any communication with her in over 6 years. I am

as bewildered by this as anyone could be. Here it is verbatim:

Dear Sir:

I wish to commend you and everyone involved with JFK Research for

the work you have done. While you have had issues with me, I

believe I was given poor information about you, Armstrong, and

others with whom this organization is associated.

[...]

I am mentioning this because I feel i was

being manipulated in Dallas, and I know Debra Conway was

convinced by both Chapman and David Lifton that I was not who I

am. Lifton mis-reported our only conversation, and it turned

out he had illegally taped it. god knows how he edited that

auditape that he illegally recorded. He misreported what i said.

Chapman called me shortly after Debra Conway and i had met, and

said, "Debra tells me you said Oswald was not circumcized."

Debra Conway had told me she had received a photo of Lee entirely

nide, and that she and Chapman had decided to show it at the

Lancer conference, with that area covered. We did not discuss

circumcision-- I did make a cmment that Lee was 'well endowed.'

Debra said her reputation would be made by being David Lifton's

co-author of lee's new biography. But Lifton didn't publish,

because I had spoken out. I offered to help him update it, but

he said he would mention my existence in a footnote. I tried t

tell him all that transpured in New Orleans, but he had

immediately decided what i said was 'impossible.' Now Debra

Conway, who told me she never got a college degree, had lost this

cance to prove her research abilities, and I think she was

secretly angry at me. But before I knew this, she had

confessed to me in Jan. 2000, when I spent the night at her

parents' home with her, after a conference in New Orleans, that

Lancer was fulfilling her big dream, and that photo of oswald,

and other evidence she was gathering, would make her respected as

a researcher in the case.

It's important to know that when Chapman called me and said Debra

had told him that I said Lee was not circumcized, AND THAT THE

PHOTO SHE HAD SHOWN AT LANCER CONFIRMED THIS, that many things

ran through my mind. Someone had sent her a bogus or altered

photo, then, because Lee WAS circumcized! Fortnately, her

reputation was still OK because she had told me that area had

been covered with a black square when shown publically. Poor

Debra! She had been given a bogus photo! And accepted it as

genuine, even though the autopsy report said clearly that Lee was

circumcized! Not a very good researcher, I thought to myself,

but was not about to betray her to Chapman. Her heart would be

broken. So I only told Chapman exactly what i had commented

to Debra--that lee certainly was 'well-endowed." Unfortunately,

I soon learned that Debra and Chapman and Lifton tgether were

telling people I was a fraud and had no evidence.

<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------

According to researchers at the Education Forum, Oswald's autopsy report notes that he was circumcised. A number of gruesome photographs have been posted there in an attempt to further investigate this issue.

In an e-mail to Gary Buell, Judyth claims that I fabricated the 2000 e-mail:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...559&st=2475

<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------

Gary Buell

Yesterday [May 12, 2010], 07:36 PM Post #2486

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 236

Joined: 13-September 04

Member No.: 1486

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<mailto: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.

<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------

Judyth first contacted me on October 6, 2000:

<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------

Subj: test

Date: 10/6/00 12:46:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Americanwebworks

To: Dreitzes

Dear Dave---I really feel for you, seeing how you have been attacked. i am -j-. If you will promise to receive what i have to say in confidentiality, i would like to send you an email.

If not, just say so. But I feel Iyou and i have both been through a lot from the newsgroup.

OK....hopeflly, you will reply.

-j- (Martin can verify this is me if you are worried about it by sending an email to my USUAL address. i will get it and respond)

<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------

I responded:

<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------

Subj: Re: test

Date: 10/6/00

To: Americanwebworks

Judyth,

I would not object to receiving e-mail from you, and any such correspondence would be kept strictly confidential.

Please be advised that I am trying to abstain from the current newsgroup brouhaha, as I don't think such exchanges are especially productive.

Dave

<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------

In September 2003, as chronicled in detail at this newsgroup, I informed Judyth that I no longer felt bound by my agreement of confidentiality. For whatever good it will do, here is the complete e-mail that Judyth claims I fabricated:

<QUOTE ON>------------------------------------

Subj: Re: test

Date: 10/6/00 3:49:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Americanwebworks

To: Dreitzes

CC: Howpl

In a message dated 10/06/2000 12:20:44 AM Central Daylight Time, Dreitzes writes:

> Judyth,

>

> I would not object to receiving e-mail from you, and any such correspondence

> would be kept strictly confidential.

>

> Please be advised that I am trying to abstain from the current newsgroup

> brouhaha, as I don't think such exchanges are especially productive.

>

> Dave

==you're not the only one...I am just heartsick that i am not going to be given a chance to just say what happened in a simple way....OK, Dave, i believe you, because Howard has told me you're trsutworthy (oh, Debra conway told me David Lifton was trustworthy, too. She told me he had been working on a book . i know the name of the title of his book, even 9or at leats, what it was Jan.. 2000). Debra told me how many years he had worked on it, and how it would support much of what i had been talking about, in her opinion. She contacted robert Chapman, they talked about it, then told Lifton to contact me. i never initiated anything, but everything gets twisted on the newsgroup.

I did not know where to turn when i decided, after my last child left home, to write everything down.

i do not need books, and read nothing, just marina and lee because she was the other woman.

it was so outrageous, some of what i read in there, that all the old feelings came rushing back. i knew everything that had been going on, she knew almost nothing, and much was misrepresented. especially 9laughable) his being home all the time).

Anyway, i had avoided looking at everything. it literally made me sick. i had seen him shot on TV and had a blackout. When i tried to think about him, I had flashbacks to his murder. So i jusy blocked it out. Sometimes when i talk about it, which am doing for the first time, it is as if it happened to somebody else. And then suddenly i smell something, or hear a word or a name, if they ask me something, and suddenly, i can;t keep it far away any more, and then i start to cry. for this, mr. Lifton made fun of me.

I had no idea where to go at first.

my children? They were raised by me, four of them., as a single parent. three became valedictorians. i swore they would all have their chance to succeed, i was not going to impede them by blighting their names and lives with what had happened to me.

I was trained to become a research scientist. i attracted national attention when only sixteen by inventing a new metod to get magnesium out of seawater, and i was also doing cancer research with doctors trained at Oak Ridge. To make a long story short, being located in Florida, I dated Tony Lopex-Fresquet (son of Rufo L-F, finance minister in Fidel's cabinet) who had fled with his American mother along with his brother, Vincent, and i learned about the Ruston coalition against Castro. i became interested in canceling Castro out after more experiences, not the leats was having castro aim missiles at me and my parents in Florida, if you see what I mean.

I knew important people, and in indianapolis got conscripted into the CIA though was just a minor. i was trained in cancer research techniques, and I have tousands of detials from 1960 through January of 1964.

My life was destroyed when i was asked to go to New Orleans from gainesville, FL spring of 1963. I met lee, but in rebellion eloped with a man i thought I loved. they fixed that--sent him offshore almost entire summer, and out of the way, and continued to us eme. i was used, used, and so was Lee.

It is impossible to go into the kind of details that you would wish to hear. it takes hours to get it all to somebody. Plus, i have proof of my special training, and links to New orleans. as a cover, i was put on at Reily's--me, a trained research technologist, working with Monagahn as his finance and credit adssistant! but i warped up lee's records for them there, and many other things, worked with INCA people, and Ochsner was the common link there.

David Lifton gave me less than an hour and a half, plus another half hour asking about the book, etc.

i am not interested in maing any money or peddling a book. I got an agent hoping to get the book i wrote--which put everything down in detail before i talked to anybody, and then had a professor keep a truncated version of it in caseanything happened to me--that shows i have never deviated from my account from the first. however, if people ask me something, i will add information. For exakple, Debra Conway asked me intimate questions about Lee, since she knew information from things i never knew existed. Example: was lee circumcized? (no). The pointnis that whatever i might not have thought to put down, if somebody asked, i emailed them, usually with a witness (John, kelly, Sarah, cassie, etc.) present, so that there was proof i wasn;t 'looking it up.' i have NO books, Dave.

i don;t need any books.

I've got it all in my head.

I mixed some things up. i remembered Sam Termine as Sam Terminator and knew it wasn;t right, finally somebody mentioned termine and bingo, i recognized it. usually, though, I am asked something and respond at once in reply to somebody asking more details.

For example, litrtle things like when lee and i walked together, our wedding bands clicked, which embarrassed me, and him, so he moved the band to his other hand, or, more often, we walked with his left hand holding my right hand instead of his right hand holding my left hand. little things like that in my memory.

I had been trained to speak some Russian, all is verified, and i have photos proving i looked like marina. i often passed as her. lee and i hit it off: i was marina's exact height, figure, and same eyes, eybrows, even hairline. of course, we were not the same women. I am not nearly so moody.

There is no possible way that mr. Lifton could get a smidgen of the details. martin said he has a stack of email messages four feet high. Martin does not have ALL the messages. Howard has the most. Thousands of answers to questions, chronologies, yes, new names, new faces, where they fit in, and atop this, David, i have witnesses on tape, half a dozen mag=fia people here where i live who will testify who I was, for they all knew about me at least by rumor, and a witness also on film as well as tape. And that witness doesn't just say they knew me. this person talks for almost fifteen minutes about the things we all did together .

There is much more.

private investigators for almost three months now have looked into every aspect of my life, into every nook and cranny, and especially into the leads i gave them. The evidence is rolling in. Because there are people lwho will make fun, lie, and distort, no doubt I will never be believed by some percentage of the people. lookmwhat they've said about the ex-lax thing. they twisted it all around. we were trying to save JFK, you don;t have to believe me.

i wouldn;t believe me, Dave, if i hadn;t gone through it.

You wouldn;t believe the life i have led. I and husband joined Mormon churcvh. i wanted my sins washed away. Sins of having cheated on this man whose name protected me from death. they would have killed me if i had so much as lifted my head.

By becoming a Mormon, i subsumed myself into a society that was totally isolated from my old world.

And there I stayed.

In 1986, i got a degree at last, after 25 long years--here i had been the smartest, highest IQ in state of Florida, and didn;t get my degree for 25 years! but i was terrified to do so.

Anyway, i had learned in 13 yrs. time to translate Egyptian, found out documents of the Mormon church "translated from ancient Egyptian" were hoax translations, confronted the chuch, and asked for excommunication.

my former husband divorced me a year later, because he believes I'm going to hell. it was an ethical matter, a matter of integrity. My former husband is a miollionaire lving in Houston who, in bitterness, fought hard to pry the children away. he did not get them, i am a tiger when it coms to them.

So only one of the children ended up, ultimately, Mormon. But i went into poverty. i did not dare risk background checks, and had no way to use my mormon friends as reference because had been excommunicated. I dared to tell news media my story and a subsoifdiary of BBC made a film in England about me, and I also had a film made in israel onthe mount of Olives, and appeared all over by satellite, live, besides. Received death threats from mormon fanatics (I'm dead meat if you are a Mormon, aren't I?--yet Joseph Smith faked the translation of the ook of Abraham, and i proved it!). mark Hoffman and the mormon bombings will give you an idea, if you look on internet, of what i risked.

I did it under name of J.J. Michael and other fake names becauseof the danger that they'd find my maiden name.

If i would roisk all to uncover the mormon hoax like that, and lose a 24 year marriage, do you think i would destroy the reputation I have as a woman of honor and integrity to pretend i had been lee's mistress? Do you have any idea how distressful it has been to bring this up, especially to my super-conservative family? Several of my children are so offended. one son refuses to speak to me.

So i could go on and on.

I have documents, proof of residence, some of Lee's handwriting, proof of reily's, but most important, proof of special training, and that i looked like marina, and indeed, i am the 'woman" that was in jackson with lee, on and on, there's much, much more.

I thought to take it to my grave because thought they would never open up the files. I knew nothing except that Lee had been blamed, and knowing all along what would happen if he didn;t get out of there in time, I knew he would be lied aout, etc. and could not stomach looking into any of it. i am not morbid like that. All i hadto do was mention his name and i could see the reactions of disgust or anger or puzzlement, so i needed nothing else to test the waters.

Anyway, if you would meet me (others have done so--i realize it is expensive, but if you spend two days, you get a good batch of information, and you also see all the evidence). i have asked people to do this. if they come, they believe. Why? You know i am not lying when you talk to me.

You see what i have. You learn details that do not vary, that's why Lifton;s stuff looks so bad right now. There's a quote there about ex-lax *(besides, i think it was feen-a-mint!) but to not sound absurd, the problem is that this is one of the most important quotes, burned into my brain, and it makes me cry when i think of it, yet Lifton made fun of me for sarting to cry, and he also MISQUOTED the quote, causing some people to think that lee wanted to kill JFK and inspiring some to think i was glad to see it and put out chairs to see it at the lab, and all of that, how gross.

Davoid Blackburst politely declined to get information forsthand from me: i aslked him to come look. People have done so: about thirty-five, altoegther, twenty-five taking enough time to do it right. Major persons in news media have also spent days with me, interrogating me. these expert interviewers know when people are lying. Further, they recognize truth, their whole journalistic reputation, etc. depends upon it.

please forgive my typos, i have a rebuilt back and some nerve damage in my left arms and both hands.

If you come, you will become like a brother to me, because I will pour out my heart, and you will see what i have been through, which is an awful lot, and you will sense, and learn, and then make up your mind about if i could tell you such massive untruths. i am not perfect and make mistakes, those, too, i bring up freely.

For example, I thought Lee told me about a Sawtooth Mountain that somebody asked me about, and i said, yes, that was the mountain. well, it was not.....I went into a box and looked at the postcard he had given me, and it was BEARtooth Mountain. So it did not match with this rumor, convcenient as that might have been for what I owned. It had to be just exactly right.....This is an example of my correcting something I reported wrong. And i will do that again rather than report anything erroneously.

strangely, Debra Conway got to see about half the stuff and visited me perhaps half a day and a couple hours that night as we lay talking in the dark, talking about Lee. Anyway, she believes everything up to where i stopped talking to her and stopped showing her lots of evidence. She doesn't believe Lee would contact me. I reminded her that hurricane Flora had devastated Cuba, and it was a greatdisaster that Castro still remembered years after. But when i first brought up how hurricane Flora wrecked the penetration plan into Cuba, everybody said, HUH? What hurricane?

And so on....

There is much more. Again, i ask for confidentiality (mainly against fools, look what they do with it on internet!) . God bless you,Dave.

Judyth V. Baker

I hope you are above some of the ways of some critters on the net. it's 3 am, i am tired, and have 170 papers to grade. i teach English at UL, am not merely a student, though getting a degree in literature, a doctorate.....and in linguistics.....got disgusted at how you were attacked. I hope your m---pooey, i just fell asleeep at the keyboard...later, then, if you are game.... j

<QUOTE OFF>-----------------------------------

Dave

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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

Well put, Doug. The fact remains that Judyth, in her own writings, said two opposing things about whether or not LHO was circumcised. In the first, written in 2000, she not only writes "no" to the question Debra Conway asked ... but notes that Debra knew lots of things that Judyth didn't even know were out there. Fast forward 9 years, and there is no doubt Judyth now knows things too .... and not only gives the correct answer, but tries to fob it off on Conway. Had Judyth not told Debra LHO was not circumcised, there would be no reason for Debra to have mentioned it to Chapman ... and for Chapman to call Judyth and essentially challenge her on that point.

Whether or not LHO was circumcised has not become a "moot point" just because Fetzer deems it so. He *has* to deem it so or deal with Judyth's contradictory comments on it. That contradiction .... no he wasn't in 2000, then yes, of course he was in 2009 ... still exist no matter whether he was circumcised or not! And the autopsy report gives us all the answer to the question, it says, and the report has been posted as well as linked to, that "the penis is circumcised."

As for being intimate only in the dark ... Judyth relates their escapades as having taken place in the afternoons ... as well as in a van in Alba's garage ... but bottomline, a woman who is intimate with a male can be blindfolded and still tell if her man is circumcised or not. If anything, any error would be made in the opposite direction, but even that is a stretch, especially given multiple intimate encounters. Geesh.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited May 13, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

As many times as I have explained why Judyth's story is so important, it

grieves me that Monk and Jack are unable to acknowledge the elements:

(1) it humanizes the man the Warren Commission demonized as a "lone,

demented assassin", when he was actually a highly sociable, intelligent,

and responsible agent of the US government who appears to have been

working in several capacities (for the FBI, the ONI, and the CIA); (2) it

leads back to the rapid-cancer bio-weapon project, which seems to have

been #1 among the CIA's "family jewels", the only one that it redacted,

even after publicizing the others in its collection, apparently because it is

still TOO HOT to handle; and (3) it would inevitably reveal and reinforce

interest in the polio vaccine that was mandated for some 100,000,000

your people but was contaminated with a cancer-causing monkey virus,

which may be responsible for the epidemic of soft-tissue cancers which

is ravaging the United States and which Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY

so ably explains. I don't understand why Jack and Monk are unable to

appreciate that there is a great deal at stake here far beyond details of

the personal relationship between Lee H. Oswald and Judyth Vary Baker.

Research on this specific thread is amply justified on multiple grounds.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Since I addressed this question in post #2516 and several since, I do not

understand this mindless repetition of a question "asked and answered".

Or, to be more precise, I do not understand this mindless repetition of a

question "asked and answered" unless that's all you've got, as appears

to be the case here. Why don't you find some other trick to entertain us,

Barb, because this one has long since become stale, tedious and boring?

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 1432

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

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

QUOTE (Doug Weldon @ May 13 2010, 05:40 AM)

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

A response from Dave Reitzes to Judyth's accusation he altered an e-mail.

Please note that the entire e-mail in question is included below, as well as a couple other e-mails showing what led into her e-mailing him. I have bolded the paragraph where she mentions Debra asking her if O was circumcised and her parenthetical "no" ... and I have also bolded a sentence later down where she notes that Martin is NOT copied on all her emails because I see where she has used Martin not being copied on this email as some sort of proof it is fake. - Barb :-)

All of the following is from Dave, who has also posted this on the mod group:

Some background:

As I posted about a couple days ago at this newsgroup (although these posts never showed up on Google Groups, for some reason), Barb Junkkarinen recently noticed that Judyth has contradicted herself on the issue of whether Lee Harvey Oswald, supposedly her lover, was circumcised.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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

Not you or me, Michael! Fetzer seems to have not read thoroughly. In my response to you, what we were talking about is quite clear, imo. I said ....

"why would Judyth tell him to read her book and not tell him it was unauthorized if it is so error ridden and incomplete?"

Obviously it is Judyth's book, which she has declared "unauthorized." Neither of us made any such comment about Haslam's book.

Am playing catch up today after being gone most of yesterday and last night ... so later in the thread I see where Fetzer is still fussing and fuming and not addressing what you clearly have said or asked ...and then asks you why YOU keep posting about it and making a mountain out of a molehill. ROTFL.

You either misread or misunderstood, Fetzer. Any "shoddy effort" was yours. Geesh. All better now. And all done.

Barb :-)

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.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

What the heck are you yabbering about .... and why have you seemingly replied to a post I put up on behalf of Dave Reitzes this morning, but that post is incomplete/cut off in your post ...and some exchange you had with Weldon is included instead.

I realize you are desperate to shift things away from Judyth having given 2 different answers to the question of whether or not O was circumcised .... but now she has accused Reitzes of fabricating or altering an e-mail .... and Dave has responded to that accusation....and Gary made a call for the entire e-mail to be posted, and it is included in my post.

Mindless repetition? It's not me who is known for that here.

The other question as to whether or not O was circumcised has also been addressed ... by the autopsy report. He was. But whether or not he was is not the central issue when it comes to Judyth's credibility .... that issue is that she gave two different answers to that question 9 years apart. Oops.

You don't seem all that bored with that issue. Frantic is a better word, imo. Since truth is the objective, one might wonder why.

Since I addressed this question in post #2516 and several since, I do not

understand this mindless repetition of a question "asked and answered".

Or, to be more precise, I do not understand this mindless repetition of a

question "asked and answered" unless that's all you've got, as appears

to be the case here. Why don't you find some other trick to entertain us,

Barb, because this one has long since become stale, tedious and boring?

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 1432

Joined: 23-August 04

Member No.: 1135

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

QUOTE (Doug Weldon @ May 13 2010, 05:40 AM)

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

A response from Dave Reitzes to Judyth's accusation he altered an e-mail.

Please note that the entire e-mail in question is included below, as well as a couple other e-mails showing what led into her e-mailing him. I have bolded the paragraph where she mentions Debra asking her if O was circumcised and her parenthetical "no" ... and I have also bolded a sentence later down where she notes that Martin is NOT copied on all her emails because I see where she has used Martin not being copied on this email as some sort of proof it is fake. - Barb :-)

All of the following is from Dave, who has also posted this on the mod group:

Some background:

As I posted about a couple days ago at this newsgroup (although these posts never showed up on Google Groups, for some reason), Barb Junkkarinen recently noticed that Judyth has contradicted herself on the issue of whether Lee Harvey Oswald, supposedly her lover, was circumcised.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Somehow ...again ... you seem to have not read thoroughly, for regarding priapism, it includes, as can easily be seen it what John posted below:

"damage to major blood vessels"

You do know Oswald's cause of death, don't you? "Hemorrhage, secondary to gunshot wound of the chest."

As for your assertion about Crenshaw being "the one responsible for treating him in Trauma Room #2" ...

please post a citation for that assertion.

Yesterday, 07:34 AM

Post #2472

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 5418

Joined: 26-June 05

From: OZ

Member No.: 3136

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

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

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

lol

[Todd W. Vaughan]

If anyone has made more meaningless posts than Mike Williams, I cannot imagine

whom that would be. Notice the contentlessness of each and every one of them,

none of which displays the least understanding of the issues under consideration.

And that pattern continues here. If anyone qualifies as a laughing stock, it is not

me or Jack or Dean or even Junkkarinenen, who raised the question that led to this

aspect of our investigation (about his circumcision), but he--Mike Williams--himself!

Fetzer,

I expected as much from someone who common sense seems to elude so often.

You Sir are a joke on any forum, or on any platform.

"This is America, you wanna be a nut, be a nut, and you Sir are a nut!"

Todd,

In the face of the absurdity of the whole thread, my comments are the least of the atrocities.

The fact is that your absurd comments were among those that took the discussion into the gutter.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Gary, thank you for posting this. I will respond to Judyth and to your comments as well. My comments are in blue.-Barb :-)

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.

You were complaining and being snide about Conway in the October 2000 e-mail. Doesn't matter if you were friends or not.

I am not in the habit of bringing up private matters as "examples."

In an e-mail to Rich DellaRosa, already posted here, you said that that O was "well endowed" .... similar comment to Fetzer, who has posted your comment to him that O was well equipped or that his equipment was impressive several times now. Those are "private matters."

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

Not according to what you wrote in the e-mail I posted in full this morning. You wrote, martin said he has a stack of email messages four feet high. Martin does not have ALL the messages. Howard has the most. As you note, Howard was cc'd on this e-mail ... how stupid it would be for someone to fake or alter an email someone else was copied on.

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?

Looks and sounds exactly like you, Judyth! Pam has made constant allegations that Dave's website is full of errors and misquotes, etc ... though asked several times by several different people to post examples, Pam has yet to come up with even one.

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?

Because he hadn't noticed it ... as he himself commented on the mod group after I posted excerpts from both e-mails. He may not have realized your "no" was incorrect back in 2000, and 9 yrs later when you wrote DellaRosa, he may have forgotten about it. You probably forgot about that "no" response 9 yrs ago too or, more likely, not seeing it pointed out anywhere on Dave's site, figured he didn't still have that email or had never posted it. :-) It is included in a series Dave put together called Judyth: From the beginning which has like 18 parts. The email in question appears in Part 10, and Dave posted it on 6-3-08. I don't know if he had it posted anywhere before that or not.

Answer: it has been altered, oh-so-conveniently, Gary. I NEVER bring up private matters such as this about Lee.

You clearly do, Judyth, as noted above. And it makes no sense that it would have been altered. If you had not told Debra "no" when she asked you the question, there would have been no reason for Chapman to call you and challenge you on it. As you yourself said in your email to Dave, Debra knew things that you didn't even know were available. That was in 2000. What year was it when you discovered the autopsy report and maybe

the photo as well? :-)

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?

Chapman's statement to you was not that you had "agreed" with Debra ... even by your own telling in your 2009 e-mail to DellaRosa. In it, you stated, Chapman called me shortly after Debra Conway and i had met, and said, "Debra tells me you said Oswald was not circumcized."

In 2000, you had not yet seen the autopsy report and did not know that it contained such information. But by 2009, when you wrote your missive to Rich DellaRosa, you were falling all over yourself trying to wriggle all around making it Debra's fault ....and apparently not even remembering at that time, your comment to Reitzes 9 years earlier. And "10 months earlier" than *what*? As cited above, in your 2009 letter you said, "Chapman called me shortly after Debra Conway and i had met, and said, "Debra tells me you said Oswald was not circumcized." 10 months is not a "shortly."

I have no response to Judyth's 'I was only looking out for poor plotting Debra' and victim impact statement about Dave ... so have deleted that portion here. Now, on your thoughts, Gary:

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.

The e-mail in question was posted in full, by me, earlier today ... along with some e-mails that led up to it, as a response from Dave. Dave is an LN now, but he used to be quite an avid CT. I do not recall when he fell over to the other side of the grassy knoll, but it was after 2000 and his dealing with Judyth, as far as I know. I've known Dave online for many years. And no one who has known him and read his posts and collections over the years, either as a CT or LN, would ever cast aspersions on his character and would never believe he would ever ever alter evidence. Never. And for what reason?

He received the letter in 2000, he posted it as just one more thing as part of his Judyth series TWO TEARS ago in 2008 ... not even realizing what it contained! Is he supposed to have posted an altered email 2 years ago ... not said a word about Judyth saying LHO was not circumcised, what, just hoping and waiting Judyth would send an email to Rich a year later ... and that after another year, someone like me would stumble upon it and see the error in one and the contradiction in another? Yeah, that makes sense ....NOT.

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.

Exactly. It is quintessential Judyth for anyone who has seen even a few of her emails or posts (that she has written herself).

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.

Unless she didn't know that information was in the autopsy report ... that the autopsy report was even available ...and had never seen it herself. And when asked the question by Debra ... when they had met and were speaking to one another ... she could hardly hem and haw right there on the spot, now could she?

There are 2 emails, written 9 yrs apart. One says "no" ... the other wriggles and squirms and blames Debra and purports to be trying to protect Debra and states of course she couldn't get it wrong because it was in the autopsy report. Now she claims the 9yr old email was altered.....posted 2 yrs ago without this "gem" being mentioned, just waiting for Judyth to write a conflicting email to Rich DellaRosa 1 yr later in 2009 ...and then for someone like me to find it and note the problem another 1 yr after that in 2010. Some of us were born at night, but not last night.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Greg Burnham]

As many times as I have explained why Judyth's story is so important, it

grieves me that Monk and Jack are unable to acknowledge the elements:

(1) it humanizes the man the Warren Commission demonized as a "lone,

demented assassin", when he was actually a highly sociable, intelligent,

and responsible agent of the US government who appears to have been

working in several capacities (for the FBI, the ONI, and the CIA); (2) it

leads back to the rapid-cancer bio-weapon project, which seems to have

been #1 among the CIA's "family jewels", the only one that it redacted,

even after publicizing the others in its collection, apparently because it is

still TOO HOT to handle; and (3) it would inevitably reveal and reinforce

interest in the polio vaccine that was mandated for some 100,000,000

your people but was contaminated with a cancer-causing monkey virus,

which may be responsible for the epidemic of soft-tissue cancers which

is ravaging the United States and which Haslam's DR. MARY'S MONKEY

so ably explains. I don't understand why Jack and Monk are unable to

appreciate that there is a great deal at stake here far beyond details of

the personal relationship between Lee H. Oswald and Judyth Vary Baker.

Research on this specific thread is amply justified on multiple grounds.

Jim,

I don't personally need Judyth's story to help me appreciate the humanity of Oswald. I have studied him for decades. I have no interest in the cancer bio-weapon subject as it is not related to the assassination. Let me qualify that: I have an interest in the subject, but not in forcing a combining of it with this subject. I feel the same about the Polio vaccine allegations. I do not think they are related to JFK.

I don't see the connection, at least not yet. Perhaps I will in the future. My mind is open--However, it is not "wide" open or too accepting without more proof. I will read her new book. I expect that it will answer a lot of questions, one way or another. If it fails to adequately address concerns that have been legitimately raised here (and many have been legitimate) that, in itself, will be an answer.

It is my prerogative to disagree after evaluating the evidence for myself. But, until then, I must refrain from finalizing my opinion. In any event, I will be as intellectually honest with myself as possible--as a matter of self respect. You have my word.

[Cliff Varnell]

I do not recall when he fell over to the other side of the grassy knoll, but it was after 2000 and his dealing with Judyth, as far as I know. I've known Dave online for many years. And no one who has known him and read his posts and collections over the years, either as a CT or LN, would ever cast aspersions on his character and would never believe he would ever ever alter evidence. Never. And for what reason?

His conversion occurred months before JVB appeared on the scene.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...amp;lnk=ol&

[Barb Junkkarinen]

I do not recall when he fell over to the other side of the grassy knoll, but it was after 2000 and his dealing with Judyth, as far as I know. I've known Dave online for many years. And no one who has known him and read his posts and collections over the years, either as a CT or LN, would ever cast aspersions on his character and would never believe he would ever ever alter evidence. Never. And for what reason?

His conversion occurred months before JVB appeared on the scene.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...amp;lnk=ol&

As his post says ... that's when he announced he was "on the fence" for the first time. I don't recall how long it took him to fall off, hit his head and wake up on the wrong side...