Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[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&

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...

He was in the process of falling off the fence that summer.

From the alt.con.jfk "Yoo Hooooo Bob Harris" thread, July 10, 1999:

Cliff, I don't know how long you've been around here, but I used to argue the same

exact thing you're arguing [JFK's T3 back wound]. I now accept that I was probably

wrong.

It amuses me to see folks effectively critique one subject (e.g., JVB) but allow all reason

to desert them when confronted with overwhelming evidence on another subject (e.g.,

JFK's T3 back wound).

The research value of this thread is low but it's entertainment value is high!

Carry on... ;->

[Michael Hogan]

Michael and Jim seem not to be "communicating".

As an outsider to their misunderstanding, let me try to see whether I understand.

My understanding is that JVB claims that Livingstone's book was unauthorized.

Somehow Jim thinks that Michael says that it was Haslam's.

Is this the gist of the misunderstanding? Is this minor point worth so much

verbiage?

Peace.

Jack

Jack, thanks for your questions. Contained in all that verbiage was a simple question

that I have been trying to get Jim to answer for a month. To me the point is not minor.

I will try to explain it again in the near future. As long as Jim prefers to insult me as a

means of ducking the question and as long as he continues to make assertions that

are not true, it is difficult for me to let it go.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Evan Burton]

Re: images.

To ensure researchers can obtain these subject images, we have a couple of options:

1. Place them onto a site like Photobucket, and allow people to download them from there;

2. Mods can post images to members on request; or

3. A restricted access sub-Forum can be made, and only those people requesting access can see the contents. This would prevent what can be called inappropriate images being seen by underage persons whilst still allowing access to researchers.

Perhaps researchers might indicate what their personal preferences are. I am happy to set up a Photobucket site for Forum general use, if member would like that.

[Bill Byas]

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"

But Dr. Fetzer, what if Judyths story is not true?

[Jack White]

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"

But Dr. Fetzer, what if Judyths story is not true?

Exactly, Bill. I have never understood what "humanizing" this man has to do with researching the JFK murder.

Since the odds are OVERWHELMING that the man killed by Ruby was NOT the man born as Lee Harvey Oswald,

what we need to learn is just WHO WAS THIS MAN and how did he come to be using Oswald's name. A fictional

account of his life for a few months in 1963 when he was operating as a spy presents a false "humanized image."

Jack

Edited May 14, 2010 by Jack White

[Pamela Brown]

JW said:My understanding is that JVB claims that Livingstone's book was unauthorized.

No. Judyth says that the version of HER book that Livingstone was involved in that came out a few years ago was unauthorized.

[Pamela Brown]

I object to reserchers taking the study of a presumably innocent man's genitals this far because it does nothing to enhance or detract from the case made against him. However, I believe it is still within the purview of legitimate research. I would think that researchers can self moderate this matter without the help of the admin's power to censor. I apologize if my posts encouraged such encroachment on freedom of speech. That was not my intent. It was an appeal to the researchers NOT to the admins!

This is the kind of situation where it would seem those on the board who are in contact with Marina might get a definitive answer. I am in fact surprised that those such as BJ, who gloated that Marina "did not want to talk to me", apparently because of my connection to Judyth, have not done so already. At the very least, all they have to ask is whether Marina thinks the autopsy photos are faked or not. There is a slight chance that she might not be forthcoming if only to try to block Judyth, but I would tend to give Marina the benefit of the doubt and think that she would be truthful.

[Stephen Roy]

1) The black and white photos, and more importantly the autopsy report (done by a physician who actually examined him) establish that Oswald was fully circumcised.

2) Baker did communicate in 2000 with Conway and Reitzes that Oswald was not circumcised.

3) Once it became clear that Oswald was circumcised, Baker changed her story and began giving unbelievable excuses for the change.

In 2000, she had a 50-50 chance of guessing correctly, but she guessed wrong. Taken alone, that error is telling; taken in conjunction with her change of story and excuses, it is even more telling. A woman in an intimate relationship with a man could NOT make such an error. This suggests very strongly that she never had an intimate relationship with Oswald, calling her entire story into question.

For this reason, it is imperative for her chief apologist to find some way to spin this. The suggestion that Oswald was "partially circumcised" is crazy and in conflict with the evidence. The suggestion that Reitzes would fake the email is also crazy, as even those who vehemently disagree with him on other issues have indicated. (Perhaps Howard Platzman, who was copied on the email, would let us know if it is identical to what he received.) The suggestion that the autopsy and photos were faked some 30 years ago for the sole purpose of tripping up Baker is patently absurd. And the suggestion that this is a "moot point" is nothing more than a desperate attempt to get away from an indefensible error.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Let's see. Jack looked at the photographs and reported that, in his judgment, the decedent was uncircumcised, even while he acknowledged Earl Rose had stated that he was "circumcised". The foreskin clearly overlaps the glans, which supports Jack's judgment. After reviewing the nature of circumcision, it turns out that "partial circumcision" (enter: circumcision, partial) is a common practice, even though most of us are unfamiliar with the concept. Why Stephen Roy thinks he can dictate facts is beyond me, but that is what he pretends to be doing here. Since Oswald appears to have had a partial circumcision, the answer to the question, "Was he circumcised?", appears to have no definite answer. If it is meant in the sense, "Was he (completely) circumcised?", the answer is, "No". if it is meant in the sense, "Was he (partially) circumcised?", the answer is, "Yes". The question of circumcision therefore appears to be moot. Even if Judyth may have given different answers on different occasions, it simply doesn't matter. If Jack, who is no fan of Judyth, can look at these photos and concluded that, contrary to the autopsy report, he was uncircumcised, then what possible difference can if make? Far more important are her observations that he had "impressive equipment", which I can confirm based on the photo in my possession (that I am now going to have to find) and that he did not shave his pubic area (which appears to be shaven in these photographs). If anyone is making "inexcusable errors", it is Mr. Roy, who is attempting to impose (clearly unwarranted) opinions upon the rest of us. Why am I not surprised?

1) The black and white photos, and more importantly the autopsy report (done by a physician who actually examined him) establish that Oswald was fully circumcised.

2) Baker did communicate in 2000 with Conway and Reitzes that Oswald was not circumcised.

3) Once it became clear that Oswald was circumcised, Baker changed her story and began giving unbelievable excuses for the change.

In 2000, she had a 50-50 chance of guessing correctly, but she guessed wrong. Taken alone, that error is telling; taken in conjunction with her change of story and excuses, it is even more telling. A woman in an intimate relationship with a man could NOT make such an error. This suggests very strongly that she never had an intimate relationship with Oswald, calling her entire story into question.

For this reason, it is imperative for her chief apologist to find some way to spin this. The suggestion that Oswald was "partially circumcised" is crazy and in conflict with the evidence. The suggestion that Reitzes would fake the email is also crazy, as even those who vehemently disagree with him on other issues have indicated. (Perhaps Howard Platzman, who was copied on the email, would let us know if it is identical to what he received.) The suggestion that the autopsy and photos were faked some 30 years ago for the sole purpose of tripping up Baker is patently absurd. And the suggestion that this is a "moot point" is nothing more than a desperate attempt to get away from an indefensible error.

Edited May 14, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Stephen Roy]

Let's see. Jack looked at the photographs and reported that, in his judgment, the decedent was uncircumcised, even while he acknowledged Earl Rose had stated that he was "circumcised". The foreskin clearly overlaps the glans, which supports Jack's judgment. After reviewing the nature of circumcision, it turns out that "partial circumcision" (enter: circumcision, partial) is a common practice, even though most of us are unfamiliar with the concept. Why Stephen Roy thinks he can dictate facts is beyond me, but that is what he pretends to be doing here. Since Oswald appears to have had a partial circumcision, the answer to the question, "Was he circumcised?", appears to have no definite answer. If it is meant in the sense, "Was he (completely) circumcised?", the answer is, "No". if it is meant in the sense, "Was he (partially) circumcised?", the answer is, "Yes". The question of circumcision therefore appears to be moot. Even if Judyth may have given different answers on different occasions, it simply doesn't matter. If Jack, who is no fan of Judyth, can look at these photos and concluded that, contrary to the autopsy report, he was uncircumcised, then what possible difference can if make? Far more important are her observations that he had "impressive equipment", which I can confirm based on the photo in my possession (that I am now going to have to find) and that he did not shave his pubic area (which appears to be shaven in these photographs). If anyone is making "inexcusable errors", it is Mr. Roy, who is attempting to impost (clearly unwarranted) opinions upon the rest of us. Why am I not surprised?

Irrelevant and illogical apologetics. Oswald was circumcised; Baker said he wasn't. She was wrong. No amount of spin can obscure this.

With all due respect to Jack, Oswald was examined by a physician. "Even if Judyth may have given different answers on different occasions, it simply doesn't matter." Only to those whose goal is neither objective nor scholarly; only to those whose sole goal for such contorted "logic" is to apologize for such errors, at all costs. Who is trying to "impost" things on who?

[John Dolva]

There's a big difference in chidren hearing and using words to unwittingly be confronted with certain things that impact on the psyche because of their fundamenyal essence. the realisation of self and other, the realisation of loss, of death. The fact is that horrific images are replayed ad infinitum through the nedia children are exposed to. This is very desensitising. Up to a point it is the responsibility to care for not only our own children, but also the children of others.

[Jack White]

Let's see. Jack looked at the photographs and reported that, in his judgment, the decedent was uncircumcised, even while he acknowledged Earl Rose had stated that he was "circumcised". The foreskin clearly overlaps the glans, which supports Jack's judgment. After reviewing the nature of circumcision, it turns out that "partial circumcision" (enter: circumcision, partial) is a common practice, even though most of us are unfamiliar with the concept. Why Stephen Roy thinks he can dictate facts is beyond me, but that is what he pretends to be doing here. Since Oswald appears to have had a partial circumcision, the answer to the question, "Was he circumcised?", appears to have no definite answer. If it is meant in the sense, "Was he (completely) circumcised?", the answer is, "No". if it is meant in the sense, "Was he (partially) circumcised?", the answer is, "Yes". The question of circumcision therefore appears to be moot. Even if Judyth may have given different answers on different occasions, it simply doesn't matter. If Jack, who is no fan of Judyth, can look at these photos and concluded that, contrary to the autopsy report, he was uncircumcised, then what possible difference can if make? Far more important are her observations that he had "impressive equipment", which I can confirm based on the photo in my possession (that I am now going to have to find) and that he did not shave his pubic area (which appears to be shaven in these photographs). If anyone is making "inexcusable errors", it is Mr. Roy, who is attempting to impose (clearly unwarranted) opinions upon the rest of us. Why am I not surprised?

1) The black and white photos, and more importantly the autopsy report (done by a physician who actually examined him) establish that Oswald was fully circumcised.

2) Baker did communicate in 2000 with Conway and Reitzes that Oswald was not circumcised.

3) Once it became clear that Oswald was circumcised, Baker changed her story and began giving unbelievable excuses for the change.

In 2000, she had a 50-50 chance of guessing correctly, but she guessed wrong. Taken alone, that error is telling; taken in conjunction with her change of story and excuses, it is even more telling. A woman in an intimate relationship with a man could NOT make such an error. This suggests very strongly that she never had an intimate relationship with Oswald, calling her entire story into question.

For this reason, it is imperative for her chief apologist to find some way to spin this. The suggestion that Oswald was "partially circumcised" is crazy and in conflict with the evidence. The suggestion that Reitzes would fake the email is also crazy, as even those who vehemently disagree with him on other issues have indicated. (Perhaps Howard Platzman, who was copied on the email, would let us know if it is identical to what he received.) The suggestion that the autopsy and photos were faked some 30 years ago for the sole purpose of tripping up Baker is patently absurd. And the suggestion that this is a "moot point" is nothing more than a desperate attempt to get away from an indefensible error.

Jim...you misquote me.

I said I looked at the photo and said that in the small image it appeared that it showed

that LHO was uncircumcised. I included the statement that THE LHO AUTOPSY BY DR. ROSE SAID THAT

HE WAS CIRCUMCISED, and that that takes precedence over whatever the polaroid may seem to show.

I even posted page one of the autopsy showing the statement. You cannot be selective in quoting me.

Perhaps I should have used better wording and said "the photo does not clearly show circumcision, etc..."

I doubt that you intentionally misquoted me, but leaving out part of my opinion has that effect.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

There is no reason to try to change your observation, which was right.

The foreskin overlaps the glans. If you were to do google search on

"circumcision, partial", you would find that the effect is common, even

if the phrase is not. Why should words on a report take precedence

over the photograph in this case? If he were partially circumcised, as

I submit, but Earl Rose was not familiar with the concept, then it was

more accurate to write "circumcised" than to say "uncircumcised". I

worry that you care more about attacking Judyth that you do for the

truth. Your credibility, like that of the rest of us, is also at stake here.

Jim

[Jack White]

I remind Jim that DPF is very strict about enforcing the policy against

ad hominem attacks from either side of a discussion. For instance

in the posting below, Jim would not be allowed to say....meaningless drivel

....point of absurdity ....or other comments about the motives of opponents.

And he should note that those wishing to continue to oppose him may follow

him to DPF. Leaving this forum will not rid him of opposition to the JVB story.

Jack

[Gary Buell]

I have decided to put my entire email exchange with Judyth Baker on this matter on record, deleting only her email address, as she had requested it not be made public and the name of a friend of hers. I will follow it up with some comments of my own. To read it in chronological order start at the bottom. I never promised Judyth confidentiality although she at one point trys to claim it after the fact.

Begin exchange:

Thu, May 13, 2010 5:23:58 PMRe: hi judyth

From: [deleted]

To: gary n <garyn2000@yahoo.com>

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

ok, I could only see the one page i was sent, Gary. i cannot reply again for a long time, used up all my dimes here!

Thanks to [deleted] for providing an interface between me and all of you!...."Fight evil with beauty. Defy darkness with infinite light." Tzvi Freeman

--- On Fri, 5/14/10, gary n <garyn2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gary n <garyn2000@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: hi judyth

To: [deleted]

Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 2:11 AM

Judyth,

The only thing I posted on the forum was the comment you left on my blog. Comments left on blogs are public obviously as any visitor to my blog can read them. Since you asked me to keep the email address private I deleted the comment and copied and pasted your reply on my blog and later on the forum, but without the email address. In any event, Professor Fetzer indicated that he had a copy of your reply but had not yet posted it. I have not posted any of our subsequent email exchanges.

Gary

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

From: [deleted]

To: gary n <garyn2000@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 4:57:21 PM

Subject: Re: hi judyth

GARY,

i WAS SENT THE INFO FROM ANOTHER PERSON A FEW MINUTES AGO AND SAW FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT WHAT I HAVE BEEN WRITING TO YOU, YOU HAVE POSTED ON THE FORUM WITHOUT TELLING ME THAT YOU WERE DOING THAT.

I HAD NEVER INTENDED TO START YET ANOHER FIRESTORM. I THOUGHT YOU KNEW THIS WAS A PERSONAL EMAIL. I WAS WRONG.

I DO NOT HAVE TIME TO ARGUE WITH THE FORUM MEMBERS AND DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE FORUM. I HAVE TO PAY FOR TIME ON THIS COMPUTER AND NOW I SEE THAT YOU WENT AHEAD AND POSTED WHAT I THOUGHT YOU KNEW WERE JUST PRIVATE EMAILS TO YOU.

WITHOUT SAYING A WORD TO ME ABOUT IT. LEAVIG ME UNABLE TO DEFEND MYSELF AGAINS EIR REMARKS, OF WHICH YOU TOLD ME NOTHING.

YES, I WROTE THAT MATERIAL. BELIEVE AS YOU WISH THAT THE MATERIAL THERE THAT I QUESTION WAS N-O-T INSERTED. OR THAT I USED THAT EMAIL ADDRESS. I INDEED WROTE A LONG EMAIL TO REITZES. BUT PERHAPS YOU DID NOT NOTICE THAT I SAID I SENT HIM A TEST EMAIL AND THEN SAID I WOULD WRITE TO HIM IF HE RESPONDED, USING MY OTHER EMAIL ADDRESS.

MR. REITZES ALSO PROMISED TO KEEP MY EMAILS CONFIDENTIAL. YOU CAN READ THAT FOR YOURSELF.

WAS HE A MAN OF HIS WORD? WOULD YOU TRUST MR. REITZES TO KEEP EMAILS CONFIDENTIAL AFTER SEEING WHAT HE DID WITH MINE, TO HIM?

AFTER RECEIVING THEM, HE BROKE HIS PROMISE AND PUBLISHED THEM. DO YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THIS MAN, WHO BROKE HIS PROMISE? IS HE A MAN OF HONOR? .

AS FOR THE CIRCUMCISION MATER, I SAID THAT WHEN LEE WAS FLACCID, THERE COULD BE A FOLD. I HAVE NOT SEEN MANY MALE ORGANS IN MY LIFE. I NEVER, EVER DESCRIBED HIM AS UNCIRCUMCISED.

I NOTE THAT REITZES (TYPICALLY) DOES NOT SHOW THE TRUE AND COMPLETE HEADER FOR THIS EMAIL. HE KNOWS WHAT A COMPLETE HEADER LOOKS LIKE. THEY USED TO BE ON ALL EMAILS: THESE DAYS, THEY ARE LESS COMMON AND GMAIL NEVER HAS THEM.

I SAVED MARY FERRELL'S HEADER ON THE 'DENUNCIATION' EMAIL AND ATACHMENT THE INSANT IT WAS PUBLISHED. GUESS WHAT, GARY? IT WAS MR. REITZES WHO ALTERED THAT HEADER. I ATACH HE ORIGINAL HEADER THAT HE RERPLACED WITH A AND-TYPED ONE HE CLAIMED WAS THE 'REAL' HEADER. IT WAS MUCH TRUNCATED AND DID NOT RESEMBLE THE REAL ONE.

IF YOU BELUIEVE REITZES IS AN HONEST, HONORABLE MAN, WHY DID HE CHANGE THE HEADER TO THE MARY FERRELL EMAIL? I AQM VERY DISAPPOINED THAT YOU HAVE POSED THE EMAILS I WROTE TO YOU WITHOUT TELING ME, AND WITHOUT EVEN MENTIONING THE RESPONSES. PERHAPS YOU BELIEVED I COULD READ THEM? I AM BLOCKED FROM DOING SO.

IF YOU PREFER TO TRUST MR. REITZES, WHO BROKE HIS PROMISE TO ME, AND WHO ALSO RE-CREATED A FAKE HEADER FOR THE EMAIL THAT MCADAMS PUBLISHED, THAT IS UP TO YOU. ATTACHED IS THE HEADER THAT MR. REITZES ERASED. THAT IS THE KIND OF MAN THAT YOU CHOOSE TO BELIEVE?

IF SO, ADIEU.

J

Thanks to [deleted] for providing an interface between me and all of you!...."Fight evil with beauty. Defy darkness with infinite light." Tzvi Freeman

--- On Fri, 5/14/10, gary n <garyn2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gary n <garyn2000@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: hi judyth

To: [deleted]

Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 1:37 AM

Here is the email as posted on the forum. The bolding was added. It certainly sounds like you.

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

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

From: [deleted]

To: gary n <garyn2000@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 3:48:36 PM

Subject: Re: hi judyth

AM STILL UP, BECAUSE IT IS ALMOST MY BIRTHDAY AND [deleted] IS STAYING UP FOR ME (EMAILS GO THROUGH HIM, HE IS IN SWEDEN AN HOUR LATER)...MY EYES ARE GOING, THOUGH, WHICH IS WHY IT IS IN CAPS...

GARY, I AM BLOCKED FROM SEEING EVERYTHING ON EDUCATION FORUM, THEY SAY I AM A MEMBER, BUT I CAN ONLY SEE WHAT IS POSTED IF SOMEBODY SENDS IT TO ME....NOR HAVE I BEEN ALLOWED TO REGISTER...THEY WLL CLAIM OHERWISE...SO I CANNOT POSSIBLY RESPOND UNLESS I SEE WHAT THE EMAIL LOOKS LIKE...HOWEVER, I HAVE WRITTEN SO MANY EMAILS THAT IT IS EASY TO 'FAKE' THEM, GARY. JUST CUT AND PASTE.

JUST REMEMBER, YOU WILL NOT SEE ANY 'AMERICAN WEBWORKS' EMAIL FROM ME ANYWHERE, UNLESS YOU BRING IT UP OR TELL SOMEBODY ON THE SIDE. THEN I EXPECT SOME MIGHT SHOW UP. I HAVE NOW SENT EMAILS TO OTHERS, APPRISING THEM OF THE FACT THAT I DID NOT USE THAT EMAIL ADDRESS, AND THAT ONLY AFTER THIS DATE MIGHT SOME SHOW UP. I HAVE DONE A SEARCH, MYSELF, AND THERE ARE NO 'AMERICAN WEBWORKS' EMAILS ANYWHERE. IF ANY SHOW UP AFTER THIS DATE, DO NOT TRUST THEM AS AUTHENTIC.

J

Thanks to [deleted] for providing an interface between me and all of you!...."Fight evil with beauty. Defy darkness with infinite light." Tzvi Freeman

--- On Fri, 5/14/10, gary n <garyn2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gary n <garyn2000@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: hi judyth

To: [deleted]

Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 12:42 AM

I do indeed remember the electlady63 email address and later others but not americanweb. The email in question sounds so much like you that it is difficult to believe it was invented. Altered, perhaps, but then there should be an original, very much like this one but with small differences. Do you remember sending that email? Reitzes has posted the entire email now and I would encourage you to read it carefully. And I hope that you don't see this till morning.

Gary

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

From: [deleted]

To: gary n <garyn2000@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 3:11:44 PM

Subject: Re: hi judyth

well, Gary, all I can say--and i have to get ioff this computer in jus a minute-- as my friend [deleted] has to go to bed, and it is 1:00 AM in ISTANBUL, that several things could have happened:

1) He received an altered email. Before you discard this idea, undersand that I always wrote using ELECTLADY63. Though I owned the email address "American webworks" this was to use to create websites and IT WAS NEVER USED FOR EMAILS TO PEOPLE. yOU WILL NOT FIND ANY EMAILS TO ANYBODY ELSE USING 'AMERICAN WEBWORKS.' T

2. I defy you to find anybody such as Shackelford, Platzman, Mary Ferrell, or anybody anywhere else on the pkanet with an email from me using AMERICAN WEBWORKS. Gary, i never, ever used that email address. It was always "elect lady." I haven;t brought this up before now because McAdams or somebody else might alter an email address and use it. I'm just telling you that you can look high and low and NEVER SEE THAT EMAIL ADDRESS. BUT GIVE IT AWAY -- BRING IT UP, AND I'M SURE ANOTHER ONE WILL MAGICALLY APPEAR, BUT YOU GO LOOK FOR THA EMAIL ADDRESS YOURSELF--I POSTED ALL THROUGH THIS PERIOD USING ELECLADY63, GARY--AND YOU WLL NOT FIND A SINGLE ONE.

JUST REITZES HAVING IT!

BUT BECAUSE ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CHANGE THE EMAIL ADDRESS, I HAVE NOT BROUGHT THIS UP UNTIL NOW. BUT I'M TELLING YOU THAT YOU NEVER GOT ONE FROM ME WITH THAT EMAIL ADDRESS, AND NOBODY ELSE EVER DID.

Again, as I broke wih Conway, why would I bring up her name in October 2000? At this time she withheld the Anna Lewis tapes.

I already had the autopsy report, remember, I repeat, this email is 20 months after I first spoke out. Common sense should tell you that I would not bring up THART as an "example." It is too peersonal and private for me. Think how personal, how private. I just would not do it..

And finally, of course, I expressed my anger and concerns about this very matter IN JANUARY 2000 -- NINE MONTHS EARLIER--TO EVERYBODY RIGHT AFTER CHAPMAN CALLED ME. If I expressed anger and concern in January, why would I 'backtrack' in october and bring it up, having been aware that Chapman actually stated Debra said I said this 'WAY BACK IN JANUARY?

out of ime (sorry, [deleted], thanks for staying up---)

Wonder if i have to blind cc all emails to prove they are from me?

j

Thanks to [deleted] for providing an interface between me and all of you!...."Fight evil with beauty. Defy darkness with infinite light." Tzvi Freeman

--- On Thu, 5/13/10, gary n <garyn2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gary n <garyn2000@yahoo.com>

Subject: Re: hi judyth

To: [deleted]

Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 11:11 PM

Judyth, Let me respond briefly as you have mischaracterized my position.

On Sodium Morphate, I never decided that you got the information from the Gemstone documents. I decided only that you did not hear David Ferrie use the name "sodium morphate." I have a vague recollection myself of reading somewhere that Ferrie had claimed knowledge of how to kill someone and make it look like natural causes. Perhaps Blackburst could pin that down for me.

As to the circumcision issue I am only trying to clear up an apparent discrepancy. The 2000 email certainly appears to say that you answered "no" to the cirucumcision question. And again I do not believe that Dave Reitzes invented this email, and indeed I see that he has now posted the email in it's entirety.

It certainly makes sense that 60 Minutes would have asked you this question. I would certainly be interested in anything that would indicate the answer you gave to them. If you told them prior to 2000 that LHO was circumcised then I would be inclined to believe that the 2000 email somehow mischaracterizes either the question or the answer, although in what way I am not sure.

You are right, I am evaluating this from my armchair, but with a cold intellect, not a cold heart, I hope.

Warm Regards,

Gary Buell

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

From: [deleted]

To: gary n <garyn2000@yahoo.com>

Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 1:26:15 PM

Subject: Re: hi judyth

Gary, On the sodium morphate thing, I repeat that Dave Ferrie did tell me about such a chemical. I believed the name I found on the Internet was its name, as its description fit what Ferrie had told me.

Others know that I spoke of such a chenical, but had no name for it, until I found the name on the Inernet. That does not mean the chenical described to me never existed. It only means that the name I found onm the Internet was not correct for it.

I stand firm that he told me a chemical existed that could cause death by ingestion without being detected. You decided I got the information from those documents and THEN spoke about it. But others heard me talk about it long before I ever wrote to you -- though I could not name it and still don't know its name.

As for the Debra Conway matter, I believe you misunderstand me.

1) SHE told me she had a photo, but NEVER described it in detail

2) I NEVER told her any detail about Lee's anatomy, except for ther satement that he was 'well endowed." Period. I had never said more than that until forced to. It was a subject I have always tried to avoid. However, people have always asked.

CONSIDER THE FACT THAT I HAD BEEN ASKED ABOUT THIS DETAIL WELL BEFORE OCTOBER, 2000. THINK ABOUT IT. I HAD BEEN GRILLED BY SIXTY MINUTES INVESTIGATORS BEGINNING IN APRIL, 1999. DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE LEFT THAT QUESTION OUT? IT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST DETAILS I WAS ASKED, AND I RESPONDED. LONG BEFORE OCTOBER, 2000, I HAD THE AUTOPSY REPORT.

ONLY. DUE TO MY CONCERN FOR DEBRA CONWAY'S REPUTATION, DID I TRY TO SKIRT THE MATTER WHEN CHAPMAN SAID HE HAD BEEN TOLD THAT I "HAD AGREED WITH DEBRA CONWAY THAT OSWALD WAS NOT CIRCUMCISED."

The bottom line, despite all the suffering I have endured because of it, is that I spoke out because I loved --and in fact will always love --Lee Oswald.

I'm fighting for his exoneration even though it has destroyed my life and my reputation. YOU ARE IN YOUR ARMCHAIR, LOOKING ON, WITH A COLD HEART. Say what you will, my love is stronger than all the hatre and lies thrown against me.

J

Thanks to [deleted] for providing an interface between me and all of you!...."Fight evil with beauty. Defy darkness with infinite light." Tzvi Freeman

--- On Thu, 5/13/10, gary n <garyn2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: gary n <garyn2000@yahoo.com>

Subject: hi judyth

To: [deleted]

Date: Thursday, May 13, 2010, 9:50 PM

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner but I was busy yesterday. I remember when you joined Rich's group. You posted a good deal of information but I must admit I only skimmed some of it leaving it to the others to sort out. Nor did I save any of your posts. I was on your mailing list for a time but only quickly skimmed most of those as well, except for a few that were directed to me personally, as in the sodium morphate matter. Which also involved Dave Reites. I did read your book, which you quickly disavowed, and was led to believe that you were probably telling the truth as you knew it. I watched the Men Who Killed Kennedy video but not another one that I purchased from Wim but have not yet gotten around to. I go over this only to explain why I have not made a final conclusion regarding the Judyth Baker affair. There were also some points that rang true to me, as in the matter of Charles Thomas, if I have the name right.

Now onto your email to me. As to Dave Reitzes, I do not agree with him on the assassination but I see no reason to question his honesty at this point, and so I am very skeptical of any claim that he invented or even altered your email to him. The fact that it contains typos in no way leads me to question it's authenticity, as I have seen numerous emails of yours with substantial numbers of typos. Although you are intelligent and educated, it seems to me that yours emails are sometimes hastily jotted off and, as you have said, you have had vision and health problems that could affect your typing.

Your point that if you were inventing your story you would be unlikely to simply guess as to this matter is well taken and it is in the autopsy report. Still it is possible that you might not have seen that in 2000 when the first email was written. And, although this is speculative, if Debra Conway did receive a bogus photo showing Lee was not circumcised you might have felt safe in confirming this.

Professor Fetzer seems to be trying to split the difference, as it were, by speculating that Lee was "partially cirucumcised." Perhaps, but I do not find this persuasive. If you were his lover then you would either think he was or he was not, it seems to me, and would not answer the question in different ways at different times. I know how my girlfriend would answer that question.

I look forward to reading you new book when it's out.

Regards,

Gary Buell

End of exchange. My comments:

Judyth initially suggests that the 2001 email was perhaps invented. She maintains that she never used the americanwebworks address and later she questios the header. However, eventually she acknowledges writing the email while mantaining that the circumcision paragraph was added or altered. But if there was an original email then why alter the web address or header? As Stephen Roy said earlier, Howard Platzman could perhaps settle this as he was copied on the email.

Judyth says that "60 Minutes" had asked her the same question in 1999,which makes sense, and if she has any evidence as to her answer to them I would be most interested in seeing it. Professor Fetzer has said that the matter is moot as LHO was "partially circumcised." I do not find this argument persuasive. It seems to me that Judyth, if her claims are true, would answer "yes" or "no" on the question and not both at different times.

In our exchange, we comment several times on an earlier exchange on "sodium morphate." If there is interest perhaps I could post that exchange as well, athough it would take a bit of digging. Briefly, Judyth had said (to David Reitzes again) that Ferrie had mentioned sodium morphate to her. As no such substance exists, and there is no mention of "sodium morphate" prior to the publication of the Skeleton Key to the Gemstone File in 1975, I naturally found this of interest.

Some months ago I concluded that Judyth was probably telling the truth. I am much less certain of that now. Yet there are matters that puzzle me. Parts of her story ring true, such as the part concerning Charles Thomas, and I would like to see more research done. Then there is the matter of the second Judyth Vary Baker, as Haslam related. I am not ready to call Judyth a xxxx, however extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Judyth has supplied some evidence but not such as to be sufficient to prove her claims, and there are certainly some problems with her story.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Gary Buell