Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Stephen Roy]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO STEPHEN ROY ABOUT A CLAIM BY ED HASLAM

==Stephen Roy makes it seem that Haslam did not do his homework, implying

that the Warren Commission only came once to New Orleans. The first time the

Warren Commission visited New Orleans, they subpoenaed witnesses. But they

missed key witnesses such as Guy Banister, Dr. Mary Sherman, etc.

The Warren Commission finished obaining testimonies in Dallas on July 14, 1964.

They then commenced to New Orleans.

Dean Andrews was the first witness interviewed on July 21, 1964 (Vol. XI) when

the Warren Commission once again opened its investigation in New Orleans, this

time, TO TAKE UNSOLICITED TESTIMONIES from those volunteering information.

Dr. Sherman's murder was front-page news that day.

The testimony of Evaristo Rodriguez was next, followed by Orest Pena.

Edward Haslam DID do his homework. Stephen Roy did not.==

Something just occurred to me. It is stated, in conjunction with Haslam's "Dr. Mary's Monkey," that Dr. Mary Sherman died "on the day that the Warren Commission began its investigation in New Orleans." (paraphrase)

Sherman died on July 21, 1964.

But the Warren Commission investigation of New Orleans was ongoing, from its first months, when it received its first FBI and Secret Service reports. By April 7, 1964, Wesley Liebeler was in New Orleans interviewing Sidney Edward Voebel, and Albert Jenner was there interviewing Freddie O'Sullivan. It is hard to believe that the Warren Commission "began its investigation in New Orleans" near the end of July, so late in the game, when the report was already being written.

Is the assertion above actually a fact (source?) or a factoid - something written as a (wrong) guess, and then repeated from book to book?

Hi, Miss Baker. Good to have you back.

OK, first, I don't take "homework" assignments. I'm doing research, as best I can.

I wasn't necessarily quoting Haslam above, that Sherman was found dead "on the day the Warren Commission began its investigation in New Orleans." I said that it has been stated, in conjunction with Haslam's books.

That claim has been repeated all over the internet. Fetzer has said it here more than once. Your former associate Wim Dankbaar has said it:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/judyth.htm

The folks at CTKA have said it:

http://www.ctka.net/posner_jd.html

Do a Google search for "mary sherman warren commission new orleans" and you'll find numerous hits on it.

But since you brought it up, Haslam does report the claim on page 134:

"Keith also observed that Warren Commission investigators started taking their testimony in New Orleans on the morning of July 21, 1964, several hours after Mary Sherman's murder. Some consider this coincidental timing suspicious, and speculated that her death may have somehow been related to the Kennedy assassination or to her association with David Ferrie."

And therein lies the problem: The claim creates the impression that Sherman was murdered to keep her from testifying to the Warren Commission, a claim unsupported by the facts. There is not the slightest trace of interest in Sherman in Warren Commission records. She appeared nowhere until Garrison mentioned her in the Playboy interview. (And as for Banister, the WC had no reason to be interested in him, as he is only mentioned in passing a few times in FBI and Secret Service reports. There were no allegations against him in 1964.) As I noted (and you essentially echoed), the Warren Commission's New Orleans investigation was ongoing (including April interviews) and July 21 was a continuation, not the start of this phase of the investigation.

I don't want to get into this "homework" thing. I have obtained zillions of documents and done dozens of interviews. I note that Haslam does not cite many documents or interviews on JFK-related matters in his endnotes. I am not uncomfortable with my level of research.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Roy can quibble over "investigation" or "reinvestigation", but he displays an

acute lack of imagination about Mary Sherman, M.D., whose murder, we may

presume, was motivated my powerful reasons. An hypothesis that is worth

considering is that she was troubled by what had taken place, including the

murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, whom she knew, and that she had decided to

approach the Warren Commission with information in her possession. That,

I submit, is a theory of the case that bears contemplation. And I must say

that, for someone who claims to have done so much "research", I cannot

understand why he has done so little publication. Publishing your findings

is an important test of whether you are right or wrong about your research.

It strikes me as odd that, after so many years, Roy still has no publications.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO STEPHEN ROY ABOUT A CLAIM BY ED HASLAM

==Stephen Roy makes it seem that Haslam did not do his homework, implying

that the Warren Commission only came once to New Orleans. The first time the

Warren Commission visited New Orleans, they subpoenaed witnesses. But they

missed key witnesses such as Guy Banister, Dr. Mary Sherman, etc.

The Warren Commission finished obaining testimonies in Dallas on July 14, 1964.

They then commenced to New Orleans.

Dean Andrews was the first witness interviewed on July 21, 1964 (Vol. XI) when

the Warren Commission once again opened its investigation in New Orleans, this

time, TO TAKE UNSOLICITED TESTIMONIES from those volunteering information.

Dr. Sherman's murder was front-page news that day.

The testimony of Evaristo Rodriguez was next, followed by Orest Pena.

Edward Haslam DID do his homework. Stephen Roy did not.==

Something just occurred to me. It is stated, in conjunction with Haslam's "Dr. Mary's Monkey," that Dr. Mary Sherman died "on the day that the Warren Commission began its investigation in New Orleans." (paraphrase)

Sherman died on July 21, 1964.

But the Warren Commission investigation of New Orleans was ongoing, from its first months, when it received its first FBI and Secret Service reports. By April 7, 1964, Wesley Liebeler was in New Orleans interviewing Sidney Edward Voebel, and Albert Jenner was there interviewing Freddie O'Sullivan. It is hard to believe that the Warren Commission "began its investigation in New Orleans" near the end of July, so late in the game, when the report was already being written.

Is the assertion above actually a fact (source?) or a factoid - something written as a (wrong) guess, and then repeated from book to book?

Hi, Miss Baker. Good to have you back.

OK, first, I don't take "homework" assignments. I'm doing research, as best I can.

I wasn't necessarily quoting Haslam above, that Sherman was found dead "on the day the Warren Commission began its investigation in New Orleans." I said that it has been stated, in conjunction with Haslam's books.

That claim has been repeated all over the internet. Fetzer has said it here more than once. Your former associate Wim Dankbaar has said it:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/judyth.htm

The folks at CTKA have said it:

http://www.ctka.net/posner_jd.html

Do a Google search for "mary sherman warren commission new orleans" and you'll find numerous hits on it.

But since you brought it up, Haslam does report the claim on page 134:

"Keith also observed that Warren Commission investigators started taking their testimony in New Orleans on the morning of July 21, 1964, several hours after Mary Sherman's murder. Some consider this coincidental timing suspicious, and speculated that her death may have somehow been related to the Kennedy assassination or to her association with David Ferrie."

And therein lies the problem: The claim creates the impression that Sherman was murdered to keep her from testifying to the Warren Commission, a claim unsupported by the facts. There is not the slightest trace of interest in Sherman in Warren Commission records. She appeared nowhere until Garrison mentioned her in the Playboy interview. (And as for Banister, the WC had no reason to be interested in him, as he is only mentioned in passing a few times in FBI and Secret Service reports. There were no allegations against him in 1964.) As I noted (and you essentially echoed), the Warren Commission's New Orleans investigation was ongoing (including April interviews) and July 21 was a continuation, not the start of this phase of the investigation.

I don't want to get into this "homework" thing. I have obtained zillions of documents and done dozens of interviews. I note that Haslam does not cite many documents or interviews on JFK-related matters in his endnotes. I am not uncomfortable with my level of research.

[Stephen Roy]

Roy can quibble over "investigation" or "reinvestigation", but he displays an

acute lack of imagination about Mary Sherman, M.D., whose murder, we may

presume, was motivated my powerful reasons. An hypothesis that is worth

considering is that she was troubled by what had taken place, including the

murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, whom she knew, and that she had decided to

approach the Warren Commission with information in her possession. That,

I submit, is a theory of the case that bears contemplation. And I must say

that, for someone who claims to have done so much "research", I cannot

understand why he has done so little publication. Publishing your findings

is an important test of whether you are right or wrong about your research.

It strikes me as odd that, after so many years, Roy still has no publications.

WHY may we "presume" that Sherman's murder was motivated by powerful reasons? What about the sexual mutilation?

What is the evidence she knew Oswald, or decided to approach the Warren Commission?

And we've been over this: My book is not done. I can only work on it part-time. I don't churn out quickie books like others.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Ed has a very good discussion of the autopsy report on page 232 to 241 of

DR. MARY'S MONKEY. She cannot have been killed in her apartment and

the damage is consistent with a massive electrical discharge, not from the

use of the particle accelerator itself, as Jack mistakenly supposed. Perhaps

it was accidental rather than intentional, but the murder hypothesis would

require a motive, which I am suggesting as an hypothesis worth exploring.

Based upon Haslam's research and what Judyth had told us, Mary Sherman

knew Ferrie and Vary and Lee, as I should not have to explain. That Adele

Edisen, Ph.D., a neurologist, was given Lee's phone number BEFORE he had

moved to New Orleans is another indication that his apartment was chosen

for its proximity to the secret lab. A further hypothesis worth considering is

that Mary may have been killed to create a dramatic incident that would blow

the cover of these convert activities, which Ed discusses on pages 369-370.

You seem to be missing interesting aspects of what was going on. What you

might want to explain, moreover, is why you do not seem to have published

even an article about your "findings". That strikes me as very odd. And it

is not about "churning out quickie books", which is a silly remark, but having

research results worth publishing. I take it you haven't because you don't.

Roy can quibble over "investigation" or "reinvestigation", but he displays an

acute lack of imagination about Mary Sherman, M.D., whose murder, we may

presume, was motivated my powerful reasons. An hypothesis that is worth

considering is that she was troubled by what had taken place, including the

murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, whom she knew, and that she had decided to

approach the Warren Commission with information in her possession. That,

I submit, is a theory of the case that bears contemplation. And I must say

that, for someone who claims to have done so much "research", I cannot

understand why he has done so little publication. Publishing your findings

is an important test of whether you are right or wrong about your research.

It strikes me as odd that, after so many years, Roy still has no publications.

WHY may we "presume" that Sherman's murder was motivated by powerful reasons? What about the sexual mutilation?

What is the evidence she knew Oswald, or decided to approach the Warren Commission?

And we've been over this: My book is not done. I can only work on it part-time. I don't churn out quickie books like others.

Edited May 18, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Mike Williams]

And it

is not about "churning out quickie books", which is a silly remark, but having

research results worth publishing. I take it you haven't because you don't.

I believe this mans every breath is a supposition.

When Stephen comes out with this book, I shall relax in a wonderful recliner, in front of a fireplace, and enjoy the read. Meanwhile using the writings of Fetzer, acquired from the dime section of used book stores, as the kindle.

[Jack White]

Jim...using Adele Edisen to bolster the JVB story is not appropriate. I know

from Rich's forum discussions of years ago that she is an ardent disbeliever

of Judyth's veracity, and can describe specific mistruths from personal experience.

Jack

[Pamela Brown]

Jim...using Adele Edisen to bolster the JVB story is not appropriate. I know

from Rich's forum discussions of years ago that she is an ardent disbeliever

of Judyth's veracity, and can describe specific mistruths from personal experience.

Jack

Unfortunately, Adele Adelman seems to be firmly entrenched in the Conway camp, so nothing Judyth says will likely be even scrutinized objectively.

Nevertheless, Adelman's statements work as a parallel to some of the things Judyth has been discussed. They are in the public record, and there is no way a comparison can be inappropriate.

[Jack White]

Jim...using Adele Edisen to bolster the JVB story is not appropriate. I know

from Rich's forum discussions of years ago that she is an ardent disbeliever

of Judyth's veracity, and can describe specific mistruths from personal experience.

Jack

Unfortunately, Adele Adelman seems to be firmly entrenched in the Conway camp, so nothing Judyth says will likely be even scrutinized objectively.

Nevertheless, Adelman's statements work as a parallel to some of the things Judyth has been discussed. They are in the public record, and there is no way a comparison can be inappropriate.

This seems entirely inappropriate and appears to be some sort of malicious smear.

My posting was about Adele EDISEN, who is very well known by that name. As far as

I know, she is not in anyone's "camp"...but has related certain well known experiences. This

attempt to smear her by innuendo is deplorable.

Jack

[Stephen Roy]

Ed has a very good discussion of the autopsy report on page 232 to 241 of

DR. MARY'S MONKEY. She cannot have been killed in her apartment and

the damage is consistent with a massive electrical discharge, not from the

use of the particle accelerator itself, as Jack mistakenly supposed. Perhaps

it was accidental rather than intentional, but the murder hypothesis would

require a motive, which I am suggesting as an hypothesis worth exploring.

Based upon Haslam's research and what Judyth had told us, Mary Sherman

knew Ferrie and Vary and Lee, as I should not have to explain. That Adele

Edisen, Ph.D., a neurologist, was given Lee's phone number BEFORE he had

moved to New Orleans is another indication that his apartment was chosen

for its proximity to the secret lab. A further hypothesis worth considering is

that Mary may have been killed to create a dramatic incident that would blow

the cover of these convert activities, which Ed discusses on pages 369-370.

You seem to be missing interesting aspects of what was going on. What you

might want to explain, moreover, is why you do not seem to have published

even an article about your "findings". That strikes me as very odd. And it

is not about "churning out quickie books", which is a silly remark, but having

research results worth publishing. I take it you haven't because you don't.

Roy can quibble over "investigation" or "reinvestigation", but he displays an

acute lack of imagination about Mary Sherman, M.D., whose murder, we may

presume, was motivated my powerful reasons. An hypothesis that is worth

considering is that she was troubled by what had taken place, including the

murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, whom she knew, and that she had decided to

approach the Warren Commission with information in her possession. That,

I submit, is a theory of the case that bears contemplation. And I must say

that, for someone who claims to have done so much "research", I cannot

understand why he has done so little publication. Publishing your findings

is an important test of whether you are right or wrong about your research.

It strikes me as odd that, after so many years, Roy still has no publications.

WHY may we "presume" that Sherman's murder was motivated by powerful reasons? What about the sexual mutilation?

What is the evidence she knew Oswald, or decided to approach the Warren Commission?

And we've been over this: My book is not done. I can only work on it part-time. I don't churn out quickie books like others.

But what about her murder leads inexorably to the PRESUMPTION - to the exclusion of other reasons - that it was "motivated by powerful reasons"? Certainly, on the face of it, it was a murder. She was stabbed and mutilated, as well as burned. Why could it not have happened in her apartment? Jack suggested a blowtorch: There are several references in Samuels' report to burns. Could not the killer have tried to burn the body? Why leap to the conclusion that it was "motivated by powerful reasons"?

Your answer to my question about evidence that Sherman knew Oswald is: Haslam and Baker. But Haslam presents no evidence that she knew Oswald; and Baker's story is challenged by many in the research community, which is the whole thrust of this thread. As for Edisen, in addition to her not linking Oswald to Sherman, she apparently does not support Baker's story. So the question remains essentially unanswered.

I'm not "missing interesting aspects"; I'm not making silly leaps of logic where the evidence fails to support or even suggest it.

Once again, an ad hominem: You question why I have not published an article on my unfinished book. I have had no reason to do so. I've written many things on Ferrie on the internet; I've helped other authors; and I spoke at Lancer NID in 2000 (where I had brief chats with you, Jack and Greg, among others) and again in 2007, as I recall. You bring this up to try to raise some sort of suspicion about me, but you are not allowed to question the motives of another poster. Knock it off. Compete with ideas, not attacks.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

"What you might want to explain, moreover, is why you do not seem to have published

even an article about your "findings". That strikes me as very odd. And it

is not about "churning out quickie books", which is a silly remark, but having

research results worth publishing. I take it you haven't because you don't."

He's explained himself several times now. This is getting old real fast.

Ed has a very good discussion of the autopsy report on page 232 to 241 of

DR. MARY'S MONKEY. She cannot have been killed in her apartment and

the damage is consistent with a massive electrical discharge, not from the

use of the particle accelerator itself, as Jack mistakenly supposed. Perhaps

it was accidental rather than intentional, but the murder hypothesis would

require a motive, which I am suggesting as an hypothesis worth exploring.

Based upon Haslam's research and what Judyth had told us, Mary Sherman

knew Ferrie and Vary and Lee, as I should not have to explain. That Adele

Edisen, Ph.D., a neurologist, was given Lee's phone number BEFORE he had

moved to New Orleans is another indication that his apartment was chosen

for its proximity to the secret lab. A further hypothesis worth considering is

that Mary may have been killed to create a dramatic incident that would blow

the cover of these convert activities, which Ed discusses on pages 369-370.

You seem to be missing interesting aspects of what was going on. What you

might want to explain, moreover, is why you do not seem to have published

even an article about your "findings". That strikes me as very odd. And it

is not about "churning out quickie books", which is a silly remark, but having

research results worth publishing. I take it you haven't because you don't.

Roy can quibble over "investigation" or "reinvestigation", but he displays an

acute lack of imagination about Mary Sherman, M.D., whose murder, we may

presume, was motivated my powerful reasons. An hypothesis that is worth

considering is that she was troubled by what had taken place, including the

murder of Lee Harvey Oswald, whom she knew, and that she had decided to

approach the Warren Commission with information in her possession. That,

I submit, is a theory of the case that bears contemplation. And I must say

that, for someone who claims to have done so much "research", I cannot

understand why he has done so little publication. Publishing your findings

is an important test of whether you are right or wrong about your research.

It strikes me as odd that, after so many years, Roy still has no publications.

WHY may we "presume" that Sherman's murder was motivated by powerful reasons? What about the sexual mutilation?

What is the evidence she knew Oswald, or decided to approach the Warren Commission?

And we've been over this: My book is not done. I can only work on it part-time. I don't churn out quickie books like others.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

AN INTERESTING CURIO THAT SUPPORTS JUDYTH OVER STEPHEN ROY

Stephen Roy asked me what I remembered "hanging in the entrance

between the living room and dining room." When I stated that I could

not remember anything hanging there, Mr. Roy (Blackburst) triumphantly

stated that photos had shown "a monkey" was hanging in the entrance.

Imagine my surprise to discover that the monkey photo was made in Feb.

1967 when Dave Ferrie was found dead -- not in 1963. The monkey was

one of those jointed toy-monkeys that can cling to such things as trees,

flagpoles or doorways. Here is the photo showing it dangling there:

By no means can it be proven that it was present there in 1963. However,

it took some time for me to realize that MAYBE DAVE FERRIE HAD THE MONKEY

HANGING THERE BECAUSE WE'D WORKED WITH SO MANY MONKEYS, AND

WITH THE MONKEY VIRUS. Give me a better reason for its presence there.

JVB

[Stephen Roy]

You have GOT to be kidding...

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Tell us, Professoer Fetzer, do you really believe this?

[Stephen Roy]

AN INTERESTING CURIO THAT SUPPORTS JUDYTH OVER STEPHEN ROY

Stephen Roy asked me what I remembered "hanging in the entrance

between the living room and dining room." When I stated that I could

not remember anything hanging there, Mr. Roy (Blackburst) triumphantly

stated that photos had shown "a monkey" was hanging in the entrance.

Imagine my surprise to discover that the monkey photo was made in Feb.

1967 when Dave Ferrie was found dead -- not in 1963. The monkey was

one of those jointed toy-monkeys that can cling to such things as trees,

flagpoles or doorways. Here is the photo showing it dangling there:

By no means can it be proven that it was present there in 1963. However,

it took some time for me to realize that MAYBE DAVE FERRIE HAD THE MONKEY

HANGING THERE BECAUSE WE'D WORKED WITH SO MANY MONKEYS, AND

WITH THE MONKEY VIRUS. Give me a better reason for its presence there.

JVB

Miss Baker:

Lemme see if I follow this: Because you failed to correctly identify the stuffed animal in Ferrie's doorway until you saw the picture, this enhances your credibility in some way?

So even though I told you back almost a decade ago that it was a stuffed monkey, it just now clicked in your head that it fits in with the many monkeys you say were processed there?

I do have many other pictures, including a whole series from 1963, and I know more about where/when the stuffed monkey was obtained, but I'm mindful of the fact that some of the stuff I post seems to end up as part of your account. You're now citing the monkey from the picture I "found" as some sort of "in-joke" by Ferrie.

But since you're inclined to talk about Ferrie's apartment, tell us more about Ferrie's "large kitchen", as Fetzer described it. I posted pictures of it a few pages back. How was the research done in that kitchen?

[Stephen Roy]

"What you might want to explain, moreover, is why you do not seem to have published

even an article about your "findings". That strikes me as very odd. And it

is not about "churning out quickie books", which is a silly remark, but having

research results worth publishing. I take it you haven't because you don't."

He's explained himself several times now. This is getting old real fast.

Thanks for noticing, Todd. Fetzyr keeps ignoring the points I raise, and trying to suggest that there's something suspicious about me.