Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

"Jack Ruby visited David Ferrie's apartment one day when Judyth and Lee were there.

Ferrie introduced him to Judyth as Sparky Rubenstein. Judyth was surprised that Ferrie

briefed Ruby on their bio-weapon project. (Why not? They all worked for Marcello.) Ruby

recognized Lee , and said that he used to see him at parties when he was a boy."

I am surprised that Ferrie introduced Judyth to "Sparky" Rubenstein. I have read no one ever called Ruby "Sparky" to his face, as it would lead to a brawl. He earned the nickname Sparky as a kid in Chicago. Anything could set him off. And he was the bouncer at his own club. FWIW, Jada, the exotic dancer, called him a "maniac."

Kathy C

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

Top Posters In This Topic

"Jack Ruby visited David Ferrie's apartment one day when Judyth and Lee were there.

Ferrie introduced him to Judyth as Sparky Rubenstein. Judyth was surprised that Ferrie

briefed Ruby on their bio-weapon project. (Why not? They all worked for Marcello.) Ruby

recognized Lee , and said that he used to see him at parties when he was a boy."

I am surprised that Ferrie introduced Judyth to "Sparky" Rubenstein. I have read no one ever called Ruby "Sparky" to his face, as it would lead to a brawl. He earned the nickname Sparky as a kid in Chicago. Anything could set him off. And he was the bouncer at his own club. FWIW, Jada, the exotic dancer, called him a "maniac."

Kathy C

Actually Kathy, Jim Fetzer did not write what you posted. In reality he has been avoiding that

like the plague. Those claims about Oswald, Marcello, Ferrie, Rubenstein, and JVB are Ed Haslam's

and they appear in the footnotes of Dr Mary's Monkey. This is the post where that appeared:

.....There is all the circumstantial evidence in DR. MARY'S MONKEY.
Those who have not read DR. MARY'S MONKEY.....

Haslam tells his readers that:

"Lee personally met with Mafia boss Carlos Marcello on several occasions in 1963."

"Jack Ruby visited David Ferrie's apartment one day when Judyth and Lee were there.

Ferrie introduced him to Judyth as Sparky Rubenstein. Judyth was surprised that Ferrie

briefed Ruby on their bio-weapon project. (Why not? They all worked for Marcello.) Ruby

recognized Lee , and said that he used to see him at parties when he was a boy."

(From the footnotes to Chapter 13)

Of course anyone that wants to read Jim's entire post can click on the little arrow that points left.
Where the author (humorously, I presume) calls it (DMM) "part conspiracy and part factual",

as though the conspiracy elements were not factual.

Jim's reply appears below. Rather than comment on the substance of the post

(Haslam's claims about Marcello and Rubenstein) Jim prefers a little misdirection,

stating that I implied that that the review was his. I did not, as anyone that reads the

above Fetzer quote can see. I even directed readers to his full post.

My point was that Jim appears to claim the conspiracy elements in DMM are factual.

Here's the review, which is not mine and appeared on the Toronto Craig's

List:
I really don't

get why Michael implies that this is my review. One of the mysteries of this

thread, I suppose, like an author who seems to (perversely) imply that the

factual parts are not conspiratorial and the conspiratorial parts not factual.

This was my reply to Jim:

I did not imply it was your review. Please.

Are you claiming it is a fact that Oswald met Marcello and

Ferrie introduced Sparky Rubenstein to Judyth Baker?
(bold added)

Haslam does.

Jim hasn't bothered to answer that question yet.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to post
Share on other sites
Forum Members: I feel that Jim Fetzer wants to opt out of the discussion of Oswald's penis and call it a "moot" point because he doesn't want Judyth "damaged," a word Doug Weldon used. So Prof. Fetzer comes up with a compromise that Oswald had a "partial" circumcision.

Greg Burnham -- says we are dehuminizing LHO. I don't think so. They even exhumed him. This is what is done when you're after the truth. That's what autopsies are about. That's what this forum is about.

Kathy Beckett -- is disgusted. I'm not. I don't think the majority of members (no pun intended) here are offended. This info on Oswald is relevant for the 2 Oswalds theory.

Judyth -- is either travelling or is sick. This is why her answer to this question defines her status here. And I think Jim and Judyth want to cover their tracks, Jim saying it is irrelevant, etc. He wants to drop the subject, yet he holds onto Judyth's other claims like a dog with a bone. Is he after truth?

Kathy C

Kathy:

Jim agrees that Judyth is a "damaged" witness."

" I agree that

makes her a "damaged witness". It does not make her story false. "

Doug Weldon

"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Forum Members: I feel that Jim Fetzer wants to opt out of the discussion of Oswald's penis and call it a "moot" point because he doesn't want Judyth "damaged," a word Doug Weldon used. So Prof. Fetzer comes up with a compromise that Oswald had a "partial" circumcision.

Greg Burnham -- says we are dehuminizing LHO. I don't think so. They even exhumed him. This is what is done when you're after the truth. That's what autopsies are about. That's what this forum is about.

Kathy Beckett -- is disgusted. I'm not. I don't think the majority of members (no pun intended) here are offended. This info on Oswald is relevant for the 2 Oswalds theory.

Judyth -- is either travelling or is sick. This is why her answer to this question defines her status here. And I think Jim and Judyth want to cover their tracks, Jim saying it is irrelevant, etc. He wants to drop the subject, yet he holds onto Judyth's other claims like a dog with a bone. Is he after truth?

Kathy C

Kathy:

Jim agrees that Judyth is a "damaged" witness."

" I agree that

makes her a "damaged witness". It does not make her story false. "

Doug Weldon

"

Right on all points, Doug.

Kathy C

Link to post
Share on other sites
YouTube: Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesFetzerNews

Judyth Vary Baker, with whom I and others within the JFK community are in contact, lives in exile due to persecution in the US because of what she knows as a witness concerning Lee Harvey Oswald. The covert operation against Judyth is very serious and takes its toll upon her. She is now 66 years of age and has been forced to live in exile in Europe, where she resides in virtual poverty, even though she is a talented artist who has sold her paintings around the world for more than thirty years. The objective of this campaign appears to be to minimize awareness of her existence as a link to the alleged assassin.

My Blog: Judyth Vary Baken: Living in Exile

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010...-in-exile.html

I do not spend any time on the Judyth issue (besides reading posts as a moderator on alt.assassination.jfk. Life is short.

However, I just noticed Mr. Reitzes posted a fascinating quote from a Facebook user.

Oswald at the home of Aldrich Ames??!!?? Lord love a duck!

http://pa-in.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=14...=4631#topic_top

<quote on>

Tara Lee Harvey Oswald saved my life when I was 4 years old in Saugus, Massachusetts. He was at the home of Aldrich Ames with a assasin CIA guy that worked for Ames. The assasin pulled a handgun on me and Lee Harvey Oswald jumped him from behind and knocked him out to the ground. Then Lee went through his pocket, pulled out his wallet and started walking towards me. I was trying to move my legs to run away and Lee called to me to stop he wanted to show me something. He had to beg me to trust him. He walked up to me and opened the wallet and pulled photo out of me that had been taken at my 2nd Birthday. I happened to be wearing the same dress because it was getting too small for me and I would not be able to wear it anymore if I grew anymore. Lee told me the guys name and that he was an assasin for the CIA. I asked Lee how the guy got a photo of me and he said he didn't know but that I should not ever wear that dress again, or go near Aldrich Ames or his house or the guy that pulled the gun on me. He told me the assasin's name, but I can't remember it right now- I do know that he was alledged to have been killed by Interpol in the 1980's, If I saw or heard his name I would remember it. I had an Inheritance in Hazelton Labratories, but there is much more to it than that. I dispise my uncles and most of my cousins, they are murderers, liars and thieves. I am sooo sorry to Lee's sister mostly and Judyth for waiting so long but my uncles did not let me do my written homework in school (my dad's brother taught me to read at 2yrs old, the rest of the family didn't know that, then I taught myself to write!) and then when I joined the Army at 19 years old they threatened my baby sister and had me gang-raped by cousins. Hazelton Labratories is infamous in 'Green' circles for nuclear research, they were involved in the Manhattan Project, they built most of the nuclear power plants in the USA, along with Spencer Baychem International and Citi Bank. Judyth has testified they are not nice people-that would be an understatement. I lost 3 babies to cousins of mine because I would not do as I was told after they were born. I wanted to wait before trying to complain much and hopefully get investigations started because the family can be tied together through DNA. The family is what people refer to as the 'Shadow Government'. They had always bragged that 'Red Tape Paperwork' disappears, but I knew that friends of Linus Pauling were working on the Genome Project and so far DNA does not disappear! I had access to scientists who were doing research in my pre-school years because of the family. There was a Hazelton Labratory 1/8th of a mile down the street from where I lived, and I was there quite often so people there knew me through my uncles. There was a problem therre when I was 4years old some of the chemical barrels that were stored there had been opened and dumped into Lily Pond beside the Lab. I gave my uncles a chance and felt responsible because it was partly my inheritance, to clean the mess. When they didn't clean up the mess and Pinkerton Security wouldn't do anything about it, I asked some guys I knew in the neighborhood from the Army Corps of Engineers to do something. They lived in the neighborhood and had artesian wells (as did I) and when I explained that the chemical could get into the underground water and into their wells they took action. In 1977 my family threatened my son, so I reported them again to the Army Corps of Engineers for a toxic waste dump in Nashua, N.H. My uncle William P. Rogers (Former Secretary of State) had my mom living in his trailer park near the toxic waste dump with an artisian well. My mom died in 1984 at the age of 55 years of Cancer. They are really bad people. I'm sorry I had to wait to tell. And I thank all those who hung in for so many years, I hope I can help.

<quote off>

Carry on ...

Peter Fokes,

Toronto

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

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Email from John Luquer, Staff Inspector, Office of Accreditation, Chattanooga Police Department

On post http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=192762 a question was asked and the credentials of Assistant Police Chief Mike Williams of the Chattanooga Police Department have been inadvertently attached to this thread, The Mike Williams posting in this thread is not Chief Williams but has forwarded the credentials of Chief Williams several times giving the impression that he is Chief Williams and furthermore has not denied that he is Chief Williams. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&start=2625

Several efforts have been made by us to correct this misconception. Chief Williams attempted to create an account on your site but new memberships are being denied, the moderator of the topic did not enable the report option in the thread, no moderator information available on the page.

At this time we believe this to be an unintentional oversight by the members of the thread, we request that you remove all references to Chief Williams from this thread and post a statement concerning the error.

Feel free to contact me regarding this matter.

Thank you,

Officer John Luquer

Staff Inspector

Office of Accreditation

Chattanooga Police Department

Phone: (423) 643 - 5164

Fax: (423) 643 - 5246

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fetzer:

And this post is riddled with informal fallacies from special pleading (by citing only evidence

that is favorable to your side) to the straw man (by exaggerating that negative evidence) and ad hominem

arguments (by attacking the messenger rather than his message).

Isn't it lovely to see Jim Fetzer write something like this? The one who has done nothing but breaking these unwritten rules of communication throughout this thread? Your self awareness is truly astonishing, Fetzer. Something out of the ordinary, no doubt.

I also notice that "your creativity was unleashed in 1996". Isn't that a coincidence - as this applies to your favourite protege, Judyth, at about the same point in time? The two of you really have a lot in common, as you have displayed several of her most remarkable characteristics over the course of this thread.

A match made in heaven, as someone said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Email from John Luquer, Staff Inspector, Office of Accreditation, Chattanooga Police Department

On post http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=192762 a question was asked and the credentials of Assistant Police Chief Mike Williams of the Chattanooga Police Department have been inadvertently attached to this thread, The Mike Williams posting in this thread is not Chief Williams but has forwarded the credentials of Chief Williams several times giving the impression that he is Chief Williams and furthermore has not denied that he is Chief Williams. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&start=2625

Several efforts have been made by us to correct this misconception. Chief Williams attempted to create an account on your site but new memberships are being denied, the moderator of the topic did not enable the report option in the thread, no moderator information available on the page.

At this time we believe this to be an unintentional oversight by the members of the thread, we request that you remove all references to Chief Williams from this thread and post a statement concerning the error.

Feel free to contact me regarding this matter.

Thank you,

Officer John Luquer

Staff Inspector

Office of Accreditation

Chattanooga Police Department

Phone: (423) 643 - 5164

Fax: (423) 643 - 5246

This is a bit odd. Did someone contact them saying that the Mike Williams on this forum claimed to be THAT Mike Williams? Because I feel quite sure the Mike Williams on this and the Lancer Forum has never claimed to be THAT Mike Williams.

I'm pretty sure he's always said the same thing. That he's a former sniper with an ongoing interest in ballistics.

Until recently, moreover, he was always quite respectful to those with whom he disagreed.

I do think Jim is onto something, however, with his recent post on Mike's attack on him. Not that Thompson fed Williams that info. But that Mike found an old post by Thompson somewhere and repeated a lot of the information.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Email from John Luquer, Staff Inspector, Office of Accreditation, Chattanooga Police Department

On post http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=192762 a question was asked and the credentials of Assistant Police Chief Mike Williams of the Chattanooga Police Department have been inadvertently attached to this thread, The Mike Williams posting in this thread is not Chief Williams but has forwarded the credentials of Chief Williams several times giving the impression that he is Chief Williams and furthermore has not denied that he is Chief Williams. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...&start=2625

Several efforts have been made by us to correct this misconception. Chief Williams attempted to create an account on your site but new memberships are being denied, the moderator of the topic did not enable the report option in the thread, no moderator information available on the page.

At this time we believe this to be an unintentional oversight by the members of the thread, we request that you remove all references to Chief Williams from this thread and post a statement concerning the error.

Feel free to contact me regarding this matter.

Thank you,

Officer John Luquer

Staff Inspector

Office of Accreditation

Chattanooga Police Department

Phone: (423) 643 - 5164

Fax: (423) 643 - 5246

I must say this was an unexpected spot of humor this morning.

First off I have NEVER claimed to be Michael D Williams. Second I have never posted anything that ever remotely resembles his credentials and attributed them to myself. So one must sit back and just try to comprehend where this is coming from, or WHY it was even posted as an issue.

Chief Williams resume can be found here:

http://www.policeone.com/policeone/data/williamsvitae.pdf

Anyone can read this and determine that his background is law enforcement, I have never claimed such, with one exception. I did work as a Deputy Sheriff for about 9 months in the 90's. I had went into reserve status from the military, and decided to give the civilian life a go. It was short lived. I worked at this position under my step father who was the County Sheriff in the town I grew up in. It was a rather undistinguished and short venture to say the least.

Anyone, who can read, can compare my short biography here to that of Chief Williams, and certainly can compare what has been written in this thread, and see there are no similarities at all.

So where did I claim to be this man, and where did I claim his credentials?

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...