Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Barb Junkkarinen]

"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.

What else is a professor Higgins to do to protect his Doolittle ... it's either dodge, dive and/or divert from information that conflicts with what Judyth tells him or ... gulp ... well, he really has no alternative, as long as maintaining his "real deal" is his primary focus, now does he?

We took a long weekend to the coast, so now I am in catchup mode. I am happy to see Ferrie's apartment has come up.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited May 19, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen

[Greg Burnham]

To: Stephen Roy & Judyth Baker,

I have a few questions to which either (or both) of you may have answers.

Do you have the New Orleans telephone number that was used by David Ferrie from the summer of 1963 to call various individuals in Washington DC? Just to be up front, I have had the number--verified by the FBI--since 1998, as well as the list of all of the numbers he called from that number during that period of time. Have either of you any knowledge as to the significance of the numbers he called (or from which he received calls) or done any research on the subject?

Thanks--

[Bill Byas]

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.

Why would you presume that?

[Bill Byas]

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

Whats your proof for this?

[John Simkin]

Follow-up email from John Luquer:

Mr. Williams,

I understand the confusion concerning my e mail. If you will be so kind as to indulge me I shall endeavor to clarify myself. First and foremost I was, in no way attempting to insinuate that you claim to be Chief Williams. If I gave that impression I apologize. I agree with you that your information is there for anyone to read who cares to look however some people do not expend the effort to do so. I did read your biography page hence I knew you were not Chief Williams and the conclusion that there was some confusion about the identity of the two of you.

Let me assure you no one called me, I have a Google alert set for “Chattanooga Police Department” that allows me to keep up with events involving my agency. I was alerted to a post on your thread made by Greg Burnham on May 24th, asking if you were Chief Williams and he included Chief Williams’ credentials and bio information in the post. This question was not addressed perhaps because the focus was on ballistics but the post was forwarded with the information no less than 17 times.

Just as Mr. Burnham was initially confused as to whether you were Chief Williams it is reasonable to believe others may be as well. I took not addressing the original question and the posts forwarding the information as an unintentional oversight, nothing more. This is what I was attempting to convey to Mr. Simkin as our motivation behind the request to remove references to Chief Williams from the thread.

The press seldom digs very deep in to the background of a situation before printing a story and defense attorneys may introduce misleading information in a trial in an attempt to discredit an expert witness. The intent of the e mail was to facilitate the removal of Chief Williams’ information to circumvent any confusion with the press or any court proceedings Chief Williams may be called to testify in.

This request was not intended to throw doubt on your own credentials or discredit you in any way.

Please do feel free to call me if you like concerning this matter.

Respectfully,

Officer John Luquer

Staff Inspector

Office of Accreditation

Chattanooga Police Department

Phone: (423) 643 - 5164

Fax: (423) 643 - 5246

[Mike Williams]

Follow-up email from John Luquer:

Mr. Williams,

I understand the confusion concerning my e mail. If you will be so kind as to indulge me I shall endeavor to clarify myself. First and foremost I was, in no way attempting to insinuate that you claim to be Chief Williams. If I gave that impression I apologize. I agree with you that your information is there for anyone to read who cares to look however some people do not expend the effort to do so. I did read your biography page hence I knew you were not Chief Williams and the conclusion that there was some confusion about the identity of the two of you.

Let me assure you no one called me, I have a Google alert set for “Chattanooga Police Department” that allows me to keep up with events involving my agency. I was alerted to a post on your thread made by Greg Burnham on May 24th, asking if you were Chief Williams and he included Chief Williams’ credentials and bio information in the post. This question was not addressed perhaps because the focus was on ballistics but the post was forwarded with the information no less than 17 times.

Just as Mr. Burnham was initially confused as to whether you were Chief Williams it is reasonable to believe others may be as well. I took not addressing the original question and the posts forwarding the information as an unintentional oversight, nothing more. This is what I was attempting to convey to Mr. Simkin as our motivation behind the request to remove references to Chief Williams from the thread.

The press seldom digs very deep in to the background of a situation before printing a story and defense attorneys may introduce misleading information in a trial in an attempt to discredit an expert witness. The intent of the e mail was to facilitate the removal of Chief Williams’ information to circumvent any confusion with the press or any court proceedings Chief Williams may be called to testify in.

This request was not intended to throw doubt on your own credentials or discredit you in any way.

Please do feel free to call me if you like concerning this matter.

Respectfully,

Officer John Luquer

Staff Inspector

Office of Accreditation

Chattanooga Police Department

Phone: (423) 643 - 5164

Fax: (423) 643 - 5246

John,

Thank you for posting that. I did in fact speak with Officer Luquer yesterday, and he conveyed these same thoughts to me. I guess when you have such an unusual name as "Mike Williams" this sort of thing is bound to happen!

Mike

[Greg Parker]

The "Oswald" seen at the Stevenson demonstration was doing "miltary type turns".

One or more DP witnesses to the 6th floor shooter described him as standing "port arms".

Since Oswald's alibi is demonstrably true, I believe the shooter was not Oswald, but was military trained.

When was "Oswald" at the Stevenson protest? What's the source for this? I never heard about that.

Also, since I'm posting I might as well say this thread about Judyth has been hijacked. This shouldn't have been allowed to go on. And truthfully, I hate ballistics. Let's get back to Judyth or else just end it.

Kathy C

Hi Kathy,

here you go

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jf...ination-t51.htm

[Stephen Roy]

To: Stephen Roy & Judyth Baker,

I have a few questions to which either (or both) of you may have answers.

Do you have the New Orleans telephone number that was used by David Ferrie from the summer of 1963 to call various individuals in Washington DC? Just to be up front, I have had the number--verified by the FBI--since 1998, as well as the list of all of the numbers he called from that number during that period of time. Have either of you any knowledge as to the significance of the numbers he called (or from which he received calls) or done any research on the subject?

Thanks--

Sounds interesting. I do have the list of calls from Ferrie's employer, the law offices of Gill, Bernstein, Schreiber and Gill; while we can't be sure he made every call, it is likely that he made many of them. I have checked into some of the numbers, but not others. (It'll be great when we eventually have "historical" phone listings online. For now, it's a matter of getting old phone books.)

I do know that Ferrie had extensive phone and mail contacts that summer with a man in Washington D.C. named George Augustine Hyde, regarding Ferrie's possible ordination by the "Orthodox Catholic Church of America." Hyde was born in July 1923, attended (but left) traditional Catholic seminary, taught in high school, was ordained in July 1946 in Atlanta in the "Orthodox Church of Greece," moved to D.C. in 1950, became a bishop in the "American Holy Orthodox Catholic Church" and "Apostolic Eastern Church" in May 1957. in 1960, he founded the above-mentioned "Orthodox Catholic Church of America," with "an active pastoral outreach to gay people as members and priests." (In 1970, Hyde would be elected Archbishop of this church.)

I need to look into Hyde more deeply, and try to check some of the other numbers Ferrie likely called. Any information in this regard would be appreciated.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO STEPHEN ROY ABOUT FERRIE'S "STUFFED MONKEY"

NOTE: Stephen Roy takes a cheap shot at me in relation to the use of the phrase, "large kitchen",

as a description of David Ferrie's kitchen. Not only do I not remember using the word, "large", but

I am not the witness who lived through these events and, therefore, even if I had used the word,

"large", that would not make Judyth responsible for that description. This seems to me to be one

more example of one of her critics, this time Roy, attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill.

And his use of a photo taken in 1967 to test her recollections from 1963 is simply beneath contempt.

JUDYTH RESPONDS:

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?

==Dear Mr. Roy, I was NOT in New Orleans in 1967, so of course I "failed to correctly identify the

stuffed animal in Ferrie's doorway." However, you dod not even mention ANY stuffed animal. You

only asked 'what' was hanging in his doorway (and of course youi knew that I only was there in 1963).

It turned out that the photo in question was made in 1967. So we are not talking about enhancing my

credibility. I'm concerned about your ethics.==

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?

==Despite what you might think of me, I do not go about trying to "insert' myself or our project into

everything I see. I had not seen this photo until recently. And it took awhile for me to realize that our

work with monkeys could--I do not say DID--inspire the stuffed monkey. You have to admit it's an oddity.==

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.

==An easy accusation to make, Mr. Roy, since you've posted so much. However, you have never seen my

full account. Besides, it goes both ways. I told researchers about Dave's Harley before you ever posted

about it, for example. I have stated that Dave's furniture belonged to his mother: invesigators have searched

your posts without finding ay such reference in your posts. I suppose if you now bring it up, I can say that

"some of the stuff I post seems to end up as part of your account." The fact is, we will have overlaps, Mr.

Roy/Blackburst sinmply because I knew the man and you have interviewed people who knew the man.==

You're now citing the monkey from the picture I "found" as some sort of "in-joke" by Ferrie.

==I am doing nothing of the kind, Stephen. I simply said, and repeat, that you implied the monkey was hanging

there in 1963. I told you I remembered nothing except maybe a plant on the wall. Though you have collected

many photos, etc., you never met David W. Ferrie. I remind you that you did not say "What kind of stuffed

animal?" You asked WHAT was 'hanging' between the livingroom and dining room. When I told you I could

remember nothing unusual, you stated there was a MONKEY hanging there IN 1963.

I am glad you think you know how the monkey came into his possession. I sent an email about the monkey photo

to several people and lo, it is now on the Education Forum. And you jumped on it.

As I recall, you said you weren't going to get involved in this. I certainly have no time for this any more than you

might. I was silent here for five years and want to return to that.==

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?

==I am NOT inclined to "talk about Ferrie's apartment", Mr. Roy/Blackburst.

I spoke up about the monkey photo. You misrepresented the date of the photo as 1963. Shame on you!

And you and I have already discussed Dave's kitchen before. Your problem is proving how nice and orderly and clean

Dave kept his kitchen (not). How his young boyfriends would be able to figure out what was and what was not scientific

equipment in a place full of all kinds of unusual things, about which they knew zilch. They wouldn't be able to recognize

a table centrifuge or what looked like a pressure cooker (used for sterilizing equipment) if they sat on one. The Waring

blender was just a blender.

Yes, I was able to work in primitive conditions in Louisiana. Just as I had done under a high school stadium with a dirt

floor, in Florida. Doing the tasks I did there, with additional work taken over to Dr. Sherman's --and sometimes to my

own apartment--where I had my own microscope, with many long evenings alone to do additional work far away from

Dave's kitchen and his kiddies.

You told me I was 'wrong' about what was 'hanging' in the doorway. You replied that a MONKEY was HANGING there--

in 1963. At no time did you ever imply it was a stuffed animal that I had to identify. You added that today. I have of

course kept the emails on the subject.

I remember your also writing to me that Dave's Stinson airplane engine was supposedly being kept in his bath-tub there,

in 1963, according to reports of friends. If you didn't send that, somebody with your email address did. Now, that's

something we need to see in a photograph.

You said you weren't going to jump into this--then you did so anyway.

I had to respond to your insinuation that Edward T. Haslam reprinted a mere 'factoid' about the Warren Commission

coming to New Orleans on July 21, 1964. Your failure to research the matter before criticizing Haslam surprised me.

The comment was an attack on Haslam's care in research, but actually revealed your own carelessness in research.

That does concern me.

Your specious comment that Haslam had merely used a 'factoid: required a prompt and accurate reply. You were making

an insinuation concerning the quality of Haslam's research. I had considered your research generally good. Why you must

attack Haslam, I do not know. Why you never met him, I do not know. You've had two decades to do so. You say you

have scoured heaven and earth to find out all you could about Ferrie, yet this man wrote TWO books with "Ferrie" as a

major subject--Haslam, a New Orleans native and longtime resident--a humble man who does not promote himself as

an 'expert'--and yet he is.

You attacked a man you failed to even attempt to meet. .

Nor would you consent to meeting me, nor would you even accept copies of Ferrie's lecture notes that I freely offered you.

Why?

I must conclude that you pick what YOU want to collect and you ignore meeting witnesses you do NOT like. I then wonder

if you have asked leading questions to the witnesses you HAVE deigned to meet (using your word, 'deigned'). Have you in

other ways influenced your witnesses, what you have decided to record, and what you have decided to ignore?

These are questions that must be asked about any book or any reports you make about your witnesses, because you have

failed to personally interview Haslam, yet have several times made specious or false comments about his work, and you

refused materials I offered you about Ferrie, as well as refused to meet me. You even posted that I REFUSED TO MEET

YOU. Dr, Howard Platzman has verified several times that it was YOU who refused to find time to meet ME. He also tried

to meet with you. You never had time.

You said you weren't going to be involved in this, then involved yourself. You said certain things were beneath you, then

you promoted yourself as someone who has collected Ferrie material for twenty years, that you wrote a book, while Haslam

only "self-published" and only worked "two years" (!!!!!!!!) on his. You said these things were beneath you, and they are.

I have tried to refrain from being impolite or rude. However, I will not allow inaccuracies about a honest, careful researcher to

be posted here without a reply.

It seems you have decided to pick and choose what witnesses and information you will accept in your own research efforts.

You decided who Ferrie was a long time ago. You stated Ferrie "never" met LHO, and even after Frontline posted the campout

photo showing them both in the same photo, you said they didn't know each other. Your position has never changed: Ferrie

denied he was EVER involved in anything, so THAT is the TRUTH. And you believe him! You always cite "docuemted Ferrie

witnesses" without ever giving their names OR even their quotes OR inerview dates. And everybody swallows it, mainly

because you also cite available materials about Ferrie that are at your fingertips (but others can reach those materials, too).

Pamela Brown has noted:

"I'm giving you some advice; take it or leave it. I don't want to be sandbagged again by you and your 'book'. As far as

I am concerned, until it is published it does not exist. The only thing we have to evaluate are your posts and what you

have at your webpage. I'm not playing your game anymore."

I certainly feel that you "played a game" with me when you said i FAILED your "TEST" when I did not describe a MONKEY

hanging in the doorway that is in a 1967 photo. We poor ignorant folks didn't have the death photos of 1967 that were at

YOUR fingertips.

I just had my memories that there was no such thing 'hanging in the doorway' in 1963. You said I was wrong, and told Dr.

Platzman and Martin Shackelford that apparently my memory had failed me. I had no defense because you were "the Ferrie expert."

I noticed this on aaj, sent to me:

"Steve showed Judyth to be a fraud. So of course she probably doesn't like him."

But in the same thread, you wrote:

> "I don't proclaim myself to be an expert, just a specialist. A few have

> given me kudos in this area. An example would be Paris Flammonde's

> "Masques of New Orleans." Also, I think Baker has described my work in

> positive ways. '

THIS SHOULD HAVE SHOWN YOU, MR. ROY, THAT I HAVE GIVEN YOU CREDIT WHEN CREDIT WAS DUE. I ALWAYS TRY

TO BE FAIR. I WISH YOU HAD TREATED ME FAIRLY, HOWEVER! INTERESTINGLY, PAMELA, RIGHT AFTER THAT, MENTIONS

WHAT YOU DID TO ME ABOUT DAVE'S RING--A MATTER YOU WILL CERTAINLY BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN TO EVERYBODY FROM

YOUR VIEWPOINT, WHICH WILL LEAVE OUT EVERYTHING DEVIOUS, JUST AS IN THE MATTER OF THE MONKEY THAT YOU

NOW SAY YOU MENTONED AS A 'STUFFED ANIMAL' TO ME--WHICH YOU NEVER DID.

WROTE PAMELA:

"Well, you may have burnt your bridges with Judyth after the Ferrie ring sandbagging, but you never know." (May 13)

PAMELA KNOWS YOU CHANGED THE RULES AND WAITED YEARS BEFORE BACKTRACKING AND CHANGING WHAT YOU

TOLD PLATZMAN (CLAIMING THAT HOWARD HAD TO HAVE CHEATED AND TOLD ME THE ANSWER--YEARS LATER, PERHAPS

AFTER A WITNESS DIED--AND THEN CLAIMED THE RING HAD NEVER EXISTED.

YES, I TRY TO BE FAIR . MR ROY NEVER CALLED ME A DIRTY NAME ON AAJ OR ALT-ASS. EVEN TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT

TREATED ME JUSTLY OR FAIRLY, I TRY TO BE OPEN-MINDED. MAYBE SOMEDAY THEY WILL CHANGE...

"FOOL ME ONCE" (THE RING) SHAME ON YOU. FOOL ME TWICE (THE MONKEY) SHAME ON ME!

YOU HAVE SHOWN HOW YOU PLAY YOUR CARDS, MR. ROY. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

JVB

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO GREGORY BURNHAM ABOUT DAVID FERRIE'S PHONE NUMBER

Dear Monk:

I wasn't privy to Dave's calls, except for the few that involved me and Lee....I know Dave made calls from Gill's

office all the time, free of charge, as he told me. I think the FBI has records on that, and that is what you have.

I have a few numbers from New Orleans that I kept over the years, if this is of any help: I had written them down

for emergencies along with some maps.

Calls I am aware of....

He called the New Orleans Stevedores (Ames) in June, but that's not Washington, DC....the phone number for them

was 524-6227

He gave me the phone number to the Sheraton-Charles Coffee Shop where he apparently went at lunch sometimes,

but I've lost it.

Gill's office phone number was 524-0197...but I think Dave had his own extension. I did not have permission to call

him there.

Banister's phone number was 523-4532 (I have a piece of Banister's stationery).

HE MADE CALLS SOMETIMES FROM DUBL-CHEK -- their number was 522-3394

Of course I have Reily's number--524-6131 (but that's how he reached ME!)

He'd call FROM Mr. & Mrs. Mancuso (Mancuso's Coffee Shop) sometimes, too: 523-8156

....I think Garrison had some phone records...your best bet?

You might get a lead using DUBL-CHEK's number....

J

To: Stephen Roy & Judyth Baker,

I have a few questions to which either (or both) of you may have answers.

Do you have the New Orleans telephone number that was used by David Ferrie from the summer of 1963 to call various individuals in Washington DC? Just to be up front, I have had the number--verified by the FBI--since 1998, as well as the list of all of the numbers he called from that number during that period of time. Have either of you any knowledge as to the significance of the numbers he called (or from which he received calls) or done any research on the subject?

Thanks--

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks Judyth!

A few other questions, but you might not have had any way of knowing this information unless... Let me first ask, were you EVER at Gill's office?

Thanks--

JUDYTH REPLIES TO GREGORY BURNHAM ABOUT DAVID FERRIE'S PHONE NUMBER

Dear Monk:

I wasn't privy to Dave's calls, except for the few that involved me and Lee....I know Dave made calls from Gill's

office all the time, free of charge, as he told me. I think the FBI has records on that, and that is what you have.

I have a few numbers from New Orleans that I kept over the years, if this is of any help: I had written them down

for emergencies along with some maps.

Calls I am aware of....

He called the New Orleans Stevedores (Ames) in June, but that's not Washington, DC....the phone number for them

was 524-6227

He gave me the phone number to the Sheraton-Charles Coffee Shop where he apparently went at lunch sometimes,

but I've lost it.

Gill's office phone number was 524-0197...but I think Dave had his own extension. I did not have permission to call

him there.

Banister's phone number was 523-4532 (I have a piece of Banister's stationery).

HE MADE CALLS SOMETIMES FROM DUBL-CHEK -- their number was 522-3394

Of course I have Reily's number--524-6131 (but that's how he reached ME!)

He'd call FROM Mr. & Mrs. Mancuso (Mancuso's Coffee Shop) sometimes, too: 523-8156

....I think Garrison had some phone records...your best bet?

You might get a lead using DUBL-CHEK's number....

J

To: Stephen Roy & Judyth Baker,

I have a few questions to which either (or both) of you may have answers.

Do you have the New Orleans telephone number that was used by David Ferrie from the summer of 1963 to call various individuals in Washington DC? Just to be up front, I have had the number--verified by the FBI--since 1998, as well as the list of all of the numbers he called from that number during that period of time. Have either of you any knowledge as to the significance of the numbers he called (or from which he received calls) or done any research on the subject?

Thanks--

[Greg Burnham]

Thanks a lot for your reply.

To: Stephen Roy & Judyth Baker,

I have a few questions to which either (or both) of you may have answers.

Do you have the New Orleans telephone number that was used by David Ferrie from the summer of 1963 to call various individuals in Washington DC? Just to be up front, I have had the number--verified by the FBI--since 1998, as well as the list of all of the numbers he called from that number during that period of time. Have either of you any knowledge as to the significance of the numbers he called (or from which he received calls) or done any research on the subject?

Thanks--

Sounds interesting. I do have the list of calls from Ferrie's employer, the law offices of Gill, Bernstein, Schreiber and Gill; while we can't be sure he made every call, it is likely that he made many of them. I have checked into some of the numbers, but not others. (It'll be great when we eventually have "historical" phone listings online. For now, it's a matter of getting old phone books.)

I do know that Ferrie had extensive phone and mail contacts that summer with a man in Washington D.C. named George Augustine Hyde, regarding Ferrie's possible ordination by the "Orthodox Catholic Church of America." Hyde was born in July 1923, attended (but left) traditional Catholic seminary, taught in high school, was ordained in July 1946 in Atlanta in the "Orthodox Church of Greece," moved to D.C. in 1950, became a bishop in the "American Holy Orthodox Catholic Church" and "Apostolic Eastern Church" in May 1957. in 1960, he founded the above-mentioned "Orthodox Catholic Church of America," with "an active pastoral outreach to gay people as members and priests." (In 1970, Hyde would be elected Archbishop of this church.)

I need to look into Hyde more deeply, and try to check some of the other numbers Ferrie likely called. Any information in this regard would be appreciated.

[Stephen Roy]

OK. SINCE I HAVEN'T MASTERED THE ART OF REPLYING TO PIECES OF POSTS, I'LL INSERT MY COMMENTS IN CAPS FOR CLARITY.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO STEPHEN ROY ABOUT FERRIE'S "STUFFED MONKEY"

NOTE: Stephen Roy takes a cheap shot at me in relation to the use of the phrase, "large kitchen",

as a description of David Ferrie's kitchen. Not only do I not remember using the word, "large"

YOU DID, IN YOUR LONG ARTICLE IN THIS THREAD ABOUT OCSHNER.

, but

I am not the witness who lived through these events and, therefore, even if I had used the word,

"large", that would not make Judyth responsible for that description.

I DIDN'T SAY SHE WAS. I SAID SOMETHING LIKE "LARGE KITCHEN, AS FETZER DESCRIBED IT."

This seems to me to be one

more example of one of her critics, this time Roy, attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill.

And his use of a photo taken in 1967 to test her recollections from 1963 is simply beneath contempt.

I DIDN'T USE THE 1967 PHOTO. BAKER DID.

JUDYTH RESPONDS:

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?

==Dear Mr. Roy, I was NOT in New Orleans in 1967, so of course I "failed to correctly identify the

stuffed animal in Ferrie's doorway." However, you dod not even mention ANY stuffed animal. You

only asked 'what' was hanging in his doorway (and of course youi knew that I only was there in 1963).

It turned out that the photo in question was made in 1967. So we are not talking about enhancing my

credibility. I'm concerned about your ethics.==

YOU ARE REFERENCING THE 1967 PHOTO, NOT ME. HOWEVER, I MAY HAVE SAID ONLY 'MONKEY' AND NOT 'STUFFED MONKEY' WHEN WE HAD OUR EXCHANGE IN ABOUT 2001. I DON'T HAVE THE EMAIL HANDY.

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?

==Despite what you might think of me, I do not go about trying to "insert' myself or our project into

everything I see. I had not seen this photo until recently. And it took awhile for me to realize that our

work with monkeys could--I do not say DID--inspire the stuffed monkey. You have to admit it's an oddity.==

I AGREE. IT IS AN ODDITY.

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.

==An easy accusation to make, Mr. Roy, since you've posted so much. However, you have never seen my

full account. Besides, it goes both ways. I told researchers about Dave's Harley before you ever posted

about it, for example. I have stated that Dave's furniture belonged to his mother: invesigators have searched

your posts without finding ay such reference in your posts. I suppose if you now bring it up, I can say that

"some of the stuff I post seems to end up as part of your account." The fact is, we will have overlaps, Mr.

Roy/Blackburst sinmply because I knew the man and you have interviewed people who knew the man.==

IT PAINS ME TO HAVE TO SAY THIS, BUT I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT YOU DID KNOW FERRIE. THAT'S PART OF WHAT THE CONTROVERSY SURROUNDING YOUR ACCOUNT IS ALL ABOUT.

You're now citing the monkey from the picture I "found" as some sort of "in-joke" by Ferrie.

==I am doing nothing of the kind, Stephen. I simply said, and repeat, that you implied the monkey was hanging

there in 1963. I told you I remembered nothing except maybe a plant on the wall. Though you have collected

many photos, etc., you never met David W. Ferrie. I remind you that you did not say "What kind of stuffed

animal?" You asked WHAT was 'hanging' between the livingroom and dining room. When I told you I could

remember nothing unusual, you stated there was a MONKEY hanging there IN 1963.

I DON'T HAVE THE EMAIL HANDY - IT'S ON AN OLD COMPUTER. IF I DID SAY 'MONKEY,' NOT 'STUFFED MONKEY,' I STAND CORRECTED.

I am glad you think you know how the monkey came into his possession. I sent an email about the monkey photo

to several people and lo, it is now on the Education Forum. And you jumped on it.

THAT'S RIGHT. I DIDN'T BRING IT UP. YOU DID. AND IT WAS HEADLINED AS "SUPPORTING JUDYTH OVER STEPHEN ROY."

As I recall, you said you weren't going to get involved in this. I certainly have no time for this any more than you

might. I was silent here for five years and want to return to that.==

I SENT YOU A MESSAGE ON THE FORUM ABOUT THAT. I STARTED ON THIS THREAD GIVING AN OPINION ABOUT HASLAM'S BOOK. THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE END OF IT, BUT IT WAS FETZER'S INSULTING ATTITUDE THAT COMPLICATED THINGS.

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?

==I am NOT inclined to "talk about Ferrie's apartment", Mr. Roy/Blackburst.

I spoke up about the monkey photo. You misrepresented the date of the photo as 1963. Shame on you!

YOU BROUGHT THE PHOTO UP. I DIDN'T.

And you and I have already discussed Dave's kitchen before. Your problem is proving how nice and orderly and clean

Dave kept his kitchen (not). How his young boyfriends would be able to figure out what was and what was not scientific

equipment in a place full of all kinds of unusual things, about which they knew zilch. They wouldn't be able to recognize

a table centrifuge or what looked like a pressure cooker (used for sterilizing equipment) if they sat on one. The Waring

blender was just a blender.

I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT THE KITCHEN. YOU DO. LOOK AT THE KITCHEN PHOTOS I POSTED.

Yes, I was able to work in primitive conditions in Louisiana. Just as I had done under a high school stadium with a dirt

floor, in Florida. Doing the tasks I did there, with additional work taken over to Dr. Sherman's --and sometimes to my

own apartment--where I had my own microscope, with many long evenings alone to do additional work far away from

Dave's kitchen and his kiddies.

You told me I was 'wrong' about what was 'hanging' in the doorway. You replied that a MONKEY was HANGING there--

in 1963. At no time did you ever imply it was a stuffed animal that I had to identify. You added that today. I have of

course kept the emails on the subject.

FOR THE THIRD TIME, I APOLOGIZE IF I OMITTED THE WORD STUFFED 10 YEARS AGO. BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY 'MONKEY' DIDN'T RESONATE WITH YOU THEN.

I remember your also writing to me that Dave's Stinson airplane engine was supposedly being kept in his bath-tub there,

in 1963, according to reports of friends. If you didn't send that, somebody with your email address did. Now, that's

something we need to see in a photograph.

I DON'T HAVE A PHOTO OF THAT. IT WAS TOLD TO ME BY A FELLOW EAL PILOT, DAVE'S UNION STEWARD, WHO MENTIONED IT WHEN REMONSTRATING WITH DAVE ABOUT HIS GENERAL SLOPPINESS.

You said you weren't going to jump into this--then you did so anyway.

EVEN BEFORE I POSTED ON HASLAM'S BOOK, I WAS APPALLED AT HOW FETZER WAS TREATING PEOPLE, LIKE JACK, BILL KELLY, OTHERS. WHEN I DID MY POST, SUDDENLY HE ATTACKED ME.

I had to respond to your insinuation that Edward T. Haslam reprinted a mere 'factoid' about the Warren Commission

coming to New Orleans on July 21, 1964. Your failure to research the matter before criticizing Haslam surprised me.

The comment was an attack on Haslam's care in research, but actually revealed your own carelessness in research.

That does concern me.

WHEN I FIRST BROUGHT THAT UP, IT WASN'T DIRECTED AT HASLAM HIMSELF. THEN FETZER JUMPED IN. LOOK, HASLAM, ON PAGE 134, QUOTED A FRIEND AS SAYING THE WC 'STARTED' TAKING TESTIMONY ON THE DAY SHERMAN WAS FOUND. IT LEAVES AN UNWARRANTED IMPRESSION.

Your specious comment that Haslam had merely used a 'factoid: required a prompt and accurate reply. You were making

an insinuation concerning the quality of Haslam's research. I had considered your research generally good. Why you must

attack Haslam, I do not know. Why you never met him, I do not know. You've had two decades to do so. You say you

have scoured heaven and earth to find out all you could about Ferrie, yet this man wrote TWO books with "Ferrie" as a

major subject--Haslam, a New Orleans native and longtime resident--a humble man who does not promote himself as

an 'expert'--and yet he is.

You attacked a man you failed to even attempt to meet.

I TRIED VERY HARD NOT TO 'ATTACK' HASLAM. I WAS POLITE AND RESTRAINED, AND NOTED THAT HE DID NOT OFFER MUCH, IF ANY, EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS THESES. I DID TRY TO CONTACT HIM SOME YEARS AGO, BUT HE SEEMED DISINCLINED. AND IN HIS RESPONSE POSTED BY THE UBIQUITOUS FETZER, ED TOOK SOME SHOTS AT ME. .

Nor would you consent to meeting me,

LET'S NOT GO THERE AGAIN. WE TRIED TO ARRANGE SOMETHING AND IT DIDN'T WORK OUT.

nor would you even accept copies of Ferrie's lecture notes that I freely offered you.

Why?

BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WAY TO PROVE THEM GENUINE. THEY WERE IN YOUR HANDWRITING, AND THEY DON'T SOUND LIKE FERRIE TO ME (I'VE SEEN THE ONES IN THE UNAUTHORIZED BOOK - YOU KNOW, THE ONE WHERE YOUR THROW QUITE A FEW SHOTS AT ME.)

I must conclude that you pick what YOU want to collect and you ignore meeting witnesses you do NOT like. I then wonder

if you have asked leading questions to the witnesses you HAVE deigned to meet (using your word, 'deigned'). Have you in

other ways influenced your witnesses, what you have decided to record, and what you have decided to ignore?

MY BOOK WAS ALWAYS A BIOGRAPHY!!! MOST INTERVIEWS WERE FORMAL AND RECORDED IN SOME WAY. BUT SOME WERE CASUAL MEETING OR PHONE CALLS. SO SUE ME.

AND IF I WERE YOU, I WOULDN'T BRING UP THE LEADING QUESTIONS THING. I HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT YOU SENT ME OF YOUR INTERVIEW WITH MCGEHEE.

These are questions that must be asked about any book or any reports you make about your witnesses, because you have

failed to personally interview Haslam, yet have several times made specious or false comments about his work, and you

refused materials I offered you about Ferrie, as well as refused to meet me. You even posted that I REFUSED TO MEET

YOU. Dr, Howard Platzman has verified several times that it was YOU who refused to find time to meet ME. He also tried to meet with you. You never had time.

DON'T GO THERE. I TRIED.

You said you weren't going to be involved in this, then involved yourself. You said certain things were beneath you, then

you promoted yourself as someone who has collected Ferrie material for twenty years, that you wrote a book, while Haslam only "self-published" and only worked "two years" (!!!!!!!!) on his. You said these things were beneath you, and they are.

GUILTY. THOSE WERE ANGRY REPLIES TO FETZER'S ARROGANT CONDESCENSION AND STUPID COMPARISONS OF MY PROJECT TO ED'S.

I have tried to refrain from being impolite or rude. However, I will not allow inaccuracies about a honest, careful researcher to

be posted here without a reply.

I'VE GOT NO BEEF WITH ED. I TRIED TO BE POLITE. I DON'T THINK HE PROVES HIS CASE.

It seems you have decided to pick and choose what witnesses and information you will accept in your own research efforts.

You decided who Ferrie was a long time ago. You stated Ferrie "never" met LHO, and even after Frontline posted the campout

photo showing them both in the same photo, you said they didn't know each other.

YOU'RE CONFUSING ME WITH SOMEONE ELSE. I WROTE THAT THEY WERE IN CAP AT THE SAME TIME LONG BEFORE THAT.

Your position has never changed: Ferrie

denied he was EVER involved in anything, so THAT is the TRUTH. And you believe him! You always cite "docuemted Ferrie

witnesses" without ever giving their names OR even their quotes OR inerview dates. And everybody swallows it, mainly

because you also cite available materials about Ferrie that are at your fingertips (but others can reach those materials, too).

WHAT I HAVE SAID IS THAT I CONSIDER ALL THE CONSPIRACY ALLEGATIONS REGARDING FERRIE, AND I ALSO CONSIDER HIS DENIALS. PAMELA, FOR ONE, WANTS ME TO IGNORE HIS DENIALS AND JUST PRESUME HIM GUILTY.

Pamela Brown has noted:

"I'm giving you some advice; take it or leave it. I don't want to be sandbagged again by you and your 'book'. As far as

I am concerned, until it is published it does not exist. The only thing we have to evaluate are your posts and what you

have at your webpage. I'm not playing your game anymore."

PAMELA IS NOT OBJECTIVE.

I certainly feel that you "played a game" with me when you said i FAILED your "TEST" when I did not describe a MONKEY

hanging in the doorway that is in a 1967 photo. We poor ignorant folks didn't have the death photos of 1967 that were at

YOUR fingertips.

THAT WAS IN EMAIL, AS I RECALL - PRIVATE. I RECALL JUST THINKING THAT IT DIDN'T PROVE ANYTHING.

I just had my memories that there was no such thing 'hanging in the doorway' in 1963. You said I was wrong, and told Dr.

Platzman and Martin Shackelford that apparently my memory had failed me. I had no defense because you were "the Ferrie expert."

I noticed this on aaj, sent to me:

"Steve showed Judyth to be a fraud. So of course she probably doesn't like him."

But in the same thread, you wrote:

> "I don't proclaim myself to be an expert, just a specialist. A few have

> given me kudos in this area. An example would be Paris Flammonde's

> "Masques of New Orleans." Also, I think Baker has described my work in

> positive ways. '

THIS SHOULD HAVE SHOWN YOU, MR. ROY, THAT I HAVE GIVEN YOU CREDIT WHEN CREDIT WAS DUE. I ALWAYS TRY

TO BE FAIR. I WISH YOU HAD TREATED ME FAIRLY, HOWEVER! INTERESTINGLY, PAMELA, RIGHT AFTER THAT, MENTIONS

WHAT YOU DID TO ME ABOUT DAVE'S RING--A MATTER YOU WILL CERTAINLY BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN TO EVERYBODY FROM

YOUR VIEWPOINT, WHICH WILL LEAVE OUT EVERYTHING DEVIOUS, JUST AS IN THE MATTER OF THE MONKEY THAT YOU

NOW SAY YOU MENTONED AS A 'STUFFED ANIMAL' TO ME--WHICH YOU NEVER DID.

WROTE PAMELA:

"Well, you may have burnt your bridges with Judyth after the Ferrie ring sandbagging, but you never know." (May 13)

PAMELA KNOWS YOU CHANGED THE RULES AND WAITED YEARS BEFORE BACKTRACKING AND CHANGING WHAT YOU

TOLD PLATZMAN (CLAIMING THAT HOWARD HAD TO HAVE CHEATED AND TOLD ME THE ANSWER--YEARS LATER, PERHAPS

AFTER A WITNESS DIED--AND THEN CLAIMED THE RING HAD NEVER EXISTED.

I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK INTO THE GARGOYLE RING TEST RIGHT NOW.

YES, I TRY TO BE FAIR . MR ROY NEVER CALLED ME A DIRTY NAME ON AAJ OR ALT-ASS. EVEN TO THOSE WHO HAVE NOT

TREATED ME JUSTLY OR FAIRLY, I TRY TO BE OPEN-MINDED. MAYBE SOMEDAY THEY WILL CHANGE...

"FOOL ME ONCE" (THE RING) SHAME ON YOU. FOOL ME TWICE (THE MONKEY) SHAME ON ME!

YOU HAVE SHOWN HOW YOU PLAY YOUR CARDS, MR. ROY. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

JVB

For reasons I don't fully understand, you find it necessary to preemptively try to attack me and my project. Judyth, it doesn't matter what I think. Yes I have doubts, for what I consider to be good reasons. Your story does not stand or fall on my opinion. If you want me to be less visible, you and Fetzer should just leave me alone. Ignore me, if you want.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM AND JUDYTH RESPOND TO JACK WHITE ABOUT ADELE EDISEN

JIM REPLIES:

Perhaps I should have written to you sooner. Your remarks about "using Adele

being inappropriate" was off-base to begin with, since I was citing her about

having been given Lee H. Oswald's phone number BEFORE he arrived in NO. That

is appropriate REGARDLESS of one's attitude about Judyth. Moreover, you seem

to be misinformed about Adele's attitude toward Judyth BEFORE she was sent a

lot of nonsense, which appears to me to be affecting you to this day. Please

stop this campaign of yours, Jack. Let us agree to disagree. I am CERTAIN

that you are COMPLETELY WRONG about Judyth. You are so convinced she is not

authentic you won't give her the time of day. Let us respect our differences.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

___________

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

___________

Jack White is sadly, again creating a story based on errors and false memories. It is MY REPUTATION AT STAKE, but he freely chooses to present such as statement as this:that Adele Edisen from "PERSONAL EXPERIENCE" "can describe specific mistruths..."

Adele has never met me.

I wrote to Adele only one time, and she was thrilled to hear from me. Here is her letter to Mary Ferrell and to me:

[From: aedisen@swbell.net (Adele Edisen)

To: maryferr@swbell.net

CC: ElectLady63@aol.com

AOLFAOLHÞ

+Return-Path: <aedisen@swbell.net>

Received: from rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (rly-yd03.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.3]) by air-yd04.mail.aol.com (v76_r1.8) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:02:42 -0400

Received: from mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net (mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net [151.164.30.29]) by rly-yd03.mx.aol.com (v76_r1.19) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 01:02:03 -0400

Received: from AEDISEN ([207.193.29.55]) by mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net

(Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.01.05.12.18.p9)

with SMTP id <0G2P0057XPVKM0@mta5.rcsntx.swbell.net> for ElectLady63@aol.com;

Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:59:47 -0500 (CDT)

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 00:02:34 -0400

From: Adele Edisen <aedisen@swbell.net>

Subject: Judyth's letter

To: maryferr@swbell.net

Cc: ElectLady63@aol.com

Message-id: <002101c03a4a$95282180$371dc1cf@AEDISEN>

MIME-version: 1.0

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1

Content-type: multipart/alternative;

boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01C03A29.0C9D9D20"

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3

X-Priority: 3

AOLFRS~

Dearest Mary,

I am absolutely speechless with surprise, joy, shock ... head-shaking astonishment. Some of your emails have been full of surprises, but this one takes the cake! First, I want to thank you; then, I want to ask how you are doing.

Now, on to Judyth's letter.

Dear Judyth - here's ONE GIGANTIC INTERNET HUG! Please, please write to me, call me. I must talk with you! Your incredible letter, which I read late at night, just has put my mind into a tailspin. If you send me anything by regular mail, please address it to my Postoffice Box: Adele Edisen, P.O. Box ....... San Antonio, TX ........(This is also for Mary's info because the postal service will not deliver to my house, even though I have a mailbox on the street. They tell me it's because having a P.O. Box is like a change-of-address, so after one year they assume everyone will know the Box address). My phone number is as Mary said, --- --- ----. Judyth, If you can, please call, or give me your phone number and I can call you. There are so many questions I have for you. I'm home most evenings after 6:00 pm Central Time. We must talk!

I look forward to knowing you. Thank you for your words of encouragement.

–Adele

However, this was OCTOBER 2000 -- the same time period when I was being heavily attacked on the Internet by the McAdams newsgroup, and I soon learned that Adele had been sent misinformation about me. Mary Ferrell apologized about it and gave me the names of those who did it.

It grieves me that Jack White could write that Adele Edisen "can describe specific mistruths from personal experience." As usual, there are no quotes, no way for me to defend myself.

I have never been able to meet Edisen. She, as many others, was poisoned by rumors and assertions that I cannot reply to because I am never told what they might have been.

Specifically, Jack claims that Adele, from 'personal experience can describe specific mistruths..."

WHAT personal experience? I diod send her another email, but never received an answer. I spoke to her by phone but only verified the fact that Lee H. Oswald indeed DID know he was going to move into 4905 Magazine St., as he established me at 1032 Marengo, within walking distance to his apartment, telling me that he would be living on Magazine St. Our phone call was not that long and did not involve any "mistruths".

As usual, the Education Forum is being told that "specific mistruths" are involved--NEVER EVER mentioning just WHAT supposed 'specific mistruths" occurred. here are NEVER any citations. Just the same old accusations. Mary Ferrell told me who she thought 'poisoned' Edisen. I have sent the email she sent me. I demand to know exactly what "specific mistruths" were involved that Jack White can so freely alleges to have occurred.

JVB

Edited May 19, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

When one has in hand two different versions of the same event, one must choose which

one has the greater ring of truth to it. I choose to believe Adele's version.

Oh, and the time of day is 7:10 p.m., CST.

Jack