Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

Jack White · May 26, 2010

It is refreshing to see Jim admit that the alleged Adele email may be a forgery.

However, his suspect list is of people I think would not stoop to forging emails.

But there was one person of that period who was proven to by Rich DellaRosa,

a computer expert, to have twice hacked Rich's forum, using faked messages

and spam flooding to crash the forum two different times, as I am sure Monk,

Bernice and others will remember. Rich told me that the ISP of the guilty forger

was in Amsterdam, and specifically a certain person. Need I say more?

Jack

May 26, 2010

Kathy,

I don't get it. I observe that many of Judyth's critics don't even use the internet as a research tool and you (I take it) reply with

"BULL----", but when you visit a specific link (you don't like), you complain (to me or Todd?), "Was that the best you could do?",

which suggests that you really don't know how to use the internet as a research tool. So your response has confirmed my point.

After Jack had observed (based upon his own study of the autopsy photographs we have available at present) that it seemed to

him that LHO was uncircumcised, but that Earl Rose had remarked that he was, I began considering the possibility that they were

both right, where a partial circumcision seems to fit. I know you don't like it, but that is no argument. Please try to do better.

Jim

The phrase is not in common currency, so it would be unsurprising were he
to simply say "circumcised" when it was a partial but not a complete one. I

can't see this issue carrying any weight at all when partial circumcision fits.

But Jim... Dr. Rose's autopsy report said circumcised, not partially circumcised.
Are you saying he was mistaken? There would be a noticeable difference.

Jack

Most of Judyth's critics don't even use the internet for research. BULL----! I suggested some time back to enter, "circumcision, partial", to check this out. I found several articles about it. If Jack White could look at the Oswald autopsy photographs and say that, in his opinion, he appeared to be uncircumcised, yet the autopsy report says he was, it looks to me as though the evidence supports the conclusion that he had a PARTIAL CIRCUMCISION. What other hypothesis can explain more of the available evidence? That is applying logic to the data, which appears to be too much to expect from most of you on this thread. Here's one link: http://www.askmen.com/dating/dzimmer_100/1...ve_answers.html
The Final Cut

A doctor told me that I do not need to be circumcised if I can pull back the foreskin on my penis without any problems. I can do this, however, I do believe that I have an excess of foreskin. Is it possible to remove some of it, only like the little extra bit that is there? If so, will there be any long-term effects due to the removal of a bit of my foreskin?

Todd

Hello Todd,

Partial circumcision is a common procedure that's favored by many men as a happy medium. The removal of just the contractile tip allows the foreskin to retract upon erection, but still retain its protective quality as a natural shield for the head of the flaccid penis.

I went to the link you provided. It was a god------ sleazy website. Was that the best you could do? I couldn't get any info there because they wanted my email address to join. Why not a medical publication? Something with class and trustworthy medical knowledge. Not some lonely hearts boob talking to a teenager.

Kathy C

May 26, 2010

Doug,

Would that I had either tape, but I have neither. I will ask if it can be recovered.

I infer that there may even exist a transcript in Martin Shackelford's possession.

On the other hand, this Mary Ferrell stuff is fascinating, but rather complicated.

Here are some comments on previous exchanges, which I received from Judyth.

Jim

Martin Shackelford

View profile

More options Jul 19 2008, 10:33 pm

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

From: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>

Date: 19 Jul 2008 16:33:19 -0400

Local: Sat, Jul 19 2008 10:33 pm

Subject: Re: Mary Ferrell denounces Judyth Baker

This is a real mishmash of distortion--perhaps by Mary herself. The name

to which she refers is Mary Dean. It is "a name from [her] past," not

someone she knew, but a name she used as an alias, something she admitted

to Judyth but never explained. It sounds like Carol Anne knows the story

behind it, but I doubt she would discuss it. Mary herself asked Judyth to

help her sort through some boxes of materials, and in the process Judyth

ran across the "Mary Dean" materials, but when she asked Mary about them,

Mary became upset that Judyth had seen them, and refused to discuss them.

Later, Judyth found additional "Mary Dean" documents among some things

Mary had given her, apparently inadvertently included. They show that Mary

used the name while living in Ohio, and that she and Mary Dean were the

same person. They have been sent to Tony for inclusion among the documents

on his website.

Martin

> Objective researchers can find quite a large amount of corroborating

> evidence in Judyth's book, some of which is also available on Tony Marsh's

> website.

> Her critics often avoid the fact that evidence of something can often

> be found in a pattern of materials, and not simply by "this document proves this

> statement" oversimplification.

> They want predigested evidence, so they don't have to think about it too

> hard.

> Dave seems sure that I wouldn't comment, but he's been wrong about a lot of

> things.

> Martin

From JVB:

Mary had retracted her statement not only to me and two persons with me, but

also to another group of researchers who visited her months later. But she never

made a public statement. her health was declining and she did tell me that she

depended on her old friends to take care of her and they didn't like me, and this

situation could not go on. her old friends being Robert Chapman, John McAdams,

and David Lifton, specifically, whom Mary said was "like a son" to her.

At one point Martin, frustrated, knowing that Mary had never been forced to retract

anything, despite what Robert Chapman wrote (that she had been all but forced to

make a retraction--a tape we made proves this is not true---of which we have a

transcript made by Shackelford, who was sent a copy of the tape). I am in Europe

/Asia and do not have the. tape on my person . Martin wrote:

"Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:q8Bfk.14989$mh5.1768@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...

> Your description here undermines your earlier silly claim that Judyth

> "intimidated"

> or "frightened" Mary into retracting her alleged criticism. But, then, no

> one who knew Mary would find that nonsense credible in the first place.

> Martin

I wish to add that I brought up "Mary Dean" to Mary only because I wanted to

know if this had to do with something she had told me about nearly getting

divorced from Buck at one point. Mary told me a lot of things. All the boxes I

went through were WITH Mary, and I had also seen at that time some of her

correspondence course files. The new files I found in the magazines she had

given me --I asked her about them--those with the name "Mary Dean" on them

intending to give them to her if she wanted them--the others had been thrown away.

I was interested ONLY because Dave Ferrie had lived in Ohio at that same time

and wondered if she had ever heard of him at that time.

When the Mary Ferrell email came out, I did not bring out the "Mary Dean" papers

to show people. They were shown only to a few researchers. I only made them

public when asked by others, in self-defense, years later, as late as 2007, I believe.

By then, I was actually being accused of going through Mary's things, though Mary

is on record as having given me many personal items, including her children's Catholic

Daily Missals and other items that I thought were precious and should not be thrown

away. Mary would not have given me her gate code, her new phone number, etc. if

she had not wanted me with her when she was sorting through her things. I was her

legs at that time.

July 20, 2008:

<msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>You always seem to be looking for a new reason to attack her, Paul.

>Mary asked Judyth to help her sort through a bunch of boxes of materials,

>not sure what exactly they contained. She was unaware they included the

> Mary Dean material until Judyth stumbled across it and asked about it.

>If she was going behind Mary's back, she would hardly have initiated a

>conversation about the material.

>No, Mary wasn't "on trial." The point was that she used an alias under

>circumstances she didn't want to talk about.

Barb J then wrote:

> Oh, and it would only be a painful insistence on honesty if Judyth came

> forward with this tale when the people she accuses could defend

> themselves, against the claims she makes. Waiting until they were all dead

> is cowardice. "

to which Pamela responded:

Oh just tack on another false claim about Judyth while you're at it.

What difference will one more make?

Martin finished his comments with:

It doesn't seem to occur to you that Mary might have decided she had a

reason to discredit Judyth that had nothing to do with her account.

Martin

==I concur with Martin. Mary had complained to me that she was being given absolutely

no peace because she defended me. Less than two months before the email she sent out,

she had asked me to move into the second bedroom in her apartment, as I did not like living

alone. I declined for several reasons, among them, the fact that her son, Jimmy, wanted to

move in with her (and he did so).

Mary did believe me. The email sent out is composed of many odd details that Mary knew

were not true, but which at one time she had concerned herself about. Others are puzzling,

such as her claim that I xeroxed my photo with her recommendation to the literary agent

("This woman is credible"--a statement that makes no sense without the photo that was

on that piece of paper!)==

Doug,

Since you are one of the more rational among Judyth's critics, let me suggest that you

prepare your latest "top ten" reasons for disbelieving Judyth. I take for granted that

you will continue to ignore some of the most important reasons for believing her, such

as Kathy Santi and Anna Lewis, two living witnesses to crucial aspects of her story, and

the "disappearing witness" study I previously presented. So do this other thing, which

seems to appeal to you, namely: citing only the arguments on one side (against her).

Give us your "top ten" reasons, I will invite her response, and we can do it all again!

Jim

JVB is quite an accomplished tap-dancer.

The time of day is 7:54 a.m.

Jack

JUDYTH RESPONDS:

Edisen also has the impression that I said Ochsner introduced him to me. HOWEVER, DR. RIVERA WAS

MENTIONED IN A PRIVATE INTERVIEW WITH DR. OCHSNER at Charity Hospital. While he introduced me,

insofar as making me aware of him, because I had to go to the east Louisiana Mental Hospital, the intro

was NOT not face-to-face.

How can you be "introduced" to someone without meeting them? It would be like my telling people I had been introduced to Barack Obama because someone made me aware of him. This is absolute nonsense.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

I would request something very simple that would not involve the cost of having the LHO handwriting analyzed. You have requested a tape from Lifton. I would ask that you have Judyth provide you a copy of the tape of her encounter with Mary Ferrell in which her account posted in this thread differs significantly from other accounts of the encounter. Review the tape and post whether or not it is consistent with her posted account. There should be no ambiquity. There should be no excuse (stolen, can't find, has been edited by others.) This would be an easy first step. I am sure that this probably crossed your mind and you may already have the tape.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Stephen Roy · May 26, 2010

Excerpts from unpublished interview with David Franklin Lewis Jr. by NBC News, undated but early 1967 (ARRB/NARA):

Q. Did you also know Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. I had met him on a separate occasion, but to say that our relationship was one that was very friendly, I would not state that, no. It was more or less a person that you were moderately acquainted with.

Q. Were you aware of the anti-Castro interests on the part of Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. Not that I know of, no.

Q. Did you know that Oswald worked for the William B. Reilly Coffee Company?

A. No, I did not know that Oswald worked for Wm. B. Reilly until the investigations here started, just recently.

Q. How much time elapsed from the time President Kennedy was killed until you told anybody you knew and had met Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. Over three years.

Q. You just told us before that you had told it to your wife.

A. Well, that's true, that was on the day...just my wife alone, sitting at home.

Q. Did you ever talk to Ferrie about Oswald?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Did you ever talk to Oswald?

A. I have spoken with Oswald on a few occasions, yes. It was more or less just passing conversation. It was nothing to do with my business or his. It was more or less just passing the time of day. It was in a restaurant. I just happened to be a patron of the restaurant at the same time.

Doug Weldon · May 26, 2010

Doug,
Would that I had either tape, but I have neither. I will ask if it can be recovered.

I infer that there may even exist a transcript in Martin Shackelford's possession.

On the other hand, this Mary Ferrell stuff is fascinating, but rather complicated.

Here are some comments on previous exchanges, which I received from Judyth.

Jim

Martin Shackelford

View profile

More options Jul 19 2008, 10:33 pm

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

From: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>

Date: 19 Jul 2008 16:33:19 -0400

Local: Sat, Jul 19 2008 10:33 pm

Subject: Re: Mary Ferrell denounces Judyth Baker

This is a real mishmash of distortion--perhaps by Mary herself. The name

to which she refers is Mary Dean. It is "a name from [her] past," not

someone she knew, but a name she used as an alias, something she admitted

to Judyth but never explained. It sounds like Carol Anne knows the story

behind it, but I doubt she would discuss it. Mary herself asked Judyth to

help her sort through some boxes of materials, and in the process Judyth

ran across the "Mary Dean" materials, but when she asked Mary about them,

Mary became upset that Judyth had seen them, and refused to discuss them.

Later, Judyth found additional "Mary Dean" documents among some things

Mary had given her, apparently inadvertently included. They show that Mary

used the name while living in Ohio, and that she and Mary Dean were the

same person. They have been sent to Tony for inclusion among the documents

on his website.

Martin

> Objective researchers can find quite a large amount of corroborating

> evidence in Judyth's book, some of which is also available on Tony Marsh's

> website.

> Her critics often avoid the fact that evidence of something can often

> be found in a pattern of materials, and not simply by "this document proves this

> statement" oversimplification.

> They want predigested evidence, so they don't have to think about it too

> hard.

> Dave seems sure that I wouldn't comment, but he's been wrong about a lot of

> things.

> Martin

From JVB:

Mary had retracted her statement not only to me and two persons with me, but

also to another group of researchers who visited her months later. But she never

made a public statement. her health was declining and she did tell me that she

depended on her old friends to take care of her and they didn't like me, and this

situation could not go on. her old friends being Robert Chapman, John McAdams,

and David Lifton, specifically, whom Mary said was "like a son" to her.

At one point Martin, frustrated, knowing that Mary had never been forced to retract

anything, despite what Robert Chapman wrote (that she had been all but forced to

make a retraction--a tape we made proves this is not true---of which we have a

transcript made by Shackelford, who was sent a copy of the tape). I am in Europe

/Asia and do not have the. tape on my person . Martin wrote:

"Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:q8Bfk.14989$mh5.1768@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...

> Your description here undermines your earlier silly claim that Judyth

> "intimidated"

> or "frightened" Mary into retracting her alleged criticism. But, then, no

> one who knew Mary would find that nonsense credible in the first place.

> Martin

I wish to add that I brought up "Mary Dean" to Mary only because I wanted to

know if this had to do with something she had told me about nearly getting

divorced from Buck at one point. Mary told me a lot of things. All the boxes I

went through were WITH Mary, and I had also seen at that time some of her

correspondence course files. The new files I found in the magazines she had

given me --I asked her about them--those with the name "Mary Dean" on them

intending to give them to her if she wanted them--the others had been thrown away.

I was interested ONLY because Dave Ferrie had lived in Ohio at that same time

and wondered if she had ever heard of him at that time.

When the Mary Ferrell email came out, I did not bring out the "Mary Dean" papers

to show people. They were shown only to a few researchers. I only made them

public when asked by others, in self-defense, years later, as late as 2007, I believe.

By then, I was actually being accused of going through Mary's things, though Mary

is on record as having given me many personal items, including her children's Catholic

Daily Missals and other items that I thought were precious and should not be thrown

away. Mary would not have given me her gate code, her new phone number, etc. if

she had not wanted me with her when she was sorting through her things. I was her

legs at that time.

July 20, 2008:

<msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>You always seem to be looking for a new reason to attack her, Paul.

>Mary asked Judyth to help her sort through a bunch of boxes of materials,

>not sure what exactly they contained. She was unaware they included the

> Mary Dean material until Judyth stumbled across it and asked about it.

>If she was going behind Mary's back, she would hardly have initiated a

>conversation about the material.

>No, Mary wasn't "on trial." The point was that she used an alias under

>circumstances she didn't want to talk about.

Barb J then wrote:

> Oh, and it would only be a painful insistence on honesty if Judyth came

> forward with this tale when the people she accuses could defend

> themselves, against the claims she makes. Waiting until they were all dead

> is cowardice. "

to which Pamela responded:

Oh just tack on another false claim about Judyth while you're at it.

What difference will one more make?

Martin finished his comments with:

It doesn't seem to occur to you that Mary might have decided she had a

reason to discredit Judyth that had nothing to do with her account.

Martin

==I concur with Martin. Mary had complained to me that she was being given absolutely

no peace because she defended me. Less than two months before the email she sent out,

she had asked me to move into the second bedroom in her apartment, as I did not like living

alone. I declined for several reasons, among them, the fact that her son, Jimmy, wanted to

move in with her (and he did so).

Mary did believe me. The email sent out is composed of many odd details that Mary knew

were not true, but which at one time she had concerned herself about. Others are puzzling,

such as her claim that I xeroxed my photo with her recommendation to the literary agent

("This woman is credible"--a statement that makes no sense without the photo that was

on that piece of paper!)==

Doug,

Since you are one of the more rational among Judyth's critics, let me suggest that you

prepare your latest "top ten" reasons for disbelieving Judyth. I take for granted that

you will continue to ignore some of the most important reasons for believing her, such

as Kathy Santi and Anna Lewis, two living witnesses to crucial aspects of her story, and

the "disappearing witness" study I previously presented. So do this other thing, which

seems to appeal to you, namely: citing only the arguments on one side (against her).

Give us your "top ten" reasons, I will invite her response, and we can do it all again!

Jim

JVB is quite an accomplished tap-dancer.

The time of day is 7:54 a.m.

Jack

JUDYTH RESPONDS:

Edisen also has the impression that I said Ochsner introduced him to me. HOWEVER, DR. RIVERA WAS

MENTIONED IN A PRIVATE INTERVIEW WITH DR. OCHSNER at Charity Hospital. While he introduced me,

insofar as making me aware of him, because I had to go to the east Louisiana Mental Hospital, the intro

was NOT not face-to-face.

How can you be "introduced" to someone without meeting them? It would be like my telling people I had been introduced to Barack Obama because someone made me aware of him. This is absolute nonsense.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

I would request something very simple that would not involve the cost of having the LHO handwriting analyzed. You have requested a tape from Lifton. I would ask that you have Judyth provide you a copy of the tape of her encounter with Mary Ferrell in which her account posted in this thread differs significantly from other accounts of the encounter. Review the tape and post whether or not it is consistent with her posted account. There should be no ambiquity. There should be no excuse (stolen, can't find, has been edited by others.) This would be an easy first step. I am sure that this probably crossed your mind and you may already have the tape.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Jim:

Thanks for the reply. I am sure you understand how important the actual tape is in weighing JVB's credibility and veracity. She stated that she has the tape. She simply has to provide you with a copy otherwise she is again the only corroboration for her statements, which is worthless. and one has to assume that she is not telling the truth. Again, she is the one who has claimed that she has the tape.

Best,

Doug

May 26, 2010

JUDYTH REPLIES TO THE LATEST FROM STEPHEN ROY

Roy says: I presented Lewis's statements without comment, but since you brought it up...

This is where people who have studied the Garrison case have an advantage. Lewis was a very eager witness.

==Mr. Roy is trying to show that Mr. Lewis was self-serving in his eagerness to tesify,but the "eager witness" never presented himself to the Warren Commission when they sought unsolicited testimonies in July, 1964. It was his friend, Jack Suggs Martin, who was an "eager witness." Perhaps Mr. Roy has mixed up the two, for Martin early on desried to vilify David Ferrie, with whom he had a falling-out in May, 1963.

Martin and Lewis were close friends: Lewis was living with Martin at the time of the Garrison investigation after he and his pregnant wife were harrassed by Garrison investigators.==

Mr. Roy says: He was brought to Garrison by Jack Martin and was "more than glad" to give his statement.

==David Lewis was angry about what happened to his friend, David Ferrie. He stepped forward only after Ferrie was found dead.

It seems again that Mr. Roy is mixing up who was eager and who was not to talk. it was Jack Martin who later made a tape of statements by Lewis and unsuccessfully tried to sell it.==

Mr. Roy states "Garrison lost interest in Lewis after he claimed to have been shot at by a Cuban, then admitted that the story was false after polygraph exam. "

==Mr. Roy needs to be less sweeping in his statement. He needs to look at the polygraph examination again. The problem was that Lewis said Carlos Quiroga shot at him. David Lewis had written an account of having been shot at. I have a copy for anyone who wishes to look at it. The account was hand-written and made soon after the incident. His wife agreed that this occurred. Lewis did not say that he could recognize the person who shot at him. Later, he said it was Quiroga. That had to be untrue because Lewis had not stated that Quiroga was identified in his original account.==

Mr. Roy : Garrison lost interest in Lewis after he claimed to have been shot at by a Cuban, then admitted that the story was false after polygraph exam. Some might say he was over-eager.

==Mr. Roy implies that the entire story itself was false. But Lewis was implicating Quiroga: Quiroga and Lewis were on unfriendly terms, and Quiroga, by the way, also failed his polygraph test with Garrison. he failed essential questions such as, had he ever seen the weapons used in Kennedy's assassination.==

Mr. Roy stated: He tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to UPI.

==Jack Martin who was trying to sell the story, not David Lewis.==

Mr. Roy: Some might say he was over-eager.

==Who besides Mr. Roy? David Lewis did not try to sell the story. David Lewis did not step forward to the Warren Commission. He is being held guilty by association with the eager Mr. Martin.==

Mr. Roy: Why would a very eager witness withhold the most important part of his story?

==He was not that eager, Mr. Roy. And what was this father of five children to do? Get himself arrested --as happened to Clay Shaw?

So he was supposed to say that he and his wife (who was pregnant, and would be brought in for heavy questioning) double-dated with the man the Warren Commssion concluded killed John F. Kennedy. Then what, Mr. Roy? He had five children and another on the way. Soon after speaking out, he was accused of stealing items from the bus station (just a coincidence?). He fled the city. He and his wife were afraid to be seen together and got a divorce. But he had been brave enough to declate that Oswald was seen with Guy Banister. He did what he could.==

Mr. Roy (who never mentions David Ferrie as Lewis' friend) states: The only reasonable explanation might be that it was a limited hangout, or that he was trying to steer investigators in the wrong direction. But there is no evidence to support this. So his story stands, as it is.

==A reasonable explanation is that a father of five little kids, working part-time jobs trying to survive, does not volunteer information that will get him arrested. Imagine if he would have stated that he knew Oswald so well that he and his wife double-dated with Oswald and his girlfriend. Believe it or not, David Lewis liked the idea of staying out of jail.

Mr. Roy then implies that if a person married to anothe person is a certai kind of person, the person they are married to is also the same kind of person--a logical error).==

Roy says: This is one of the reasons why Anna Lewis's story cannot be accepted uncritically: It conflicts with her ex-husband's story in an important respect, the alleged double-dating.

==There is NO CONFLICT. Failure to mention an event is not evidence that the evernt did not occur. There was obvious danger for Lewis in bringing up the matter. Anna Lewis herself suffered consequences for doing so, decades later.==

Roy says: Another problem with her story is that she said she met Oswald in early 1962, when the historical Oswald was in the USSR.

==Anna Lewis was refreshingly unrehearsed in her story. She spoke spontaneously and at the behest of others, without any prior preparation. She spoke off the top of her head. We have witnesses who say they saw Oswald in New Orleans in the fall of 1962, and Anna herself later said it might have been in the Fall. She was going back decades and speaking spontaneously. Unlike researchers, she hadn't spent years going over those memories and events. Most of us believe that she did a good job recollecing as many details as she did.==

Roy says: I also note that he indicated that he did not work at Continental Trailways Bus until 1965.

==Though Lewis did not bring up his employment (part-time) at Trailways in 1963, he also did not bring up a number of other part-time jobs he had held. he simply said he had held some part-time jobs. Nor did he bring up the fact that he was still working part-time for Guy Banister in 1963 (he asked us not to tell his wife, because he had promised her that he quit working for Banister in 1962.

Note that some researchers on the "Oswald did it" side insist Lewos was just an office boy for Banister. But Lewis and Martin worked togeher as a team for Banister between 1962 and when Banister was found dead in June, 1964.

There is even a record showing their political involvement, via Banister, in local elections, thanks to Jerry Shinely. Lewis only gave a brief outline of his many activities.==

I am going to be unavailable soon. It cannot be helped. JVB

Have you considered the possibility that David Lewis was not being forthcoming?

I presented Lewis's statements without comment, but since you brought it up...

This is where people who have studied the Garrison case have an advantage. Lewis was a very eager witness. He was brought to Garrison by Jack Martin and was "more than glad" to give his statement. He tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to UPI. Garrison lost interest in Lewis after he claimed to have been shot at by a Cuban, then admitted that the story was false after polygraph exam. Some might say he was over-eager.

Why would a very eager witness withhold the most important part of his story? The only reasonable explanation might be that it was a limited hangout, or that he was trying to steer investigators in the wrong direction. But there is no evidence to support this. So his story stands, as it is.

This is one of the reasons why Anna Lewis's story cannot be accepted uncritically: It conflicts with her ex-husband's story in an important respect, the alleged double-dating. Another problem with her story is that she said she met Oswald in early 1962, when the historical Oswald was in the USSR.

I also note that he indicated that he did not work at Continental Trailways Bus until 1965.

May 26, 2010

Your remarks are even more self-serving. To those of us who have interacted

with Judyth the most extensively, the coherence of her story and the support it

derives from living witnesses like Kathy Santi and Anna Lewis, the documentary

record of "the disappearing witness", and Ed Haslam's research in New Orleans

has led others, including Nigel Turner, Wim Dankbaar, Martin Shackelford, and

Jim Marrs, to the conclusion that she is "the real deal". As another who believes

in Judyth Vary Baker, I take exception to your characterization, especially with

regard to your casual determination of who is and who is not "telling the truth".

I am reaching out to determine whether or not I can obtain the tape or perhaps

the transcript, but it stuns me how you can be emphatic about this tape but--as

far as I can recall--remain blase about the tape in the possession of David Lifton.

A bit more evenhandedness from you would be most welcome, if you don't mind.

Doug,

Would that I had either tape, but I have neither. I will ask if it can be recovered.

I infer that there may even exist a transcript in Martin Shackelford's possession.

On the other hand, this Mary Ferrell stuff is fascinating, but rather complicated.

Here are some comments on previous exchanges, which I received from Judyth.

Jim

Martin Shackelford

View profile

More options Jul 19 2008, 10:33 pm

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

From: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>

Date: 19 Jul 2008 16:33:19 -0400

Local: Sat, Jul 19 2008 10:33 pm

Subject: Re: Mary Ferrell denounces Judyth Baker

This is a real mishmash of distortion--perhaps by Mary herself. The name

to which she refers is Mary Dean. It is "a name from [her] past," not

someone she knew, but a name she used as an alias, something she admitted

to Judyth but never explained. It sounds like Carol Anne knows the story

behind it, but I doubt she would discuss it. Mary herself asked Judyth to

help her sort through some boxes of materials, and in the process Judyth

ran across the "Mary Dean" materials, but when she asked Mary about them,

Mary became upset that Judyth had seen them, and refused to discuss them.

Later, Judyth found additional "Mary Dean" documents among some things

Mary had given her, apparently inadvertently included. They show that Mary

used the name while living in Ohio, and that she and Mary Dean were the

same person. They have been sent to Tony for inclusion among the documents

on his website.

Martin

> Objective researchers can find quite a large amount of corroborating

> evidence in Judyth's book, some of which is also available on Tony Marsh's

> website.

> Her critics often avoid the fact that evidence of something can often

> be found in a pattern of materials, and not simply by "this document proves this

> statement" oversimplification.

> They want predigested evidence, so they don't have to think about it too

> hard.

> Dave seems sure that I wouldn't comment, but he's been wrong about a lot of

> things.

> Martin

From JVB:

Mary had retracted her statement not only to me and two persons with me, but

also to another group of researchers who visited her months later. But she never

made a public statement. her health was declining and she did tell me that she

depended on her old friends to take care of her and they didn't like me, and this

situation could not go on. her old friends being Robert Chapman, John McAdams,

and David Lifton, specifically, whom Mary said was "like a son" to her.

At one point Martin, frustrated, knowing that Mary had never been forced to retract

anything, despite what Robert Chapman wrote (that she had been all but forced to

make a retraction--a tape we made proves this is not true---of which we have a

transcript made by Shackelford, who was sent a copy of the tape). I am in Europe

/Asia and do not have the. tape on my person . Martin wrote:

"Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:q8Bfk.14989$mh5.1768@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...

> Your description here undermines your earlier silly claim that Judyth

> "intimidated"

> or "frightened" Mary into retracting her alleged criticism. But, then, no

> one who knew Mary would find that nonsense credible in the first place.

> Martin

I wish to add that I brought up "Mary Dean" to Mary only because I wanted to

know if this had to do with something she had told me about nearly getting

divorced from Buck at one point. Mary told me a lot of things. All the boxes I

went through were WITH Mary, and I had also seen at that time some of her

correspondence course files. The new files I found in the magazines she had

given me --I asked her about them--those with the name "Mary Dean" on them

intending to give them to her if she wanted them--the others had been thrown away.

I was interested ONLY because Dave Ferrie had lived in Ohio at that same time

and wondered if she had ever heard of him at that time.

When the Mary Ferrell email came out, I did not bring out the "Mary Dean" papers

to show people. They were shown only to a few researchers. I only made them

public when asked by others, in self-defense, years later, as late as 2007, I believe.

By then, I was actually being accused of going through Mary's things, though Mary

is on record as having given me many personal items, including her children's Catholic

Daily Missals and other items that I thought were precious and should not be thrown

away. Mary would not have given me her gate code, her new phone number, etc. if

she had not wanted me with her when she was sorting through her things. I was her

legs at that time.

July 20, 2008:

<msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>You always seem to be looking for a new reason to attack her, Paul.

>Mary asked Judyth to help her sort through a bunch of boxes of materials,

>not sure what exactly they contained. She was unaware they included the

> Mary Dean material until Judyth stumbled across it and asked about it.

>If she was going behind Mary's back, she would hardly have initiated a

>conversation about the material.

>No, Mary wasn't "on trial." The point was that she used an alias under

>circumstances she didn't want to talk about.

Barb J then wrote:

> Oh, and it would only be a painful insistence on honesty if Judyth came

> forward with this tale when the people she accuses could defend

> themselves, against the claims she makes. Waiting until they were all dead

> is cowardice. "

to which Pamela responded:

Oh just tack on another false claim about Judyth while you're at it.

What difference will one more make?

Martin finished his comments with:

It doesn't seem to occur to you that Mary might have decided she had a

reason to discredit Judyth that had nothing to do with her account.

Martin

==I concur with Martin. Mary had complained to me that she was being given absolutely

no peace because she defended me. Less than two months before the email she sent out,

she had asked me to move into the second bedroom in her apartment, as I did not like living

alone. I declined for several reasons, among them, the fact that her son, Jimmy, wanted to

move in with her (and he did so).

Mary did believe me. The email sent out is composed of many odd details that Mary knew

were not true, but which at one time she had concerned herself about. Others are puzzling,

such as her claim that I xeroxed my photo with her recommendation to the literary agent

("This woman is credible"--a statement that makes no sense without the photo that was

on that piece of paper!)==

Doug,

Since you are one of the more rational among Judyth's critics, let me suggest that you

prepare your latest "top ten" reasons for disbelieving Judyth. I take for granted that

you will continue to ignore some of the most important reasons for believing her, such

as Kathy Santi and Anna Lewis, two living witnesses to crucial aspects of her story, and

the "disappearing witness" study I previously presented. So do this other thing, which

seems to appeal to you, namely: citing only the arguments on one side (against her).

Give us your "top ten" reasons, I will invite her response, and we can do it all again!

Jim

JVB is quite an accomplished tap-dancer.

The time of day is 7:54 a.m.

Jack

JUDYTH RESPONDS:

Edisen also has the impression that I said Ochsner introduced him to me. HOWEVER, DR. RIVERA WAS

MENTIONED IN A PRIVATE INTERVIEW WITH DR. OCHSNER at Charity Hospital. While he introduced me,

insofar as making me aware of him, because I had to go to the east Louisiana Mental Hospital, the intro

was NOT not face-to-face.

How can you be "introduced" to someone without meeting them? It would be like my telling people I had been introduced to Barack Obama because someone made me aware of him. This is absolute nonsense.

Doug Weldon

Jim:

I would request something very simple that would not involve the cost of having the LHO handwriting analyzed. You have requested a tape from Lifton. I would ask that you have Judyth provide you a copy of the tape of her encounter with Mary Ferrell in which her account posted in this thread differs significantly from other accounts of the encounter. Review the tape and post whether or not it is consistent with her posted account. There should be no ambiquity. There should be no excuse (stolen, can't find, has been edited by others.) This would be an easy first step. I am sure that this probably crossed your mind and you may already have the tape.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Jim:

Thanks for the reply. I am sure you understand how important the actual tape is in weighing JVB's credibility and veracity. She stated that she has the tape. She simply has to provide you with a copy otherwise she is again the only corroboration for her statements, which is worthless. and one has to assume that she is not telling the truth. Again, she is the one who has claimed that she has the tape.

Best,

Doug

May 26, 2010

MORE FROM JUDYTH ABOUT THE MARY FERRELL TAPE RECORDING

NOTE: This is the first part of a lengthy and complicated email. If this is

the most relevant part--as I believe that it is--then it suggests that others,

including some of Judyth's most persistent critics actually have had copies

of the transcript all along and have been sandbagging Doug Weldon about it.

JVB: I FOUND THIS ON THE MCADAMS NEWSGROUP. IN OTHER WORDS,

BARB J AND CO HAVE A COPY OF THE TRANSCRIPT BUT DID NOT POST

IT FOR DOUG WELDON. I DO SO NOW. (P.S. I AM JUST ABOUT OUT OF

ACCESS TIME AND WILL SOON BE OUT OF CONTACT FOR SOME WEEKS)

SEE BELOW:

On 20 May 2008 14:58:37 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"

<msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>The first part of the tape deals with their discovery that Mary was locked

>in her room--the only resident in that situation.

==JVB: THIS WAS THE CASE. LATER, MR. ROBERT CHAPMAN WOULD WRITE

THAT 'FROM THEN ON' THEY HAD TO ;LOCK MARY'S DOOR' BECAUSE OF

'JUDYTH'S FRIENDS' RUNNING INTO MARY'S 'UNLOCKED ROOM."==

They checked everyone's doors? Why wouldn't/couldn't Mary have her

door locked? It was an assisted living center, Martin ... not a

nursing home ... she had her own apartment.

==SHE HAD BEEN AT LUNCH THAT DAY AND THEN DROPPED OFF AND THE

DOOR LOCKED. THE NURSE SAID THEY HAD NOT BEEN TOLD THAT MARY

HAD BEEN RETURNED AND DID NOT KNOW SHE WAS EVEN HOME. IT WAS

PROBABLY AN ACCIDENT, BUT THAT WAS THE CASE.===

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

>--and with related matters. I

>didn't include all that, because the topic of discussion at the time was the

>e-mail, not the nursing home.

>Once again, you jump to a conclusion--that because the topic of the POSTED

>material wasn't Mary's treatment, that it wasn't discussed on the tape.

>Crackpot realism is one of the names for that.

>Martin

>"Barb Junkkarinen" <barbREMOVE...@comcast.net> wrote in message

>news:el6434pij5sc0d95euu5vdcmhqv63nanr1@4ax.com...

>> On 18 May 2008 21:34:43 -0400, "paul seaton"

>> <paulNOseatonS...@paulseaton.com> wrote:

>>>"Michael O'Dell" <ml...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>>news:48305935$1@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

>>>> Has anyone here heard that tape?

>>>Just discovered this from mShack, june 2004.

>>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

>>>The relevant exchange seems to be this one :

>>>"Judyth: Mary, do you think I'm a fraud? That's all I want to know.

>>>Mary: [Laughs] No."

RE THE EMAIL SENT IN MARY'S NAME:

>>>Mary: [indistinct, asks if her name was on it]

>>>Judyth: Yes, ma'am, it is.

>>>????: Yes, ma'am.

>>>Judyth: Mary Ferrell. It says it at the bottom, Mary Ferrell. It says

>>>that I'm a fraud.

>>>here's the whole thing =>

>>><quote>

>>>The quality of the tape isn't good, and I have no idea how to "post" a

>>>tape, so I'll draw on the summary and transcript.

>>>I had difficulty

>>>differentiating the voices of Judyth's sister Lynda and Judyth and Mary's

>>>mutual friend Debbee, but both Mary and Judyth were distinctive, so where

>>>there are question marks, it is Lynda or Debbee.

>>>Robert Chapman reported that "a bunch of irate Judyth supporters" imposed

>>>themselves on Mary Ferrell. In fact, the nursing home only allowed

>>>visitors whom Mary had put on her visiting list, and Judyth, Lynda and

>>>Debbee were all on the list. From the tape:

>>>The nurse recognizes Judyth, and says "I'll open it up for you." She

>>>checks with Mary, then tells Lynda and Debbee to come in. After talking

>>>with Mary, they return and bring Judyth back with them.

>>>No one was irate, and no one imposed themselves on Mary. Some have alleged

>>>that Mary had no knowledge of the tape recorder, but just after the

>>>recorder resumes, we find:

>>>"Mary: Is this loud enough?"

>>>After the e-mail has been read to Mary, there is this exchange:

>>>"Judyth: Mary, do you think I'm a fraud? That's all I want to know.

>>>Mary: [Laughs] No."

>>>Lynda or Debbee says:

>>>????: [Laughing] We just didn't know whether we'd be just thrown out or

>>>not. {Laughs] But, no, in the e-mail it said that you threw Judy out,

>>>and we were...

>>>Judyth: You thought we were gonna hurt you.

>>>????: Yeah.

>>>Mary: No, baby

>>>????: We know that, but..

>>>Several voices [indistinct]

>>>????: It didn't sound like you..

>>>Judyth: You said that you didn't write that thing.

>>>Mary: No, there's no [indistinct]

>>>????: Yeah.

>>>Mary: and that David Lifton. Robert called me and asked me if I'd told

>>>the facts to David. And I said yes, he called and asked me a bunch of

>>>questions, and Robert said "Why didn't you send him to me?"

>>>Then there is this exchange:

>>>Mary: [indistinct, asks if her name was on it]

>>>Judyth: Yes, ma'am, it is.

>>>????: Yes, ma'am.

>>>Judyth: Mary Ferrell. It says it at the bottom, Mary Ferrell. It says

>>>that I'm a fraud.

>>>Reference is made to the psychological evaluations Judyth had passed:

>>>Judyth: Anyway, I did take the psychology exams, and believe it or not,

>>>I know none of my friends are going to believe it, but I'm perfectly

>>>normal.

>>>[General laughter]

>>>Mary: [Laughs] Where did you take it?

>>>Judyth: I went two different places. One was a clinic out in Garland and

>>>the other is a pain medicine center. Two different sets.

>>>Judyth: You know they're good.

>>>Mary: They are good.

>>>????: And they said she's [indistinct] normal.

>>>????: Absolutely. 100 per cent normal.

>>>Martin

>>><end quote.>

>> Int5eresting, Paul. And from this we are supposed to believe they went

>> in there with a recorder in the first place because they had "heard"

>> Mary wasn't being treated well?

>> I don't see anything in the transcript where they express those

>> concerns to Mary, where Mary tells them she's fine, and then someone

>> says they will turn off the recorder.

>>>>> Mary Ferrell on tape, and three witnesses to whom she said the same

>>>>> thing

>>>>> two days later.

>>>>> Martin

>>>>>> On 15 May 2008 10:43:13 -0400, "Martin Shackelford"

>>>>>> <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>>>>>> >The e-mail was written by Mary, then someone with access to Mary's

>>>>>> >computer

>>>>>> >received an attachment which was substituted for an existing document

>>>>>> >on

>>>>>> >Mary's computer with the same title, attached it to the e-mail, and

>>>>>> >sent it

>>>>>> >out

>>>>>> >from Mary's computer. Mary recognized the name of the attachment, but

>>>>>> >said

>>>>>> >it wasn't the content of her document of that name. Mary told this to

>>>>>> >three

>>>>>> >people, and then confirmed it several days later to several other

>>>>>> >people.

>>>>>> >Your

>>>>>> >attempt to turn it into something convoluted is typical.

>>>>>> >Martin

>>>>>> Your tale is about as convoluted as this could get!

>>>>>> Why would someone with access to Mary's computer need some attachment?

>>>>> This is tooooo funny, does Martin have any evidence to back up this

>>>>> claim?

>>>>>> Oy.

>>>>>> Barb :-)

JVB: THE HEADER SHOWS PROBLEMS THAT SIGNIFY FOOLING AROUND WITH THE EMAIL

8c78a9cc46e9@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com....

>>>>>> >>>>Howard says:

>>>>>> >>>>As for things only Marina knows, start with the Pushkin book,

>>>>>> >>>>known

>>>>>> >>>>only

>>>>>> >>>>to Marina, the Paines, and the late Mary Ferrell. My guess is you

>>>>>> >>>>missed

>>>>>> >>>>that discussion. Even Mary's (fake) renunciation of Judyth could

>>>>>> >>>>find no

>>>>>> >>>>way to explain her knowledge of the book.

>>>>>> >> Mary's email. The current TeamJudyth position is that Mary's PC was

>>>>>> >> hijacked and some unknown TeamAntiJudyth Swine wrote it posing as

>>>>>> >> Mary F ?

>>>>>> >> True or false ? ( I honestly don't know) Everything to do with Judy

>>>>>> >> seems

>>>>>> >> to turn into an immense convoluted cloak & dagger nightmare. Recall

>>>>>> >> she

>>>>>> >> could hardly write her reasoned & rational responses because she

>>>>>> >> was

>>>>>> >> recovering from being assaulted by a mystery white truck ? ( Driven

>>>>>> >> by

>>>>>> >> another TeamAntiJudy Operative I guess).

>>>>>> >> I suppose if the MF email was written by David Lifton ( after

>>>>>> >> climbing in

>>>>>> >> through the window at 3am ? Think Mission Impossible..)

==JVB: THEY AVOID MENTIONING THE FAC THAT MARY'S COMPUTER WAS NOT

IN THE SAME ROOM, BUT AROUND THE CORNER. MARY WAS HARD OF HEARING.

ANYBODY COULD GET ON HER COMPUTER. MARY SHOWED ME HOW TO GET ON

HER COMPUTER HERSELF. I HAD TO FIX IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T CONNECTED

CORRECTLY TO THE INTERNET AND SHE HAD BEEN 'STRANDED' SO TO SPEAK.

WHAT HAPPENED LATER TO HER COMPUTER IS ANYBODY'S GUESS. ANYTHING

AND ANYBODY COULD GET TO IT. THAT'S A SIMPLE FACT. IN ADDITION, THE

HEADER WAS REMOVED FROM THE EMAIL AS POSTED. I MADE A COPY OF IT,

HOWEVER. IT TELLS ME ALL I NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE SHADY HISTORY OF

THE EMAIL..==JVB

Doug,

Would that I had either tape, but I have neither. I will ask if it can be recovered.

I infer that there may even exist a transcript in Martin Shackelford's possession.

On the other hand, this Mary Ferrell stuff is fascinating, but rather complicated.

Here are some comments on previous exchanges, which I received from Judyth.

Jim

Edited May 26, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

May 26, 2010

A 2008 POST FROM MARTIN SHACKELFORD ABOUT THE TAPE RECORDING

Martin Shackelford

View profile

More options May 19 2008, 9:28 pm

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

From: "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>

Date: 19 May 2008 15:28:36 -0400

Local: Mon, May 19 2008 9:28 pm

Subject: Re: Mary Ferrell Email

You skip another possibility--that the attachment was created by a fourth

person, sent to one of the three (at least two of whom he was close to), and

attached from Mary's computer. This was what Mary herself postulated.

One of the three individuals has a tendency to threaten legal action at the

drop of a hat, and it seems unfair to name the other two (who may be

innocent parties) and not the third.

In addition, if a guilty party denies guilt, where does one go from there?

I repeat--MARY SAID SHE DIDN'T WRITE THE ATTACHMENT. She

said it was apparently cobbled together from selective portions of e-mails

she wrote to the person who created the attachment, done in a way to

give a substantially different impression.

Barb, for example, seems to think that a comment Mary made to her

confirms the attachment's authenticity. Mary disagreed.

Barb's claim that Judyth and two other women "scared Mary out of her

wits" makes me wonder how well Barb knew Mary. I find the story

ridiculous--partly because of Mary's e-mails to me regarding Judyth.

In addition, that wouldn't explain why she said the same thing to her

longtime friend and colleague Jim Marr two days later, and to two

other visitors the same day.

On April 7, 2002, Mary was visited by Judyth, her sister Lynda (who

isn't inclined to frighten old ladies for Judyth's sake), and her friend

Debbee (who is also not the type--not that Judyth herself is). The

nurse checks to see if Mary wants to see the three, all of whom she

knows, and Mary invites them in. Mary seems quite sharp, repeating

Judyth's phone number from memory when Judyth offers to give it to

her. They were concerned when they found that Mary was the only

patient who was locked in her room. She also had no water in her

room, and Judyth got her a cup of water. They talked for a while about

their dogs. Judyth asked Mary if Mary thought Judyth was a fraud--

Mary laughs and says "No." Mary then asks Judyth if she has been

able yet to talk with Marina, and Judyth says no, except for a brief

phone conversation in which Marina declined to meet. They then

helped Mary with something on her bed that was poking the back of

her neck. Judyth asks Mary if it was true, as someone had claimed,

that Mary had said she threw Judyth out, and that she had feared

Judyth was going to hurt her--Mary responds, "No, baby." Lynda

reads the e-mail and attachment to Mary, who is asked if she wrote

it. Mary responds "No, there's no [indistinct]." Mary then asks if her

name was on the e-mail, and is told it was. Mary then asked Lynda

and Debbee about their jewelry business, and they talked about that

for a while. Judyth talks about a psych evaluation she had at a clinic

in Garland, Texas, which concluded she was normal, and Mary remarks

that "They ARE good." It sounded as though she might have recommended

the place to Judyth to clear up some of the claims made about her.

No one hearing the tape could give any credibility to the bizarre claim

that Mary was "scared out of her wits" and made to lie on tape. That's

crap, to say the least.

Martin

Stephen Roy · May 26, 2010

JUDYTH REPLIES TO THE LATEST FROM STEPHEN ROY
Roy says: I presented Lewis's statements without comment, but since you brought it up...

This is where people who have studied the Garrison case have an advantage. Lewis was a very eager witness.

==Mr. Roy is trying to show that Mr. Lewis was self-serving in his eagerness to tesify,but the "eager witness" never presented himself to the Warren Commission when they sought unsolicited testimonies in July, 1964. It was his friend, Jack Suggs Martin, who was an "eager witness." Perhaps Mr. Roy has mixed up the two, for Martin early on desried to vilify David Ferrie, with whom he had a falling-out in May, 1963.

MARTIN DIDN'T PRESENT HIMSELF TO THE WARREN COMMISSION, EITHER. WHEN GARRISON STARTED HIS PROBE IN LATE 1966, MARTIN WAS HIS PRIME WITNESS, AND HE BROUGHT LEWIS TO GARRISON. AS I NOTED, LEWIS TOLD IVON THAT HE WAS "MORE THAN GLAD" TO GIVE A STATEMENT, AND HE THEN TRIED TO SELL A STORY TO THE PRESS. THIS CAN HARDLY BE DESCRIBED AS RETICENCE.

Martin and Lewis were close friends: Lewis was living with Martin at the time of the Garrison investigation after he and his pregnant wife were harrassed by Garrison investigators.==

DAVID LEWIS DIDN'T TELL IT THAT WAY, AT LEAST NOT IN THE FIRST FEW MONTHS OF GARRISON'S PROBE.

Mr. Roy says: He was brought to Garrison by Jack Martin and was "more than glad" to give his statement.

==David Lewis was angry about what happened to his friend, David Ferrie. He stepped forward only after Ferrie was found dead.

WRONG. LEWIS GAVE HIS STATEMENT AND INTERVIEW ON DECEMBER 15, 1966. FERRIE DIED TWO MONTHS LATER, ON FEBRUARY 22, 1967.

It seems again that Mr. Roy is mixing up who was eager and who was not to talk. it was Jack Martin who later made a tape of statements by Lewis and unsuccessfully tried to sell it.==

MERRIMAN SMITH OF UPI SAID LEWIS APPROACHED HIM TO SELL HIS STORY.

Mr. Roy states "Garrison lost interest in Lewis after he claimed to have been shot at by a Cuban, then admitted that the story was false after polygraph exam. "

==Mr. Roy needs to be less sweeping in his statement. He needs to look at the polygraph examination again. The problem was that Lewis said Carlos Quiroga shot at him. David Lewis had written an account of having been shot at. I have a copy for anyone who wishes to look at it. The account was hand-written and made soon after the incident. His wife agreed that this occurred. Lewis did not say that he could recognize the person who shot at him. Later, he said it was Quiroga. That had to be untrue because Lewis had not stated that Quiroga was identified in his original account.==

YOU ARE CORRECT THAT LEWIS DID NOT NAME QUIROGA IN HIS ORIGINAL ACCOUNT. BUT DICK BILLINGS OF LIFE, WHO WAS WORKING WITH GARRISON AT THE TIME, NOTED IN HIS JOURNAL: "LEWIS HAS REPORTED HE WAS SHOT AT ON CHARTRES...A LIE DETECTOR LATER PROVED THIS A LIE TO GAIN ATTENTION."

Mr. Roy : Garrison lost interest in Lewis after he claimed to have been shot at by a Cuban, then admitted that the story was false after polygraph exam. Some might say he was over-eager.

==Mr. Roy implies that the entire story itself was false. But Lewis was implicating Quiroga: Quiroga and Lewis were on unfriendly terms, and Quiroga, by the way, also failed his polygraph test with Garrison. he failed essential questions such as, had he ever seen the weapons used in Kennedy's assassination.==

Mr. Roy stated: He tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to UPI.

==Jack Martin who was trying to sell the story, not David Lewis.==

Mr. Roy: Some might say he was over-eager.

==Who besides Mr. Roy? David Lewis did not try to sell the story. David Lewis did not step forward to the Warren Commission. He is being held guilty by association with the eager Mr. Martin.==

ACCORDING TO MERRIMAN SMITH OF UPI, LEWIS TRIED TO SELL IT TO HIM. I'LL FIND THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.

Mr. Roy: Why would a very eager witness withhold the most important part of his story?

==He was not that eager, Mr. Roy. And what was this father of five children to do? Get himself arrested --as happened to Clay Shaw?

So he was supposed to say that he and his wife (who was pregnant, and would be brought in for heavy questioning) double-dated with the man the Warren Commssion concluded killed John F. Kennedy. Then what, Mr. Roy? He had five children and another on the way. Soon after speaking out, he was accused of stealing items from the bus station (just a coincidence?). He fled the city. He and his wife were afraid to be seen together and got a divorce. But he had been brave enough to declate that Oswald was seen with Guy Banister. He did what he could.==

Mr. Roy (who never mentions David Ferrie as Lewis' friend) states: The only reasonable explanation might be that it was a limited hangout, or that he was trying to steer investigators in the wrong direction. But there is no evidence to support this. So his story stands, as it is.

==A reasonable explanation is that a father of five little kids, working part-time jobs trying to survive, does not volunteer information that will get him arrested. Imagine if he would have stated that he knew Oswald so well that he and his wife double-dated with Oswald and his girlfriend. Believe it or not, David Lewis liked the idea of staying out of jail.

I DON'T FOLLOW THIS AT ALL. IF HE WANTED PRIVACY, WHY COME FORWARD AT ALL? WHY GO TO THE PRESS? DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT SAYING HE DOUBLE-DATED WITH OSWALD WOULD GET HIM ARRESTED?

Mr. Roy then implies that if a person married to anothe person is a certai kind of person, the person they are married to is also the same kind of person--a logical error).==

Roy says: This is one of the reasons why Anna Lewis's story cannot be accepted uncritically: It conflicts with her ex-husband's story in an important respect, the alleged double-dating.

==There is NO CONFLICT. Failure to mention an event is not evidence that the evernt did not occur. There was obvious danger for Lewis in bringing up the matter. Anna Lewis herself suffered consequences for doing so, decades later.==

1) THERE IS A CONFLICT. DOUBLE-DATING, YES OR NO? HOW MANY TIMES HE MET OSWALD. HOW WELL HE SAYS HE KNEW HIM.

2) THERE WAS NO DANGER IN BRINGING IT UP.

Roy says: Another problem with her story is that she said she met Oswald in early 1962, when the historical Oswald was in the USSR.

==Anna Lewis was refreshingly unrehearsed in her story. She spoke spontaneously and at the behest of others, without any prior preparation. She spoke off the top of her head. We have witnesses who say they saw Oswald in New Orleans in the fall of 1962, and Anna herself later said it might have been in the Fall. She was going back decades and speaking spontaneously. Unlike researchers, she hadn't spent years going over those memories and events. Most of us believe that she did a good job recollecing as many details as she did.==

BUT SHE PUT IN IN CONTEXT WITH EVENTS THAT WERE HAPPENING IN HER LIFE IN 1962! MARRIAGE, PREGNANCY, PLACE OF RESIDENCE. THIS CANNOT HAVE BEEN A SIMPLE MISSTATEMENT.

Roy says: I also note that he indicated that he did not work at Continental Trailways Bus until 1965.

==Though Lewis did not bring up his employment (part-time) at Trailways in 1963, he also did not bring up a number of other part-time jobs he had held. he simply said he had held some part-time jobs.

AND DID NOT MENTION TRAILWAYS.

Nor did he bring up the fact that he was still working part-time for Guy Banister in 1963 (he asked us not to tell his wife, because he had promised her that he quit working for Banister in 1962.

YES, HE DID BRING UP HIS WORK WITH BANISTER, IN SEVERAL INTERVIEWS.

Note that some researchers on the "Oswald did it" side insist Lewos was just an office boy for Banister. But Lewis and Martin worked togeher as a team for Banister between 1962 and when Banister was found dead in June, 1964.

There is even a record showing their political involvement, via Banister, in local elections, thanks to Jerry Shinely. Lewis only gave a brief outline of his many activities.==

I am going to be unavailable soon. It cannot be helped. JVB

THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT CONFLICTS BETWEEN WHAT DAVID LEWIS SAID IN 1966-7, AND WHAT ANNA LEWIS SAID IN YOUR INTERVIEW.

Sorry for the caps! I wasn't shouting, just don't know how to insert comments in a long post!

Greg Burnham · May 26, 2010

Jim and Doug,

If I might make a few comments. Please, either or both of you, correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of your respective positions, which I personally find to both have merit and flaws. (Or just tell me to shut up--that's OK too). I think that both of you will at times use verbiage in a way that the other takes too literally or at least applies a literal interpretation to an inappropriate portion of the response. So that "what it means" to the speaker, is misconstrued because of "what it sounds like" to the listener-- IMHO.

First, Doug, if I'm correctly interpreting your meaning, you're stating that the BEST corroboration of JVB's taped statements, is the contents of the actual tape itself. If, when it's produced, we can assume or establish that it is not altered, I would tend to agree with that--all other things be equal. I think Jim would agree with that, but I'm not sure. It sounds resonable to me though. It's not like you said, "if there was a tape, then I'd believe..." -- She opened the door to the tape issue by claiming she had it. I doubt this first sectoin is the part that caused the miscommunication.

[emphasis added below]

...I am sure you understand how important the actual tape is in weighing JVB's credibility and veracity. She stated that she has the tape. She simply has to provide you with a copy otherwise she is again the only corroboration for her statements...

However, you ended the sentence this way:

... which is worthless.

Jim interprets that as meaning "Since it has been established that JVB's word counts for nothing, then...." which he objects to as fallacious and an unfair characterization. He would be correct, IF that was your intended meaning, but it was not. Your meaning is that NOBODY can ALONE corroborate their OWN statements, including JVB! The circularity of allowing anyone to do so is absurd on its face. So, in that sense, any such self corroboration--offered by anyone about their own claims, is worthless, in that it has no substantiation value by itself.

And one has to assume that she is not telling the truth.

Again, if taken literally, one could interpret you to mean: "If she doesn't produce that which she claims she has, then she IS definitely lying." -- Except, that's not what you meant--I think. What you said, sounds like that, but that would also be fallacious. Your meaning, in my interpretation, is that: "If she doesn't produce the evidence she claims is in her possession to corroborte her story, then we must proceed as if that evidence does not exist. IOW: We cannot admit "invisible" evidence.

Again, she is the one who has claimed that she has the tape.

This one is hard for me to help rationalize for the same reason Jim stated. It seems like a double standard is being employed here in the most bias manner. There is one notable difference, however. Lifton is a known quantity among researchers. This doesn't make him infallible, but his integrity has been well established and is not in question. Judyth's has not been well established yet. This does not mean she lacks it, just that many people have yet to be persuaded.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Greg Burnham

May 26, 2010

MORE COMMENTS FROM JUDYTH ABOUT DAVID LEWIS FROM AN UNPUBLISHED INTERVIEW

NOTE: If Judyth has more to say about Stephen Roy's comments on her last post, I will publish them

Excerpts from unpublished interview with David Franklin Lewis Jr. by NBC News, undated but early 1967 (ARRB/NARA):

THANKS TO MR. ROY, WE HAVE SOME STATEMENTS OF DAVID LEWIS' TO LOOK AT. BUT FIRST:

1) REMEMBER THAT HIS WIFE WAS PREGNANT AND STATED SHE HAD BEEN HARRASSED BY A GARRISON INVESTIGATOR

2) REMEMBER THAT IF LEWIS SAYS TOO MUCH, HE COULD GET ARRESTED.

3) REMEMBER THAT DAVID FERRIE IS DEAD OF MYSTERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES, DR. MARY SHERMAN WAS MURDERED, GUY BANISTER WAS FOUND DEAD (BUT FRIENDS SAID HE HAD BEEN MURDERED), AND DAVID HAS MANY CHILDREN. HOW MUCH CAN HE DARE TO SAY?==SEE COMMENTS BELOW==JVB

Q. Did you also know Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. I had met him on a separate occasion, but to say that our relationship was one that was very friendly, I would not state that, no. It was more or less a person that you were moderately acquainted with.

Comment: IT WAS COURAGEOUS OF LEWIS TO ASSERT THAT HE WAS EVEN MODERATELY ACQUAINTED WITH THE MAN WHO WAS THE DESIGNATED ASSASSIN OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY.

Q. Were you aware of the anti-Castro interests on the part of Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. Not that I know of, no.

==HE CANNOT BRING HIMSELF TO SAY A SIMPLE 'NO'--BUT HE WAS AWARE, IN FACT.==

Q. Did you know that Oswald worked for the William B. Reilly (SIC) Coffee Company?

A. No, I did not know that Oswald worked for Wm. B. Reilly until the investigations here started, just recently.

==This was not true.==

Q. How much time elapsed from the time President Kennedy was killed until you told anybody you knew and had met Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. Over three years.

==DOES THIS SOUND LIKE AN OVER-EAGER WITNESS? COULD MR. ROY BE MISTAKEN?==

Q. You just told us before that you had told it to your wife.

A. Well, that's true, that was on the day...just my wife alone, sitting at home.

==IT CAN BE SEEN THAT LEWIS WAS AVOIDING ALL MENTION OF HIS WIFE, ANNA, UNTIL FORCED TO ADMIT THAT HE HAD SPOKEN TO HER ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION. THIS AGAIN SOWS HE IS TRYING TO PROTECT HER.==

Q. Did you ever talk to Ferrie about Oswald?

A. No, I did not.

==I DO NOT KNOW, WASN'T THERE.==

Q. Did you ever talk to Oswald?

A. I have spoken with Oswald on a few occasions, yes. It was more or less just passing conversation. It was nothing to do with my business or his. It was more or less just passing the time of day. It was in a restaurant. I just happened to be a patron of the restaurant at the same time.

==Comment by JVB: this was Thompson's Restaurant. Note that Lewis again does not mention his wife Anna, who was working at Thompson's as a waitress.

In other words, both Anna Lewis and David Lewis were present when Lewis says he was talking to Oswald. This confirms what Anna said on film, that she had seen Lee Oswald in Thompson's restaurant alone, as well as "with Judyth."==

JUDYTH REPLIES TO THE LATEST FROM STEPHEN ROY

Roy says: I presented Lewis's statements without comment, but since you brought it up...

This is where people who have studied the Garrison case have an advantage. Lewis was a very eager witness.

==Mr. Roy is trying to show that Mr. Lewis was self-serving in his eagerness to tesify,but the "eager witness" never presented himself to the Warren Commission when they sought unsolicited testimonies in July, 1964. It was his friend, Jack Suggs Martin, who was an "eager witness." Perhaps Mr. Roy has mixed up the two, for Martin early on desried to vilify David Ferrie, with whom he had a falling-out in May, 1963.

MARTIN DIDN'T PRESENT HIMSELF TO THE WARREN COMMISSION, EITHER. WHEN GARRISON STARTED HIS PROBE IN LATE 1966, MARTIN WAS HIS PRIME WITNESS, AND HE BROUGHT LEWIS TO GARRISON. AS I NOTED, LEWIS TOLD IVON THAT HE WAS "MORE THAN GLAD" TO GIVE A STATEMENT, AND HE THEN TRIED TO SELL A STORY TO THE PRESS. THIS CAN HARDLY BE DESCRIBED AS RETICENCE.

Martin and Lewis were close friends: Lewis was living with Martin at the time of the Garrison investigation after he and his pregnant wife were harrassed by Garrison investigators.==

DAVID LEWIS DIDN'T TELL IT THAT WAY, AT LEAST NOT IN THE FIRST FEW MONTHS OF GARRISON'S PROBE.

Mr. Roy says: He was brought to Garrison by Jack Martin and was "more than glad" to give his statement.

==David Lewis was angry about what happened to his friend, David Ferrie. He stepped forward only after Ferrie was found dead.

WRONG. LEWIS GAVE HIS STATEMENT AND INTERVIEW ON DECEMBER 15, 1966. FERRIE DIED TWO MONTHS LATER, ON FEBRUARY 22, 1967.

It seems again that Mr. Roy is mixing up who was eager and who was not to talk. it was Jack Martin who later made a tape of statements by Lewis and unsuccessfully tried to sell it.==

MERRIMAN SMITH OF UPI SAID LEWIS APPROACHED HIM TO SELL HIS STORY.

Mr. Roy states "Garrison lost interest in Lewis after he claimed to have been shot at by a Cuban, then admitted that the story was false after polygraph exam. "

==Mr. Roy needs to be less sweeping in his statement. He needs to look at the polygraph examination again. The problem was that Lewis said Carlos Quiroga shot at him. David Lewis had written an account of having been shot at. I have a copy for anyone who wishes to look at it. The account was hand-written and made soon after the incident. His wife agreed that this occurred. Lewis did not say that he could recognize the person who shot at him. Later, he said it was Quiroga. That had to be untrue because Lewis had not stated that Quiroga was identified in his original account.==

YOU ARE CORRECT THAT LEWIS DID NOT NAME QUIROGA IN HIS ORIGINAL ACCOUNT. BUT DICK BILLINGS OF LIFE, WHO WAS WORKING WITH GARRISON AT THE TIME, NOTED IN HIS JOURNAL: "LEWIS HAS REPORTED HE WAS SHOT AT ON CHARTRES...A LIE DETECTOR LATER PROVED THIS A LIE TO GAIN ATTENTION."

Mr. Roy : Garrison lost interest in Lewis after he claimed to have been shot at by a Cuban, then admitted that the story was false after polygraph exam. Some might say he was over-eager.

==Mr. Roy implies that the entire story itself was false. But Lewis was implicating Quiroga: Quiroga and Lewis were on unfriendly terms, and Quiroga, by the way, also failed his polygraph test with Garrison. he failed essential questions such as, had he ever seen the weapons used in Kennedy's assassination.==

Mr. Roy stated: He tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to UPI.

==Jack Martin who was trying to sell the story, not David Lewis.==

Mr. Roy: Some might say he was over-eager.

==Who besides Mr. Roy? David Lewis did not try to sell the story. David Lewis did not step forward to the Warren Commission. He is being held guilty by association with the eager Mr. Martin.==

ACCORDING TO MERRIMAN SMITH OF UPI, LEWIS TRIED TO SELL IT TO HIM. I'LL FIND THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.

Mr. Roy: Why would a very eager witness withhold the most important part of his story?

==He was not that eager, Mr. Roy. And what was this father of five children to do? Get himself arrested --as happened to Clay Shaw?

So he was supposed to say that he and his wife (who was pregnant, and would be brought in for heavy questioning) double-dated with the man the Warren Commssion concluded killed John F. Kennedy. Then what, Mr. Roy? He had five children and another on the way. Soon after speaking out, he was accused of stealing items from the bus station (just a coincidence?). He fled the city. He and his wife were afraid to be seen together and got a divorce. But he had been brave enough to declate that Oswald was seen with Guy Banister. He did what he could.==

Mr. Roy (who never mentions David Ferrie as Lewis' friend) states: The only reasonable explanation might be that it was a limited hangout, or that he was trying to steer investigators in the wrong direction. But there is no evidence to support this. So his story stands, as it is.

==A reasonable explanation is that a father of five little kids, working part-time jobs trying to survive, does not volunteer information that will get him arrested. Imagine if he would have stated that he knew Oswald so well that he and his wife double-dated with Oswald and his girlfriend. Believe it or not, David Lewis liked the idea of staying out of jail.

I DON'T FOLLOW THIS AT ALL. IF HE WANTED PRIVACY, WHY COME FORWARD AT ALL? WHY GO TO THE PRESS? DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT SAYING HE DOUBLE-DATED WITH OSWALD WOULD GET HIM ARRESTED?

Mr. Roy then implies that if a person married to anothe person is a certai kind of person, the person they are married to is also the same kind of person--a logical error).==

Roy says: This is one of the reasons why Anna Lewis's story cannot be accepted uncritically: It conflicts with her ex-husband's story in an important respect, the alleged double-dating.

==There is NO CONFLICT. Failure to mention an event is not evidence that the evernt did not occur. There was obvious danger for Lewis in bringing up the matter. Anna Lewis herself suffered consequences for doing so, decades later.==

1) THERE IS A CONFLICT. DOUBLE-DATING, YES OR NO? HOW MANY TIMES HE MET OSWALD. HOW WELL HE SAYS HE KNEW HIM.

2) THERE WAS NO DANGER IN BRINGING IT UP.

Roy says: Another problem with her story is that she said she met Oswald in early 1962, when the historical Oswald was in the USSR.

==Anna Lewis was refreshingly unrehearsed in her story. She spoke spontaneously and at the behest of others, without any prior preparation. She spoke off the top of her head. We have witnesses who say they saw Oswald in New Orleans in the fall of 1962, and Anna herself later said it might have been in the Fall. She was going back decades and speaking spontaneously. Unlike researchers, she hadn't spent years going over those memories and events. Most of us believe that she did a good job recollecing as many details as she did.==

BUT SHE PUT IN IN CONTEXT WITH EVENTS THAT WERE HAPPENING IN HER LIFE IN 1962! MARRIAGE, PREGNANCY, PLACE OF RESIDENCE. THIS CANNOT HAVE BEEN A SIMPLE MISSTATEMENT.

Roy says: I also note that he indicated that he did not work at Continental Trailways Bus until 1965.

==Though Lewis did not bring up his employment (part-time) at Trailways in 1963, he also did not bring up a number of other part-time jobs he had held. he simply said he had held some part-time jobs.

AND DID NOT MENTION TRAILWAYS.

Nor did he bring up the fact that he was still working part-time for Guy Banister in 1963 (he asked us not to tell his wife, because he had promised her that he quit working for Banister in 1962.

YES, HE DID BRING UP HIS WORK WITH BANISTER, IN SEVERAL INTERVIEWS.

Note that some researchers on the "Oswald did it" side insist Lewos was just an office boy for Banister. But Lewis and Martin worked togeher as a team for Banister between 1962 and when Banister was found dead in June, 1964.

There is even a record showing their political involvement, via Banister, in local elections, thanks to Jerry Shinely. Lewis only gave a brief outline of his many activities.==

I am going to be unavailable soon. It cannot be helped. JVB

THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT CONFLICTS BETWEEN WHAT DAVID LEWIS SAID IN 1966-7, AND WHAT ANNA LEWIS SAID IN YOUR INTERVIEW.

Sorry for the caps! I wasn't shouting, just don't know how to insert comments in a long post!

Stephen Roy · May 26, 2010

MORE COMMENTS FROM JUDYTH ABOUT DAVID LEWIS FROM AN UNPUBLISHED INTERVIEW
NOTE: If Judyth has more to say about Stephen Roy's comments on her last post, I will publish them

Excerpts from unpublished interview with David Franklin Lewis Jr. by NBC News, undated but early 1967 (ARRB/NARA):

THANKS TO MR. ROY, WE HAVE SOME STATEMENTS OF DAVID LEWIS' TO LOOK AT. BUT FIRST:

1) REMEMBER THAT HIS WIFE WAS PREGNANT AND STATED SHE HAD BEEN HARRASSED BY A GARRISON INVESTIGATOR

2) REMEMBER THAT IF LEWIS SAYS TOO MUCH, HE COULD GET ARRESTED.

3) REMEMBER THAT DAVID FERRIE IS DEAD OF MYSTERIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES, DR. MARY SHERMAN WAS MURDERED, GUY BANISTER WAS FOUND DEAD (BUT FRIENDS SAID HE HAD BEEN MURDERED), AND DAVID HAS MANY CHILDREN. HOW MUCH CAN HE DARE TO SAY?==SEE COMMENTS BELOW==JVB

SR- Then why come forward AT ALL?

Q. Did you also know Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. I had met him on a separate occasion, but to say that our relationship was one that was very friendly, I would not state that, no. It was more or less a person that you were moderately acquainted with.

Comment: IT WAS COURAGEOUS OF LEWIS TO ASSERT THAT HE WAS EVEN MODERATELY ACQUAINTED WITH THE MAN WHO WAS THE DESIGNATED ASSASSIN OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY.

SR- Why come forward and tell only part of the story?

Q. Were you aware of the anti-Castro interests on the part of Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. Not that I know of, no.

==HE CANNOT BRING HIMSELF TO SAY A SIMPLE 'NO'--BUT HE WAS AWARE, IN FACT.==

SR- No, we don't know that he was aware. We have only HIS words.

Q. Did you know that Oswald worked for the William B. Reilly (SIC) Coffee Company?

A. No, I did not know that Oswald worked for Wm. B. Reilly until the investigations here started, just recently.

==This was not true.==

SR- Again, we have only HIS words.

Q. How much time elapsed from the time President Kennedy was killed until you told anybody you knew and had met Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. Over three years.

==DOES THIS SOUND LIKE AN OVER-EAGER WITNESS? COULD MR. ROY BE MISTAKEN?==

SR- He says he told nobody from 1963-1966. Then he talks to investigators and the press. Nobody forced him to talk to either.

Q. You just told us before that you had told it to your wife.

A. Well, that's true, that was on the day...just my wife alone, sitting at home.

==IT CAN BE SEEN THAT LEWIS WAS AVOIDING ALL MENTION OF HIS WIFE, ANNA, UNTIL FORCED TO ADMIT THAT HE HAD SPOKEN TO HER ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION. THIS AGAIN SOWS HE IS TRYING TO PROTECT HER.==

SR- This is an unclear transcription. Is he saying he told her he knew Oswald on November 22, 1963?

Q. Did you ever talk to Ferrie about Oswald?

A. No, I did not.

==I DO NOT KNOW, WASN'T THERE.==

Q. Did you ever talk to Oswald?

A. I have spoken with Oswald on a few occasions, yes. It was more or less just passing conversation. It was nothing to do with my business or his. It was more or less just passing the time of day. It was in a restaurant. I just happened to be a patron of the restaurant at the same time.

==Comment by JVB: this was Thompson's Restaurant. Note that Lewis again does not mention his wife Anna, who was working at Thompson's as a waitress.

SR- You would think he would have mentioned it, if he and his wife had double-dated with Oswald.

In other words, both Anna Lewis and David Lewis were present when Lewis says he was talking to Oswald. This confirms what Anna said on film, that she had seen Lee Oswald in Thompson's restaurant alone, as well as "with Judyth."==

SR- No, it doesn't. In context, he said Carlos was always present when he saw Oswald. And he does not confirm that it was "with Judyth."

This is getting positively weird now. Cue the Twilight Zone theme.

May 26, 2010

A LETTER FROM HOWARD PLATZMAN TO MARY FERRELL RE JUDYTH

NOTE: This is an interesting reflection of Howard's state of mind at the time

and of the strength of his belief both in Judyth Vary Baker and in Mary Ferrell.

Subj: With all due respects...a plea

Date: 12/8/01 11:46:12 PM Eastern Standard Time

From: Howpl

To: maryf...@cprompt.net

Dear Mary,

etc etc

Just after my trip to Dallas, I wrote a letter to you I didn't send (it's

down below). It includes a few thoughts on what J has said is behind your

recent decision not to go any further in your public support of her. At

the very least, I hope it shows that I am thinking about you and about

....

Anyway, I am writing to you today feeling very strongly about what I think

you can still do for J, health permitting. I am aware that your health is

up and down, and that you have, in part for that reason, decided that you

would like the continued relationship between the two of you to speak for

itself. Please let me explain why I think this might not be the best idea.

Let me start with a question that I think cuts pretty deeply. What do you

think scares Lifton and Conway more, the thought that you will make a

statement or the thought that you won't? I believe they would do ANYTHING

to keep your relationship with her a matter of friendship and private

support. When all is said and done, J's detractors will exploit your not

going on the record to the hilt. "You see," they will say, "that witch,

Judyth, tried to brainwash poor Mary, but Mary still refused to back her

publicly." They will think that, as much as J tried to get closer to you,

to ingratiate herself with you, that you still refused to go on record and

that this refusal must mean something. That's what they will say -- anyone

who knew about J to begin with, that is. The others who never heard about

J may not ever hear about her. And that's a second very important

consideration.

Instead of focusing on those who will accuse her no matter what, how about

those many more people who love you, or at least respect you, and would

find such an endorsement meaningful? Without solid communication from Mary

Ferrell herself, they only have Martin's word or mine that Mary Ferrell

supports Judyth Baker. That has not been good enough thus far, and will

never be. Your archives needed saving and protecting: so does your support

for J and your reasons for it.

The best way you can defuse the argument that you are being exploited is

by SHOWING yourself to be sound of mind. Ideally, people will want to see

you talking and gesturing. We will no doubt be accused of taking advantage

of an old woman of deteriorating mind, but the more you are shown, the

more people can see you reason aloud, the clearer it will be that you are

sound in mind and freely speaking it.

Perhaps it could be filmed as a conversation, in part at least, so you can

be seen interacting in a natural way. A videotaped statement that speaks

for itself will put an end to your having to explain yourself to everyone.

As with J's own efforts, it gets tiring to try to convince people one at a

time. I don't want to see either of you locked into battle on all fronts.

You both need platforms, but you are already your own platform; J needs

your support for hers. Then each of you could make your own decision about

whether to stay on the platform and take on all comers -- or walk away.

Both paths confer dignity. Private bickering with a tiny knot of people

won't help either of you. This infighting will also keep the official

story intact, because J's detractors certainly have no interest in making

your private support of her public. That interest lives with you. There

should be a record of your speaking to those who have no special interest

in J's being real or fake, but only want the truth.

Here is an alternative option (or you could elect to do both):

Write something substantial. Something that expresses in detail how you

came to know Judy and why you believe her. No worries, then, about going

on film. These are losses, I believe, but a sensible discussion with a

signature is useful, maybe even more useful. (If only we had tapes or even

transcripts of all the conversations and interrogations. I have mine, but

I'm not you.)

What it comes down to, Mary, is that I think you should look at J as the

crowning achievement to what you have dedicated your life to. I know you

have prided yourself on neutrality. But you have also prided yourself on

your knowledge, which goes a whole lot deeper and gets a whole lot more

personal than mine or Martin's or even Jim's. You are, finally, entitled

to express your opinion and have it stand. You've earned that right. In

fact, I might even argue that, after a lifetime of objectivity, it's now

an obligation. You are, quite frankly, in the best position to know a

fraud from the real thing. The most credible opinions should not be tucked

away for private viewing only. Please let the world know that you gave

Judy the third degree for over a year and that you have many reasons for

believing her.

Mary, they think Judy is taking advantage of you. If you make a statement

on her behalf, they will say she bamboozled a sick woman of deteriorating

mind. You may be ill, but from what I hear, your mind is as sharp as ever.

You told me at the start that you didn't want to see your friends fighting

with each other. Well, we are way past that point now. Your moral

authority in the field is unchallenged. If you truly believe Judy is

telling the truth, and I have been given every reason to think you do,

then Judy becomes your reward for a life devoted to truth. She is your

crowning achievement and you are her best hope. I beg of you: figure a way

to make yourself heard and understood in a way that leaves no doubt about

the state of your mind or the firmness of your belief.

Two and a half years ago, I was this close to believing that possibly,

just possibly, Oswald did it alone. I was pretty much convinced he was a

communist. Judy has profoundly changed my mind and my life, as she has

changed Martin's. David Lifton makes fun of me for saying that Judy has

become like a sister to me. Sorry, David, I'm human. We humans have to

unite because there are many more of "them" than I ever thought going into

this adventure. I know it's not black and white; it just seems that way

sometimes. I can understand the truly nice people like XXXXXXXXXXX who

open the door just a little and then close it shut when they feel

threatened -- when their "research" is threatened by Judy's

existence...because they have become as one with their theories, their

gussied up best guesses. They treat a witness like she was another

researcher! And then when she begins to research, they accuse her of

fabricating her story from it. This is no-win no-way.

HERE IS WHERE I DECIDED I WOULDN'T SEND THIS TO YOU..

So now you know what I'm thinking. You will not find me on your doorstep

tomorrow, camera in hand. But I didn't want to go down without at least

making my plea.

If you would like to speak with me at any time, my number at home is

XXXXXXXXXX. You may also call me at work at XXXXXXXXXX..

Best to you,

Howard

Pamela Brown · May 26, 2010

Have you considered the possibility that David Lewis was not being forthcoming?

I presented Lewis's statements without comment, but since you brought it up...

You did. Much appreciated.

This is where people who have studied the Garrison case have an advantage. Lewis was a very eager witness. He was brought to Garrison by Jack Martin and was "more than glad" to give his statement. He tried unsuccessfully to sell his story to UPI. Garrison lost interest in Lewis after he claimed to have been shot at by a Cuban, then admitted that the story was false after polygraph exam. Some might say he was over-eager.

Why would a very eager witness withhold the most important part of his story? The only reasonable explanation might be that it was a limited hangout, or that he was trying to steer investigators in the wrong direction. But there is no evidence to support this. So his story stands, as it is.

To you. I see Lewis differently and think there are other reasonable alternatives, including the possibility that Lewis sensed that leaking too much of what he really knew could backfire. I don't think he trusted Garrison to take care of him.

This is one of the reasons why Anna Lewis's story cannot be accepted uncritically:

Fair enough. But I don't think Lewis' statements can be accepted uncritically either. I look at his situation as analogous to that of Dean Andrews, who gave valuable information then shiffted in the wind when put under pressure by the WC.

It conflicts with her ex-husband's story in an important respect, the alleged double-dating.

]It does; I don't think that's reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater, though.

Another problem with her story is that she said she met Oswald in early 1962[/i], when the historical Oswald was in the USSR.

That is a horse of a different color.

I also note that he indicated that he did not work at Continental Trailways Bus until 1965.

Acknowleged.

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

Announcements