Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

If David Lewis, one of JVB's "witnesses", made the statement below...that he only saw LHO FOUR TIMES, always

in the company of Carolos Quiroga, then it cannot be true that David and Anna Lewis double-dated with LHO and JVB.

Can it? What am I missing here? Is he lying to detective Ivon? Or is he lying when he says he and his wife knew JVB?

Jack

Interview of David Franklin Lewis Jr. by Det. Louis Ivon, Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, December 15, 1966:

Q. Approximately how many times have you seen Lee Harvey, who you later identified as Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. No more than four times, each time in the company of Carlos [later identified as Carlos C. Quiroga].

Q. The day that you first met him, were you introduced to him?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you hold conversations?

A. No, more or less "I'm glad to meet you."

[...]

Q. I am going to show you another photograph. Do you know this man?

A. This man is Lee Harvey Oswald. The man I know as Lee Harvey and the man I was introduced to in the lower portion of our building, in Mancuso Restaurant by Carlos.

[...]

Q. Have you ever seen Lee Harvey Oswald and David Ferrie together?

A. Not to my knowledge - No. They may have been, but I don't know.

[...]

Q. Is everything in this statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge?

A. That is correct.

Q. You are making this statement freely and voluntarily?

A. I am more than glad to give this statement.

[...]

Q. After leaving Banister's employment, where did you work?

A. [...] Odd jobs from April [1963] to March 1964 and reported to Louisiana Employment Office...Trailways - April 4, 1965 - Continental Trailways Freight Agent to present [December 1966].

Statement of David Franklin Lewis Jr. to Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, December 15, 1966:

[...] In the late summer of 1963, I was reporting to the Louisiana State Employment Office, at 601 Camp Street seeking steady employment. At this time all I had was odd jobs from time to time...On one occasion I...stopped by Mancuso's Restaurant...I noticed...a fellow I was introduced to by Carlos as Lee Harvey in the restaurant. It has now been determined by me through photographs that this man was Lee Harvey Oswald...When I first seen Lee Oswald in the restaurant, he didn't talk much, but he seemed to be anxious about getting on his way...I had only seen Oswald about three or four times in the neighborhood of Lafayette and Camp Streets in the Newman Building...

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Doug...Adele has given me her account of Judyth's "encounter" with Mary which

was taped. It is totally at odds with what Judyth says. Without the recording,

it is just Judyth's word against Adele's. In an email to me, Adele characterized

it as a "break-in", if we are talking about the same incident. There is no question

whose veracity should prevail here. You are right. If Judy has a tape of this to

back up her story, why has she not produced it?

Jack

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-mail#Message_format

Internet e-mail messages consist of two major sections:

* Header — Structured into fields such as summary, sender, receiver, and other information about the e-mail.

* Body — The message itself as unstructured text; sometimes containing a signature block at the end. This is exactly the same as the body of a regular letter.

The header is separated from the body by a blank line.

Message header

Each message has exactly one header, which is structured into fields. Each field has a name and a value. RFC 5322 specifies the precise syntax.

Informally, each line of text in the header that begins with a printable character begins a separate field. The field name starts in the first character of the line and ends before the separator character ":". The separator is then followed by the field value (the "body" of the field). The value is continued onto subsequent lines if those lines have a space or tab as their first character. Field names and values are restricted to 7-bit ASCII characters. Non-ASCII values may be represented using MIME encoded words.

[edit] Header fields

The message header should include at least the following fields:

* From: The e-mail address, and optionally the name of the author(s). In many e-mail clients not changeable except through changing account settings.

* To: The e-mail address(es), and optionally name(s) of the message's recipient(s). Indicates primary recipients (multiple allowed), for secondary recipients see Cc: and Bcc: below.

* Subject: A brief summary of the topic of the message. Certain abbreviations are commonly used in the subject, including "RE:" and "FW:".

* Date: The local time and date when the message was written. Like the From: field, many email clients fill this in automatically when sending. The recipient's client may then display the time in the format and time zone local to her.

* Message-ID: Also an automatically generated field; used to prevent multiple delivery and for reference in In-Reply-To: (see below).

Note that the To: field is not necessarily related to the addresses to which the message is delivered. The actual delivery list is supplied separately to the transport protocol, SMTP, which may or may not originally have been extracted from the header content. The "To:" field is similar to the addressing at the top of a conventional letter which is delivered according to the address on the outer envelope. Also note that the "From:" field does not have to be the real sender of the e-mail message. One reason is that it is very easy to fake the "From:" field and let a message seem to be from any mail address. It is possible to digitally sign e-mail, which is much harder to fake, but such signatures require extra programming and often external programs to verify. Some ISPs do not relay e-mail claiming to come from a domain not hosted by them, but very few (if any) check to make sure that the person or even e-mail address named in the "From:" field is the one associated with the connection. Some ISPs apply e-mail authentication systems to e-mail being sent through their MTA to allow other MTAs to detect forged spam that might appear to come from them.

RFC 3864 describes registration procedures for message header fields at the IANA; it provides for permanent and provisional message header field names, including also fields defined for MIME, netnews, and http, and referencing relevant RFCs. Common header fields for email include:

* Bcc: Blind Carbon Copy; addresses added to the SMTP delivery list but not (usually) listed in the message data, remaining invisible to other recipients.

* Cc: Carbon copy; Many e-mail clients will mark e-mail in your inbox differently depending on whether you are in the To: or Cc: list.

* Content-Type: Information about how the message is to be displayed, usually a MIME type.

* In-Reply-To: Message-ID of the message that this is a reply to. Used to link related messages together.

* Precedence: commonly with values "bulk", "junk", or "list"; used to indicate that automated "vacation" or "out of office" responses should not be returned for this mail, e.g. to prevent vacation notices from being sent to all other subscribers of a mailinglist.

* Received: Tracking information generated by mail servers that have previously handled a message, in reverse order (last handler first).

* References: Message-ID of the message that this is a reply to, and the message-id of the message the previous was reply a reply to, etc.

* Reply-To: Address that should be used to reply to the message.

* Sender: Address of the actual sender acting on behalf of the author listed in the From: field (secretary, list manager, etc.).

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ok, Evan. That's a bit of it, there's more, but as a starting point in getting some of the ''trail'' that an email creates to conform with a standard protocol and contains packets with headers and footers, sometimes rerouted, but with a source and destiantion. It might help with some of the issues. The email of today (apart from extensions) is pretty much the same as the first in 1970.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interview of David Franklin Lewis Jr. by Det. Louis Ivon, Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, December 15, 1966:

Q. Approximately how many times have you seen Lee Harvey, who you later identified as Lee Harvey Oswald?

A. No more than four times, each time in the company of Carlos [later identified as Carlos C. Quiroga].

Q. The day that you first met him, were you introduced to him?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you hold conversations?

A. No, more or less "I'm glad to meet you."

[...]

Q. I am going to show you another photograph. Do you know this man?

A. This man is Lee Harvey Oswald. The man I know as Lee Harvey and the man I was introduced to in the lower portion of our building, in Mancuso Restaurant by Carlos.

[...]

Q. Have you ever seen Lee Harvey Oswald and David Ferrie together?

A. Not to my knowledge - No. They may have been, but I don't know.

[...]

Q. Is everything in this statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge?

A. That is correct.

Q. You are making this statement freely and voluntarily?

A. I am more than glad to give this statement.

[...]

Q. After leaving Banister's employment, where did you work?

A. [...] Odd jobs from April [1963] to March 1964 and reported to Louisiana Employment Office...Trailways - April 4, 1965 - Continental Trailways Freight Agent to present [December 1966].

Statement of David Franklin Lewis Jr. to Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office, December 15, 1966:

[...] In the late summer of 1963, I was reporting to the Louisiana State Employment Office, at 601 Camp Street seeking steady employment. At this time all I had was odd jobs from time to time...On one occasion I...stopped by Mancuso's Restaurant...I noticed...a fellow I was introduced to by Carlos as Lee Harvey in the restaurant. It has now been determined by me through photographs that this man was Lee Harvey Oswald...When I first seen Lee Oswald in the restaurant, he didn't talk much, but he seemed to be anxious about getting on his way...I had only seen Oswald about three or four times in the neighborhood of Lafayette and Camp Streets in the Newman Building...

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

Have you considered the possibility that Judyth Baker is not being forthcoming?

Judyth has no hesitation discussing anything. David Lewis may be holding back what he actually knew of LHO. In these statements it is my thinking that Lewis is trying to distance himself from LHO. Judyth never does that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kathy C said: Does anyone else think this is a possibility? Maybe some do.

That makes no sense to me. I am still hopeful that someone who is in touch with Marina can ask her to weigh in on this.

Pamela, I think I didn't make my statement clearly. I was referring to there being a beam atop one of our satellites that Prof. Fetzer believed caused the WTC buildings to fall faster than free fall. It was his theory. It had nothing to do with circumcision. Sorry.

Kathy C

Acknowledged. I would have a tough time with that one too.

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

Kathy C. appears to be alluding to the possibility that some kind of directed energy weapon may have been used to destroy the WTC

on 9/11, which is one of a small number of theories about how it was done. In my role as founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I have

encouraged research on a wide range of alternative possible explanations, on the ground that, if we omit consideration of some that

might have been used, we can never discover the truth, because it was excluded from consideration from the start, which is a logical

blunder. I have the impression that Kathy has never studied 9/11. Those who are interested might want to visit the Scholars' home

page at http://911scholars.org, or the Scholars' forum at http://911scholars.ning.com, or my blog, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com,

where they can find many studies of 9/11 and many presentations I have made on this subject. Of special interest for Kathy might be

my study, "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11", in which I review the data supporting or undermining various hypotheses about how this

was done. A interesting prospect that I did not then consider was some kind of Tesla-vibrating mechanism, where devices of this kind

turn out to have a fascinating history. See my interviews with aka Curtis about this on my radio blog, http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com.

P.S. To locate the key study, go to http://911scholars.ning.com and enter (in the search window), "An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11".

Kathy C said: Does anyone else think this is a possibility? Maybe some do.

That makes no sense to me. I am still hopeful that someone who is in touch with Marina can ask her to weigh in on this.

Pamela, I think I didn't make my statement clearly. I was referring to there being a beam atop one of our satellites that Prof. Fetzer believed caused the WTC buildings to fall faster than free fall. It was his theory. It had nothing to do with circumcision. Sorry.

Kathy C

Acknowledged. I would have a tough time with that one too.

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

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

Adele,

My own background is in the history and philosophy of science, where the nature of science is my

area of specialization. I appreciate that you are caught in the middle of this controversy about an

email, which I am inclined to believe that you did not author (at least, not in its entirety) but that

Judyth received (in an enhanced form). Is that a possibility that has crossed your mind? Judyth

has many opponents who have strong motives to want to discredit her and I believe that this may

have been one of their "dirty tricks" to create tension and distrust between you. Is that possible?

This was occurring about the same time that Lifton was attacking Judyth on-line. Many things were

going on: Joan Mellen, for example, was apparently attempting to drive a wedge between Judyth

and Mary Ferrell by sending an email saying that Mary did not want to see her anymore. But this

is countermanded by the fact that Mary was the person who gave Judyth your email address and,

as I understand it, you wrote back to both of them at the same time with the disputed response. I

gather than Howard Platzman and Martin Schackleford were copied, but perhaps only from Judyth.

Since the writing style does not appear to be yours and others, such as Debra Conway, might have

been in the position to affect the course of correspondence--which I am not saying took place, but

only considering alternative possibilities--and Joan Mellen could have been involved in efforts that

were intended to discredit her, do you consider what I am suggesting to be a possibility? I cannot

imagine any reason why Judyth, especially, would have had a motive to change an email from you.

Her actions have suggested that she thought it was real, but you have disavowed it was all yours.

This smacks of skullduggery to me and, I suspect, that Judyth no longer believes that it originated

with you. Was anyone else trying to dissuade you from communicating with her? Judyth has been

burglarized many times over the years, and I have the impression that some of her documents and

records were taken by a couple (a German man and a Dutch woman) who wanted to undermine her

credibility. I am convinced that you are both sincere in your reports about the email, where, even

though it did not originate with you, Judyth at the time believed that it had. Is there any chance

that you and she could have been played against one another by the simple revision of this email?

Jim

Barb Junkkarinen

post May 24 2010, 06:34 PM

Jack,

Does Adele recall *ever* having written an email to Judyth on which she may have cc'd Mary,

and in which she gave Mary and Judyth her snail mail instructions?? Or is it just the "gushy girl-talk"

parts she says she did not write?

I just want to be sure I have this straight.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

Barb, Jack, and others,

I hope that everyone realizes that I am not overwhelmed or upset if some people do not believe what I say. I am a scientist, well-trained to deal with scientific issues with which I am familiar. Dr. Anton J. Carlson, called the "Father of American Physiologists" because he trained so many of them, always asked this relevant question of students for the factual basis for their statements or hypotheses. The question was, "What is the evidence?"

That is ingrained in my thinking, even in ordinary life. What, why, how? And, who?

When I ask a simple question of a person who speaks the same language as I do, I expect an understandable answer, a true answer. If someone tells me they were introduced to someone, then I assume names were used. I was told that she was introduced to Rivera by Dr. Alton Ochsner. If I am told his skin color was "white", and there were no other physical characteristics given, then the man, obviously, was not Rivera.

Rivera's complexion was remarkably dark in color. It was darker than "olive-skinned" and much darker than "ecru" or light tan. Human skin color has so many variations, depending upon the amount of melanin in the skin, carotene, blood flow, and as every artist knows, the reflected light which plays upon the skin at any particular time. Exposure to the sunlight and genetic factors, as well as pathological factors, determine skin tones.

Now, on to Barb's question concerning the e-mail letters attributed to me. Let me ask everyone if they have ever received an e-mail letter from someone else, either addressed directly to them, or copied to them, or forwarded to them, in their mail box, which contained all that routing information? I get an e-mail like that when I make an error in the e-mail address that I am sending to someone else, and Mail Daemon, as it's called by my server, kicks it back to me. Can anyone explain all that jargon on an ordinary e-mail?

After that three-hour phone call, the next day I contacted someone who had previously been referred to me by Mary Ferrell whom she thought knew a great deal about the assassination. I asked him if he had ever heard or known about Judyth's story. I related what she had said and her request to me to support her story, which I could not possibly do, as I knew nothing more than what she had told me. She also had told me she would come to my home to show me her evidence. He replied that he had never heard of her or her story, and thought it might be a fantasy, some kind of hoax. He also advised not to speak to her or admit her into my home should she appear on my doorstep. This is one reason why I never would have written the "gushy" letter to her, with the "gigantic internet hug."

I did write postcards and notes to all my friends informing them of the change of address from the street address to the post office box, but that had been four years prior to the date on this particular e-mail. I had sent one to Mary Ferrell because we had corresponded for many years by postal mail by then because I did not have a computer and was not online. Mary and I spoke often on the telephone, even after I did get a computer. I would not have had a need to tell Mary in 2000 that she should use my P.O. Box address.

So, go figure....

Adele

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...