Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Stephen Roy]

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.

HERE I GO WITH CAPS FOR CLARITY:

BUT, THEN: WHY GO TO GARRISON IN THE FIRST PLACE? IF HE FEARED SOMETHING WOULD COME OUT WHEN THE THREAD WAS PULLED, WHY HAND GARRISON THE THREAD IN THE FIRST PLACE?

THERE IS JUST NO EVIDENCE THAT HE PULLED HIS PUNCHES. WELL, UNLESS YOU CONSIDER WHAT ANNA SAID, BUT IT IS HER STATEMENT THAT IS IN QUESTION.

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.

NO, YOU'RE RIGHT THAT DAVID'S CREDIBILITY WAS OPEN TO QUESTION, TOO.

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.

I'M NOT ADVOCATING THROWING IT OUT; I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN THE UNCHALLENGED WEIGHT ACCORDED TO IT BY FETZER.

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.

AS I NOTED TO BAKER, SHE WAS VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT HOW IT FIT INTO HER 1962 TIMELINE. THIS WAS NOT A SIMPLE "MIS-SPEAK." UNLESS, OF COURSE, IT WAS ONE OF THOSE HARVEY AND LEE THINGS.

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

BAKER HAS IT IN HER UNAUTHORIZED BOOK THAT LEWIS WAS USING THE TRAILWAYS STATION AS SOME KIND OF PROCESSING CENTER FOR CUBANS IN 1963. BUT DAVID NEVER GAVE ANY INDICATION THAT HE WORKED THERE PRIOR TO 1965. THE ONLY SOURCE WE HAVE (BESIDES BAKER) IS ANNA LEWIS. AND AGAIN, ONE NEEDS TO BE CAUTIOUS OF HER ACCOUNT, OR SEEK FURTHER CONFIRMATION.

Acknowleged.

THANKS FOR BEING OPEN MINDED ABOUT THIS, BY THE WAY.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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

the transcript,

I have the transcript that Martin posted. It is a partial transcript ... he only included what he decided

went to the issue of Mary's e-mail and detachment that she sent out on December 12, 2001.

I will be happy to post it, but we need a little context first. I am going to do this in a rather encapsulated form,

but I have all the e-mails and posts and can post them in full if anyone wants them or thinks it is necessary.

This became a huge tangled thing and was in multiple threads for weeks ... months, and in more than one year.

1. December 12, 2001: Mary sent out an e-mail to several people, it was short, saying that she was

sorry it had come to this but she had decided she needed to put an end to the Judyth part of her life.

To that e-mail she attached a long word document about her experiences ... and conclusions ... with Judyth.

2. December 13, 2001: Judyth responded in a long e-mail saying she was so hurt, asking Mary how she could

have said this that or the other thing about her including that Judyth was dangerous.

E-mails were flying around between team Judyth, and I seem to recall that Howard wrote an e to Mary as well,

I would have to hunt for that one.

3: March 11, 2002: Judyth wrote Mary a very strong email telling Mary it wasn't too late for her to take it all back, etc,

saying in one part:

"It is not too late to post a retraction of your statement, Mary, ** at

least on the points that I'm lying, delusional, and/or 'dangerous.' **

For

the sake of your own reputation, consider it. ** I will be presenting

solid evidence to defend myself against your negative statements

concerning my sanity, my veracity, my witness, and my character. ** I

will have to describe the actions and words of those who have aupported me--

and those who attacked me, and how they attacked me --in my second book.

I do not wish to affect anyone's reputation adversely.

Please consider your options now, in light of emerging evidence. The

evidence will continue to come forth. Nothing can stop it. There will

be too much of it.

History can be very unkind to those who tweak the truth to fit their

own theories. I hope you do what is right."

4. April 7, 2002: It was a Sunday evening. Judyth, her sister and her friend arrived at Mary's

with a tape recorder. The story was that they we "concerned" that Mary was being abused,

or not treated well, at her nursing home,and they wanted to get anything Mary needed/wanted to say about that on tape.

Judyth has claimed, at one time at least, that Mary called her and asked her to come over.

According to the story, when they arrived, the door to Mary's room was locked, only hers was locked, so

they went and got a nurse who opened the door ... the nurse told Mary she had visitors and she said it was okay to let them in.

Judyth asserted that Mary was weak, had no water and seemed sleepy and noted pill bottles on a table near her. They

painted a pretty pathetic picture overall.

Supposedly, after some initial comments on tape, Judyth put the recorder away in her purse ... thinking she had

turned it off. Later the story became that she HAD turned it off but that it had somehow bumped up against something

and turned itself back on ... thus capturing the accidental recording of what Judyth and Martin went on to assert contained

a retraction from Mary... with Mary saying she did not write that attachment.

Martin doggedly maintained Mary had said she did not write that attachment ... that, in fact, Mary didn't even know what

the attachment said until Judyth read it to her that evening, April 7th, while in Mary's nursing home room. Martin, poor

duck, swore up and down that Mary was in a nursing home at the time and didn't even have access to a computer. Later,

team Judyth decided Mary wrote the email and an attachment ... but that someone else switched the attachments and

sent it out with an attachment someone else had written.

5. Note above that Judyth had sent Mary an e-mal complaining about all the things Mary said in the attachment the day after Mary had sent

it out....Mary sent it Dec 12, 2001 ... Judyth wrote Mary Dec 13, 2001. Judyth had sent the email I partially quoted above to Mary on March 11, 2002.

So, when Judyth and crew arrived, tape recorder in hand on April 7, 2002 ... there is no way that Mary did not already know what was in that attachment.

6. Mary was never in a "nursing home." In the Fall of 2001, she had moved to a luxurious facility that included independent living apartments, assisted living quarters and a nursing home. Mary had an independent living apartment. Actually, she had two ... the wall had been removed for her from between 2 of the 1 bedroom apartments, turning her apartment into a 2 bedroom, 2 bath, with one of the living rooms being turned into an office for her. I don't know what they did with the extra kitchen. And the second bedroom was for her son Jimmy ... who was not present on that Sunday evening. Mary's door was locked because she was home, in the evening ... in her private apartment. And she had 2 computers in her apartment. And they were password protected, only Mary knew the password.

7. I have some personal knowledge of Mary's state that particular weekend, as myself and about a dozen others were invited to a private researchers meeting. We flew in on Thursday, April 4th, and met as a group that night for dinner in the dining room at the Melrose Hotel ... where we were all staying, Mary included. We were together all day Friday and into the evening with dinner in the dining room again ... and all day Saturday as well. Saturday evening we were treated to a dinner party held at the house where Mary had lived for years ... where her daughter now resided.

Mary was in good humor, feisty as ever ... and as sharp as ever. By Saturday evening, April 6th, after the party, we were all exhausted .... no doubt Mary was tired too, but you'd never have known it. She was quite the character. It was Sunday morning before those of us from afar flew out to home. I do not know if Mary stayed in the hotel Saturday night or if she returned to her home after the party. I recall being told she was having lunch with Peter Dale Scott that afternoon ... then that evening, April 7th, is when Judyth and crew arrived with the accidental tape recorder. Any comments from Judyth that Mary was confused, forgetting things, mixing things up, etc ... and she has made those comments ... are completely inaccurate. I was with Mary the entire weekend and she was sharp as a tack, as always.

If Judyth is still claiming Mary had called and asked her to come over that night, I will strongly dispute that and can relate something Judyth related that happened that Saturday evening when we were gathering in the lobby to leave for the dinner party.

8. The relevant exchange in the transcript is very short ... I can post the whole partial transcript Martin provided, but "the" question and as much of an answer that Martin could decipher was this:

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

Mary: No, there's no [indistinct]

Team Judyth claims Mary denied writing the attachment. The words that were intelligible do not say that ... and there is no way, according to what Martin posted, to know what the rest of the sentence said.

I do know that Mary was quite intimidated and shook up by this episode ... even if she had retracted having written the attachment, I don't think it would have meant much.

9. In 2008, team Judyth was still claiming Mary had not written the attachment. Long story short, Paul Seaton got a copy of the document and burrowed down into the document info about when it was written, over what time span, how many times it was saved, when it was sent out as an attachment ... all that info ... including that it was written on Mary's computer ... by Mary, according to the computer which was, again, password protected. After a very long haul of posts, Dave Reitzes posted, reminding Martin that on Dec 15, 2001, he had posted saying:

"The fact that you have no doubt about the "Mary Ferrell" message doesn't

mean no one else has doubts.

I've been told today that it's authentic--but only by those mentioned in

the message itself--no independent verification."

On the Mary Dean matter ... that has *nothing* to do with this e-mail attachment issue.

Nothing at all. In fact, it was Mary's personal business from years and years before the assassination.

I am surprised Judyth is bringing it up ... the whole episode didn't reflect very well on her. She seems to

believe it is some sort of weapon against Mary. It is not. It was ..and remains ... Mary's personal business.

Last time Judyth dragged it out and tried to use it as a weapon, I received an email from Mary's daughter, Carole Ann

... with her permission to post it. I did post it, July 2008, saying:

I received this just a few minutes ago.

Carol Ann says:

"Feel free to tell researchers that I did not give material to Judyth

nor discuss my mother with her. Now that I see what she has, it is

almost certain that she either picked it up the day she was in the

house with her sister and me or, possibly, got it out of the

dumpster."

As this solves the "mystery," the papers should be returned to Mary's

family immediately and taken down from the website.

Barb :-)

Carole Ann had told me that Judyth and her sister were there at the house ... Mary was not there ... when Carole Ann was going thru old files and stuff. Judyth spotted and picked up the document, Carole Ann saw it ... took it back and put it in a pile ... and that was the last she saw of it until Judyth had Martin post that and some related things.

There is more but this covers it all pretty well in a nutshell.

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Yes, indeed ... and 4 days later, after receiving this e-mail from Howard telling Mary her options and what she should do (her having already tried to distance herself from Judyth gently) ... Mary wrote her email and attachment and sent it to several people. Way to go, Howard. :-)

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

[Jack White]

It speaks volumes that even after this desperate plea from Platzman, Mary REFUSED

to do the taped interview he urged Mary to do supporting Baker.

I have had described to me the invasion of Mary's apartment by Team Judyth,

whose members pleaded with Mary to do an interview. They did not tell her that

waiting outside was someone with a video camera, ready to do the interview as

soon as Mary relented. Mary refused. There was no interview, despite the pressure.

The REASON MARY'S DOOR WAS LOCKED WAS TO KEEP OUT PEOPLE LIKE TEAM

JUDYTH THAT MARY DID NOT WANT TO SEE!

A very lopsided version of this invasion is being thrust forward. There needs to

be someone here to give MARY'S SIDE of what happened.

Rest in peace, Mary...if these characters will let you.

Jack

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

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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.

Really. Twilight Zone theme ... sometimes written as "doody doody, doody doody" ... perhaps it should have been with a J?<g>

Tell me, Steve, just what do you suppose Judyth thinks Lewis could be arrested *for* had he told the Garrison crew about double dating with Oswald and Judyth?

Bizarre.

And, given that Lewis tried to sell his story to UPI ...unsuccessfully, he had every reason in the world, if money was his interest, to bellow out the whole double dating/affair scenario. Tabloids, at least, would have been crawling all over him with offers.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

It speaks volumes that even after this desperate plea from Platzman, Mary REFUSED

to do the taped interview he urged Mary to do supporting Baker.

I have had described to me the invasion of Mary's apartment by Team Judyth,

whose members pleaded with Mary to do an interview. They did not tell her that

waiting outside was someone with a video camera, ready to do the interview as

soon as Mary relented. Mary refused. There was no interview, despite the pressure.

The REASON MARY'S DOOR WAS LOCKED WAS TO KEEP OUT PEOPLE LIKE TEAM

JUDYTH THAT MARY DID NOT WANT TO SEE!

A very lopsided version of this invasion is being thrust forward. There needs to

be someone here to give MARY'S SIDE of what happened.

Rest in peace, Mary...if these characters will let you.

Jack

And, Jack, just so people don't get too confused, I will note that the video camera episode was a

separate incident from the "accidental" tape recorder episode and involved different participants.

Both incidents rattled Mary... as well as made her angry.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited May 26, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen

[Jack White]

Here is Mary's version of the "home invasion" recording session by Team Judyth,

as related to Adele by telephone soon afterward:

I happened to call Mary about something unrelated to Judyth, just to see how she was feeling, as she had said that she was ill.

I can't tell you how shocked I was when I learned that the person answering the phone was Judyth! I told her to tell Mary that I had called and to please call me back whenever she could. I did not hear from her that day and I was plenty worried about Mary's safety. I called the next day and was so relieved to know that Mary was all right, but she did tell me what had occurred. This was when Mary was still living on Holland Avenue in her home.

Judyth and her friend (Debbie ???) had been at the door, unannounced, when Mary got up out of bed to see who had rung the doorbell. Mary, sweet lady, allowed them to come in but didn't really want them to stay. Well, they stayed and stayed, and even cooked some soup for her (which Mary told me she was afraid to take much of), and try as she tried to give them hints to leave, they would not. She even pretended to be asleep and they still would not leave.

Well,. Mary never did get my message that I had called. And I remember asking Mary if anything was missing from her house. She didn't think so, but I would bet anything that they went through Mary's postal and maybe e-mails looking for anything useful.

Mary confided many things to Edele, whom she trusted. She was too afraid of Judyth to have her soup.

Jack

It speaks volumes that even after this desperate plea from Platzman, Mary REFUSED

to do the taped interview he urged Mary to do supporting Baker.

I have had described to me the invasion of Mary's apartment by Team Judyth,

whose members pleaded with Mary to do an interview. They did not tell her that

waiting outside was someone with a video camera, ready to do the interview as

soon as Mary relented. Mary refused. There was no interview, despite the pressure.

The REASON MARY'S DOOR WAS LOCKED WAS TO KEEP OUT PEOPLE LIKE TEAM

JUDYTH THAT MARY DID NOT WANT TO SEE!

A very lopsided version of this invasion is being thrust forward. There needs to

be someone here to give MARY'S SIDE of what happened.

Rest in peace, Mary...if these characters will let you.

Jack

And, Jack, just so people don't get too confused, I will note that the video camera episode was a

separate incident from the "accidental" tape recorder episode and involved different participants.

Both incidents rattled Mary... as well as made her angry.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited May 26, 2010 by Jack White

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Ah, yes ... that was another Judyth episode ... but not the one with the tape recorder or video camera ... the one Adele relates was before Mary had written the letter and attachment denouncing Judyth ...and before Mary had moved into her new apartment. There was another one where Mary ending up having her son escort Judyth to the door ... not sure if that is this one Adele describes or another time.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Here is Mary's version of the "home invasion" recording session by Team Judyth,

as related to Adele by telephone soon afterward:

I happened to call Mary about something unrelated to Judyth, just to see how she was feeling, as she had said that she was ill.

I can't tell you how shocked I was when I learned that the person answering the phone was Judyth! I told her to tell Mary that I had called and to please call me back whenever she could. I did not hear from her that day and I was plenty worried about Mary's safety. I called the next day and was so relieved to know that Mary was all right, but she did tell me what had occurred. This was when Mary was still living on Holland Avenue in her home.

Judyth and her friend (Debbie ???) had been at the door, unannounced, when Mary got up out of bed to see who had rung the doorbell. Mary, sweet lady, allowed them to come in but didn't really want them to stay. Well, they stayed and stayed, and even cooked some soup for her (which Mary told me she was afraid to take much of), and try as she tried to give them hints to leave, they would not. She even pretended to be asleep and they still would not leave.

Well,. Mary never did get my message that I had called. And I remember asking Mary if anything was missing from her house. She didn't think so, but I would bet anything that they went through Mary's postal and maybe e-mails looking for anything useful.

Mary confided many things to Edele, whom she trusted. She was too afraid of Judyth to have her soup.

Jack

It speaks volumes that even after this desperate plea from Platzman, Mary REFUSED

to do the taped interview he urged Mary to do supporting Baker.

I have had described to me the invasion of Mary's apartment by Team Judyth,

whose members pleaded with Mary to do an interview. They did not tell her that

waiting outside was someone with a video camera, ready to do the interview as

soon as Mary relented. Mary refused. There was no interview, despite the pressure.

The REASON MARY'S DOOR WAS LOCKED WAS TO KEEP OUT PEOPLE LIKE TEAM

JUDYTH THAT MARY DID NOT WANT TO SEE!

A very lopsided version of this invasion is being thrust forward. There needs to

be someone here to give MARY'S SIDE of what happened.

Rest in peace, Mary...if these characters will let you.

Jack

And, Jack, just so people don't get too confused, I will note that the video camera episode was a

separate incident from the "accidental" tape recorder episode and involved different participants.

Both incidents rattled Mary... as well as made her angry.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Dean Hartwell]

At this point in our debate, I am presenting a three-question survey to determine whether the debate is worth continuing. My own answers follow below:

Questions:

1. What would it take for you to change your mind about JVB's story?

2. Are there any hidden arguments you have not disclosed?

3. Do you think you have delivered a "knock out" punch? (If so, why are you still debating?)

Answers:

1. It would take a lot. I have corresponded with JVB for over a year and have been persuaded favorably to her story. From my point of view, she speaks of and writes of Lee Oswald like she knew him. I do not believe there are any reasons why she would make it up, as I have mentioned on one of JVB's blogs. I believe she has told her story at great risk to herself and to divisions in her family. There may well be discrepancies in her story, but honest mistakes and an imperfect memory make much more sense as explanations than deception.

2. I don't think so. I have written out my arguments on the Education Forum, my own web site and other sites as well. If I have hidden any arguments, it certainly has not been intentional.

3. No. For those of us who are not first-hand witnesses to anything JVB speaks of, we will never know the absolute truth of what happened. I wanted to ensure JVB’s story got stated and cross-examined, either here or on the other thread. I have been satisfied that this goal has been achieved and also acknowledge that the discovery of truth is an ongoing process. For me, there will be no knock-out punch, only the satisfaction of pursuing what is in my sincere opinion the truth.

Edited May 26, 2010 by Dean Hartwell

[Doug Weldon]

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.

Monk and Jim:

I have no control over Lifton and whether or not he releases his tape. I, in my evaluation, am treating Lifton's tape as if it does not exist, because I have no idea what it says. Jim supposedly has connections with Judyth. It is Judyth who is purporting her story to be true but there are many doubts raised in this thread and the overwhelming number of people polled on this thread do not believe her. She has two concrete pieces of evidence that can establish her truth and veracity. One is the LHO writing on the book. Judyth is refusing to have this authenticated. It is in her possession. In our legal system, if existing evidence is not produced, the triers of fact are instructed to treat that evidence against the interest of those purporting its veracity. I am thus concluding that, if analyzed, that writing would not be that of Oswald.

A story has been described that portrays an incident with Mary Ferrell that suggests Mary did not believe or want to see Judyth. Judyth, says that fortunately she has an audiotape in her possession which contradicts that. The "Best Evidence" is that audiotape. If she refuses to produce it I can only conclude 1. there is no such tape and she lied 2. there is a tape but her refusal to produce it, under the law, would require people trying to determine facts to conclude that the tape does not support her position. Again, she lied. When someone lies in our legal system the jury is instructed that they can disregard ANY or ALL of that person's testimony.

These ARE the only two pieces of evidence that can stand by themselves. Judyth is either telling the truth about them or lying. There is no third alternative. I will be willing to call Anna Lewis, speak with her, and record the conversation. I cannot tell if she was coerced or influenced in any way. I am told that Judyth and some of her supporters were present. They had an agenda so it does, on its face, presents an indirect form of coercion. Jim, on the circumcision issue, wrote that Judyth told you that her intimacy with Oswald was in the dark, so it would be easy to conclude that she might not be clear on the circumcision issue. Barb states, thatin her book, Judyth claims her trysts were in the afternoon. Which is correct?

I believe the proofs on this thread have been very detrimental to Judyth. Her replies not only stretch credulity, they are often preposterous. You indicated that I was more rational than many, but yet again she fails to produce any evidence or answer any of the questions, I, or many others, have raised in this thread.

To anyone not familiar with Judyth this would reflect the impression I believe they might get reading this thread.

Characters JFK and RFK

RFK:

We received another gushing letter from a high school student who does even understand if you are president yet.

JFK:

Please send out one of our standard form letters thanking her.

RFK:

NSA has decoded this letter and we now understand that this high school student is offering her services to our country for the National Good. We understand that other students in her grade are dissectiing frogs and worms but we believe this student is on the verge of discovering a cure for cancer. This is something that the top PHD's in the country who have been working for years have been unable to even approach.

JFK:

Do we have proof?

RFK:

Absolutely. We have documentation that she won a ribbon at a high school science fair.

JFK:

That's enough for me. Clear her for our highest level of security clearance. We'll hook her up with our top two cancer researchers in the country, Commander David Ferrrie and General Lee Oswald. Just to be safe, since we know how Oswald can be, we'll once again have him do our standard genital disguise. If possible, assign her a 00 number so that she has a license to kill.

RFK:

Consider it done. SShould we do a clearance on her? What if one day she takes her secrets and tries to claim asylum in a socialist country?

JFK:

(Laughs) Don't be ridiculous. Afrer my presidency there will be no more socialist countries. Also, please give her an intensive course in Russian. Once we lick the cancer and any Castro issues she would be the perfect person to negotiate the end of the Cold War.

RFK:

Got it!

JFK:

Tell her to say hi to "Sparky" for me.

Doug Weldon

[Doug Weldon]

At this point in our debate, I am presenting a three-question survey to determine whether the debate is worth continuing. My own answers follow below:

Questions:

1. What would it take for you to change your mind about JVB's story?

2. Are there any “hidden” arguments you have not disclosed?

3. Do you think you have delivered a “knock out” punch? (If so, why are you still debating?)

Answers:

1. It would take a lot. I have corresponded with JVB for over a year and have been persuaded favorably to her story. From my point of view, she speaks of and writes of Lee Oswald as a real person. I do not believe there are any reasons why she would make it up, as I have mentioned on one of JVB's blogs. I believe she has told her story at great risk to herself and to divisions in her family. There may well be discrepancies in her story, but honest mistakes and an imperfect memory make much more sense as explanations than deception.

2. I don't think so. I have written out my arguments on the Education Forum, my own web site and other sites as well. If I have hidden any arguments, it certainly has not been intentional.

3. No. For those of us who are not first-hand witnesses to anything JVB speaks of, we will never know the absolute truth of what happened. I wanted to ensure JVB’s story got stated and cross-examined, either here or on the other thread. I have been satisfied that this goal has been achieved and also acknowledge that the discovery of truth is an ongoing process. For me, there will be no knock-out punch, only the satisfaction of pursuing what is in my sincere opinion the truth.

Anyone writing historical fiction writes of the people as real persons.

Doug Weldon

[Doug Weldon]

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.

Monk and Jim:

I have no control over Lifton and whether or not he releases his tape. I, in my evaluation, am treating Lifton's tape as if it does not exist, because I have no idea what it says. Jim supposedly has connections with Judyth. It is Judyth who is purporting her story to be true but there are many doubts raised in this thread and the overwhelming number of people polled on this thread do not believe her. She has two concrete pieces of evidence that can establish her truth and veracity. One is the LHO writing on the book. Judyth is refusing to have this authenticated. It is in her possession. In our legal system, if existing evidence is not produced, the triers of fact are instructed to treat that evidence against the interest of those purporting its veracity. I am thus concluding that, if analyzed, that writing would not be that of Oswald.

A story has been described that portrays an incident with Mary Ferrell that suggests Mary did not believe or want to see Judyth. Judyth, says that fortunately she has an audiotape in her possession which contradicts that. The "Best Evidence" is that audiotape. If she refuses to produce it I can only conclude 1. there is no such tape and she lied 2. there is a tape but her refusal to produce it, under the law, would require people trying to determine facts to conclude that the tape does not support her position. Again, she lied. When someone lies in our legal system the jury is instructed that they can disregard ANY or ALL of that person's testimony.

These ARE the only two pieces of evidence that can stand by themselves. Judyth is either telling the truth about them or lying. There is no third alternative. I will be willing to call Anna Lewis, speak with her, and record the conversation. I cannot tell if she was coerced or influenced in any way. I am told that Judyth and some of her supporters were present. They had an agenda so it does, on its face, presents an indirect form of coercion. Jim, on the circumcision issue, wrote that Judyth told you that her intimacy with Oswald was in the dark, so it would be easy to conclude that she might not be clear on the circumcision issue. Barb states, thatin her book, Judyth claims her trysts were in the afternoon. Which is correct?

I believe the proofs on this thread have been very detrimental to Judyth. Her replies not only stretch credulity, they are often preposterous. You indicated that I was more rational than many, but yet again she fails to produce any evidence or answer any of the questions, I, or many others, have raised in this thread.

To anyone not familiar with Judyth this would reflect the impression I believe they might get reading this thread.

Characters JFK and RFK

RFK:

We received another gushing letter from a high school student who does even understand if you are president yet.

JFK:

Please send out one of our standard form letters thanking her.

RFK:

NSA has decoded this letter and we now understand that this high school student is offering her services to our country for the National Good. We understand that other students in her grade are dissectiing frogs and worms but we believe this student is on the verge of discovering a cure for cancer. This is something that the top PHD's in the country who have been working for years have been unable to even approach.

JFK:

Do we have proof?

RFK:

Absolutely. We have documentation that she won a ribbon at a high school science fair.

JFK:

That's enough for me. Clear her for our highest level of security clearance. We'll hook her up with our top two cancer researchers in the country, Commander David Ferrrie and General Lee Oswald. Just to be safe, since we know how Oswald can be, we'll once again have him do our standard genital disguise. If possible, assign her a 00 number so that she has a license to kill.

RFK:

Consider it done. SShould we do a clearance on her? What if one day she takes her secrets and tries to claim asylum in a socialist country?

JFK:

(Laughs) Don't be ridiculous. Afrer my presidency there will be no more socialist countries. Also, please give her an intensive course in Russian. Once we lick the cancer and any Castro issues she would be the perfect person to negotiate the end of the Cold War.

RFK:

Got it!

JFK:

Tell her to say hi to "Sparky" for me.

Doug Weldon

I thought it would be good to attach Judyth's e-mail to Mary Ferrell to the above. Sadly, JVB does not produce any worthwhile evidence and unless she can, her story will be a lost footnote in history and history will judge her as a fraud and will question everything she states below.

I will be presenting

solid evidence to defend myself against your negative statements

concerning my sanity, my veracity, my witness, and my character. ** I

will have to describe the actions and words of those who have aupported me--

and those who attacked me, and how they attacked me --in my second book.

I do not wish to affect anyone's reputation adversely.

Please consider your options now, in light of emerging evidence. The

evidence will continue to come forth. Nothing can stop it. There will

be too much of it.

History can be very unkind to those who tweak the truth to fit their

own theories. I hope you do what is right."

Doug Weldon

[Kathleen Collins]

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

Prof. Fetzer, I am on the Internet for hours everyday looking things up. I did not look up circumcision. But I did go to the link where you sent us. When search engines receive a search phrase, a lot of summaries come up. Couldn't you have found somewhere in the results a better website to show us? I don't want to look at sleazy broads. And they wanted my email address so I could join. In other words, if I wanted to see the information you were providing, I'd have to join the site first. Can you not see this? Anyone going to that link would have to enter their email address -- and possibly pay something -- in order to learn about partial circumcision! So, congratulations. I guess you're a member there now. Lucky you!

Kathy C

[Dean Hartwell]

...She speaks of and writes of Lee Oswald as a real person, from my point of view.

Anyone writing historical fiction writes of the people as real persons.

Doug Weldon

Gotcha, Doug. I have edited this sentence on the original post. Thanks!

[Kathleen Collins]

Martin and Lewis were close friends: