Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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 by Jack White
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Dean Hartwell
Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites

...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!

Link to post
Share on other sites
At this point in our debate, I am presenting a three-question survey to determine whether the debate is worth continuing.

"Our debate"? You haven't been part of this thread for quite awhile ... and for only a few posts overall. That is certainly your choice.

Just a few days ago, Jim asked the moderators to move some off topic (for this thread) posts that were flourishing into an interesting discussion on another matter, to a new thread of their own so that those here could continue uninterrupted with the good discussions taking place in this thread. And Evan graciously did just that.

As in all threads, the best indicator of whether or not a thread is seen as "worth continuing" is best indicated by the traffic on the thread ... number of reads, number of posts, number of posters. This thread has had over 40 posts put up by at least 10 different posters in just the last 24 hours. And we have new issues that have come up in the last couple of days that are being addressed, Adele Edisen herself joining in with a few posts. And, of course, having the subject of the thread available and weighing in with her own comments is a valuable opportunity for all interested in the subject.

Threads members do not find "worth continuing" just naturally die out on their own.

On this thread, the traffic and new issues being raised and addressed speaks louder than any "worth continuing" survey.

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Jim:

I should have noted thaat Barb contributed the e-mail with the portion I quote above. Please tell Judyth she is free to include me in her book as one who questioned her sanity, veracity, witness, and character. If she is honest she will write that I attacked her by asking her to produce evidence that she failed to produce and asked questions she refused to answer. I will take my chances with history.

Doug Weldon

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
At this point in our debate, I am presenting a three-question survey to determine whether the debate is worth continuing.

"Our debate"? You haven't been part of this thread for quite awhile ... and for only a few posts overall. That is certainly your choice.

Just a few days ago, Jim asked the moderators to move some off topic (for this thread) posts that were flourishing into an interesting discussion on another matter, to a new thread of their own so that those here could continue uninterrupted with the good discussions taking place in this thread. And Evan graciously did just that.

As in all threads, the best indicator of whether or not a thread is seen as "worth continuing" is best indicated by the traffic on the thread ... number of reads, number of posts, number of posters. This thread has had over 40 posts put up by at least 10 different posters in just the last 24 hours. And we have new issues that have come up in the last couple of days that are being addressed, Adele Edisen herself joining in with a few posts. And, of course, having the subject of the thread available and weighing in with her own comments is a valuable opportunity for all interested in the subject.

Threads members do not find "worth continuing" just naturally die out on their own.

On this thread, the traffic and new issues being raised and addressed speaks louder than any "worth continuing" survey.

Barb :-)

Barb,

There is merit to some of what you say. Traffic and new issues can indicate a good debate. And all of us, I am sure, would like to be in a good debate.

But my questions go to the issue of whether the sides debate with an open mind or a closed one. The more closed minds, the more likely a poor debate.

I asked my questions with all sincerity. Whether anyone chooses to respond is their choice and I will respect it.

Dean

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim:

I should have noted thaat Barb contributed the e-mail with the portion I quote above. Please tell Judyth she is free to include me in her book as one who questioned her sanity, veracity, witness, and character. If she is honest she will write that I attacked her by asking her to produce evidence that she failed to produce and asked questions she refused to answer. I will take my chances with history.

Doug Weldon

Hi Doug,

Well said ... and me too.

"I really don't expect you to

believe any of this without documentation and proof. Don't be

concerned: I've got the proof. . . . I have my defenders and I've been

able to prove everything I'm saying." (Judyth Vary Baker, biographical

blurb posted at Manatee High School alumni website)

". . . WHEN ONE HAS BEEN TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST, AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN

AND REVIEWED AND READ MANY PAPERS, GENERALLY THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF

THEY MAKE A STATEMENT, THERE HAD BETTER BE BACK-UP. SOME PEOPLE WHO

ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAY NOT REALIZE THIS

RESPONSIBILITY. I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR BACK-

UP FOR MY STATEMENTS SERIOUSLY. MU [sic] HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN THE

SCIENTIFIC METHOD MEANS THAT I AM PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE

OF PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION." (Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post,

May 7, 2004)

That is all any of us have asked for. It just has not been forthcoming.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited by Barb Junkkarinen
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...