Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT HIS PLACE IN HISTORY

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

1) SPECIFICALLY, WHAT EVIDENCE DID MR. WELDON ASK ME TO PRODUCE? IT WAS HE WHO ASKED FOR A PHOTOGRAPH OF LEE AND ME TOGETHER? WHAT ELSE DID HE ASK ME TO PRODUCE?

WHAT ARE YOUR SPECIFIC REQUESTS, MR. WELDON? ALL I EVER SAW WAS A POST THAT SAID YOU HAD SOME QUESIONS TO ASK. I NEVER SAW A QUESTION. REPLY, PLEASE.

2) WHAT QUESTIONS HAS MR. WELDON ASKED THAT I HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER? BE SPECIFIC, MR. WELDON. I AM UNABLE TO SEE THE EDUCATON FORUM--IT IS BLOCKED TO MY VIEW. UNLESS SENT TO ME, I AM UNAWARE HAT YOU ASKED ANY QUESTIONS OF ME, ONLY THAT YOU SAID YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS.

WHAT HAVE I 'REFUSED' TO ANSWER? SHOW ME WHAT I HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER.

3) 'ANYONE' CAN QUESTION 'ANYONE'S' SANITY. IT SEEMS MR. WELDON IS COMFORTABLE FOLLOWING THE MANDATE OF THE DAVID LIFTON MANIFESTO.

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

Jim:

I thought you conveyed my questions to Judyth. For the record, as Jim knows I never requested a photograph of her and Lee together. I asked that the LHO writing be analyzed by a certified examiner. I asked that she produce the Mary Ferrell tape which she has stated is in her possession and that contradicts the description of Mary Ferrell's encounter with her. I posted a list of four questions. I have to assume Jim will be the conduit of anyone's questions if Judyth cannot see them. Many good questions by people have been ignored.

Doug Weldon

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

Great, Doug. If anything has been lost in transit--and with Judyth having to travel

and my other responsibilities, such things have been known to happen--they'll be

addressed by and by. Let me forward this to Judyth and we'll see what she has to

say. I really think your remarks here, however, are extremely superficial, no matter

what the answers to any questions that may or may not have been answered to your

satisfaction. Why don't you repeat them here so we can all see exactly what you are

talking about. You certainly deserve all of the attention that you can garner, counselor.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT HIS PLACE IN HISTORY

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

1) SPECIFICALLY, WHAT EVIDENCE DID MR. WELDON ASK ME TO PRODUCE? IT WAS HE WHO ASKED FOR A PHOTOGRAPH OF LEE AND ME TOGETHER? WHAT ELSE DID HE ASK ME TO PRODUCE?

WHAT ARE YOUR SPECIFIC REQUESTS, MR. WELDON? ALL I EVER SAW WAS A POST THAT SAID YOU HAD SOME QUESIONS TO ASK. I NEVER SAW A QUESTION. REPLY, PLEASE.

2) WHAT QUESTIONS HAS MR. WELDON ASKED THAT I HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER? BE SPECIFIC, MR. WELDON. I AM UNABLE TO SEE THE EDUCATON FORUM--IT IS BLOCKED TO MY VIEW. UNLESS SENT TO ME, I AM UNAWARE HAT YOU ASKED ANY QUESTIONS OF ME, ONLY THAT YOU SAID YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS.

WHAT HAVE I 'REFUSED' TO ANSWER? SHOW ME WHAT I HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER.

3) 'ANYONE' CAN QUESTION 'ANYONE'S' SANITY. IT SEEMS MR. WELDON IS COMFORTABLE FOLLOWING THE MANDATE OF THE DAVID LIFTON MANIFESTO.

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

Jim:

I thought you conveyed my questions to Judyth. For the record, as Jim knows I never requested a photograph of her and Lee together. I asked that the LHO writing be analyzed by a certified examiner. I asked that she produce the Mary Ferrell tape which she has stated is in her possession and that contradicts the description of Mary Ferrell's encounter with her. I posted a list of four questions. I have to assume Jim will be the conduit of anyone's questions if Judyth cannot see them. Many good questions by people have been ignored.

Doug Weldon

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

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT MARY FERRELL AND THE EMAILS

Jack wrote:

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,

=="TEAM JUDYTH" IS THE PHRASE USED BY THE MCADAMS PEOPLE.

MARY DID NOT TELL CHAPMAN OR OTHERS THAT I WAS THERE. SHE ONLY REPORTED

THAT MY FRIENDS WERE THERE TO CHAPMAN. AND JACK WHITE IS REPEATING THIS,

NOT REALIZING THAT I WAS ALSO PRESENT.

I FEEL MARY, IN HER OWN WAY, TRIED TO PROTECT ME BY NOT MENTIONING THAT I

WAS THERE AT ALL. WHY DIDN'T SHE TELL ANYBODY THAT I WAS THERE, AND THAT

'TEAM JUDYTH' WAS IN FACT MY SISTER, MYSELF AND MARY'S AND MY FRIEND DEBBEE.==

whose members pleaded with Mary to do an interview.

==WE NEVER PLEADED WITH MARY TO DO AN INTERVIEW. THE TAPE RECORDING SHOWS

I ONLY ASKED HER IF SHE THOUGHT I WAS A FAKE. WE ASKED HER IF WE COULD TAPE

HER ABOUT WHETHER SHE WROTE THE EMAIL AS IT WAS READ TO HER, WHICH WAS THE

VERSION POSTED ON THE INTERNET. SHE ASKED IF SHE WAS SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH

FOR THE TAPE RECORDER AT ONE POINT.==

They did not tell her that

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

==THERE WAS NO VIDEO CAMERA WITH LYNDA, DEBBEE AND ME!==

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!

==WHOA. CHAPMAN SAID THE DOOR WAS UNLOCKED BUT HAD TO BE LOCKED AFTER

THE 'INVASION.' THIS WAS NOT TRUE. THE DOOR WAS LOCKED, WE DO NOT KNOW

WHY, BUT OUR NAMES WERE ON MARY'S VISITING LIST. THE NURSE ON THE TAPE

ASKS IF MARY WANTED TO SEE US.

MARY SAID YES.

WHY DID SHE LET JUDYTH, WHOM SHE SUPPOSEDLY DENOUNCED, COME IN, AND WHY

DID SHE ALLOW A TAPE RECORDER TO BE USED? WHY HAVE TO FIGT HER FRIENDS ON

THE MATTER IF SHE MADE A VIDEOTAPE? HOW COULD SHE EXPLAIN THE FAKED EMAIL

AND HOW BAD THAT MADE HER FRIENDS LOOK?

SHE SAID SHE WOULD NEVER HAVE ALLOWED TO BE PUBLISHED THE MATTER OF DEBBEE'S

GETTING AIRLINE TICKETS FOR JUDYTH AS A FAILY MEMBER 9THOUGH WE THOUGHT OF

EACH OTHER AS SISTERS, AND SHE WAS INVOLVED IN EVERY FAMILY MATER IN DALLAS).==

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.

==IT IS JOHN MCADAMS WHO PUBLISHED THE EMAIL, INCLUDING ANOTHER EMAIL THAT SAID

MARY AGREED TO ALOOW IT TO BE PUBLISHED--WHICH EMAIL HE DID NOT PUBLISH UNTIL

AFTER HER DEATH.

I WILL NOT BE AVALABLE FOR COMMENTS IN THREE MORE DAYS. LET'S GET ALL OF THIS IRONED

OUT BY THEN. JACK, HERE IS NO "TEAM JUDYTH'"--THIS IS A TERM MADE UP BY MCADAMS & CO.

HEAVEN KNOWS THAT THEY ARE A VERY DISPARATE AND INDEPENDENT BUNCH, GOD BLESS 'EM,

WHO SIMPLY KNOW ME WELL AND KNOW I DO NOT HAVE THE VILE PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER

THAT YOU BELIEVE I POSSESS.==

JVB

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

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

Let me second Dean's statement here. Those who know her the best--including Nigel Turner, Ed Haslam, Howard Platzman, Martin Shackelford, and me--are strongly supportive of Judyth. I have had hundreds of email exchanges with her, interviewed her several times for two-hours apiece on "The Real Deal", and conducted a dozen or more YouTube interviews with her. In our now-voluminous correspondence, she has come across as completely sincere and authentic, where her overriding concern has been to support the innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald in relation to the allegations against him. She knows far too much in too great detail not to have lived through it. I consider some of the attacks upon her--such as by David Lifton and even by John Armstrong--to be extraordinarily superficial. And the ongoing, sarcastic and denigrating remarks by Jack White and Doug Weldon, I would have thought, should have been completely beneath them. They persist in ignoring some of the most important proof she has provided, including that of her friend, Kathy Santi, with whom she discussed her plans to move to New Orleans in pursuit of a medical career, and with Anna Lewis, who talked about "double-dating" with her and Lee. They do not even address "the disappearing witness", as though Judyth were not the prime candidate to have been seen by the barber and the state senator and his daughter, Mary Morgan. Ed Haslam subjected Judyth to the most intensive scrutiny before buying into her story. And after a week of living with her in London, two of my closest associates, who are nobody's fool, have vouched for her as being the person she claims to be--without any doubt! Her enemies are legion and some of them are witless, but the crucial point is that those who oppose her have displayed prejudice against her from the beginning and have acknowledged nothing in her favor. Those with an open-mind about Judyth and who have dealt with her most extensively are on her side and believe in her. In my opinion, warts and all (because she, like the rest of us, is not flawless) she is the person she claims to be, which is the hypothesis that provides the best explanation of the data.

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 James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim and all,

In my interview with Judyth I did not detect even a shred of hostility from her, nor did she come across as having a capacity to become hostile. That is not to say she is incapable, I have no way of knowing that, but, although I was not easy on her--even aggresive in my skepticism--she was unflappable. In subsequent correspondence, both telephonically and in writing, that same demeanor was consistently demonstrated.

So, even though I agree that the content of the posted email was disturbing, as I replied to Doug, there is another issue. In fairness to Judyth, I also must note that the email's content, tone, and apparent intent--was inconsistent with my experience with Judyth, both in person and in subsequent correspondence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barb wrote on [age 188, Post #2817:

I thank you, Adele, for stepping up to this and giving very clear, very understandable and very direct responses.

And I thank you too for your other posts as well. Interesting information.

Since you were at Tulane in 1963, and had experience in other institutions in New Orleans as well, I wonder if you might have known or heard anything about

there being a linear particle accelerator anywhere in New Orleans ... particularly at the US Public Service Hospital?

Bests to you,

Barb :-)

Barb,

Thank you for your kind comments. And I appreciate all the excellent studies you have done on the JFK assassination.

My only source of information about the linear particle accelerator was from Ed Haslam when he was writing his first two versions of MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS, which he published on his own. I had met Ed in 1993 at an ASK Conference where I spoke in public for the first time about my 1963 experiences. During the 1990s, we spoke or wrote to each other about things we knew in New Orleans.

I had been at the Tulane University School of Medicine, Dept. of Psychiatry and Neurology, from 1954-1956, as a Postdoctoral Fellow of the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness (NINDB) of the NIH. I had three children born and returned to research, again as a Postdoc of NINDB, but at Louisiana State University School of Medicine, in the Department of Physiology in 1963.

I didn't have much contact with people at the medical school at Tulane during those interim years, so if the accelerator was known about, I would probably not known about it for that reason.

I don't know what the original purpose of it being in New Orleans was, but I understand other medical institutions had one. Dr. Mary Sherman was doing research on cancers and had an interest in the virus-caused cancers, and may have been interested in creating a vaccine against them. The day after her murder, she had been scheduled for a visit, I understood, to some children's clinic/ward where there were children with cancers of the bone. She was an orthopaedic surgeon. My husband who did his medical internship at the University of Chicago Medical chool and Hospital, had scrubbed in on one of her operations, an amputation. He was amazed at her strength and clinical knowledge. She later transferred to Tulane and the Ochsner Foundation Hospital and Clinics.

Adele

Link to post
Share on other sites

What complete and utter nonsense.

Here is the header from Mary's e-mail of Dec 12 as McAdams received it ... copied and pasted from Judyth's message below, but with her note "(showing the server time when someone is logged in?)" in the middle of it removed, and her (CLOCK OKAY) note removed as well:

Return-Path: <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by postmarq.mu.edu

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

with ESMTP id GO93R800.052 for <John.McAd...@marquette.edu>;

Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:59:32 -0600

Received: from mary-xp.cprompt.net [209.51.4.178] by cprompt.net with

ESMTP

(SMTPD32-6.00) id A1F9D9600CC; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:54:01 -0600

Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011212154557.01b8e...@cprompt.net>

X-Sender: maryf...@cprompt.net

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:56:06 -0600

To: dlif...@earthlink.net,rchap...@mem.net,de...@jfklancer.com,

parad...@gtw.net,PaulH...@uclink.berkeley.edu,John.McAd...@marquette.edu

From: Mary Ferrell <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Subject: Judyth Baker

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/mixed;

boundary="=====================_755792484==_"

This header says that Mary Ferrell's message was picked up by HER server

at 15:54:01 -0600 on Wednesday December 12 ... and sent out for delivery.

John McAdams copy was received by the Marquette postmaster (postmarq.mu.edu)

via Marquette's message server a mere 5 minutes later, at 15:59:32 -0600 on Wednesday Dec 12.

Marquette's server that RECEIVED this message is:

postmarq.mu.edu

This server is running the following software:

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001 06:47:59)

The info that appears in the parentheses in the header, just as shown above, gives the name of the

software Marquette uses, what version it had (4.15) and the date and time it was last updated....Dec 7 2001 06:47:59.

It is NOT, as Judyth wrote/asked below,"

(showing the server time when someone is logged in?)"

That this Dec 7 dates appears in parentheses along with the name and version of the software Marquette uses, should be

a tip off that all that parenthetical info belongs together for a reason ... it's about the software, it has nothing to do with the e-mail itself.

By googling the parenthetical info, removing the word "marquette" and the time, it is easy to see that this is info about the software. Here

are a couple results that I found that clearly show the name of the software, the version number and the update date of Dec 7 appeared in other people's e-mail headers ... nothing unique to Marquette's server, or this particular email at all.

Middlebridge (August '02): [Mid] Fwd: [Flamebridge] Fw: [ringtri

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 mail Dec 7 2001 09:58:59) with. ESMTP id H1O5FK00.IST for <ringtribe@yahoogroups.com>; Fri, 30. Aug 2002 14:16:32 -0400 ... www.midrealm.org/middlebridge/archives/2002/200208/1089.html - Cached

and

Help me stop email bouncing please - ABestWeb Affiliate Marketing ...

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 ms001. Dec 7 2001 09:58:59) with ESMTP id H5UEZM00.1CI for me@myemail.com; Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:42:58 -0500 ...

www.abestweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51179 - Cached

and here is one showing the same version (4.15) with a different update date ... Jun 21 2001, and the date of the email was December 23, 2001:

Weber

... smtp-relay02.mac.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 relay02 Jun 21 2001 23: 53:48) with .... Email # 7: From Mark Weber to Salvador, December 23, 2001 ... www.jfkmontreal.com/weber.htm - Cached - Similar

The screen shot of Debra's copy that Judyth posted does show a couple of important things.

The header on Debra's copy says that Mary sent the e-mail Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:54:01 -0600 ... exactly

the same time as shown on the McAdams header.

Each "received" tag only carries one time stamp. It begins with the word "received" and ends with the time stamp. As shown, the "Dec 7 2001" that Judyth claims indicates alteration and time for an attachment to be altered, is software data. That date is NO part of the time stamp of this or any other email.

We know, as noted above, that John received his copy of the email 5 minutes after Mary sent it. No missing hours or days.

Barb :-)

JUDYTH ON THE ALTERED HEADER OF THE MARY FERRELL EMAIL

NOTE: Judyth send me a message to copy the content at the link she sent, but

when I clicked on it, the content had disappeared, which did not surprise me.

Now it's back. Apparently, it was my mistake in doing a copy and paste, when

it was there. In fact, very little surprises me about this case any more, given

the intense effort to discredit Judyth, whose story upsets a great many vested

interests, from those of the US government to independent students, such as

David Lifton and John Armstrong, not to mention those of many lesser players.

I am not used to dealing with headers and have integrated an attachment with

the rest of the text. Judyth has now confirmed and corrected my earlier post.

JUDYTH WRITES:

Read carefully--and you wIll see that email headers can be checked to see if they

have been faked. THE ORIGINAL HEADER (GRAPHIC BELOW) WAS PHOTOCOPIED

BY MCADAMS. I and ohers downloaded it after I realized that the header revealed

some very odd things about the history of where the email went.

THEN I SHOWED WHAT WAS WRONG WITH IT, AND IT VANISHED. INSTEAD, A

'NEW' HEADER, WITH MCADAMS PROCLAIMING IT CAME DIRECLY TO HIM, WAS

OFFERED.

BUT--THERE WAS A PROBLEM.

HE EVENTUALLY ALSO PUBLISHED A 'PERMISSION' HE SAID MARY FERRELL WROTE,

WHICH HE HAD KEPT BACK UNTIL AFTER HER DEATH.

THIS HE EVENTUALLY PUBLISHED WITH ITS HEADER.

BUT THE HEADER ON BOTH EMAILS HAS THE SAME WEIRD ERROR IN IT-- IDENTICAL

ERRORS, IN FACT. BOTH SAY THEY WERE SENT DEC. 7, A THE EXACT SAME TIME.

BOTH ARRIVED ON DEC. 12, THOUGH ONE ARRIVED FOUR HOURS LATER THAN

THE OTHER ONE.

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, BECAUSE THESE EMAILS WERE USED TO ATTEMPT TO

DESTROY MY REPUTATION. I EVEN BELIEVED MARY FERRELL SENT THE EMAIL AT

FIRST, UNTIL I LOOKED AT THE HEADER AND REALIZED IT HAD BEEN SENT FROM

MARY FERRELL TO DEBRA CONWAY, NOT DIRECTLY TO JOHN MCADAMS AS HAD BEEN

CLAIMED. I LOOKED CLOSER AND SAW THAT PORTIONS OF THE HEADER HAD ALSO

APPARENTLY BEEN ALTERED.

WHEN I MENTIONED THIS, THE HEADER WAS REPLACED WITH A HAND-TYPED

VERSION BY DAVE REITZES.

BUT THE VERY SAME HEADER INFO APPEARS AGAIN FOR MARY'S 'PERMISSION'--

AN IMPOSSIBILITY, UNLESS THE MARQUETTE SERVER LOG-IN WAS FOR FIVE FULL

DAYS BY MCADAMS. THAT IS UNLIKELY. MARQUETTE'S SERVER INFORMATION SHOWS

THAT ONE MUST LOGIN TO USE MU'S EMAIL SERVICES-- PROBABLY THE CASE IN 2001

AS WELL. IT WAS THAT WAY AT THE UNIVERSITIES I HAVE ATTENDED.

ON JULY 12, 2008, MCADAMS SAID, "I DON'T THINK I'VE POSTED THIS BEFORE" AND

THEN POSTED THE 'PERMISSION' EMAIL WITH THE HEADER CARRYING THE SAME

STRANGE DEC. 7-DEC. 12 PROBLEM, EVEN THE VERY SAME TIME ---IMPOSSIBLE IN TWO

SEPARATE EMALS SUPPOSEDLY WRITTEN AT DIFFERENT TIMES. READ THIS CAREFULLY.

UNDERSTANDING IT MEANS A GREAT DEAL.

IT PROVES COOPERATION BETWEEN THESE PEOPLE TO PRODUCE THE 'MARY

FERRELL DENUNCIATION' THAT MARY SAID SHE ACTUALLY DID NOT WRITE.

NOTE: You're ALL smart -- but I never made it clear enough before, thinking

everybody could read headers and see the clumsy fake header that Mr. Reitzes

typed in to take the place of the original. I was in the political asylum system at this

date in July 2008 and had no access to Internet and did not know that the bogus

header had been adapted for use a second time!

copy the two emails and their fake headers here:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...amp;lnk=ol&

Atttached--please read it after copying their header--is STEP ONE IN PROVING TO

YOU THAT THE 'MARY FERRELL' EMAIL WAS HANDLED BY OTHERS BEFORE REACHING

ITS FINAL DESTINATION. THE ORIGINAL HEADER SHOWS IT WAS SENT DIRECTLY TO

DEBRA CONWAY FIRST. THIS HAS BEEN ALTERED TO SHOW IT GOING DIRECTLY TO

JOHN MCADAMS.

I SUPPOSE HE CAN CLAIM THAT HE WAS SENT TWO IDENTICAL EMAILS, BOTH FROM

MARY BUT ONE UNACCOUNTABLY BEING SENT TO HIM FROM DEBRA CONWAY FIRST.

HOWEVER, THE 'DENUNCIATION' EMAIL WITH THE NEW HEADER PAUSES FOR FIVE

DAYS IN MIDAIR. (SEE BELOW.) THE DEC. 7 DATE IS FOUR DAYS BEFORE MARY AND I

MET IN HER APARTMENT, OF WHICH SHE SPEAKS IN THE EMAIL. OR ARE WE TO

SUPPOSE THAT THE LOG-IN LASTED FOR FIVE SOLID DAYS?

JVB

CRUCIAL: SHOWN IN THIS POST IS THE ALTERED HEADER OF THE 'DENOUNCING' EMAIL.

NOTE WHAT I HAVE PLACED IN BOLD SO YOU CAN MATCH IT TO THE NEXT EMAIL,

WHERE MARY FERRELL 'GIVES PERMISSION' FOR HER EMAIL TO BE POSTED, DESPITE

THE FACT THAT SHE WROTE THAT SHE HERSELF NEVER IN HER LIFE POSTED TO A

NEWSGROUP: BUT SHE WOULD ALOW MCADAMS TO DO SO?

NUMBER ONE: THE DENUNCIATORY EMAIL HEADER (REPLACED ORIGINAL):

Return-Path: <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by postmarq.mu.edu

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

(showing the server time when someone is logged in?)

with ESMTP id GO93R800.052 for <John.McAd...@marquette.edu>;

Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:59:32 -0600 (CLOCK OK)

Received: from mary-xp.cprompt.net [209.51.4.178] by cprompt.net with

ESMTP

(SMTPD32-6.00) id A1F9D9600CC; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:54:01 -0600

Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011212154557.01b8e...@cprompt.net>

X-Sender: maryf...@cprompt.net

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:56:06 -0600

To: dlif...@earthlink.net,rchap...@mem.net,de...@jfklancer.com,

parad...@gtw.net,PaulH...@uclink.berkeley.edu,John.McAd...@marquette.edu

From: Mary Ferrell <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Subject: Judyth Baker

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/mixed;

boundary="=====================_755792484==_"

BUT THE PROBLEM IS, THE LOG IN ON THE SERVER IS PRECISELY THE SAME INSTANT

FOR BOTH EMAILS....HE DID NOT LOG OFF FOR FIVE DAYS? NOTE THE 'PERMISSION'

EMAIL HEADER FROM MARY FERRELL ACCORDING TO JOHN MCADAMS, WHO POSTED

IT AFTER HER DEATH

<quote on>

Return-Path: <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by postmarq.mu.edu

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

(showing the server time when someone logged in?)

with ESMTP id GO9C8V00.FCG for <John.McAd...@marquette.edu>;

Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:02:55 -0600 (CLOCK NOW TOO SLOW)

Received: from mary-xp.cprompt.net [209.51.4.178] by cprompt.net with

ESMTP

(SMTPD32-6.00) id ACFFF830132; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 18:57:35 -0600

Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011212185718.01ad2...@cprompt.net>

X-Sender: maryf...@cprompt.net

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:02:56 -0600

To: John.McAd...@marquette.edu

From: Mary Ferrell <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Subject: Judyth Baker

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear John,

I don't really know what to say in response to your request

about publishing my statement about Judyth. I guess it is inevitable

that it will "get out." I suppose I wouldn't have sent it to you had

I not known that you would want to put it on the Internet.

When I was in the hospital almost all of 1997, you were kind

enough to send me a lovely Get-well card. I did appreciate it. And,

then, recently you asked me my opinion of Judyth and said that you

would keep it in confidence if I asked you to do so. I was terribly

rude and didn't even reply to you.

I appreciate your asking permission now and I guess my answer

is -- use the statement the way you see fit.

Sincerely,

Mary Ferrell

NOW HERE ARE THE DETAILS OF INTEREST ON THE TWO EMAIL HEADERS,

ONE SENT SUPPOSEDLY ON DEC. 12 SOME FOUR HOURS AFTER THE OTHER:

1) Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by postmarq.mu.edu

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

with ESMTP id GO93R800.052 for <John.McAd...@marquette.edu>;

Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:59:32 -0600

2) Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by postmarq.mu.edu

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

with ESMTP id GO9C8V00.FCG for <John.McAd...@marquette.edu>;

Wed, 12 Dec 2001 19:02:55 -0600

AN EXAMPLE SHOWN ON THE INTERNET OF A TYPICAL HEADER, SHOWS ALMOST

THE EXACT SAME DATE FOR "RECEIVED" AND 'WITH". LOOK AT THIS:

Received:Return-Path: <2.253141.31353834323037.b@mailb.travelpn.com>

Received: from p136.travelocity.com (p136.travelocity.com [151.193.165.14])

by mail.totalputz.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i3CFm97B007068

for <shagdevil@totalputz.com>; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:48:09 -0400

Received: from tcyhlp135 (172.30.66.213)

by p136.travelocity.com (PowerMTA™ v2.0r4) id hfat3i04e18r; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 10:48:03 -0500

(envelope-from <2.253141.31353834323037.b@mailb.travelpn.com&gt

(NOTE THE ONE HOUR DIFFERENCE DUE TO TIME ZONE GOING FROM 400 TO 500)

THE HOUR'S DIFFERENCE IS BECAUSE THE EMAIL WAS SENT ACROSS A TIME ZONE.

Note there is only a 6-second lapse, though. Note that the day is the same.

But McAdams shows us a message sent Dec, 7 that does not arrive until Dec. 12--

AND THEY ARE BOTH SENT AT THE VERY SAME TIMES! (06:47:59) YET THEY ARE

SUPPOSED TO BE TWO DIFFERENT EMAILS SENT FOUR HOURS APART.

COPY THIS FOR YOURSELF TO CAPTURE THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE BELOW.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...amp;lnk=ol&

1) MCADAMS’ ALTERED EMAIL HEADER TRIES TO SHOW DEBRA CONWAY WAS NOT INVOLVED

2) A PHOTO OF THE ORIGINAL HEADER SHOWING DEBRA CONWAY WAS INVOLVED FROM

THE BEGINNING (see below)

3) THE ALTERED HEADER SUBSTITUTED FOR THE ORIGINAL SCAN SHOWS THE SAME LOG-IN

ON THE SERVER FOR BOTH EMAILS, FIVE DAYS EARLIER, WITH THE SAME TIME TO THE

SECOND FOR BOTH LOG-INS.

THE HEADERS CAN BE SEEN AT:

Source: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...amp;lnk=ol&

BELOW is the HEADER MCADAMS POSTED for the email FROM MARY FERRELL, REPLYING TO JVB

(AND CC'ING MCADAMS) THAT SHE HAD NEVER POSTED IN HER LIFE ON A NEWSGROUP. (IT

ALSO HAS THE DEC. 7, 6:47:59 HOUR..IS THIS SOME KIND OF INTERNAL CLOCK WITH MARQUETTE?).

THIS ONE SHOWS IT WAS RECEIVED ON THURSDAY, DEC. 13, AT 21:19:17. YET THE TIME MCADAMS

SENT IT IS 16:25:13. The time zone is the same.

Return-Path: <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by postmarq.mu.edu

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

with ESMTP id GOBD8500.V4B for <John.McAd...@marquette.edu>;

Thu, 13 Dec 2001 21:19:17 -0600

Received: from mary-xp.cprompt.net [209.51.4.178] by cprompt.net with

ESMTP

(SMTPD32-6.00) id A9889C8013A; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:19:52 -0600

Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011213162046.01adf8f8@cprompt.net>

X-Sender: maryf...@cprompt.net

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:25:13 -0600

To: dlif...@earthlink.net,rchap...@mem.net,cabu...@us.ibm.com,

Joanmel...@aol.com,parad...@gtw.net,John.McAd...@marquette.edu

From: Mary Ferrell <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Subject: Fwd: Mary, why did you post to the newsgroup?

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

I have never posted anything to a news group in my life.

Mary

PERSONS EMAILED on ‘his’ HEADER FOR THE EMAIL HE SAID HE RECEIVED

FROM MARY DENOUNCING ME:

John McAdams

Robert Chapman

Paul Hoch

David Lifton

Debra Conway

HERE’S THE HEADER MCADAMS NOW POSTS WITH THAT EMAIL:

Return-Path: <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Received: from cprompt.net ([199.34.20.66]) by postmarq.mu.edu

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

with ESMTP id GO93R800.052 for <John.McAd...@marquette.edu>;

Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:59:32 -0600

Received: from mary-xp.cprompt.net [209.51.4.178] by cprompt.net with

ESMTP

(SMTPD32-6.00) id A1F9D9600CC; Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:54:01 -0600

Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011212154557.01b8e...@cprompt.net>

X-Sender: maryf...@cprompt.net

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 15:56:06 -0600

To: dlif...@earthlink.net,rchap...@mem.net,de...@jfklancer.com,

parad...@gtw.net,PaulH...@uclink.berkeley.edu,John.McAd...@marquette.edu

From: Mary Ferrell <maryf...@cprompt.net>

Subject: Judyth Baker

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/mixed;

boundary="=====================_755792484==_"

HERE IS THE ORIGINAL AS IT WAS POSTED BEFORE IT WAS REWRITTEN:

20kyb7c.jpg

Note that you can see where it was sent first (right above the from line are the recipients)

but this particular email was to Debra Conway--see the first 'received' line: Debra Conway

through 'robin'. he time stamp shows 'PST' which means "Pacific Standard Time." This is

Calfornia. Earthlink is widely used in Califoria, as well. There is a 2-hour time differential

between Texas and California.

INTERESTINGLY, MARY WROTE THAT IT WAS “WITH GREAT REGRET” THAT SHE SENT

“THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT”. WE HAVE DEBRA CONWAY SAYING THAT MARY DID NOT

KNOW HOW TO POST AN ATTACHMENT.

WE MUST ASK WHY MARY CREATED AN ATTACHMENT THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW HOW TO

POST, AND THAT SHE SUPPOSEDLY ASKED DEBRA CONWAY TO HELP HER LEARN HOW,

ACCORDING TO CONWAY.

WE MUST THEN ASK WHY THIS EMAIL WAS SENT TO DEBRA CONWAY AND MCADAMS

POSTED DEBRA'S EMAIL INSTEAD OF HIS OWN, IF MARY WROTE ALL OF THE EMAIL BY

HERSELF WITHOUT HELP FROM DEBRA CONWAY AS THEY CLAIM.

I NOTED SOME STRANGE TIME PROBLEMS WITH THE HEADER:

THE TIME INDICATES THAT THIS EMAIL was received from 'robin" for DEBRA CONWAY

on 12 Dec. 2001 AT 10:59:02, PST (Pacific Standard Time)

THAT WAS 12:59:02 , MARY FERRELL'S TIME, IN TEXAS.

THERE WAS AN APPARENT EFFORT (OR THE SCAN WAS DAMAGED)

TO MAKE THE TIME LOOK LIKE 12:59:32, WHICH IS WHAT I ALSO NOTICED WITH SOME

CONCERN. BUT THE PST STAMP TELLS US THAT THIS WASN'T TEXAS. SO EVEN WITH A

CHANGE TO 12:59:32 THE 'DIFFERENT' TIME WOULD BE 2:59:32 FOR MARY FERRELL.

THAT STILL MADE NO SENSE. MARY SUPPOSEDLY SENT THE EMAIL OUT AT 15:56:06

--almost 4:00 PM, NOT almost 3:00 PM.

This email apparently existed for hours before 3:56:06 (15:56:06 INT. TIME) when

Mary Ferrell sent it out.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Every time an e-mail moves through a different mail server, a new Received header

line is added to the beginning of the message headers list. It ...topmost is the newest,

created by the server nearest to you, and you should rely on this one only..." REF:

http://www.mailsbroadcast.com/email.broadc...l.broadcast.htm

------------------------------------------------------------

Note that "received" (top line) is supoosed to be LATER than "sent."

THE ATTACHMENT

MARY FERRELL WOULD HAVE WRITTEN A NORMAL EMAIL.

SHE WOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED FOR THE FIRST TIME, EVER, TO CREATE AN ATTACHMENT,

NEEDING THE ‘HELP’ OF FRIENDS TO DO SO. WHAT REALLY BOTHERS ME IS THAT I HAD

SEEN A FLOPPY IN MARY’S POSSESSION CALLED “JUDYTH.DOC” WHICH HAD ONLY MY

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION IN IT, FOR INCLUSION IN HER CHRONOLOGY. DEBRA

CONWAY REFUSED TO ALLOW ‘JUDYTH BAKER’ EVENTS TO BE INSERTED IN FERRELL’S

CHRONOLOGY. LANCER FOR A TIME THEN REFUSED TO SELL FERRELL’S CHRONOLOGY.

FERRELL FINALLY GAVE IN. SHE REMOVED THE INFORMATION AND PUT IT IN THE “JUDYTH.DOC”

FLOPPY FILE THAT I SAW (A RED FLOPPY DISKETTE). SO HOW DID THE ATTACHMENT GET TO BE

CALLED “Judyth.doc” – AS HER COMPUTER WOULD WANT TO RENAME THE DOC TO SOMETHING

ELSE (SHE HAD “JUDYTH.DOC” ON HER COMPUTER AS WELL, AND THE CONTENTS WERE NOTHING

LIKE WHAT IS IN THE EMAIL—IT WAS ALL DATES AND DATA.).

JVB

Link to post
Share on other sites
JUDYTH REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT HIS PLACE IN HISTORY

<snip>

I AM UNABLE TO SEE THE EDUCATON FORUM--IT IS BLOCKED TO MY VIEW.

<snip>

I hadn't heard this before. Professor, could you please ask Judyth to explain what message she sees? She is a member in good standing here, and should be able to view the Forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought Rich DellaRosa invented the term TEAM JUDYTH, since he used it so much. He despised

McAdams, and would not use a McAdams term.

Jack

I don't know which of them invented it, but McAdams uses the term regularly on aaj.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing mysterious about Mary having sent an attachment. An attachment to an email

is any GRAPHIC or TEXT created OFF-LINE and not written in the body of an email. Graphic

attachments are most often sent as JPGs. Text attachments (because PC Microsoft dominates)

are most often sent in MSWORD**...which can be opened on most computers. Most computers

have a "button" for adding attachments, done by clicking and selecting...all very easy and not

beyond Mary's great intelligence. The alternative is copying and pasting, but attachments are

often easier.

JVB makes it sound as if appending an attachment is some difficult and mysterious process

beyond Mary's ability.

Jack

**PDF files are usually used when it is desirable to combine text and graphics.

Edited by Jack White
Link to post
Share on other sites

Edwin Lea McGehee was one of the "Clinton/Jackson witnesses" who emerged during the Garrison investigation. The stories of these witnesses suggested that Oswald was in the Clinton/Jackson area in the late summer of 1963, accompanied by others, and various theories have been propounded as to the reason for Oswald's alleged presence there. McGehee once said he thought that a woman may have accompanied Oswald there. Baker and another individual interviewed McGehee in 2001. These are portions of the transcript.

Excerpts of transcript of "highlights" of interview of Edwin Lea McGehee by Judyth Baker, January 20, 2001.

Baker: I don't know what you were able to see in the car.

McGehee: Just saw the back of your head. That was all I saw.

Baker: OK. Well, was it a dark-haired lady?

McGehee: Right. That's all I know.

Baker: Well, now, it wasn't a blonde? She was dark-haired?

McGehee: Yes, dark-haired.

Baker: Well, I have to, I have to tell you - that was me.

McGehee: Garrison always asked. He said, who...he wished he knew who that was.

Baker: I kept everything.

McGehee: Why didn't it come up at that time?

Baker: Well, I was scared to death, because - Dave Ferrie, you know - think he was murdered - Mary Sherman was stabbed - fourteen times - the other person I worked with.

McGehee: Well, I'll be damned.

Baker: I've got all this documented.

McGehee: Uh-huh, uh-huh.

Baker: I've got all the proof.

McGehee: Unbelieveable!...

Baker: (showing picture of herself) Tell me, if you'll - look at her, and see what you think...Does she look anything like the woman you saw?

McGehee: The back - yeah - but it's short - not long haired - long haired - uh - I think it's...

Baker: It was a little longer at the time.

McGehee: Yeah...uh. Maybe a bit longer down at...it was shoulder length...

Baker: Well, that's exactly right, it was the year before...

McGehee: Right...

Baker: And, uh, my hair was a shorter length at the time...

McGehee: [Oswald] got a haircut. And I thought that was strange. He kept trying to - in my opinion, he was trying to make me remember him. That was my opinion of why he was there.

Baker: Well, there were some things we were trying to do to prove who we were...

McGehee: Uh...

Baker: This will shock you, but - we were there becuase of prisoners being experimented on at Jackson Hospital, and I don't know whether you heard any rumors about them or not. They were injected with cancer cells. did you hear anything about that?

McGehee: No.

Baker: Well, Okay. Did you hear of any experiments that were being done on any prisoners in 1963?

McGehee: Right. No, no.

Baker: Well that was what this whole trip was about - going out there and - I had all this medical training and everything like that, and we - I was out there to check the bloodwork...

Baker: Do you remember about the car out there? I'll tell you what kind of a car it was in a minute, and see if you can remember.

McGehee: It was an old car - and like I said, a Nash, a Frazier.

Baker: Was it two-toned or one-toned? Or do you remember? I'm on record, so - I mean, uh, I'm on record as having already described the car.

McGehee: I don't know...I just glanced at it, and I looked mostly at WHO was in the car...No, didn't know that car.

Baker: Well, it was a...mainly green - darker green...two-tone, the other color had some tan in it...

McGehee: Well, were you driving it? So Lee didn't drive?

Baker: Lee was driving. He was afraid to drive because he didn't have a driver's license, so we were driving up side roads...

McGehee: Everything I read about him - since then - it said he couldn't drive.

Baker: Oh, believe me!..He told me he learned to drive when he was in the Marines.

McGehee: Well, I'll be damned!

Baker: I want you to know that you are not the only one on tape. I've got other witnesses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What concerns me in the transcript above is not so much the material about McGehee and his responses; what concerns me are some of Baker's statements. Several of them seem to be "leading statements." About the lady in the car, Baker says "That was me...I kept everything...I've got this all documented...I've got all the proof." When there seems to be uncertainty about the length of the woman's hair, Baker makes comments about how HER hair looked in 1963. When McGehee gives his opinion of why Oswald was there, Baker "shocks" him with information about experiments on prisoners. When the car is discussed, she tells McGehee what the car looked like. When McGehee repeats information he had heard that Oswald could not drive, Baker insists that Oswald could drive.

It may just be that this was exuberance on Baker's part, or that the interview was not a formal one. But I have to keep this sort of thing in mind when considering Anna Lewis's statement, and Baker's role in arranging it and presence during it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judyth referred to the links above in her recent message posted by Jim. I get the message "cannot find..." for each. Does anyone else get anything different?

Dean

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...