Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

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.

I agree that Judyth complicated things by interviewing other witnesses herself. She would have been far better off having someone else do that.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Agreed; those links are broken.

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

JUDYTH REPLIES TO JUNKKARINEN ABOUT THE EMAIL HEADERS

BJ wrote:

"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.

==I did not claim anything concerning the part in parentheses--I asked what it was and postulated--that it may have been a log-in...That is what the question mark meant. That's not the concern. The concern is that the original email header and screen shot was removed and McAdams substituted the email he received in its place, erasing Debra Conway's having sent her email to him. AND WHY DID CONWAY SEND MCADAMS HER EMAIL, IF HE HAD HIS OWN IDENTICAL VERSION? These are legitimate questions. ==

That date is NO part of the time stamp of this or any other email.

== I had a QUESTION MARK THERE AND BJ ANSWERED THE QUESTION.==

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

==THAT'S NOT THE POINT. MCADAMS POSTED MARY'S EMAIL AS RECEIVED BY DEBRA CONWAY. THEN HE ERASED IT AND SUBSTITUTED THE ONE HE GOT. CONWAY''S HEADER HAD ERASURES ON IT AND TIME PROBLEMS.

HE ERASED IT WHEN I MENTIONED THE PROBLEMS AND PLACED A DIFFERENT HEADER THERE AND SAID IT CAME TO HIM FROM MARY.

FINE, BUT HOW DID HE GET CONWAY'S EMAIL?

OR, WHY DID CONWAY SEND MCADAMS HER EMAIL, SINCE HE WAS ALREADY CC'D? DID THEY HAVE TO CHECK TO MAKE SURE THE UPDATES WERE EXACTLY THE SAME? THAT IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE QUESTION TO ASK WHEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY MCADAMS WOULD BE SENT A COPY OF DEBRA CONWAY'S EMAIL FRO MARY WHEN HE HAD HIS VERY OWN COPY ALREADY.

WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT SEVERAL VERSIONS OF THE EMAIL WERE MADE "BY MARY." PERHAPS THE EXPLANATION IS INNOCENT, BUT IF SO, WHY DID MCADAMS ERASE CONWAY'S EMAIL?

IF YOU HAD THIS HAPPEN TO YOU, AND SAW THIS WRITTEN ABOUT YOU, AND YOU KNEW THERE WERE MANY FALSEHOODS IN IT, YOU TOO WOULD BE LOOKING THESE PROBLEMS WITH CONCERN.

YOU WOULD ALSO SPEAK UP.

I AM NOT BEING UNREASONABLE.

FURTHER, MARY DECIDED TO SEE US. IF MARY DIDN'T WANT TO SEE US AGAIN, ALL SHE HAD TO DO WAS TELL THE NURSE 'NO.'

I WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.==

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.

I did not know this. If Judyth is a member why do her replies have to be filtered through Jim? Is it to protect her from stating something inappropriate?

Doug Weldon

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.

This is absolutely worthless! Judyth is taking her own testimony and is repeatedly tainting the witness, It sounds like she had prepped him also, otherwise why would he say:

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.

"your head?" She's even telling him it was a two toned car!

If this is an example of how she prepped and approached Lewis and other witnesses it is far worse than I thought. Her paper on cancer could have been taken from an encyclopedia at the time. I look for evidence and there is nothing. Again, I would be happy to interview Lewis and tape it.

Doug Weldon

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.

I did not know this. If Judyth is a member why do her replies have to be filtered through Jim? Is it to protect her from stating something inappropriate?

Doug Weldon

Doug,

Your question [that I put in bold] suggests strongly that you do not trust what Jim or Judyth says. Why do you bother asking them questions?

Dean

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.

I did not know this. If Judyth is a member why do her replies have to be filtered through Jim? Is it to protect her from stating something inappropriate?

Doug Weldon

Doug,

Your question [that I put in bold] suggests strongly that you do not trust what Jim or Judyth says. Why do you bother asking them questions?

Dean

Dean:

I did not know that Judyth was a member and thus cannot understand now why any of this had to go through Jim. In fact, Judyth has answered NONE of my questions or other legitimate questions raised by others here, has refused to present the concrete proofs she claims she has, i.e., the handwriting ananlysis of oswald and the tape she claims she took at Mary Ferrels which she claims contradict what has been stated here. I cannot believe that anyone, especially you as an attorney, can accept such weak, and probably non-existent, proofs. It is you who should be demanding the handwriting analysis and tapes she claims she has. Doesn't her refusals and to see suchthings as her "interview" with McGeehee bother you? If Judyth was accused of beng LHO's lover and working on research as a high school student that the most reputable PHD's and MD's in the country still cannot do, do you truly believe that there would be enough evidence to convict her? If Judyth is a fraud, and if she cannot answer questions or proofs that SHE claims to have, or tries to taint or intimidate witnesse, then I detest what she is doing. If she has the proofs I am open and let her present them. Otherwise she dishonors the memory of JFK and is an affront to those who care. Let her answer the questions (herself) or present her evidence otherwise let's all hope we can enjoy her historical fiction.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
JUDYTH REPLIES TO JUNKKARINEN ABOUT THE EMAIL HEADERS

BJ wrote:

"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.

==I did not claim anything concerning the part in parentheses--I asked what it was and postulated--that it may have been a log-in...That is what the question mark meant. That's not the concern.

Well, the Dec 7 info in the parentheses certainly seemed like your concern as you said the following throughout your post (The post is #2827 on page 189):

"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."

and

"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."

and

"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."

and

"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. "

and

"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?"

and

"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?"

and

"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."

and more ... throughout your post, this Dec 7 date, that is what appears in the parentheses,

is what you use to show there was a 5 day delay, that two e-mails couldn't possibly carry the exact same time, etc.

It is the consistent theme throughout your post.

So, now that you understand that the Dec 7 date goes with the Marquette software, and has *nothing* to do with

time stamping any of these emails ... all of that goes away.

The concern is that the original email header and screen shot was removed and McAdams substituted the email he received in its place, erasing Debra Conway's having sent her email to him. AND WHY DID CONWAY SEND MCADAMS HER EMAIL, IF HE HAD HIS OWN IDENTICAL VERSION? These are legitimate questions. ==

I really don't understand why you think she did, there is nothing to support the notion. Your team cried foul about Mary's attachment denouncing you ... alleging, among other things, that someone else had somehow snatched Mary's email and "real" attachment out of cyberspace, delayed it for hours while someone crafted a new attachment, and then sent the thing back on its way to all named recipients. That is nonsensical, of course. The header on the emails that both John and Debra received show that they were mailed out from Mary at the exact same time.

The image you posted is a screen shot of Debra's copy on Debra's computer. She must have emailed that image to John so he could post it because of the header bru-ha-ha. Along with the header on his copy, the header in the screen shot from Debra's copy, again, shows that both were mailed out, from Mary's computer, and at the exact same time.

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

==THAT'S NOT THE POINT. MCADAMS POSTED MARY'S EMAIL AS RECEIVED BY DEBRA CONWAY. THEN HE ERASED IT AND SUBSTITUTED THE ONE HE GOT. CONWAY''S HEADER HAD ERASURES ON IT AND TIME PROBLEMS.

HE ERASED IT WHEN I MENTIONED THE PROBLEMS AND PLACED A DIFFERENT HEADER THERE AND SAID IT CAME TO HIM FROM MARY.

I don't know where you get this "he erased it" thing or that it had "erasures" on it. I am trying to understand, but it really seems to come down to you making erroneous assumptions and speculations about the Dec 7 date, about Debra supposedly emailing McAdams her copy of the email rather than her sending him a screen shot to post because of whatever was being discussed at the time, etc. You say McAdams photocopied something ... what and why? You say Dave hand typed a different header. Where is that, and again, why? None of the links you posted work.

You do know, that Debra's header will not be exactly the same as the header on someone else's copy because people have different servers and different servers run various software and use various tags. What is consistent is the "received" and time stamp info for when it was sent (Mary pushes the button to send and her server *receives* it, notes the time and routes the thing out for delivery to all those addressed)?

FINE, BUT HOW DID HE GET CONWAY'S EMAIL?

OR, WHY DID CONWAY SEND MCADAMS HER EMAIL, SINCE HE WAS ALREADY CC'D? DID THEY HAVE TO CHECK TO MAKE SURE THE UPDATES WERE EXACTLY THE SAME? THAT IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE QUESTION TO ASK WHEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY MCADAMS WOULD BE SENT A COPY OF DEBRA CONWAY'S EMAIL FRO MARY WHEN HE HAD HIS VERY OWN COPY ALREADY.

Screen shot. No doubt due to the discussions at the time about the headers. John did receive his own copy ... it was mailed out to him at the exact time it was mailed out to Debra and everyone else. You can see that time, as noted in my last reply to you, on both the screen shot of Debra's header, and in John's header.

WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT SEVERAL VERSIONS OF THE EMAIL WERE MADE "BY MARY." PERHAPS THE EXPLANATION IS INNOCENT, BUT IF SO, WHY DID MCADAMS ERASE CONWAY'S EMAIL?

I don't understand what you mean when you say McAdams "erased" Debra's email ... erased it from where or what? I have never heard there were several versions of Mary's e-mail ... or the attachment. Who told you that? Perhaps you are thinking of the work Paul Seaton did on the attachment document just a couple years ago. He got down into the nitty gritty details Word records and was able too see that the document was created by Mary Ferrell, on her computer, the times she worked on it, how many times it had been saved over how many hours. That is not "several versions" ... it was just one document being worked on over the course of a few hours and being saved occasionally.

IF YOU HAD THIS HAPPEN TO YOU, AND SAW THIS WRITTEN ABOUT YOU, AND YOU KNEW THERE WERE MANY FALSEHOODS IN IT, YOU TOO WOULD BE LOOKING THESE PROBLEMS WITH CONCERN.

YOU WOULD ALSO SPEAK UP.

I AM NOT BEING UNREASONABLE.

FURTHER, MARY DECIDED TO SEE US. IF MARY DIDN'T WANT TO SEE US AGAIN, ALL SHE HAD TO DO WAS TELL THE NURSE 'NO.'

I WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.==

I understand that Mary deciding to sever ties with you and her sending out her email and the attachment, was painful for you. Bottom line, all the header and attachment allegations and issues have been hashed out more than once over the years, and really were resolved years ago. Mary wrote it. Mary sent it. When Mary pushed the send button, it was picked up by her server and carried away through cyberspace and delivered to all of the addressees. I believe the bottom of this has been gotten to.

Barb :-)

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

JUDYTH REPLIES CONCERNING HER DISCUSSION WITH MCGEHEE

NOTE: If Doug has questions that he would like Judyth to answer, where I have

inadvertently not forwarded them to her or not, then I invite him to post them,

so I can do that. This is not the first time I have asked. Judyth was attempting

to see if he (McGehee) was a witness to her story, which may not have been the

right thing to do from a legalistic point of view but seems to me to be perfectly

understandable. She is trying to find out what he saw. He is treating her as though

she should have been adhering to strict rules of evidence. I think Doug's attitude is

very inappropriate, condescending, dismissive, and arrogant. That's my take. I

have one of the photos she was talking about, which I will add to this tomorrow.

Given the treatment she has received in the past, I regard my role as justified.

JUDYTH RESPONDS:

Re the 'showing picture of herself"--Martin did not have a film....

McGeehee was looking at photos spread out on the floor. We were down on our hands

and knees--on the rug.

The excerpts from the transcript, with my notes added:

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.

==An attempt was made here by JVB NOT to have it a leading question.==

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

==McGehee had already said he only saw "the back of your head" ---but I had not

yet told him that the photographs were of ME...I said they were of me a this time.==

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.

==In actuality, I had only heard rumors and did not know for sure, all those years,

what had happened to everybody....until decided to try to find out their fates in

1999.

I did try to hunt for witnesses, but never with the intention of speaking out

until I saw the film "JFK". I was afraid for months after deciding to speak out, to

even mention Dr. Ochsner and only barely mentioned Dr.Sherman to anyone,

anywhere, he was so powerful.==

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)

==It was not just one picture...There were a number of them, spread out on the rug...==

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...

==He was not saying my hair was short--when he said "but it's short"--by this, he meant, I had

pointed at a photo of my hair short, and that was wrong....

Next he said, to another photo I silently pointed at, "not long haired"--this was the one where my

hair was quite long.haired".....responding to what i was pointing at. Then I pointed at one with my

hair VERY short, and he said==

"Long haired - uh - I think it's..." (because this photo showed the hair too short)

That's when I replied...."It was a little longer a the time" (Hint: It was a LOT longer at the time!)

Baker: It was a little longer at the time.

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

==I had been pointing at these various photos, but now he pointed at

one of them, himself, with shoulder-length hair.==

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

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

==At that time I thought the photo was made in 1962. But in another copy of the photo

2a68ndz.jpg

Robert is also in the photo, and I later realized it was made in July, 1963, just one month

before McGehee had seen the woman in the car. It was closer than 'a year'--I gave him

a date that was a year off. ==

McGehee: Right...

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

==My hair was a few inches shorter at the end of August, 1963 because

Mrs. Baker, Robert's mother, had trimmed off a few inches for the

special bridal shower she held for the new bride (me). This provoked a

rumor that Jack White repeated--that we had actually had a formal

wedding. Nope. We had married in Mobile, AL, where waiting period

was zero hours.==

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...

==Lee wanted to be remembered as a job-seeker at the hospital

to stem any rumors as to why he was there. He talked to Morgan aboiut

a job and also to Palmer, the registrar in Clinton, about a job, and even

made a job application. Of course he never sowed up in Clinton or Jackson

again. Just those two trips. The book explains in detail.==

McGehee: Uh...

Baker: This will shock you, but - we were there because 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.

==I did not ask a leading question here. I had the impression from

what Mr. Roy (Mr. Blackburst) said, that I had asked a leading question here.==

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

==THIS SHOWS that McGehee had related his experience to us before,

as I alreasdy reported to this forum. Even though he had said a

"Nash" a "Frazier" I had asked him to identify it again.==

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...

==This information was given only after McGehee said he could

not remember. There's nothing wrong with that.==

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...

==We did not drive through Clinton but came up through jackson.

After leaving Jackson on the way to Clinton, we turned into the

hospital grounds and reached the gates, where the orderly was

waiting for us and allowed us to pass....==

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.

==This was said because Anna Lewis and Mac McCullough

were already on tape by then.==

JVB

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.

This is absolutely worthless! Judyth is taking her own testimony and is repeatedly tainting the witness, It sounds like she had prepped him also, otherwise why would he say:

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.

"your head?" She's even telling him it was a two toned car!

If this is an example of how she prepped and approached Lewis and other witnesses it is far worse than I thought. Her paper on cancer could have been taken from an encyclopedia at the time. I look for evidence and there is nothing. Again, I would be happy to interview Lewis and tape it.

Doug Weldon

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

I did not know this. If Judyth is a member why do her replies have to be filtered through Jim? Is it to protect her from stating something inappropriate?

Doug Weldon

Doug,

Your question [that I put in bold] suggests strongly that you do not trust what Jim or Judyth says. Why do you bother asking them questions?

Dean

Dean:

I did not know that Judyth was a member and thus cannot understand now why any of this had to go through Jim. In fact, Judyth has answered NONE of my questions or other legitimate questions raised by others here, has refused to present the concrete proofs she claims she has, i.e., the handwriting ananlysis of oswald and the tape she claims she took at Mary Ferrels which she claims contradict what has been stated here. I cannot believe that anyone, especially you as an attorney, can accept such weak, and probably non-existent, proofs. It is you who should be demanding the handwriting analysis and tapes she claims she has. Doesn't her refusals and to see suchthings as her "interview" with McGeehee bother you? If Judyth was accused of beng LHO's lover and working on research as a high school student that the most reputable PHD's and MD's in the country still cannot do, do you truly believe that there would be enough evidence to convict her? If Judyth is a fraud, and if she cannot answer questions or proofs that SHE claims to have, or tries to taint or intimidate witnesse, then I detest what she is doing. If she has the proofs I am open and let her present them. Otherwise she dishonors the memory of JFK and is an affront to those who care. Let her answer the questions (herself) or present her evidence otherwise let's all hope we can enjoy her historical fiction.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I am not an attorney. And as to your questions, I do not have much of an interest in handwriting samples. I believe there is a good chance that the experts for the Warren Commission falsely stated that Lee Oswald filled out the order form for the rifle. It seems to me that experts can be mistaken. Also, is it not true that jurors are frequently asked to determine if a writing sample belongs to a certain person? The sample of the handwriting you refer to was, of course, shown on this thread some time back and all of us can make our judgment on that.

As for McGeehee, I do not agree with putting the word interview in quotes. It was an interview and reasonable minds can differ as to its quality. I was not bothered by it.

Doug, I think we can have a fair dialogue about this topic. But I am confused. You sound like you want questions answered on the one hand but you also sound like you have decided you will not agree with what you would hear. Am I reasonable to be confused?

Dean

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

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON'S LATEST EFFORTS TO DISMISS HER

NOTE: Once again, he treats her as though she were a professional investigator coming

from the Office of the District Attorney. I regard her objections here as well-founded. His

remark about drawing her work from an encyclopedia is simply ignorant beyond belief. I

consider his degree of bias to disqualify him as an objective investigator of Judyth Baker.

JUDYTH RESPONDS:

This is absolutely worthless! Judyth is taking her own testimony and is repeatedly tainting

the witness, It sounds like she had prepped him also, otherwise why would he say:

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.

==I HAD A WITNESS WITH ME. HE TOLD US HIS ENTIRE EXPERIENCE. I TOLD HIM I WAS

THE WOMAN IN THE CAR. HE DID NOT BELIEVE ME AND ASKED ME ABOUT LEE'S HAIRCUT.

WHEN I GAVE HIM THE CORRECT ANSWER, HE AGREED TO GO ON TAPE.

BECAUSE MCGEHEE COULD NOT SEE MY FACE, THERE WAS NO I.D. TAINTING, JUST MY SAYING

I WAS THE WOMAN. OTHERWISE, HE DID NOT WANT TO ALK TO US. HE WAS BUSY HELPING TO

MOVE FURNITURE FOR A FRIEND AND HAD TO STOP FOR THE INTERVIEW.

WHAT, WAS I TO SAY I WAS A NEWSPAPER REPORTER? HE TOLD ME IF I WAS A REPORTER,

TO GO AWAY!

THERE IS NO 'PREPPING' GOING ON. WE NEVER DISCUSSED HAIR LENGTH. I HAVE IN THE

OTHER POST INTERPRETED WHAT WAS SAID AS EACH PHOTO WAS LOOKED AT. MARTIN

THOUGHT THERE WAS JUST ONE PHOTO BECAUSE SHACK WAS NOT THERE. WELDON IS

EXHIBITING PREJUDICE.==

"your head?"

She's even telling him it was a two toned car!

==USE LOGIC. ONLY AFTER HE SAID HE COULD NOT REMEMBER THE COLOR OF THE CAR DID

I TELL HM THE COLOR. THAT IS NOT PREPPING. PREPPING IS BEFORE THE FACT, NOT AFTER.==

If this is an example of how she prepped

==PREP IS BEFORE THE ACT. HE DID NOT SEE THE FACE. SO MY SAYING IT WAS ME MADE

NO DIFFERENCE, BECAUSE ONLY THE HAIRSTYLE WAS OF CONCERN. I HAVE EXPLAINED THE

PROCESS, WHICH DOES NOT COME ACROSS VERY WELL ON TAPE.==

and approached Lewis and other witnesses

==NOT SO. ANNA AND I SAW EACH OTHER FOR THE FIRST TIME AFTER ALL THOSE YEARS AND

RAN INTO EACH OTHER'S ARMS IN THE PRESENCE OF HER DAUGHTER SONDRA. ANNA SAID,

"SEE? I TOLD YOU I KNEW LEE OSWALD AND HIS GIRLFRIEND!" TO SONDRA.

IT WAS A CROWDED RESTAURANT AND I GOT HER VERY FIRST STATEMENTS IMMEDIATELY,

HER DAUGHTER PRESENT HEARING EVERY WORD. I TAPED ANNA IMMEDIATELY AND LET HER

TALK. WE DID TWO TAPES AND THE NEXT TIME WE MET WAS IN NEW ORLEANS.==

it is far worse than I thought.

==IMPOSSIBLE. WELDON ALWAYS THINKS THE WORST.==

Her paper on cancer could have been taken from an encyclopedia at the time.

==THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS WHO ADVISED ME ON MY WORK MAY HAVE WRITTEN SOME OF

THE ARTICLES IN ENCYCLOPEDIAS, BUT FYI, ENCYCLOPEDIAS AT THE TIME WERE WOEFULLY

BEHIND INSOFAR CANCER RESEARCH WENT.

THERE WAS ALMOST NOTHING IN HE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA, FOR EXAMPLE, OF USE TO ME.

EVEN THE E.B. WAS WAY TOO GENERAL.==

I look for evidence and there is nothing. Again, I would be happy to interview Lewis and tape it.

==AFTER WHAT'S SHE'S BEEN THROUGH? SHE WASN'T PREPPED FOR NEW ORLEANS. SHE DIDN'T

EVEN KNOW THERE WAS GOING TO BE A TAPING. OR DO YOU WISH TO INCLUDE DEBRA CONWAY

IN 'THE "PLOT' TO INFLUENCE THE WITNESS?" SHE DID THE TAPING. FIVE OF US SAT THERE AND

LISTENED AS CONWAY ASKED OCCASIONAL QUESTIONS.. MR. WELDON HAS EXPRESSED THAT HE

DOUBTS MY SANITY. WHICH OF MY WITNESSES WOULD WANT TO BE UNDER HIS TENDER CARE,

KNOWING HOW PREJUDICED HE IS?==

JVB

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.

This is absolutely worthless! Judyth is taking her own testimony and is repeatedly tainting the witness, It sounds like she had prepped him also, otherwise why would he say:

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.

"your head?" She's even telling him it was a two toned car!

If this is an example of how she prepped and approached Lewis and other witnesses it is far worse than I thought. Her paper on cancer could have been taken from an encyclopedia at the time. I look for evidence and there is nothing. Again, I would be happy to interview Lewis and tape it.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not know this. If Judyth is a member why do her replies have to be filtered through Jim? Is it to protect her from stating something inappropriate?

Doug Weldon

Doug,

Your question [that I put in bold] suggests strongly that you do not trust what Jim or Judyth says. Why do you bother asking them questions?

Dean

Dean:

I did not know that Judyth was a member and thus cannot understand now why any of this had to go through Jim. In fact, Judyth has answered NONE of my questions or other legitimate questions raised by others here, has refused to present the concrete proofs she claims she has, i.e., the handwriting ananlysis of oswald and the tape she claims she took at Mary Ferrels which she claims contradict what has been stated here. I cannot believe that anyone, especially you as an attorney, can accept such weak, and probably non-existent, proofs. It is you who should be demanding the handwriting analysis and tapes she claims she has. Doesn't her refusals and to see suchthings as her "interview" with McGeehee bother you? If Judyth was accused of beng LHO's lover and working on research as a high school student that the most reputable PHD's and MD's in the country still cannot do, do you truly believe that there would be enough evidence to convict her? If Judyth is a fraud, and if she cannot answer questions or proofs that SHE claims to have, or tries to taint or intimidate witnesse, then I detest what she is doing. If she has the proofs I am open and let her present them. Otherwise she dishonors the memory of JFK and is an affront to those who care. Let her answer the questions (herself) or present her evidence otherwise let's all hope we can enjoy her historical fiction.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I am not an attorney. And as to your questions, I do not have much of an interest in handwriting samples. I believe there is a good chance that the experts for the Warren Commission falsely stated that Lee Oswald filled out the order form for the rifle. It seems to me that experts can be mistaken. Also, is it not true that jurors are frequently asked to determine if a writing sample belongs to a certain person? The sample of the handwriting you refer to was, of course, shown on this thread some time back and all of us can make our judgment on that.

As for McGeehee, I do not agree with putting the word interview in quotes. It was an interview and reasonable minds can differ as to its quality. I was not bothered by it.

Doug, I think we can have a fair dialogue about this topic. But I am confused. You sound like you want questions answered on the one hand but you also sound like you have decided you will not agree with what you would hear. Am I reasonable to be confused?

Dean

Dean:

I want to address this very succinctly. My apologies, I thought you had a legal background. Experts can be mistaken and of course, a jury, or in this case, the public or this forum, is the ultimate trier of fact. However, as I assume anyone knows, the triers of fact do not do the examination of the actual handwriting and make their own determination. The examination is made by experts describing how they performed their examination and the jury decides if those experts are reliable. We do not each make individual judments absent the foundation of expert analysis. Doesn't it bother you that Judyth will not allow the writing to be examined with truly the weight of history weighing on her contentions? Judyth wants to examine the handwriting, Oswald's eyes, his autopsy, and asks us to believe that SHE is the expert on everything. Doesn't it bother you that she has such a total recall of everything but yet is wrong on so much, including an unbelieveable penchant for getting things wrong that she had a 50/50 chance of getting right by guessing?

She digs a deeper and deeper hole when she explains her interview with McGeehee. How useful is it when a witness describes a woman and she shouts out that it was her, that she describes the car for him, etc. etc? Do you not believe that the Platzman and JVB e-mails to Mary Ferrell were an obvious attempt to coerce her? If not, there is nothing I can say to you. Doesn't that lead one to believe that such was not an isolated incident? What is surprising me is not that so little stands up to scrutiny but, in fact, virtually nothing does. What do we have besides her sieve filled story? I would be glad to interview her witnesses. Nothing would be hidden and all would be recorded. How can I state that I would not agree with her answers when there are NO answers? How do you know what we would hear if she dodges so many legiitimate questions.

You mention that experts can be mistaken about handwriting samples. Of course, but if I wrote out a book in my handwriting and tell everyone it's JFK's handwriting and all the experts laugh and I tell you they could be mistaken would you buy that book from me? Dean, I do have a couple of Picasso sketches you might be interested in buying.

Jim keeps saying repeat the questions. I have over and over. Let's just take one for the upteenth time. Produce the Mary Ferrell tape which she claims she has that supports her position. One issue! Is it clear what I am asking for? This, the alleged LHO writing, and if there is a picture the two of them have are all concrete pieces of evidence. PRODUCE them. Let JVB respond for herself. It always seems like there is a "Team Judyth" that has been there to protect her from her own falsehoods. I don't know why? If there is a money interest, I don't think anyone got rich, yet convinced many others, from her first book. I will bet anyone that Meryl Streep is not waiting anxiously to play Judyth, in the movie role of her life.

I sincerely was open and did not see Judyth as a total fraud. For many personal reasons I was very interested in cancer and the monkey virus. One person has ultimately been able to convince me that Judyth is a fraud. That person has been able to provide overwhelming evidence from each carefully detailed point to detailed point. I simply cannot argue with that person. That person is Judyth.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not know this. If Judyth is a member why do her replies have to be filtered through Jim? Is it to protect her from stating something inappropriate?

Doug Weldon

Doug,

Your question [that I put in bold] suggests strongly that you do not trust what Jim or Judyth says. Why do you bother asking them questions?

Dean

Dean:

I did not know that Judyth was a member and thus cannot understand now why any of this had to go through Jim. In fact, Judyth has answered NONE of my questions or other legitimate questions raised by others here, has refused to present the concrete proofs she claims she has, i.e., the handwriting ananlysis of oswald and the tape she claims she took at Mary Ferrels which she claims contradict what has been stated here. I cannot believe that anyone, especially you as an attorney, can accept such weak, and probably non-existent, proofs. It is you who should be demanding the handwriting analysis and tapes she claims she has. Doesn't her refusals and to see suchthings as her "interview" with McGeehee bother you? If Judyth was accused of beng LHO's lover and working on research as a high school student that the most reputable PHD's and MD's in the country still cannot do, do you truly believe that there would be enough evidence to convict her? If Judyth is a fraud, and if she cannot answer questions or proofs that SHE claims to have, or tries to taint or intimidate witnesse, then I detest what she is doing. If she has the proofs I am open and let her present them. Otherwise she dishonors the memory of JFK and is an affront to those who care. Let her answer the questions (herself) or present her evidence otherwise let's all hope we can enjoy her historical fiction.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I am not an attorney. And as to your questions, I do not have much of an interest in handwriting samples. I believe there is a good chance that the experts for the Warren Commission falsely stated that Lee Oswald filled out the order form for the rifle. It seems to me that experts can be mistaken. Also, is it not true that jurors are frequently asked to determine if a writing sample belongs to a certain person? The sample of the handwriting you refer to was, of course, shown on this thread some time back and all of us can make our judgment on that.

As for McGeehee, I do not agree with putting the word interview in quotes. It was an interview and reasonable minds can differ as to its quality. I was not bothered by it.

Doug, I think we can have a fair dialogue about this topic. But I am confused. You sound like you want questions answered on the one hand but you also sound like you have decided you will not agree with what you would hear. Am I reasonable to be confused?

Dean

Dean:

I want to address this very succinctly. My apologies, I thought you had a legal background. Experts can be mistaken and of course, a jury, or in this case, the public or this forum, is the ultimate trier of fact. However, as I assume anyone knows, the triers of fact do not do the examination of the actual handwriting and make their own determination. The examination is made by experts describing how they performed their examination and the jury decides if those experts are reliable. We do not each make individual judments absent the foundation of expert analysis. Doesn't it bother you that Judyth will not allow the writing to be examined with truly the weight of history weighing on her contentions? Judyth wants to examine the handwriting, Oswald's eyes, his autopsy, and asks us to believe that SHE is the expert on everything. Doesn't it bother you that she has such a total recall of everything but yet is wrong on so much, including an unbelieveable penchant for getting things wrong that she had a 50/50 chance of getting right by guessing?

She digs a deeper and deeper hole when she explains her interview with McGeehee. How useful is it when a witness describes a woman and she shouts out that it was her, that she describes the car for him, etc. etc? Do you not believe that the Platzman and JVB e-mails to Mary Ferrell were an obvious attempt to coerce her? If not, there is nothing I can say to you. Doesn't that lead one to believe that such was not an isolated incident? What is surprising me is not that so little stands up to scrutiny but, in fact, virtually nothing does. What do we have besides her sieve filled story? I would be glad to interview her witnesses. Nothing would be hidden and all would be recorded. How can I state that I would not agree with her answers when there are NO answers? How do you know what we would hear if she dodges so many legiitimate questions.

You mention that experts can be mistaken about handwriting samples. Of course, but if I wrote out a book in my handwriting and tell everyone it's JFK's handwriting and all the experts laugh and I tell you they could be mistaken would you buy that book from me? Dean, I do have a couple of Picasso sketches you might be interested in buying.

Jim keeps saying repeat the questions. I have over and over. Let's just take one for the upteenth time. Produce the Mary Ferrell tape which she claims she has that supports her position. One issue! Is it clear what I am asking for? This, the alleged LHO writing, and if there is a picture the two of them have are all concrete pieces of evidence. PRODUCE them. Let JVB respond for herself. It always seems like there is a "Team Judyth" that has been there to protect her from her own falsehoods. I don't know why? If there is a money interest, I don't think anyone got rich, yet convinced many others, from her first book. I will bet anyone that Meryl Streep is not waiting anxiously to play Judyth, in the movie role of her life.

I sincerely was open and did not see Judyth as a total fraud. For many personal reasons I was very interested in cancer and the monkey virus. One person has ultimately been able to convince me that Judyth is a fraud. That person has been able to provide overwhelming evidence from each carefully detailed point to detailed point. I simply cannot argue with that person. That person is Judyth.

Doug Weldon

Doug...I also thought that Dean had introduced himself as an attorney. Why did we both get that impression?

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judyth is being advised by Nobel Prize Winners? Please tell us more. Which ones?

At the same time, please clarify her statement that Judyth's IQ test showed that she

had the highest IQ of anyone in the state of Florida.

These unsupported claims weaken her credibility.

Jack

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON'S LATEST EFFORTS TO DISMISS HER

NOTE: Once again, he treats her as though she were a professional investigator coming

from the Office of the District Attorney. I regard her objections here as well-founded. His

remark about drawing her work from an encyclopedia is simply ignorant beyond belief. I

consider his degree of bias to disqualify him as an objective investigator of Judyth Baker.

JUDYTH RESPONDS:

This is absolutely worthless! Judyth is taking her own testimony and is repeatedly tainting

the witness, It sounds like she had prepped him also, otherwise why would he say:

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.

==I HAD A WITNESS WITH ME. HE TOLD US HIS ENTIRE EXPERIENCE. I TOLD HIM I WAS

THE WOMAN IN THE CAR. HE DID NOT BELIEVE ME AND ASKED ME ABOUT LEE'S HAIRCUT.

WHEN I GAVE HIM THE CORRECT ANSWER, HE AGREED TO GO ON TAPE.

BECAUSE MCGEHEE COULD NOT SEE MY FACE, THERE WAS NO I.D. TAINTING, JUST MY SAYING

I WAS THE WOMAN. OTHERWISE, HE DID NOT WANT TO ALK TO US. HE WAS BUSY HELPING TO

MOVE FURNITURE FOR A FRIEND AND HAD TO STOP FOR THE INTERVIEW.

WHAT, WAS I TO SAY I WAS A NEWSPAPER REPORTER? HE TOLD ME IF I WAS A REPORTER,

TO GO AWAY!

THERE IS NO 'PREPPING' GOING ON. WE NEVER DISCUSSED HAIR LENGTH. I HAVE IN THE

OTHER POST INTERPRETED WHAT WAS SAID AS EACH PHOTO WAS LOOKED AT. MARTIN

THOUGHT THERE WAS JUST ONE PHOTO BECAUSE SHACK WAS NOT THERE. WELDON IS

EXHIBITING PREJUDICE.==

"your head?"

She's even telling him it was a two toned car!

==USE LOGIC. ONLY AFTER HE SAID HE COULD NOT REMEMBER THE COLOR OF THE CAR DID

I TELL HM THE COLOR. THAT IS NOT PREPPING. PREPPING IS BEFORE THE FACT, NOT AFTER.==

If this is an example of how she prepped

==PREP IS BEFORE THE ACT. HE DID NOT SEE THE FACE. SO MY SAYING IT WAS ME MADE

NO DIFFERENCE, BECAUSE ONLY THE HAIRSTYLE WAS OF CONCERN. I HAVE EXPLAINED THE

PROCESS, WHICH DOES NOT COME ACROSS VERY WELL ON TAPE.==

and approached Lewis and other witnesses

==NOT SO. ANNA AND I SAW EACH OTHER FOR THE FIRST TIME AFTER ALL THOSE YEARS AND

RAN INTO EACH OTHER'S ARMS IN THE PRESENCE OF HER DAUGHTER SONDRA. ANNA SAID,

"SEE? I TOLD YOU I KNEW LEE OSWALD AND HIS GIRLFRIEND!" TO SONDRA.

IT WAS A CROWDED RESTAURANT AND I GOT HER VERY FIRST STATEMENTS IMMEDIATELY,

HER DAUGHTER PRESENT HEARING EVERY WORD. I TAPED ANNA IMMEDIATELY AND LET HER

TALK. WE DID TWO TAPES AND THE NEXT TIME WE MET WAS IN NEW ORLEANS.==

it is far worse than I thought.

==IMPOSSIBLE. WELDON ALWAYS THINKS THE WORST.==

Her paper on cancer could have been taken from an encyclopedia at the time.

==THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNERS WHO ADVISED ME ON MY WORK MAY HAVE WRITTEN SOME OF

THE ARTICLES IN ENCYCLOPEDIAS, BUT FYI, ENCYCLOPEDIAS AT THE TIME WERE WOEFULLY

BEHIND INSOFAR CANCER RESEARCH WENT.

THERE WAS ALMOST NOTHING IN HE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITTANICA, FOR EXAMPLE, OF USE TO ME.

EVEN THE E.B. WAS WAY TOO GENERAL.==

I look for evidence and there is nothing. Again, I would be happy to interview Lewis and tape it.

==AFTER WHAT'S SHE'S BEEN THROUGH? SHE WASN'T PREPPED FOR NEW ORLEANS. SHE DIDN'T

EVEN KNOW THERE WAS GOING TO BE A TAPING. OR DO YOU WISH TO INCLUDE DEBRA CONWAY

IN 'THE "PLOT' TO INFLUENCE THE WITNESS?" SHE DID THE TAPING. FIVE OF US SAT THERE AND

LISTENED AS CONWAY ASKED OCCASIONAL QUESTIONS.. MR. WELDON HAS EXPRESSED THAT HE

DOUBTS MY SANITY. WHICH OF MY WITNESSES WOULD WANT TO BE UNDER HIS TENDER CARE,

KNOWING HOW PREJUDICED HE IS?==

JVB

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.

This is absolutely worthless! Judyth is taking her own testimony and is repeatedly tainting the witness, It sounds like she had prepped him also, otherwise why would he say:

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.

"your head?" She's even telling him it was a two toned car!

If this is an example of how she prepped and approached Lewis and other witnesses it is far worse than I thought. Her paper on cancer could have been taken from an encyclopedia at the time. I look for evidence and there is nothing. Again, I would be happy to interview Lewis and tape it.

Doug Weldon

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...