Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer

Recommended Posts

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?

I HAVE A LAW DEGREE BUT AM NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW. MAYBE THAT WAS THE POINT OF CONFUSION.

AS FOR JURORS DECIDING ON HANDWRITING, I CHECKED FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, WHICH I FOUND ON THIS WEBSITE WITH COMMENTS:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidencep...ca8-mo2010.html

HERE IS THE GIST OF WHAT IT STATES. I TAKE IT TO MEAN THAT A PARTY CAN (USUALLY AS A LAST RESORT) ASK THE TRIER OF FACT, THE JURY IN MANY TRIALS, TO COMPARE A WRITING TO AN EXEMPLAR:

Federal Rules of Evidence

ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION

Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification

(a) General provision.

The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

(B) Illustrations.

By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:

(1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.

(2) Nonexpert opinion on handwriting. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation.

(3) Comparison by trier or expert witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.

...

(WAS THERE SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE IS AN AUTHENTICATED LEE OSWALD WRITING AVAILABLE?)

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.

A LITTLE COMMON SENSE WOULD SETTLE YOUR HYPOTHETICAL BETTER THAN AN EXPERT.

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, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Dean Hartwell said to Doug Weldon:

Doug,

I am not an attorney.

Dean

...

Doug replied:

Dean:

I want to address this very succinctly. My apologies, I thought you had a legal background.

Doug Weldon

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

Jack

Jack,

I never identified myself as an attorney. I explained to Doug in a recent post to him that I have a law degree but that I am not licensed. Maybe that was the source of your confusion.

Dean

Link to post
Share on other sites
JUDYTH RESPONDS:

[snip]

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.==

I disagree, Jim. Those were leading questions. By contrast, "non-leading questions" would have been: "Did you see the color of the hair-- and if so, what was that color?"

(Technically, even my example is leading! But, its ridiculous to assume the person in the car might not have had hair at all!)

Edited by Greg Burnham
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

Judyth says:

==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.==

There is only one thing worse than this. It would be asking "what color was the GREEN Car?" Then by telling him the color of the car after she told him that she was the woman in the car she is trying to establish facts that the witness cannot do independently and then is using the witness as corroborration for her own statement. I hope people can see the circuitous logic and see how preposterous this is.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites

DOUG, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU.

Dean:

I guess your failure to address most of the points I raised must be construed as acquiescence. (The point about the handwriting were people determining two examples of handwriting were not the same person, not to determine if they were, in fact, the same person. if there is suspicion that Judyth forged the writing do you not agree that she should not be the person to authenticate it?) Since you are a law school graduate, i have a very simple question. If someone is not protecting Judyth from herself, then why does Judyth not reply to questions herself, rather than have her responses screened and filtered through a third party? I believe Jim has stated that he is trying to protect her. What does she need to be protected from? it is interesting that when people agree with Judyth they are perceptive and "rational" but if they disagree they are arrogant and close-minded. Dean, I read that you like to analyze evidence from a "legal" perspective. How can you objectively do so in the case of Judyth. I believe if Monk spoke to Judyth again he would have much more penetrating questions to ask her. You have the benefit of seeing the issues raised through this thread. Why is it that you are not more critical? Are you willing to place your reputation in history on this evidence? On the basis of the evidence to this point of time, I am.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Hartwell said to Doug Weldon:

DOUG, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU.

---

Dean:

I guess your failure to address most of the points I raised must be construed as acquiescence. (The point about the handwriting were people determining two examples of handwriting were not the same person, not to determine if they were, in fact, the same person. if there is suspicion that Judyth forged the writing do you not agree that she should not be the person to authenticate it?) Since you are a law school graduate, i have a very simple question. If someone is not protecting Judyth from herself, then why does Judyth not reply to questions herself, rather than have her responses screened and filtered through a third party? I believe Jim has stated that he is trying to protect her. What does she need to be protected from? it is interesting that when people agree with Judyth they are perceptive and "rational" but if they disagree they are arrogant and close-minded. Dean, I read that you like to analyze evidence from a "legal" perspective. How can you objectively do so in the case of Judyth. I believe if Monk spoke to Judyth again he would have much more penetrating questions to ask her. You have the benefit of seeing the issues raised through this thread. Why is it that you are not more critical? Are you willing to place your reputation in history on this evidence? On the basis of the evidence to this point of time, I am.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I do not acquiesce to your points. Your last message gave me the impression that you had nothing to say to me if I did not agree with points that you made.

I have tried to reason with you by asking you why you bother to ask questions of someone with whom you appear to hold in contempt. Obviously, I have not succeeded. Considering your derisive tone toward Judyth, Jim and now (with your last message especially) me, I do not wish to make any further statements to you.

Dean

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

I HAVE A LAW DEGREE BUT AM NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW. MAYBE THAT WAS THE POINT OF CONFUSION.

AS FOR JURORS DECIDING ON HANDWRITING, I CHECKED FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, WHICH I FOUND ON THIS WEBSITE WITH COMMENTS:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidencep...ca8-mo2010.html

HERE IS THE GIST OF WHAT IT STATES. I TAKE IT TO MEAN THAT A PARTY CAN (USUALLY AS A LAST RESORT) ASK THE TRIER OF FACT, THE JURY IN MANY TRIALS, TO COMPARE A WRITING TO AN EXEMPLAR:

Federal Rules of Evidence

ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION

Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification

(a) General provision.

The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

(B) Illustrations.

By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:

(1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.

(2) Nonexpert opinion on handwriting. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation.

(3) Comparison by trier or expert witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.

...

(WAS THERE SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE IS AN AUTHENTICATED LEE OSWALD WRITING AVAILABLE?)

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.

A LITTLE COMMON SENSE WOULD SETTLE YOUR HYPOTHETICAL BETTER THAN AN EXPERT.

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, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU.

So you went to all the trouble to become a Doctor of Jurisprudence, and then did not take the bar exam? Or did you take it and not pass?

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Hartwell said to Doug Weldon:

DOUG, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU.

---

Dean:

I guess your failure to address most of the points I raised must be construed as acquiescence. (The point about the handwriting were people determining two examples of handwriting were not the same person, not to determine if they were, in fact, the same person. if there is suspicion that Judyth forged the writing do you not agree that she should not be the person to authenticate it?) Since you are a law school graduate, i have a very simple question. If someone is not protecting Judyth from herself, then why does Judyth not reply to questions herself, rather than have her responses screened and filtered through a third party? I believe Jim has stated that he is trying to protect her. What does she need to be protected from? it is interesting that when people agree with Judyth they are perceptive and "rational" but if they disagree they are arrogant and close-minded. Dean, I read that you like to analyze evidence from a "legal" perspective. How can you objectively do so in the case of Judyth. I believe if Monk spoke to Judyth again he would have much more penetrating questions to ask her. You have the benefit of seeing the issues raised through this thread. Why is it that you are not more critical? Are you willing to place your reputation in history on this evidence? On the basis of the evidence to this point of time, I am.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I do not acquiesce to your points. Your last message gave me the impression that you had nothing to say to me if I did not agree with points that you made.

I have tried to reason with you by asking you why you bother to ask questions of someone with whom you appear to hold in contempt. Obviously, I have not succeeded. Considering your derisive tone toward Judyth, Jim and now (with your last message especially) me, I do not wish to make any further statements to you.

Dean

Dean:

It is unfortunate that you believe that I have a derisive tone or ill will towards you (or Judyth or for that matter anyone) personally. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the agitation with Jim I (from my side) consider him to be my friend. I do care about the evidence. I have been involved with this for 32 years. I can be passionate, come on strong, but it is always about the evidence. I take it very seriously but in the total context of life this should be a minor consideration for everyone here. I have respected and valued your input. It is because of that I chose not to ignore your input. Treat things as you will. I am the foremost expert in the world on the JFK assassination ON my own opinion, not in my own opinion.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Hartwell said to Doug Weldon:

DOUG, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU.

---

Dean:

I guess your failure to address most of the points I raised must be construed as acquiescence. (The point about the handwriting were people determining two examples of handwriting were not the same person, not to determine if they were, in fact, the same person. if there is suspicion that Judyth forged the writing do you not agree that she should not be the person to authenticate it?) Since you are a law school graduate, i have a very simple question. If someone is not protecting Judyth from herself, then why does Judyth not reply to questions herself, rather than have her responses screened and filtered through a third party? I believe Jim has stated that he is trying to protect her. What does she need to be protected from? it is interesting that when people agree with Judyth they are perceptive and "rational" but if they disagree they are arrogant and close-minded. Dean, I read that you like to analyze evidence from a "legal" perspective. How can you objectively do so in the case of Judyth. I believe if Monk spoke to Judyth again he would have much more penetrating questions to ask her. You have the benefit of seeing the issues raised through this thread. Why is it that you are not more critical? Are you willing to place your reputation in history on this evidence? On the basis of the evidence to this point of time, I am.

Doug Weldon

Doug,

I do not acquiesce to your points. Your last message gave me the impression that you had nothing to say to me if I did not agree with points that you made.

I have tried to reason with you by asking you why you bother to ask questions of someone with whom you appear to hold in contempt. Obviously, I have not succeeded. Considering your derisive tone toward Judyth, Jim and now (with your last message especially) me, I do not wish to make any further statements to you.

Dean

Dean:

It is unfortunate that you believe that I have a derisive tone or ill will towards you (or Judyth or for that matter anyone) personally. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the agitation with Jim I (from my side) consider him to be my friend. I do care about the evidence. I have been involved with this for 32 years. I can be passionate, come on strong, but it is always about the evidence. I take it very seriously but in the total context of life this should be a minor consideration for everyone here. I have respected and valued your input. It is because of that I chose not to ignore your input. Treat things as you will. I am the foremost expert in the world on the JFK assassination ON my own opinion, not in my own opinion.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Dean:

BTW, there is nothing so humiliating and humbling as going through law school. In enduring that journey, for that reason alone, I have deep respect for you. You actually seemed to have survived it and maintained being a decent person. Don't lose that.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

I HAVE A LAW DEGREE BUT AM NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW. MAYBE THAT WAS THE POINT OF CONFUSION.

AS FOR JURORS DECIDING ON HANDWRITING, I CHECKED FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, WHICH I FOUND ON THIS WEBSITE WITH COMMENTS:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidencep...ca8-mo2010.html

HERE IS THE GIST OF WHAT IT STATES. I TAKE IT TO MEAN THAT A PARTY CAN (USUALLY AS A LAST RESORT) ASK THE TRIER OF FACT, THE JURY IN MANY TRIALS, TO COMPARE A WRITING TO AN EXEMPLAR:

Federal Rules of Evidence

ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION

Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification

(a) General provision.

The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

(B) Illustrations.

By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:

(1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.

(2) Nonexpert opinion on handwriting. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation.

(3) Comparison by trier or expert witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.

...

(WAS THERE SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE IS AN AUTHENTICATED LEE OSWALD WRITING AVAILABLE?)

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.

A LITTLE COMMON SENSE WOULD SETTLE YOUR HYPOTHETICAL BETTER THAN AN EXPERT.

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, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU.

So you went to all the trouble to become a Doctor of Jurisprudence, and then did not take the bar exam? Or did you take it and not pass?

Jack

Jack:

Many people go to law school and never practice law. I don't know Dean's situation but many people who would have been great attorneys never pass the bar exam and there are idiots (some people might point to me) who do. There really is no rhyme or reason. In Michigan people who literally give up three or four years of their life and thousands of dollars never pass the exam. In Michigan about 70% pass it the first time and in retaking it your odds go way down. Remember how many times JFK Jr, failed the exam and the headlines "The Hunk Flunks." When I took the exam over two days there were people who had gone through law school, done well, taken a bar review course, got to the test, looked at it and literally stood up and walked out crying.

I had a friend who gave up everything, took the bar exam once, and in almost thirty years could never bring himeself to take it again. Again, I have no knowledge of Dean's personal situation, but it does not impress me if one passes or fails the bar exam. I do have a respect and feel a fraternity for those who endured the law school experience. About one half of the people I started with did not finish law school. I am six hours short of the course work for completing a PHD in education and have a masters in educational leadership. However, that experience was "fun" compared to law school.

Doug Weldon

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

Hi Adele,

I thank you for your flattering comments ... and for your comprehensive response. You are a very accomplished

lady, and you managed to juggle it all for a time with three babies, to boot!

Yes, other hospitals in the country had particle accelerators. And they were not secret. Dr. Sherman's specialty in conjunction with her interest in virus-caused cancers would seem well suited for research involving a particle accelerator. I read that the first cancer patient to be treated with a particle accelerator was in 1958. Perhaps she had ideas about that too. Tragic she died so young.

Bests,

Barb :-)

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.

I see that we do have the same document, Steve. And I share your concerns. We see *some* of what went on with Mr. McGehee, but have to remember that what you posted is what Judyth herslef called the "highlights" of her interview with McGehee.

I have a major concern here ... the very first exchanges of the transcript she provides:

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 is already saying it was her in the car in his first response of this transcript ..."just saw the back of your head" ... yet the next couple of exchanges are over hair color and *then* Judyth says, "Well, I have to, I have to tell you - that was me."

Obviously he had already been told, but she said an "okay" and proceeded right past it and onto the hair color dialogue as if her revealing that it was her in the last line of this exchange was some surprise.

What had transpired between them before the tape recorder went on ... we have no way of knowing. Given this exchange and the rest of the problems in this transcript ... what went on, and how, before the tape recording started is a major concern, imo.

She reports one suggestion she made to this witness in her introductory remarks to those she was sending these "highlights" to. That is very troubling as well. It was when she was relating that McGehee told her he had the impression that Oswald was in a big black car with Ferrie and Shaw, and she writes,

"I suggested that perhaps others had tried to influence him about that incident

prompting a false memory, but he said no, he had not been influenced by anyone."

Yikes!

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

I HAVE A LAW DEGREE BUT AM NOT LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW. MAYBE THAT WAS THE POINT OF CONFUSION.

AS FOR JURORS DECIDING ON HANDWRITING, I CHECKED FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, WHICH I FOUND ON THIS WEBSITE WITH COMMENTS:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidencep...ca8-mo2010.html

HERE IS THE GIST OF WHAT IT STATES. I TAKE IT TO MEAN THAT A PARTY CAN (USUALLY AS A LAST RESORT) ASK THE TRIER OF FACT, THE JURY IN MANY TRIALS, TO COMPARE A WRITING TO AN EXEMPLAR:

Federal Rules of Evidence

ARTICLE IX. AUTHENTICATION AND IDENTIFICATION

Rule 901. Requirement of Authentication or Identification

(a) General provision.

The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

(B) Illustrations.

By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following are examples of authentication or identification conforming with the requirements of this rule:

(1) Testimony of witness with knowledge. Testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be.

(2) Nonexpert opinion on handwriting. Nonexpert opinion as to the genuineness of handwriting, based upon familiarity not acquired for purposes of the litigation.

(3) Comparison by trier or expert witness. Comparison by the trier of fact or by expert witnesses with specimens which have been authenticated.

...

(WAS THERE SOME QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THERE IS AN AUTHENTICATED LEE OSWALD WRITING AVAILABLE?)

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.

A LITTLE COMMON SENSE WOULD SETTLE YOUR HYPOTHETICAL BETTER THAN AN EXPERT.

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, SHE HAS SPOKEN ON MANY OF THESE SUBJECTS. BUT IF YOU BELIEVE SOMEONE IS PROTECTING HER FROM WHAT YOU CALL FALSEHOODS, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN SAY TO YOU.

So you went to all the trouble to become a Doctor of Jurisprudence, and then did not take the bar exam? Or did you take it and not pass?

Jack

Jack:

Many people go to law school and never practice law. I don't know Dean's situation but many people who would have been great attorneys never pass the bar exam and there are idiots (some people might point to me) who do. There really is no rhyme or reason. In Michigan people who literally give up three or four years of their life and thousands of dollars never pass the exam. In Michigan about 70% pass it the first time and in retaking it your odds go way down. Remember how many times JFK Jr, failed the exam and the headlines "The Hunk Flunks." When I took the exam over two days there were people who had gone through law school, done well, taken a bar review course, got to the test, looked at it and literally stood up and walked out crying.

I had a friend who gave up everything, took the bar exam once, and in almost thirty years could never bring himeself to take it again. Again, I have no knowledge of Dean's personal situation, but it does not impress me if one passes or fails the bar exam. I do have a respect and feel a fraternity for those who endured the law school experience. About one half of the people I started with did not finish law school. I am six hours short of the course work for completing a PHD in education and have a masters in educational leadership. However, that experience was "fun" compared to law school.

Doug Weldon

I did not mean to imply that there is SHAME involved in not passing the bar. Many law school grads

go on to be very successful businessmen. BUT I bet almost every law school grad at some point

takes or studies to take the bar exam.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not mean to imply that there is SHAME involved in not passing the bar. Many law school grads

go on to be very successful businessmen. BUT I bet almost every law school grad at some point

takes or studies to take the bar exam.

Jack

Jack:

I agree with you.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Exactly. And I agree ... if this is her approach to interviewing a witness ... none of their statements can be used for much of anything. And we do know that Judyth found and spoke with Lewis before the New Orleans meeting with other researches when Debra Conway made the videotape of Lewis.

Bests,

Barb :-)

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...