Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Greg Burnham]

I guess my point was that just because someone is well-known or famous in a certain field,

that in and of itself does not disqualify them as an authority in another field.

True... But, absent any evidence of their authority in that "other field" (21st Century Giraffe reproductive habits, as an example) it would be fallacious to appeal to their authority in that field...which was Jim's point.

[Pamela Brown]

But some, such as Judyth, are first and foremost WITNESSES, even though she has proven to be very adept at RESEARCH. Her beliefs about Lee Oswald are based upon her (presumptive) personal experience and there is no reason to dismiss her on the grounds that YOU BELIEVE that there were "two Oswalds".

Good point. In addition, since Judyth is a witness and Armstrong a researcher, it might be valuable for Armstrong to actually acknowledge what Judyth is saying and perhaps rethink and/or tweak his hypotheses at least about LHO in NOLA.

[Michael Hogan]

I guess my point was that just because someone is well-known or famous in a certain field,

that in and of itself does not disqualify them as an authority in another field.

True... But, absent any evidence of their authority in that "other field" (21st Century Giraffe reproductive habits, as an example) it would be fallacious to appeal to their authority in that field...which was Jim's point.

Well, the 21st Century Giraffe was not my example. Einstein was my (and Professor Fetzer's) example.

Look, I think Jim Fetzer is taking a courageous stand on this topic. I would like nothing more than for Judyth Baker's

book to come out and garner support, much as Armstrong's book did.

If her story could be somehow proven beyond doubt to be true, it would provide the impetus that this case needs.

Without something of this magnitude breaking, the murder of President Kennedy and the legend of Lee Oswald will

always be mired in controversy and myth. I've been reading this thread with interest, and I'm rooting for Jim Fetzer

and Judyth Baker, if her story is true.

But, for now and for many, the jury seems to still be out.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Judyth has spoken cyber reams on assorted newsgroups, websites and blogs. She has spoken freely on radio shows, she has published a book. But you are annoyed and consider it "attacking" that people don't gather silently at her feet like 'sheeple' and soak it all up, but that some seek to objectively verify elements of her account that can be fact checked. One has to wonder how you think research can move forward if people do nothing but listen to a self proclaimed witness tell her story without any efforts to determine if it is factually true.

That is somewhat of a "strawman" argument. I didn't read Pamela suggesting anything about any researchers gathering at Judyth's feet, being silent, acting like sheeple, or soaking it all up. I agree that responsible research requires the objective (in-good-faith) verification of elements of her account. But, nobody has even remotely suggested that Judyth's story not be fact checked.

I can't speak for Pamela, but I, for one, vigorously encourage such verification. What I object to is, however, the penchant of some to summarily dismiss her claims citing unsupported assertions about her mental health, her integrity, her motivation, or irrelevant pseudo-exclusionary evidence that is, in reality, not mutually exclusive at all. In my best estimation that behavior is counter-intuitive to the type of research that you claim to espouse.

Hi Greg,

Oh, you're new to Pamela on Judyth. Pamela hates the fact checking that has been undertaken and posted over the last couple of years. Regardless of what it is, or how well it is done or documented, Pamela considers it an attack on Judyth. Sheeple is one of Pamela's pet words; on anything other than Judyth, she speaks out against people just following along and not questioning. On Judyth ... it is different.

People are entitled to their personal opinions, but unsupportd personal assertions can neither confirm nor deny any elements of her story. And that includes Judyth and her supporters as well. The very notion of allowing a claimant to self verify on their says is nonsense in research. On researching her claims ... just check the claims that can be confirmed or denied ... report them accurately, with documentation, and the chips fall where they may. That is the kind of research I espouse ... and the kind I have done.

On Judyth's story, I started that in earnest in early 2008 after realizing that the promised documentation for everything was not in her book that came out in 2006 at all, AND, from enough round and round about it all on the internet, I realized that not even the most ABC facts of her story had been checked ... not even by those who had been promoting her story for years. I found that appalling. So, I decided to do some checking and posted several of my findings on the moderated group starting in April or May 2008. That made me the bad guy to Pamela and a couple of Judyth's most ardent supporters. Some other researchers started doing some claim checking as well. There is still more to be done, and some that, while in process, has sat waiting for a few months while I took a break from it all ... especially after it was announced she was coming out with a new book. I decided to wait until the new book is out to complete everything. I can tell you that in just this thread I can see some of her claims have been revised since my initial posted findings.

My comment re Pamela was not strawman ... it was based on years of experience, though those here, I reckon, are not aware of all that has been hashed about for years on the mod group.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Peter McGuire]

That is somewhat of a "strawman" argument. I didn't read Pamela suggesting anything about any researchers gathering at Judyth's feet, being silent, acting like sheeple, or soaking it all up. I agree that responsible research requires the objective (in-good-faith) verification of elements of her account. But, nobody has even remotely suggested that Judyth's story not be fact checked.

I can't speak for Pamela, but I, for one, vigorously encourage such verification. What I object to is, however, the penchant of some to summarily dismiss her claims citing unsupported assertions about her mental health, her integrity, her motivation, or irrelevant pseudo-exclusionary evidence that is, in reality, not mutually exclusive at all. In my best estimation that behavior is counter-intuitive to the type of research that you claim to espouse.

Great point. I agree, the only problem is the way she seems to be dismissed outright by some here, and the ill mannered way about it. If one chooses not to believe her that is of course fine. If you do not want her to testify at the Grand Jury hearings, that is understandable. Some people do not make good witnesses, even if they are right.

I did come to the conclusion that her story is believable several years ago, but have not kept up on the matter. I could not, however, believe what I was reading here and how poorly she was being treated, but did not speak out about it until now.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Peter McGuire

[Barb Junkkarinen]

My question: Why would ANYONE speak to a total stranger (?) in a FOREIGN LANGUAGE?

Forget an exact translation. I would consider such a person weird.

Jack,

That was one of the questions Mary Ferrell asked Judyth too. Mary thought it extremely bizarre ... especially for a young girl in a strange city...

Barb :-)

Mary took a course in Russian so she could translate Russian documents. She learned to read

Russian well...but COULD NEVER LEARN TO UNDERSTAND NOR SPEAK the language. As a result

of her study, she said it was absurd that LHO learned to speak Russian BY READING BOOKS as

the WC alleged. Mary's IQ far exceeded either LHO or JVB. Mary had a photographic memory,

and was able to reconstruct what any document said merely by reading it.

Agreed, Jack. Mary did not believe Judyth could think in Russian ... here is the passage from her e-mail about Judyth in Dec 2001 where she comments on her own training in Russian, Judyth telling her she was thinking in Russian, and the comment about why Judyth would speak to a strange man too ... all in the same paragraph:

From Mary Ferrell e-mail, December 12, 2001:

I asked her why she would use the Russian language to a man

she didn't know standing in a line at the post office in Louisiana.

She claimed that Dr. Oschner and his colleagues had insisted that she

study Russian and become fluent in the language. She never gave a

coherent answer about why she was instructed to learn Russian. She

did ramble off several portions of sentences that did not make sense.

She said, in effect, that she was "thinking" in Russian. (I studied

three years of High School Latin, four years of High School Spanish

and, following the assassination, I used every available text book,

audio aide and visual aides to intensively study Russian for one year.

I was only able to think in English at the end of that year.)

Bests,

Barb :-)

Thanks for the quotes from Mary. Sounds exactly what she told me

except not in the context of MVB, but LHO.

Did Mary say more about JVB that you have saved?

Yes, Jack, she did ... and I will post something for you here. In December 2001, Mary had had enough of Judyth. And she wrote and sent an email with an attachment to several people. There was a hue and cry from Judyth and her team that Mary had not written it, that someone had intercepted what Mary really wrote and switched it out for something else, or that someone else had commandeered her computer ... the long rambles we've seen here pale in comparison to what went on. Ultimately, Paul Seaton, undertook looking at the whole magilla back in 2008 and with the help of some screen shots from Debra Conway's computer, and most importantly, with the document and being able to get down into what all data had been recorded in the bowels of the file as Mary had worked on it, he was able to show, without a doubt, that Mary wrote this document, worked on it for several hours, he could even tell how many times it had been save along the way, and that it was then sent out from her computer.

And I have all of that information should Judyth decide to try the same excuses and allegations again. I hope she will spare us, as there is no doubt this came from Mary, and there are those of us who heard Mary make comments about Judyth in person after this. It was all very upsetting to Mary and she didn't want to even hear the name anymore.

John McA was one of the original recipients Mary sent it to ... he asked Mary if she wanted/if he could post this. He has posted that email in the past ... in which Mary tells him, yes, post it.

Subject: Mary Ferrell on Judyth

From: john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams)

Date: 12/12/01 10:18 PM Eastern Standard Time

Message-id: <3c181cef.33104434@news.newsguy.com>

The following was sent as an e-mail attachment from Mary Ferrell to me

and a few other people this afternoon. It is posted here with her

explicit permission.

Wednesday, December 12, 2001

The last thing I would ever want to do is harm another person

by my careless words or deeds. I have tried to refrain from talking

about Judyth Vary Baker and her alleged association with Lee Harvey

Oswald for more than a year now - afraid that I might say or do

something that would hurt her or her family. I have been uncertain as

to her motives and preferred to believe that she was delusional and,

although I believed she had actually known and probably worked for a

short time with Lee Harvey Oswald, her "affair" with Lee Oswald was

all something she dreamed up.

Judyth came to my home more than a year ago, late in the

afternoon in November 2000. A charming young woman named Debbee

Reynolds accompanied Judyth. Debbee was and is an employee of

American Airlines. Debbee had managed to obtain free transportation

on American Airlines for Judyth to come from Layfayette, Louisiana, to

visit her sister, Mrs. Tony (Lynda) Bauer, in Dallas.

One of the first things Judyth did when entering my home was

look at a set of the 26 volumes in shelves adjacent to my front door.

Judyth said, "Oh, is that what they look like? I've seen pictures of

them but I've never actually seen them before. I've never read

anything. I just know everything that happened because I knew Lee."

She seated herself on the floor close to my feet and started

telling all about her wonderful love affair with Lee Harvey Oswald.

She told how she met him in April of 1963 in a New Orleans or

Metairie, Louisiana, post office, while standing at the General

Delivery window. She said she and her soon-to-be husband, Robert

Baker, had chosen to write to each other through General Delivery

using code names. One of the names used was similar to Rorke and

either she or Lee misunderstood and thought the name being used was

Alexander Rorke. Judyth said it had been planned that Alexander Rorke

would pick up Lee Oswald in a plane in some part of the Yucatan,

Mexico. She was so startled that she dropped a rolled-up newspaper

that was under her arm and Lee Oswald stooped and retrieved it. When

he handed it to her, she thanked him in Russian.

I asked her why she would use the Russian language to a man

she didn't know standing in a line at the post office in Louisiana.

She claimed that Dr. Oschner and his colleagues had insisted that she

study Russian and become fluent in the language. She never gave a

coherent answer about why she was instructed to learn Russian. She

did ramble off several portions of sentences that did not make sense.

She said, in effect, that she was "thinking" in Russian. (I studied

three years of High School Latin, four years of High School Spanish

and, following the assassination, I used every available text book,

audio aide and visual aides to intensively study Russian for one year.

I was only able to think in English at the end of that year.)

When talking about Alexander Rorke, she said she was to meet

Lee and Rorke in Cancun, Mexico, following the assassination. She had

a book that she claimed David Ferrie had given to her to use as her

pass into Eglin Air Force Base in Florida where she was to be put

aboard a plane and flown to Mexico to meet with Lee. "Eglin Air Force

Base" was stamped on the spine of the book.

I questioned Judyth about her first meeting with Oswald and

the exact date it occurred. She claimed it was within a day or two of

his arrival in New Orleans in April 1963. She also claimed she

accompanied him to visit his father's grave but never gave an exact

location of the grave. (According to the Warren Commission's

investigation, Lee visited his aunt, Mrs. Arthur A. P. Alice Barre, on

St. Charles Avenue in New Orleans, to learn where his father was

buried. Judyth did not answer me when I asked if she was with him

when he visited his aunt.)

At one point, Judyth said, "I can tell you where Lee was on

the two occasions when you don't know where he was." I asked her how

she knew that there were two periods when I didn't know where he was.

She stuttered a bit and finally said that Martin Shakleford had

questioned her from my chronologies. However, she never gave any

explanation of when those two periods were nor where she knew that Lee

was during the two periods.

She said 60 Minutes had intended to film her story but some

unnamed persons had stopped 60 Minutes. She seemed to blame David

Lifton because she said Lifton's book would not be published if her

book were published. She seemed to think Debra Conway had some part

in her dismissal from 60 Minutes because Debra would no longer have

Lancers if Judyth's book were published.

Judyth said the most ironic thing about the whole thing was

that CBS made the decision not to use her in a film on Lee's birthday,

October 18th, a month before her visit to me.

She begged me to help her get her book published. I told her

I would have to read the book first but finally agreed to write a note

to a friend of mine in New York, Frank Weimann of the Literary Group.

On November 27th, I wrote a short note to Frank Weimann on a scrap of

paper. I have since learned that Judyth has circulated Xerox copies

of that note as proof that I endorse her story.

My note read: "Nov. 27, 2000 Dear Frank, I think you

should take a look at this woman's story. I believe she is credible

and I believe her story will sell. Best regards, Mary Ferrell" I

later learned that she placed a small photo of herself in a pose that

looked very much like an early photo of Marina on the note before she

sent it to Frank. I later asked Frank to make a copy of Judyth's

book for me since she refused to let me look at the book. I have

never seen any portion of the book and I now have no desire to see it.

She and Howard Platzman immediately started sending notes to

Frank Weimann wanting to know when he was going to sell the book,

apparently wanting advances. Frank finally sent the whole book back

to them and refused to work with them. Frank apologized to me and I

told him I was surprised that he had tolerated them as long as he had.

Frank told me that the book would have sold but needed rewriting,

which they refused to do.

Until now, I have discussed this matter with only four

people: Robert Chapman, David Lifton, Debra Conway and Louis Girdler.

They have all kept my disclosures in confidence because I begged them

not to do anything that might cause Judyth to harm herself.

It has now reached the point where I believe Howard Platzman

and Judyth are using what they think is a form of blackmail to prod me

into endorsing Judyth and her entire story. Howard wrote a long email

message to me indicating that I must go on camera or write a message

saying that I believed Judyth's story or I would be branded a demented

old woman. Judyth came to visit me, unannounced, Monday night and she

said almost the same words that Howard had used. Then she brought up

a name from my past - the name of a woman I had not even thought of in

almost 50 years. I asked her where she got that name and she said,

"Carol Anne told me." I immediately said to my son, "Judyth is

leaving. Will you see her to the door." Jimmy escorted her to the

door. I called Carol Anne and told her what had happened. Carol Anne

became almost hysterical and said, "Mother, you know I never said

that." I explained that I had not believed she had said it. Carol

Anne said, "Mother, those people act like they are crazy." My son

Jimmy later said he thinks they act like they might be dangerous.

I want to make it clear that I have never believed Judyth's

"story." I have believed that she knew Lee Harvey Oswald, either as a

co-worker or as an employee she remembered after the assassination. I

have NEVER believed the story of the mad, passionate love affair. I

can account for almost every minute of Lee's life from the time he

joined the Marine Corps until the day of his death. There was

absolutely no time for nights of passionate love and Russian poetry

reading. I do not believe that they had sex in the back of trucks in

Adrian Alba's garage. At the very most, Judyth knew Lee a total of

less than five months. She claims that she talked to Lee just two

days before the assassination by way of a Mafia wire-service phone

line. I do not believe this.

Judyth claims that Lee introduced her to David Ferrie. She

claims that Ferrie introduced her to "Sparky" Rubenstein. She claims

that Lee told her that Carlos Marcello called Jack Ruby when Lee was a

child in Fort Worth and asked Ruby to keep an eye on Lee. She claims

that she last saw Ruby in New Orleans in June 1963.

She claims that as soon as she arrived in New Orleans, in

April 1963, Dr. Oschner got her an apartment where prostitutes were

living and the place was immediately raided and everyone taken to jail

except Judyth. She says Lee got her another apartment. They then

lived close to each other and would ride the bus from Reily out to the

end of the line and ride back so they could sit together.

Her first job, after arriving in New Orleans, was as a

waitress in a hamburgher restaurant in Metairie near Carlos Marcello's

Town and Country Motel. She speaks very familiarly of Carlos Marcello

and says that Lee acted as a courier for Carlos and Lee's uncle, Dutz

Murret.

Her story of Lee's reading to her from the small gray book,

The Queen of Spaces, did startle me because I had seen either this

book or a replica of it in Ruth Paine's living room two or three years

following the assassination. Judyth claimed that the library in

Lafayette, Louisiana, did not have the 26 volumes of the Warren

Commission's work and did not have a copy of The Queen of Spades.

When I asked her if she had tried the university library where she

worked, she said they had nothing. Louis Girdler called the

university library and talked to a woman named Sandy who worked there

and they had everything on the assassination and also had a copy of

Pushkin's play, The Queen of Spades.

Judyth tells a fantastic story about the man who wrote

Andersonville - MacKinlay Kantor. She claims that she would walk with

him through a garden, holding a tape recorder and Kantor would dictate

into the recorder. She says that Kantor "fell in love" with her. She

claims she was still a teenager when this happened.

She claims she wrote to Bertrand Russell about her reluctance

to have sex with Lee because she and he were both married at the time.

She says that Russell wrote to her that she must not let anything hold

her back if they were in love. They must have sex. Joan Mellen was

married to Ralph Schoenman for a number of years. Schoenman was the

top aide to Bertrand Russell during the last years of Russell's life.

Schoenman told Joan that during the period Judyth claims this happened

Russell was not even able to read his own mail and he NEVER wrote such

a letter.

I could go on and on for pages about her truly incredible

stories. I just want to emphasize that I have never told her I

believed she and Lee had a romantic relationship. I have assured her

that I do believe she knew him. I can't explain her knowledge about

the book I saw in Ruth Paine's house between Christmas and New Year's

of 1967. I believe the little book was unique and I know that Judyth

described it perfectly. With few exceptions, Judyth's accounts of her

relationship with Lee could have been concocted from things that have

been published. She has repeatedly said that she loves me because I

want to clear Lee's name and reputation. I have only said that I do

not believe that Lee planned, executed and covered up the

assassination alone. I am not at all certain that Lee's name and

reputation can be "cleared."

There is more ... regarding an incident that happened in April 2002.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Thanks for the information from Mary. It sounds exactly like her!

Jack

It certainly does! Judyth has brought up, in another post, accusations that Mary didn't write this email attachment that were made several months after the fact. The incident from 2002 I mentioned was all about that. I hate the thought of dragging all that out here because it is so long, it is so ugly ... and it's of no real value as it has nothing to do with any of Judyth's claims about the assassination, which is what matters.

There is a plethora of information and additional documents that make it clear such allegations are nonsense. Much of it is most unflattering to Judyth, so I doubt she really wants to have that all hashed out again either. Unless Judyth chooses to persist in those allegations, I will just leave it at this with no further comment. Anyone interested in all the specifics can email me and I can give them many links and forward many posts and e-mails. Judyth should have no doubt whatsoever that I have all these documents. But it would accomplish a distraction, a diversion, from exchange with Judyth on the actual elements of her claims about 1963. I hope people here will want to keep from letting that happen.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Jack White]

But some, such as Judyth, are first and foremost WITNESSES, even though she has proven to be very adept at RESEARCH. Her beliefs about Lee Oswald are based upon her (presumptive) personal experience and there is no reason to dismiss her on the grounds that YOU BELIEVE that there were "two Oswalds".

Good point. In addition, since Judyth is a witness and Armstrong a researcher, it might be valuable for Armstrong to actually acknowledge what Judyth is saying and perhaps rethink and/or tweak his hypotheses at least about LHO in NOLA.

Armstrong is NOT a researcher. He builds custom homes in Hawaii.

Armstrong has NO hypotheses about LHO in NOLA.

Armstrong presents conflicting documentations. Documentation cannot be "rethought".

Read the book.

As for me, I care not at all whether JVB's tales are 100 percent true or 100 percent

false. Whichever it is, nothing she says, whether true or false, adds one iota to our

knowledge of the JFK assassination. I believe everyone should be free to form

individual opinions about this instead of being ridiculed for being in one camp or the

other. My only interest is in truth. If her every statement could be shown to be true,

nobody yet has explained why it matters. Everything she says is more National Enquirer

material than important information. My main concern is that JVB is divisive and

disruptive. I suggest a moratorium till her book comes out, to see exactly what she

claims.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JUNKKARINEN, PART 2:

There has been so much more that has happened...

Attached are some photos...

I am not sure why all these photos are posted as a response to me. What I suggested to Jim was that perhaps Judyth could give him copies of all the police reports and records, any news articles would be good too, that document all the events .... accidents, mugging, theft, burglary ... etc that she claims were made against her by whomever because of her story about 1963.

Barb :-)

[Greg Burnham]

As for me, I care not at all whether JVB's tales are 100 percent true or 100 percent

false. Whichever it is, nothing she says, whether true or false, adds one iota to our

knowledge of the JFK assassination.

Jack,

While I feel confident that this is not a "black and white" issue and I don't think it is all or nothing, I too have my doubts about what value or relevance her evidence has to our inquiry about JFK's murder. So, I finally agree with part of what you are saying.

I believe everyone should be free to form individual opinions about this instead

of being ridiculed for being in one camp or the other. My only interest is in truth. If her

every statement could be shown to be true, nobody yet has explained why it matters.

Up until now, many have been less than open minded toward the possibility that her statements were even worth considering. So this might be a break through. Her claims may still turn out to be irrelevant, but at least they might be given a fair shake here.

Everything she says is more National Enquirer material than important information. My main

concern is that JVB is divisive and disruptive. I suggest a moratorium till her book comes out,

to see exactly what she claims.

Again, I object to the use of the term "everything she says" -- as it is an inappropriate generalization. Moreover, you haven't reviewed "everything she has said" as that would be impossible. As for her being divisive and disruptive, I beg your pardon, but I vigorously disagree. On the JFKresearch forum, it was not she who was disruptive! Not even a little bit, Jack. Quite the contrary. I was there and witnessed what I consider to be one of the most vile attacks on any member by those who are normally not inclined to such behavior. The disruption was not caused by Judyth's behavior AT ALL. It was caused because THE SUBJECT of her and her story was even brought up.

That said, it seems as though your current position is at least more reasonable than your previous one.

[Guest John Gillespie]

If she really knows nothing, why has so much happened to her and those around her? And please don't fall into the ongoing campaign's little trap of saying she's 'making it all up', implying that she 'deserves' what has happened to her, as that is just a pack of lies.

If she really knows something, why would such things have been happening to her for the last few years .... as she already let the cats out of the bag years ago .... and clearly has no documentation for anything beyond having worked at Reily and having been an outstanding science student, not even, it seems, any documentation for all the awful things she claims have happened to her.

The only things those who allegedly would want to harm her have to fear ... is getting caught trying to harm her. How dumb would that be?!

Think.

____________________________________________

Think, indeed. At this point, these host countries may think and feel that they know all that is needed to be known, from their perspectives, and they simply don't want her.

JG

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

NOTE: This appears to me to be an acid test of Judyth's critics. We already know that

Junkkarinen, Viklund, and McAdams have been collaborating in attacking her. It now

appears to me that Judyth has proof--in the form of a tape recording--that puts the lie

to this disgraceful abuse of the memory of someone widely admired. If there is a more

dishonorable act than this--for crass political motives--I cannot image what it would be.

RESPONSE TO JUNKKARINEN'S MARY FERRELL POSTING:

TO ALL:

A GOOD RESEARCHER WILL PRESENT INFORMATION IN AN UNBIASED MANNER.

1) BUT BARB DID NOT POST MARY FERRELL'S EMAIL AND ITS ORIGINAL HEADER.

INSTEAD, SHE POSTED AN ATTACHMENT TO IT. WE DISPUTE THE PROVENANCE AND AUTHORSHIP OF KEY PORTIONS OF THAT ATTACHMENT.

2) THE EMAIL BARB DID NOT REVEAL TO YOU SAID THAT MARY EXPRESSED 'REGRET' THAT SHE HAD TO WASH HER HANDS OF ME.

TO MY FACE, MARY TOLD ME THAT SHE COULD NO LONGER BEAR THE RELENTLESS PRESSURE FROM ALL HER OLD FRIENDS. IT WAS DRIVING HER CRAZY AND SHE HAD DECIDED TO STOP DEFENDING ME IF SHE WAS TO HAVE ANY PEACE. SHE RELIED ON THESE PEOPLE FOR TRANSPORTATION, INCOME FROM LANCER, THE MARY FERRELL AWARD AT LANCER, AND SHE JUST COULDN'T KEEP DEFENDING ME ANYMORE.

3) BARB WITHHELD THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A TAPE RECORDING WHERE MARY DENIED WRITING THE ATTACHMENT AS IT IS NOW PUBLISHED.

WE NEED HONESTY IN RESEARCH.

THOSE WHO HAVE HEARD THE TAPE OR HAVE READ ITS TRANSCRPT MUST ASK:

4) DID MARY FERRELL LIE TO THOSE WHO TAPED HER,?

WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT MARY FERRELL'S HONESTY, IF SHE DID?

SHE IS NOT HERE TO GIVE YOU HER SIDE OF THE STORY NOW.

MARY SAID SHE DID NOT WRITE THE ATTACHMENT IN THE FORM IN WHICH IT NOW EXISTS.

WE READ PORTIONS OF IT TO HER.

MARY TOLD ME SHE SAID BAD THINGS ABOUT ME TO PAUL HOCH, LIFTON, CONWAY AND MCADAMS BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY PESTERED HER UNTIL SHE FELT READY TO CRY. SHE SAID ONLY PETER DALE SCOTT KEPT AN O[PEN MIND ABOUT ME.

SHE WAS TAKING A LOT OF MEDICATIONS, INCLUDING ANTI-DEPRESSANTS. SHE HAD BIG MOOD SWINGS, AS EVERYBODY KNOWS WHO KNEW MARY WELL.

SHE TOLD ME AND FRIENDS OF MINE THAT SHE JUST COULDN'T STAND THE PRESSURE OF MY ENEMIES ON HER ANYMORE. THEY HAD ALL BEEN HER FRIENDS FOR SO LONG, EXCEPT, SHE SAID, SHE DESPISED CONWAY.

IF MARY DIDN'T LIKE ME, WHY DID SHE GIVE ME THE GATE CODE SO I COULD VISIT HER AND RECORD HER MESSAGE THAT SHE DID NOT WRITE THE EMAIL? HOW DID WE GET INSIDE THE LOCKED SECURITY GATE, WHERE YOU HAVE TO PUNCH IN THE GATE CODE?

BECAUSE MARY FERRELL CALLED ME AND ASKED ME IF I WOULD COME OVER. SHE HAD BEEN OUT TO LUNCH WITH PETER DALE SCOTT AND OTHERS AND HAD COME BACK IN AND WAS FEELING BADLY BECAUSE BAD THINGS HAD BEEN SAID ABOUT ME ON THAT EMAIL.

MARY GAVE ME THE NEW GATE CODE TO GET INTO HER HIGH SECURITY ASSISTED LIVING QUARTERS.

I HAD BEEN THERE MANY TIMES AND ALREADY HAD HER ROOM NUMBER.

SHE PUT ME ON HER LIST OF ACCEPTED VISITORS..

I DECIDED TO TAKE WITNESSES AND A TAPE RECORDER.

THE NURSE UNLOCKED HER DOOR, AND ASKED IF SHE WANTED TO SEE US, AND WE WERE WELCOME.

YOU CAN HEAR IT ALL ON THE TAPE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT MCADAMS PUBLISHED ON HIS NEWSGROUP.

HE PUBLISHED A DESCRIPTION BY ROBERT CHAPMAN, WHO HAD NOT BEEN THERE.

SHAMEFULLY, ROBERT CHAPMAN DESCRIBED TO THE NEWSGROUP A NOISY, YELLING INVASION OF "JUDYTH SUPPORTERS" CHARGING INTO MARY'S UNLOCKED ROOM AND FORCING MARY TO SAY SHE DID NOT WRITE THE ATTACHMENT.

MARY NEVER TOLD CHAPMAN OR ANYBODY ELSE THAT I WAS THERE, TOO. MY VOICE IS ON THE RECORDING. BUT SHE NEVER TOLD.

SO CHAPMAN DESCRIBED A GANG OF JUDYTH SUPPORTERS BREAKING IN AND YELLING AT MARY. HE DID NOT KNOW THE TAPE RECORDING WAS MADE,

THAT WAS ANOTHER THING THAT MARY FERRELL DID NOT TELL HIM.

AFTER I RECORDED WHAT SHE SAID, WITH HER PERMISSION, I PUT THE RECORDER AWAY BUT IT DID NOT TURN OFF. IT HAD RECORDED OVER 400 INTERVIEWS WITH CAJUNS AND THE BUTTON WAS VERY LOOSE AND IT DID NOT TURN OFF. SO EVEN MORE THAN I HAD PLANNED GOT ON THE TAPE, SHOWING WE HAD A VERY PLEASANT MEETING AND MARY ENJOYED IT.

CHAPMAN DESCRIBE US AS BROWBEATING AND HARRASSING MARY.

THANK GOD, THE TAPE RECORDER KEPT ON RECORDING IN MY PURSE.

HE SAID THAT ATER THAT, THEY HAD TO LOCK MARY'S ROOM TO KEEP OFFENSIVE JUDYTH-SUPPORTERS FROM BOTHERING MARY. BUT HER ROOM WAS ALREADY BEING LOCKED, AS THE TAPE RECORDING PROVES.

ON THE TAPE RECORDING, YOU CAN HEAR THE NURSE SAYING SHE WILL UNLOCK THE DOOR AND ASK MARY IF SHE WANTS TO SEE US.

MARY DID.

WE HAD SUCH A NICE CONVERSATION.

I HAVE COPIES OF THE TAPE IN THE HANDS OF SEVERAL PEOPLE.

I CAN GET THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE TAPE AND WILL PUBLISH IT ON MY NEW BLOG.

WHY DIDN'T SHE TELL CHAPMAN, MCADAMS, & CO I WAS THERE? WHY DIDN'T SHE TELL ANYBODY ABOUT THE TAPE RECORDING? WE ASKED HER ON THE TAPE IF IT IS OKAY TO RECORD HER AND SHE SAID IT WAS.

WAS THAT HER WAY TO PROTECT ME, JUST A LITTLE?

PLEASE READ THE REMARKS ---LIKE THIS-- THAT ARE WRITTEN WITH CHAPMAN'S MESSAGE. HE DID NOT TELL THE TRUTH, AND WE HAVE THE AUDIOTAPE TO PROVE IT. THIS MESSAGE IS BEING SHOWN HERE TO THE PUBLIC IN DEFENSE OF JUDYTH VARY BAKER, ACCUSED OF ACTIONS SHE DID NOT COMMIT, BY A MAN WHO WAS NOT PRESENT.

JUDYTH BAKER HAD ENCOURAGED MARY FERRELL TO KEEP HER FUNDS IN DALLAS FOR HER TO HANDLE PERSONALLY. FERRELL SAID CHAPMAN WANTED FERRELL'S FUNDS TRANSFERRED TO AN OUT OF STATE BANK. SHE WAS IN TEARS OVER IT. SHE ALSO SAID THAT HER FRIENDS WERE BROWBEATING HER TO DENONCE BAKER, SHE WAS GIVEN NO PEACE IN THE MATTER, AND THEY WERE WEARING HER OUT ABOUT HER FRIENDSHIP WITH BAKER.

HERE ARE THE LIES THAT WERE POSTED BY ROBERT CHAPMAN, WITH COMMENTS I WROTE AT THAT TIME. THE REBUTTAL TO THE ATTACHMENT, WHICH IS REPLETE WITH INACCURACIES, THE WRONG DATES, AND OUTRIGHT LIES, WILL BE POSTED AT THE NEW BLOG THAT DR. FETZER CAN SEND YOU TO.

BECAUSE BARB DID NOT PRESENT THE EMAIL THAT CARRIED THE ATTACHMENT, NOR DID SHE TELL YOU ABOUT THE RECODING, I HOPE YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT I WLL NOT RESPOND ON THE EDUCATION FORUM TO ANY MORE OF HER POSTS, REPLETE AS THEY ARE WITH INACCURACIES.

I ASK THAT YOU SEE MY ANSWERS TO HER ENDLESS CRITICISMS THAT TAKE US FAR AFIELD FROM LEE OSWALD, BIOWEAPONS, ETC. INTO PERSONAL VENDETTAS.

THEREFORE, FROM NOW ON, I WLL DIRECT YOU TO THE NEW BOG FOR ANSWERS.

THAT WILL FREE THE EDUCATION FORUM FOR EDUCATION INSTEAD OF BOXES OF RED HERRINGS.

REMEMBER, BARB HAS TEN YEARS OF SUFF TO TROT OUT. THIS ONE IS PARTICULARLY SMELLY BECAUSE MARY DENIED WRITING IT ON TAPE. ROBERT CHAPMAN SAYS 'PEOPLE SENT BY JUDYTH' ACCOSTED MARY.

I WAS THERE.

HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

MARY DIDN'T TELL HM.

ASK YOURSELF WHY....

I WLL HAVE MORE INFORMATION FOR THOSE INTERESTED AT THE NEW BLOG.

COMMENTS BELOW WERE WRITTEN AT THE TIME CHAPMAN SENT OUT THIS DISTURBINGLY UNTRUE EMAIL THAT DOES NOT MATCH THE TAPE RECORDING. WHY DID HE LIE?

From: Robert Chapman

Subject: Mary Ferrell and her denunciation of Judyth

This is the only article in this thread

View: Original Format

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

Date: 2003-07-27 11:52:07 PST

All: Martin wrote:

"Mary Ferrell is cited based on one communication she has denied writing,..."

CHAPMAN: I have known and worked with Mary since 1975. We remain the very closest of friends. We speak by phone weekly (often several times), and I visit her in Dallas (I live in Memphis) 3-4 times a year. I know ALL of the details regarding the two incidents Martin refers to as Mary "denying" she wrote her letter of repudiation regarding Judyth. These are the facts:

Mary wrote that letter. She stands by every word of it. She considers Judyth a fraud.

--Tthe 'letter of repudiation' showed a source code from a different computer where the 'letter' was held up for hours before finally transiting on the internet. When the delay was pointed out, the source code was erased from the posted email 'from mary' and Dave Reitzes posted a hand-typed header instead, which of course we have copies of in both instances, both the old header and its substitute.--JVB

CHAPMAN: The two occasions to which Martin refers occured when people sent by Judyth,

JVB: --The persons involved were JUDYTH, Debbee Reynolds, and Judyth's sister, Lynda!

This is all on audiotape. A transcript was published on the internet.--

CHAPMAN:....frantic to salvage her status with Mary, entered into Mary's unlocked

JVB:--on tape we have the nurse unlocking the door and asking Mary if we can come in. Mary welcomes us! She's glad to see us!--

CHAPMAN: apartment door and woke her up. Mary lives in a very expensive assisted living facility in Dallas, and prior to these incidents always left her door unlocked so that staff could come and go unimpeded. She now locks her door.

JVB:--In fact, staff thought she wasn't even home and had to knock, and Mary answered. Mary said she had had no dinner because when she was dropped off earlier that day, but her daughter, Carol Anne, had failed to tell staff Mary had come home for the rest of the day. So Mary had no dinner (it was about 7:00 PM).

Yes, Mary lived in a very expensive assisted living facility, and we would NOT have been allowed in except MY name was on Mary's list of persons allowed to visit her. The nurse checked the list, found MY name, and that's why she brought me--with Debbee and Lynda--to Mary's room.--

CHAPMAN (WHO DOES NOT KNOW HOW MANY CAME TO MARY'S APARTMENT): These people, having woken Mary (who at 80+ years suffers occasionally from poor health) from a deep sleep, began shouting questions at her

JVB;--The tape recording shows nobody shouted. We had a nice talk, which began about the pretty jewelry Lynda was wearing. Lynda is a numismatist who has sold rare coins and rare gems. Mary said she was interested in the jewelry. That is how the conversation began.--

CHAPMAN:....and waving around in the air a document and asking Mary if she wrote it. Mary worked for 40+ years for a law firm, and she told me she didn't know what they were waving about but she denied writing that or anything.

NOTE: IN CHAPMAN'S OWN WORDS, HE HAS MARY DENYING SHE WROTE THE DOCUMENT THAT BARB SAYS MARY WROTE....

JVB: --We did show her the document, eventually, about ten minutes into the tape, and she looked at it, then had us read portions. She denied having written it. She said she would never have mentioned Debbee's discounted tickets because it might have got her in trouble at her job. (Debbee and Lynda have thought of each other as sisters for years.) We have the entire incident on tape. Later a second group of researchers met with Mary and she confirmed the same things to them. We can obtain statements, if necessary, from the second group of researchers, who met Mary about three weeks later.--

CHAPMAN: She wanted them the Hell out of her apartment. Her opinion was and remains that Judyth's claims are just that--claims--not facts, and Mary cares not in the least what anyone thinks of her (Mary's) opinion of Judyth, nor does she care whether anyone believes she wrote the letter (that she did write) denouncing Judyth.

NOTE: NOW CHAPMAN SAYS SHE DID WRITE THE ATTACHMENT THAT HE CALLS A LETTER.

JVB--Mary's computer was placed in an entirely different room, which she could not reach without getting out of bed. Durng the visit, Mary asked Judyth to check her computer because it wasn't working properly. I found that the computer was not protected by a password. It was also improperly hooked up to the Internet. Mary said she would have someone brought in to fix it.

The computer was also running hot because the main component was behind a closed door in a cabinet. I suggested the back be knocked out of that part of the cabinet to stop overheating of the computer.

Did someone get on Mary's computer, paste together some emails that she had sent to me with questions, then their own comments were added?

Anybody could get on the computer without its password protection, and would not even be seen using that computer. My opinion is mere conjecture, but we may have to impugn Mary Ferrell's honesty otherwise. As for support, Ferrell wrote a note saying she found Judyth's story 'credible' to a literary agent, Frank Weimann. We have the original note and copies.--

CHAPMAN: The clear evidence for that is the absolute silence from Mary regarding Judyth or anything to do with her since the day Mary emailed her position.

JVB--Mary told us she had been browbeaten and pestered so much by Chapman, Lifton, McAdams, Conway, and other 'friends' that she refused to say any more. "They're driving me crazy!" she said. However, we had asked permission to tape record her statements and she knew she was being tape recorded when she said she did not write that email. I soon put the tape recorder in my purse so I could give Mary some water. It kept running and the rest is harder to hear, but still audible.--

CHAPMAN: I write this in the full knowledge that it will likely convince no one, and am doing so simply to put on the record the absolute truth regarding this matter.

JVB: HE WASN'T PRESENT, BUT A TAPE RECORDER WAS. HE LIED. --And Mary didn't tell him about the tape recording. This was how Mary got the truth out without Mary having to argue with Chapman. We released the tape recording's transcript only after enduring a flurry of nasty emails against me (Judyth) for several weeks, which resulted from this message of Chapman's.--

CHAPMAN: I do not normally post, and do not lurk. These messages are forwarded to me.

JVB--Mary complained that when I had tried to called her that the ringer on her phone had been turned down. She complained about ongoing computer problems. She complained that she was being isolated from her friends by her daughter. She also complained that the doggie door that had been promised was not installed, and her pomeraniam was not with her as promised.

She also complained that she had not had an intercom installed so she could talk to visitors at her door without getting out of bed. Mary said she was being locked in her room all the time, and she resented that. Chapman says this was our fault! Thank God, we have a tape recorded record of the visit!--JVB

I will reply to the particulars of the "letter of denunciation" at the new blog. I hope the Education Forum members will forgive me for these intrusions by others. I have been trying to get new information posted. I have not had the opportunity for years, due to these very tactics.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If Armstrong is not a researcher, then he may very well have misunderstood or misinterpreted what he accumulated in the way of supposed "documents". Jack likes to say that there are documents who show Oswald at one location at one time and also at another location at another time, which is certainly true of physical, unique, human beings. But DOCUMENTS can show the same person at two different locations at the same time. In post #326, for example, I observed that Bill Simpich is doing a great job of discussing the manner in which the agency creates false identities using variations on names all that: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14604 This has given me the feeling that Judyth didn't know everything about Lee, even if she knew a lot. What interests me is whether John Armstrong was aware of these kinds of considerations about building false identities, using variations on names, and all the rest. From what you say, I have to infer that he did not. As Simpich remarks, with or without his knowledge, it looks like Oswald was used for counter-espionage purposes as part of a CIA molehunt for Soviet spies within the agency. This casts the significance of Armstrong's research into doubt.

I have previously posted four commentaries from a psy ops experts about this case. Before Jack went back to John Armstrong to discuss this, he displayed a more open mind that Judyth might be being harassed and stalked because of knowledge derived from her cancer research and work on bio-weapons, as the posts from my psy ops expert suggest. I think he is right, but I also believe her personal story humanizes the alleged assassin, who has been demonized for decades by the government and the mass media. A guy who had relationships, a sense of humor, who socialized and shared his life with someone else is a real human being--an implausible candidate for "lone, demented gunman". Her story makes it clear that he was working undercover for the government, knew he was being impersonated, and was attempting to save the president's life, not take it. For all of her imperfections, I believe in her and regard her story as extremely important and worth bringing to the public, even at the cost of antagonizing some very old friends. I cannot understand for the life of me when I have explained this point to Jack several times on two different fora--yet he continues to assert that he doesn't see the point. How many times do I have to explain it?

But some, such as Judyth, are first and foremost WITNESSES, even though she has proven to be very adept at RESEARCH. Her beliefs about Lee Oswald are based upon her (presumptive) personal experience and there is no reason to dismiss her on the grounds that YOU BELIEVE that there were "two Oswalds".

Good point. In addition, since Judyth is a witness and Armstrong a researcher, it might be valuable for Armstrong to actually acknowledge what Judyth is saying and perhaps rethink and/or tweak his hypotheses at least about LHO in NOLA.

Armstrong is NOT a researcher. He builds custom homes in Hawaii.

Armstrong has NO hypotheses about LHO in NOLA.

Armstrong presents conflicting documentations. Documentation cannot be "rethought".

Read the book.

As for me, I care not at all whether JVB's tales are 100 percent true or 100 percent

false. Whichever it is, nothing she says, whether true or false, adds one iota to our

knowledge of the JFK assassination. I believe everyone should be free to form

individual opinions about this instead of being ridiculed for being in one camp or the

other. My only interest is in truth. If her every statement could be shown to be true,

nobody yet has explained why it matters. Everything she says is more National Enquirer

material than important information. My main concern is that JVB is divisive and

disruptive. I suggest a moratorium till her book comes out, to see exactly what she

claims.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Why the rerun? I know it is here, I will address sections/issues raised over the next couple of days, no need to repost it again. Below I deal with items 1 and 2.

I came into the Judyth debate in mid-2004. It looks (from google archives) that Cancun and David Lifton's recorded conversation and comments on Judyth's story are what first caught my attention. I had seen lots of threads about Judyth for a few years, but really paid no attention to it all. I am not now, nor have I ever been part of any "team" colluding to get Judyth. As on most issues, researchers network and share information when they have a common interest on a subject. Nothing more that that. I did not know of Glenn Viklund until he posted on the mod group in December of '08. We had a couple of email exchanges during the time he had gotten information about the asylum issue from the migration board in Sweden. I had no further contact with him until I saw his post on the mod group a week or so ago and saw him mention that he would post on the Ed Forum but new members were not being accepted. Since my email bounced (problem it turned out between my server and his) I posted a reply to him asking him to email me. I wanted to give him information about contacting John Simkin to be admitted as a member. I do not attack Judyth as a person, though she and members of her team have certainly made it their business to attack me. That includes you. :-) . I attack her claims, and I undertook trying to fact check, verify ones that can be verified starting in early 2008.

Below is the e-mail that accompanied the attachment I have already posted ... with headers.

I added a couple extra emails .... including Judyth's December response to Mary .... which Mary forwarded on to others and an e-mail from Debra Conway.

Before you get too involved in the tape recording thing, Jim ... you might want to know how it came about, why Judyth said they went there with a tape recorder in the first place, the condition she claims Mary was in when they got there ... and the exact date. It was Sunday April 7, 2002.

I have all of the info including first hand accounts from Judyth ... and a transcript Martin posted a couple of years ago which is nearly useless as the answer to the question they asked was unintelligible after a few words. But do ask her and decide if you think it is wise to go there.

The provenance of Mary's e-mail and attachment was established ... though it is clear from Judyth's e-mails to Mary in both December and March (that one not posted yet, Judyth....again, do you really want to go there on the tape thing?) that had Mary not written and sent the attachment, she would have been totally bewildered as to why Judyth was saying some of things to her, noting that Mary had said them. And the whole world would have heard Mary bellow, and anyone who knew Mary knows that. The headers show the e-mail with the attachment went directly from Mary's computer to being received by John McAdams. Paul Seaton working from the attachment was able to check the Windows properties of said document, and here is what he found, he posted this info in a response to Martin Shackleford on 6-2-08:

Below are the properties of the judyth.doc that was sent out to McAdams et al.

Property Value

Description

Title Wednesday, December 12, 2001

Author Mary Ferrell

Last Saved By Mary Ferrell

Revision Number 8

Application Name Microsoft Word 10.0

Company

Date Created 12/12/2001 9:17 AM

Date Last Saved 12/12/2001 2:34 PM

Last Printed 12/12/2001 1:14 PM

Edit time 12/12/2001 1:14 PM

Please note: Mary Ferrell e-mailed Debra Conway in the middle of this process asking Deb to call her as she had never attached a document to an e-mail before and had some questions. A statement from Debra exists about that .... as well as a screen shot of that e-mail on her screen. I can post that screen shot and Debra's e-mail about it if Judyth insists.

And Mary's computer was password protected, only Mary knew her password.

Here are the December e-mails with headers.

Return-Path: <maryferr@cprompt.net>

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

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

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

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

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

ESMTP

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

Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011212154557.01b8ef70@cprompt.net>

X-Sender: maryferr@cprompt.net

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1

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

To: dlifton@earthlink.net,rchapman@mem.net,debra@jfklancer.com,

paradigm@gtw.net,PaulHoch@uclink.berkeley.edu,John.McAdams@marquette.edu

From: Mary Ferrell <maryferr@cprompt.net>

Subject: Judyth Baker

Mime-Version: 1.0

Content-Type: multipart/mixed;

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

Dear friends,

It is with great regret that I send the following attachment.

I feel that the time has arrived to put an end to the Judyth Baker

part of my life. I hope all of you will understand why I am doing

this.

Sincerely,

Mary Ferrell

Judyth.doc

**************

Return-Path: <maryferr@cprompt.net>

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

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

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

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

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

ESMTP

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

Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011212185718.01ad2350@cprompt.net>

X-Sender: maryferr@cprompt.net

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1

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

To: John.McAdams@marquette.edu

From: Mary Ferrell <maryferr@cprompt.net>

Subject: Judyth Baker

Mime-Version: 1.0

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

Dear John,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rude and didn't even reply to you.

I appreciate your asking permission now and I guess my answer

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

Sincerely,

Mary Ferrell

**************

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:55:48 EST

From: ElectLady63@aol.com

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

To: <maryferr@cprompt.net>, <mshack@concentric.net>

Cc: <electlady63@aol.com>

X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version)

X-RCPT-TO: <maryferr@cprompt.net>

Mary, I would never do to you what you did to me.

I can't believe you would post such a long letter, filled with so many

errors, and sign your name to it.

I can't believe you called me 'dangerous.'

I can't believe you think I am so weak I would do harm to myself. I am

weak in that I trusted you, and YOU did harm to me.

I told the truth.

You have been more cruel than all the others, because you said you

loved me.

==j==

*************

Return-Path: <maryferr@cprompt.net>

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

(Netscape Messaging Server 4.15 marquette Dec 7 2001

06:47:59)

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

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

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

ESMTP

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

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

X-Sender: maryferr@cprompt.net

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1

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

To: dlifton@earthlink.net,rchapman@mem.net,caburtc@us.ibm.com,

Joanmellen@aol.com,paradigm@gtw.net,John.McAdams@marquette.edu

From: Mary Ferrell <maryferr@cprompt.net>

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

Mime-Version: 1.0

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

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

Mary

**************************

The December response by Judyth to Mary.

Mary forwarded this to John McAdams.

From: ElectLady63@aol.com

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 02:23:40 EST

Subject: I AM WRITING LARGE SO YOU CAN READ IT EASILY, MARY

To: Howpl@aol.com, maryferr@cprompt.net, jmarrs@ntws.net,

mshack@concentric.net

CC: real@louisiana.edu

X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10536

X-RCPT-TO: <maryferr@cprompt.net>

Dear Howie-- I don;t know how they did it, but Mary does not believe

me. yes, I'm heartbroken, but i will go on.

TO MARY FERRELL, WHO I TRUSTED:

Mary, i forgive you for what you have done. You misunderstood many

things. for example, I have the original note you wrote on a sheet of

paper that already had my picture on it. I did not send that out to

others until you gave me permission. You may have forgotten. I don;t

know.

I do know that you treated me kindly. You were almost asleep when I

left. i had rubbed your back. we had watched Jack and the beanstalk

together, and then you were looking for the news. We were peaceful

together. You asked jimmy to show me out because i told you I had to

go home and grade papers. you did not kick me out, as you made it look

to the newsgroup. Jimmy showed me out because it was so late.

Mary, wqorst of all, you NEVER ASKED ONE TIME TO SEE THE BOOK. I

BROUGHT IT OVER SEVERAL TIMES. I STOPPED BRINGING THESE THINGS OVER

BECAUSE YOU NEVER SAW MORE THAN A FEW DOCUMENTS AT A TIME.

FURTHERMORE, I ONLY CAME TO VISIT YOU TO GIVE YOU BACKRUBS. I WAITED A

WHOLE YEAR BEFORE ASKING YOU TO WRITE SOMETHING FOR SANDRA, THE AGENT.

YOU MADE IT SOUND LIKE I MIGHT DO HARM TO MYSELF.

You also made it sound like i was a dangerous person.

You also madeit sound like maybe i was crazy.

I bared my very soul to you about my love for lee, and his for me. We

only had two nights to ourselves, i told you that. we spent some

afternoons in a few hotels together. We spent a few hours in a van

once, you made it sound terrible.

I confided in you. You told me not to tell many things, but you have

exposed me as some kind of psycho to the whole world.

I'm very sad.

All I can say is that I'm not lying.

I may not see in my lifetime Lee vindicated.

The Queen of Spades Louis Girdler told you about happens to be in

bound volume of sort stories. there is NOTHING like Lee's book in that

library. I NEVER said I had never seen the 26 volumes. i had never

seen them in a proivate house before--but what i was really trying to

say is that I had never seen the whole bunch of books before--not in a

house--and i had never read them. you thought I meant the 26 volumes?

well, you are an individual, i had never seen a private person powning

such.

Mary, you also said the university library had all kinds of books

about the assasination. THIS IS NOT TRUE. THERE ARE JUST A FEW BOOKS,

ABOUT THE CIA, THAT I KNOW OF. BESIDES, I SAID I WOULD NOT READ THEM.

THERE WERE A FEW OVER AT THE PUBLIC LIBRARY. DR. JOSEPH RIEHL WILL

TELL YOU HE SAID A BOOK ABOUT MAFIA KINGFISH WAS THERE--I NEVER KNEW

IT.

I NEVER SAID I KNEW MUCH RUSSIAN. I NEVER, EVER COULD THINK IN

RUSSIAN!. I SAID I HAD MADE A HABIT OF SAYING THANK YOU OR COMRADE ALL

THE TIME IN RUSSIAN, IT WAS ONE OF MY HABITS.

YOU NEVER TRIED TO SPEAK ANY RUSSIAN TO ME. YOU NEVER SAID A WORD IN

RUSSIAN.

I NEVER KNEW THE NAME OF THE AUNT. THAT IS WHAT YOU ASKED ME. I DID

WRITE IN THE BOOK TWO YEARS AGO THAT I STAYED ACROSS THE STREET WHILE

LEE WENT INSIDE AND TALKED TO HIS AUNT. THIS WAS ON ST. CHARLES

STREET, WE HAD JUST GOT OFF THE STREETCAR. THIS WAS WHAT I REMEMBERED.

YOU NEVER ASKED ME ANYTHING BUT IF I KNEW HER NAME. I NEVER DID.

I TOLD YOU CLEARLY THAT IT WAS MAY 4 AND MAY 5 THAT I FOUND OUT WERE

NOT ACCOUNTED FOR. THIS WAS RECENT. I NEVER, EVER KNEW ANY OF THIS

BEFORE I GOT SOME FEEDBACK FROM MARTIN THAT I HAD HIT SOME DATES

RIGHT, BUT EVEN THEN I DID NOT KNOW WHICH ONES FOR SURE UNTIL I SAW

YOUR CHRONOLOGY. YOU EVEN GAVE ME A FREE COPY OF YOUR CHRONOLOGY AND

MADE ME SO HAPPY.

YOU DID NOT MENTION THE AMERICAN EXPRESS MONEY ORDER OF MAY 27. YOU

MADE ME LOOK LIKE A xxxx, MARY.

I BARED MY HEART TO YOU.

I TOLD YOU MY SOUL ABOUT LEE, AND YOU TOLD ME ABOUT BUCK.

I SENT YOU POETRY THAT I NEVER DARED SHOW ANYONE BEFORE, EXCEPT

HOWARD.

WORST OF ALL, I THINK, WERE YOUR ERRORS. I NEVER SAID RORKE WAS GOING

TO MEET US IN MEXICO. HE HAD DIED BEFORE THAT. I NEVER SAID OCHSNER

GOT ME THE APARTMENT. I NEVER TOLD YOU WHO GOT ME THE APARTMENT. HE

HAD TOLD ME TO MOVE INTO THE 'Y'--WHICH I DID DO.

THE "HAMBURGHER" PLACE WAS HOW I TRIED TO WORK ON MY OWN, HAVING GOT

YTHERE EARLY.

YOU HAVE SWALLOWED THE MISREPRESENTATIONS AND LIES OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE

SWORN THEY WILL NOT ALLOW THE BOOK TO BE PUBLISHED. THEY WILL NEVER

SOLVE THE CRIME AGAINST KENNEDY. NEVER.

I DID INDEED MEET MACKINLAY KANTOR. I have a newspaper article proving

he spoke to my high school class. I was the star writer and was

introduced to him. He was very interested in my dog and horse stories.

He had writren The Voice of Buf=gle Anne and read the entire book to

our class in two hours. I was invited to his home. ASK HIS WIDOW HOW

HE WROTE HIS STUFF. HE WA;LKED AROUND WITH HIS TAPE RECORDER AND SPOKE

INTO IT. Twice i came over and held the tape recorder.

You should know that i try to be friendly. I liked Kantor a great

deal. He had very conservative friends in the military.

You got so many small details wrong that i am embarrassed for you. You

remembered a great deal, but it looks to me like you've been given a

lot of this oinformation, for it is quite skewed form the way it was

given to you.

One last example: I received a short note, hardly a letter, from

Russell. It was basically a quote from one of his lectures. His

secretary, your friend's husband, actually went to court to PROVE he

did not have control of many things Russell wrote. by the time I

wrote to Riussell personally again, he was no longer capable of

replying, and i did get a letter form his secretary. However, I did

receive a note the first time. I am certain i can find other letters

he wrote personally in that same time period, and i will certainly be

able to prove my point, because a bunch of them went on file in the

lawsuit proving Russell was independent and wrote letters of which

Sch. knew nothing or only knew about later.

Where in the world, finally, in closing, did you ever get the idea

that i was dangerous?

i came to see you to ease your pain. i spent hours massaging your

neck, legs, even your feet, because I cared about your pain. I knew i

was taking a risk when once you yelled at me and made me cry, and

then apologized. i realized you might not be the same lady that i

had met over a year earlier. I noticed that you were repeating tings,

and finally did mention these concerns to howard and Martin. but I

felt it was temporary, because you had fallen ill, and because you

missed Buck.

I defended your sanity and reason, mary, when you started crying, and

said, in poresence of me, debbee, and Carole Anne, that "How will BUCK

find me if I move out of this house? HOW will he find me?"

I have to tell howard about this so he will understand that I feel

you have changed, that never in a million years would you have written

that I might 'harmm' myself, or that I was 'dangerous' a year ago.

I have never harmed anyone in my life. You said, indeed, that i had

HEALING HANDS. I have spent hours trying to just give you some

physical comfort. in return, you have accused me on the internet of

being dangerous, even delusional, and all the things that now make me

lok like I am a mental mess.

I have learned my lesson.

I will take what i know to the grave.

You've destroyed my credibility.

forgive you, because i believe you are not the same wonderful lady who

said she wanted to help me get the book published, who even OFFERED

TO BUY ME A NEW CAR, AND I REFUSED TO LET YOU DO THAT. You also

offered to buyDebbe a new car. I suppose carole Anne still wants to do

something 'nice' for Debbee. debbe is a fine woman.

indeed, i have dear, fine friends.

I hope and pray that someday you will rethink out all you have said

and done to me this sad day.

You may have singlehandedly destroyed the last chance for the truth to

come out.

i give up.

==Judyth==

*********************

Subject: Mary Ferrell

Date: 14 Dec 2001 09:02:32 -0600

From: Debra Conway <de...@jfklancer.com>

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

Folks,

Having spoken to Mary both before and after she posted her email

regarding Judyth Baker, I can tell you she is very sane, coherent, and has all

her mental faculties. I resent Judyth's claims to Mary being unable to

remember what she has been told or what she has said. I've been through this

with Mary every step of the way and believe me, she not only has been

totally truthful in her email, typical of Mary, she has been generous and

sensitive to Judyth. She could have written much, much more.

For Mary's sake, I'm glad this is over. She is too polite sometimes

for her own good and allowed her kindness to Judyth to be misconstrued and

manipulated.

Sincerely,

Debra Conway

***************

These have all been posted on the net for years.

Barb

NOTE: This appears to me to be an acid test of Judyth's critics. We already know that

Junkkarinen, Viklund, and McAdams have been collaborating in attacking her. It now

appears to me that Judyth has proof--in the form of a tape recording--that puts the lie

to this disgraceful abuse of the memory of someone widely admired. If there is a more

dishonorable act than this--for crass political motives--I cannot image what it would be.

RESPONSE TO JUNKKARINEN'S MARY FERRELL POSTING:

TO ALL:

A GOOD RESEARCHER WILL PRESENT INFORMATION IN AN UNBIASED MANNER.

1) BUT BARB DID NOT POST MARY FERRELL'S EMAIL AND ITS ORIGINAL HEADER.

INSTEAD, SHE POSTED AN ATTACHMENT TO IT. WE DISPUTE THE PROVENANCE AND AUTHORSHIP OF KEY PORTIONS OF THAT ATTACHMENT.

2) THE EMAIL BARB DID NOT REVEAL TO YOU SAID THAT MARY EXPRESSED 'REGRET' THAT SHE HAD TO WASH HER HANDS OF ME.

TO MY FACE, MARY TOLD ME THAT SHE COULD NO LONGER BEAR THE RELENTLESS PRESSURE FROM ALL HER OLD FRIENDS. IT WAS DRIVING HER CRAZY AND SHE HAD DECIDED TO STOP DEFENDING ME IF SHE WAS TO HAVE ANY PEACE. SHE RELIED ON THESE PEOPLE FOR TRANSPORTATION, INCOME FROM LANCER, THE MARY FERRELL AWARD AT LANCER, AND SHE JUST COULDN'T KEEP DEFENDING ME ANYMORE.

[........]

Edited March 14, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen

[Evan Burton]

I don't believe it has been done, but could I make a friendly reminder for all parties to ensure that they do not post private information without permission.

Thanks!

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Rich DellaRosa occasionally posted on the mod group, and he was watching my fact checking posts on Judyth's claims. He also spoke up as regards the Mary Ferrell/Judyth issue, and includes a note he received from Mary in his post that is relevant here. With the loss of Rich so fresh, it just somehow seems appropriate to include his input here too, as I know he would want. He was adamant on the topic of Judyth's story.

On 4 Jun 2008 23:57:08 -0400, Rich DellaRosa <richdell@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

>In article <851e449nckbb443gri7iuufk4r6f1gk4mp@4ax.com>,

> Barb Junkkarinen <barbREMOVEjfk@comcast.net> wrote:

>

>> OUCH.

>>

>> Thanks for this, Paul ... and Rich.

>>

>> Barb :-)

>

>Yes, thanks Paul. Barb, if you successfully unravel this Judyth thing we

>should all buy you dinner at the restaurant of your choice. I'm so tired

>of this stuff. If "Team Judyth" has disbanded, why do they continue to

>defend her??

>

>Mary Ferrell, in her correspondence to me, left nothing for further

>discussion. Mary didn't believe Judyth, nor do I. Another thing, they

>continue to claim that Adele Edisen confirms Judyth's stuff. As recent as

>last evening, Adele denies that she ever confirmed Judyth's story or parts

>of it, even though Adele was hounded repeatedly to do so by Judyth &

>company.

>

>When will it stop?? BTW, Mary was in full control of her faculties when

>she wrote that email. To claim otherwise is to besmirch the memory of a

>wonderful lady. And to call her upscale assisted living facility a

>"nursing home" is insulting and demeaning IMO.

>

>Rich DellaRosa

>http://www.jfkresearch.com

>

>>

>> On 4 Jun 2008 16:36:18 -0400, "paul seaton"

>> <paulNOseatonSPAM@paulseaton.com> wrote:

>>

>> >

>> >"Martin Shackelford" <mshack4@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

>> >news:njr1k.637$L_.480@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...

>> >> It was a two-way correspondence, Barb. Mary ceased PUBLIC discussion,

>> >> but not private communication.

>> >

>> >That's right Martin, she didn't.

>> >Here, for eg, is an email she sent in Feb 03 , as published on aa.jfk, 25th

>> >June 2004, Thread "Judyth & Mary Ferrell" by Rich DellaRosa An email from

>> >Mary Ferrell dated feb 19 2003 is quoted.

>> >

>> >I suppose this was more Sneaky & Switchdocs , Martin ? ( They are beginning

>> >to sound like Tom & Jerry .... Laurel & Hardy.... Fred Astaire & Ginger

>> >Rogers...)

>> >

>> >Mary ferrell => "..she was never able to prove anything beyond the fact that

>> >she had worked at Reily. "

>> >

>> >Mary Ferrell => "Judyth's stories about knowing where Lee was at all times

>> >while he was in New Orleans in 1963 are simply not correct. I don't want

>> >to argue with her. She is so frustrating and such an accomplished "story

>> >teller" that, at 80 years of age, I almost have a stroke trying to reason

>> >with her. "

>> >

>> >Martin, if Mary was giving you some other impression, I think you have to

>> >allow for the possibility she didn't want to hurt your feelings. Youknow, if

>> >it's plain someone can't bear to hear the truth, they often don't get told

>> >it. At least not by their friends.

>> >

>> >

>> ><quote dellaRosa>

>> >

>> >I have been reading various claims regarding Mary Ferrell vis the Judyth

>> >fables. In the short period that Judyth was spinning her yarns on my

>> >forum, she often referred us to Mary to substantiate her claims.

>> >

>> >Mary was a member of my forum for years, although she opted not to post.

>> >I emailed Mary and simply asked if she would share a brief summation of

>> >her experiences with Judyth. She gladly complied, and she gave me

>> >permission to share her email with anyone I chose. Here then is Mary's

>> >email:

>> >

>> >

>> >***************************************************************************­*

>> >******

>> >

>> >

>> >From: maryf...@cprompt.net

>> >Subject: Re: Judyth

>> >Date: February 19, 2003 4:25:48 PM EST

>> >To: richdell....@verizon.net

>> >

>> >

>> >Dear Rich,

>> >

>> >

>> > I, too, wasted several years with Judyth. I agree that she did work

>> >for Reily and it may have been prearranged that she would be there at the

>> >same time Lee worked there. However, she was never able to prove anything

>> >beyond the fact that she had worked at Reily.

>> >

>> >

>> > I am confident that no one has worked more diligently on the

>> >Kennedy assassination than I have. I'm sure that others have done better

>> >and more comprehensive work than I have done. But, I feel sure that I can

>> >document where Lee was at all times while he was in the United States with

>> >the exception of two times -- a few days in April 1963 and a few days in

>> >October 1963. Judyth's stories about knowing where Lee was at all times

>> >while he was in New Orleans in 1963 are simply not correct. I don't want

>> >to argue with her. She is so frustrating and such an accomplished "story

>> >teller" that, at 80 years of age, I almost have a stroke trying to reason

>> >with her.

>> >

>> >

>> > Again, thank you for your excellent Forum.

>> >

>> >

>> >Sincerely,

>> >Mary Ferrell

>> >

>> >

>> >***************************************************************************­*

>> >*******

>> >

>> >

>> >Martin, do not ask me to post it in her own writing. That would imply

>> >that I have so little regard for Mary & her memory as to

>> >manipulate/fabricate her words. I would never disrespect her like that.

>> >Never. The above are her words.

>> >

>> >

>> >FWIW Judyth also referred us to other individuals who are members of my

>> >forum. I also asked for their opinions. They answered very succinctly --

>> >but -- they asked me to keep their emails confidential -- I respect their

>> >wishes. None of them agreed with the portions of Judyth's story involving

>> >them. None of them.

>> >

>> >

>> >IMO it is shameful that Shack & Platz are exploiting Judyth. There are

>> >damn few portions of her story that can be substantiated as true.

>> >Additionally, Shack absolutely disrespects the folks here IMO by going to

>> >such lengths to continue this issue ad infinitum.

>> >

>> >

>> >Rich DellaRosa

>> >http://www.jfkresearch.com

Thanks again, Rich. RIP

Barb :-)

Edited March 14, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen