Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Greg Burnham]

Monk,

No one in the world would expect Judyth's story to prove that Lee was not "the lone gunman". If I was not sufficiently explicit about that point, what I meant was that the depicition of him as "a lone, demented gunman" is undermined by her reports.

[italic emphasis mine]

Devil's advocate: Yes, but that counter depiction must be believed to make a difference (be relevant). As someone who was his lover why would she report anything to the contrary? Love is blind. (remember, I am not necessarily espousing this position personally)

We know from many other sources--including hundreds of articles and books, from RUSH TO JUDGMENT to BEST EVIDENCE to BLOODY TREASON to MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA to INSIDE THE ARRB--that there was no "lone gunman", that the weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK, that he was not even on the 6th floor at the time, ...(snip)

I think that is relevant info, but:

...and that, as Marina observed, he admired JFK...

Maybe relevant, but certainly less credible if, like Judyth, Marina had been singing his praises, claiming his innocence, and never turned on him. However, since Marina was not an Oswald champion, possibly for fear of being deported, coming from her, it might have more credibility with those who tend to disbelieve, IMO.

The kinds of secrets that the agency is most concerned to protect involved its methods and techniques.

Actually, its "sources and methods"

Perhaps you have not had the opportunity to scroll through the thread and read posts #25, #27, #41, and #47. You are in no position to make the kind of judgment you are offering here--about the irrelevance of her research in 1963--without knowing what has been going on since them.

What? Too funny. I never meant to imply anything about the relevance of Judyth's 1963 research. I am speaking only about her relationship with Oswald as he relates to JFK's murder. Perhaps, I was not sufficiently clear either! Sorry about that.

There are many possibilities related to AIDS, the bird-flu threat, and many others, some of which could have very well been incubating ever since. I would encourage you to read these posts and share with us your further considerations. I am not saying you are wrong, but his observations strongly suggest that something more is going on here with regard to Judyth.

Jim

I don't disagree with you, Jim. Indeed, it is my belief that her 1963 research might be the ONLY relevant issue to me, but extremely relevant! I would need to put a lot more into the research to have a better handle on it. I'll make sure I've read all those posts.

GO_SECURE

monk

PS: I couldn't extend the thread replies so I had to delete them to post a reply.

Edited March 14, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks, Monk. I just wanted to sort out a few issues. I almost always appreciate your comments and observations. Best, Jim

Monk,

No one in the world would expect Judyth's story to prove that Lee was not "the lone gunman". If I was not sufficiently explicit about that point, what I meant was that the depicition of him as "a lone, demented gunman" is undermined by her reports.

[italic emphasis mine]

Devil's advocate: Yes, but that counter depiction must be believed to make a difference (be relevant). As someone who was his lover why would she report anything to the contrary? Love is blind. (remember, I am not necessarily espousing this position personally)

We know from many other sources--including hundreds of articles and books, from RUSH TO JUDGMENT to BEST EVIDENCE to BLOODY TREASON to MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA to INSIDE THE ARRB--that there was no "lone gunman", that the weapon he is alleged to have used cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK, that he was not even on the 6th floor at the time, ...(snip)

I think that is relevant info, but:

...and that, as Marina observed, he admired JFK...

Maybe relevant, but certainly less credible if, like Judyth, Marina had been singing his praises, claiming his innocence, and never turned on him. However, since Marina was not an Oswald champion, possibly for fear of being deported, coming from her, it might have more credibility with those who tend to disbelieve, IMO.

The kinds of secrets that the agency is most concerned to protect involved its methods and techniques.

Actually, its "sources and methods"

Perhaps you have not had the opportunity to scroll through the thread and read posts #25, #27, #41, and #47. You are in no position to make the kind of judgment you are offering here--about the irrelevance of her research in 1963--without knowing what has been going on since them.

What? Too funny. I never meant to imply anything about the relevance of Judyth's 1963 research. I am speaking only about her relationship with Oswald as he relates to JFK's murder. Perhaps, I was not sufficiently clear either! Sorry about that.

There are many possibilities related to AIDS, the bird-flu threat, and many others, some of which could have very well been incubating ever since. I would encourage you to read these posts and share with us your further considerations. I am not saying you are wrong, but his observations strongly suggest that something more is going on here with regard to Judyth.

Jim

I don't disagree with you, Jim. Indeed, it is my belief that her 1963 research might be the ONLY relevant issue to me, but extremely relevant! I would need to put a lot more into the research to have a better handle on it. I'll make sure I've read all those posts.

GO_SECURE

monk

PS: I couldn't extend the thread replies so I had to delete them to post a reply.

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

I enjoy "going at it" with you more than I can express. In my opinion, in an honest debate the only real victor is the truth. I always feel that I'm closer to the truth after having my positions critically challenged by you. Even when we don't end up seeing 100% eye-to-eye on some issues, I become clearer about my own thought process from the exchange. It is something that I cherish.

An observation: I have no wish to become engaged in a pissing match with skunks here or anywhere else. I've been there and done that. That's why I will refrain, to the best of my ability, from arguing with those whose past behavior indicated that their intentions were less than honorable and their current tactics still appear to be disingenuous to me.

GO_SECURE

monk

[Linda Minor]

I am trying to understand the timelines of JVB and LHO, so have

been doing some reading, and found the following of interest:

4-20-63: JVB arrives in NOLA.

4-25-63: LHO arrives in NOLA.

4-26-63: JVB meets total stranger LHO in a line at post office.

4-27-63. LHO takes JVB on a NOLA tour to meet...

...Ferrie

...Bannister

...Ochsner

4-27-63: JVB and LHO instructed to watch for classified ad for

employment, 640 Magazine Street, by Alvin Prechter.

5-1-63: Robert Baker arrives in NOLA and demands immediate marriage.

5-2-63: JVB and Baker elope to Mobile Alabama

5-3-63: Baker leaves his bride of one day.

5-4-63: JVB is evicted from her rented room.

5-4-63: LHO arranges a new room for JVB.

5-9-63: LHO and JVB interviewed by Prechter at 640 Magazine.

5-10-63: LHO and JVB hired by Standard Coffee Company.

5-17-63: LHO and JVB transferred to Reily Coffee Company.

7-19-63: LHO fired by Reily.

8-9-63: JVB fired by Reily.

What I gather from these timelines:

1. LHO and JVB knew each other before they worked at Reily's.

2. Within two days of arriving in NOLA, LHO met total stranger JVB

and took her around NOLA introducing her to Ferrie, Bannister and

Ochsner.

3. JVB and LHO were co-employees only from 5-10 until 7-19...

20 days in May, 30 days in June, and 19 days in July...a total of

69 days.

Previously I had been under the impression that ALL of the claimed

association took place at Reily Coffee Company.

Jack

So you never read the two volume book with the tiny footnotes that was published a few years ago? It amazes me that people are spending so much time examining everything she says here under a microscope without reading what she wrote.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

MORE FROM JUDYTH:

Ask yourself:

1) Why was I never interviewed by the FBI at Reily's, though Lee and I

were hired the same day by the same small subcompany, moved together

a week later to Reily's main building, etc? Is this my fault, that I am not in

the record? Or was I kept from the record?

2) Why was I never interviewed by the FBI, even though I initialed Lee's

timecards, showing he worked 40 hours every week, when he obviously

was clocking out as late as 7:32 PM and had clocked in over an hour late

many times...

3) Why was I not interiewed by the FBI when my last day of work at Reily's

was August 9th, the same day Lee was arrested? Was that my fault?

4) Why did the Clinton witnesses go totally unreported until Jim Garrison

looked into it? What if Garrison had never found all those witnesses? Is it

my fault that nobody looked into the Clinton-Jackson affairs? (HINT: the

more questions I ask, the more you should ask: Was this because the FBI

was deliberately avoiding certain areas of investigation?)

5) Garrison's main prosecutor mentioned a mystery woman seen with Oswald

twice--once by Mary Morgan in Jackson, the other by Lea McGehee in Jackson.

They stated for the record in the very opening of the final arguments for the trial

that they wished they knew who that woman was. I was that woman.

6) Why didn't the FBI look into any of the Clinton-Jackson material after Garrison's

investigation, via the HSCA?

Have other persons in the case ever been found much later in time, with no official

record for researchers to sink their teeth into?

Consider that Joannides dealt with the FPCC and Lee Oswald issues, yet served to

inform the HSCA of CIA matters without revealing his own involvement. It took forty

years to link him to Oswald, through Jefferson Morley, and he was right under the

HSCA's very nose.

Consider that there is not one photograph of John Pic, Lee's half-brother, as an adult,

in any of the records I've seen.

How can we not have any photos of John Pic in the HSCA and the WC records -- yet

we have a photo of Jack Ruby's mother's teeth?

Could it be because no focus was wanted on the act that John Pic was running a major

section of a pathology laboratory for the US government -- and they wanted no links

to bioweapons or pathology or anything to do with medical experiments and testing to

his brother, Lee H. Oswald?

What do you now of John Pic beyond his WC testimony?

McAdams and Stephen Roy both assert there were no mice in Dave ferrie's apartment

for years before 1963. Garrison, however, has reported seeing the cages and smelling

the odor of mice--something he would not have mentioned had he not experienced it.

If almost nothing exists about John Pic, Lee's brother, who was involved in medical

matters, is it really so surprising that my name was omitted?

BTW, the name of 'Reily' is missing form the WC index. You have to plow through all

26 volumes to find the more than 100 entries concerning 'Reily' all by yourself. And

'Monaghan' my boss at Reily isn't in the idex, either, though he dictates imformation

about Lee's whereabouts, work records, background, etc., etc. through several pages.

Alton Ochsner was never mentoned by the FBI, WC or HSCA. ONLY Garrison brought

him up...But Ochsner-supporters had Truth and Consequences set up in California to

'fund' Garrison's investigation, moved all the INCA records to California, then watched

as Garrison turned away from Ochsner. '60 Minutes' had to find the document showing

Garrison wanted to arrest Ochsner....The threat and fear of arrest is also in Ochsner's

approved official biography, Surgeon of the South.

Edited March 15, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

Monk...I agree with what you have written.

Jack

Thanks Jim,

I'm glad to be here, too. As to point number one (1) -- the importance of her "humanization" of the accused assassin is limited, IMO. Just as the official story was designed to de-humanize him, it wasn't relevant as it was manipulation of popular perception and had no evidenciary value in and of itself (other than a further exemplification of an inadequate investigative procedure and evidence of a conspiracy to obstruct justice). But it had no evidenciary value to prove the guilt of the accused. This, of course, is a primary criticism we have with the official story as it was more concerned with perception than it was with proof. If her story is true, as I presume it is, will it be compelling enough to convince lone nutters that Oswald did not act alone? I hardly think so. Again, this is not meant disresectfully toward Judyth, but it is my opinion. Another way of looking at it is to ask the question, "What specific theory do we intend to promote by introducing this evidence?" -- And then decide whether or not that theory is worth promoting. For instance, I understand Judyth's wanting to promote a more accurate and human image of the one she loved because for one thing, she loved him. But I did not. I don't really care if he was or was not a nice guy. The reason I don't believe he acted alone (and probably didn't act at all) is because the hard evidence doesn't support his guilt nor even his involvement. Again, her testimony is "tainted" because her opinion is necessarily biased even if fundamentally true. Unfair to her (and to Oswald's legacy) as it might be, her story is easily discounted for that reason. (2) I mentioned to you on the phone, prior to your posts from your friend, that I believe that her story is important, but for reasons other than its relevance to the JFK case. There is a "signature" of sorts all over the type of discrediting tactics that have been leveled against her and on so many layers. IMO, only CURRENT threatening information would cause such a reaction. I don't think that the JFK case by itself falls into such a "drastic reaction" category any longer.

GO_SECURE

monk

Monk,

This bothers me. I have explained in several posts that Judyth's story is highly relevant because (1) she humanizes the alleged "lone, demented assassin" and makes it very implausible that someone with his personality, social inclinations, sense of humor and other attributes--including working undercover for our intelligence agencies--would be disposed to kill the president rather than protect him and (2) as my psy ops expert has explained in four earlier posts--which you might want to read--he suspects that she is being hounded and harassed because of what she knows about cancer research and bio-weapons development, even things she may not realize are important. So while I am glad that you are reaffirming that you believe her, it might be a good idea if you were to take a little more time and read those posts to which I have referred.

I'm glad you have you here, my friend!

Jim

Judyth,

As I hope you remember, I long ago expressed to you that I lack the time and resources to thoroughly research every lead in this case and am therefore forced to prioritize. That necessitates that much of what is worth researching, given the rather large quantity of evidence, I have unfortunately been forced to leave out--including a lot of information related to you and to your story. Beyond my initial research of your story I have done very little. For that inability, I am truly sorry, but it is what it is. However, because of those limitations I am forced to say that I have "reasonable doubt" about the direct relevance to this subject. That is not to say that I believe it is irrelevant. I could be wrong, but I don't know to a certainty that it has relevance--that's all. My inability to firmly state that I know it is or is not relevant is a function of my lack of having done sufficient homework to make such a judgment call. My indecisiveness is not a reflection on your credibility or on my opinion of your sincerity. Judyth, it would be equally misleading for me to claim I am convinced that this is or is not relevant.

On the other hand, I do believe you. I believe you are reporting the truth as you know it to the best of your ability. I will continue to urge others to either thoroughly fact check your story for themselves before attempting to endorse or discredit it. Or at the very least, if they are unwilling to conduct the research themselves, I urge them to stop attempting to silence those who are in the process of doing that very thing.

GO_SECURE

monk

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON MONK'S POST:

Look how Monk thinks I have noting to add... That is relevent....It has been years

since we spoke....

There seems to be a desperation to turn the conversation AWAY from New Orleans..

Here's what is relevant:

Despite all the hoopla about TEXAS, NEW ORLEANS IS WHERE THE PLOT WAS HATCHED.

Lee said meetings were held in Baton Rouge.

Can smebody look into US MILITARY PRESENCE IN BATON ROUGE?

I WLL IF I EVER GET THE TIME.

LEE SAID HE WAS INSPECTED BY A MILITARY OFFICER in baton rouge before the officer

went into a meeting where representatives from New Orleans met with dalas plotters.

Lee was posted as a 'guard' but they discussed him in some way. This was in early

September just after he had seen David Atlee Phillips (Mr. B--Bishop) in, I think it

was Houston, in the presence of Antonio Veciana, who reported that to Gaeton Fonzi.

Everbody got to view lee and see his face as Lee was the 'guard." Everyone. The

military guy acted asif he was memorizing Lee's face. He was a Navy man.

Lee aid they came out and informed him that a fund had been set up to care for his wife

and child so that if he wanted to transfer to Mexico (he had requsted this) it culd be done

after his mission to Mexico City.

That mission, btw, lured Lee to Mexico City and into all kinds of exposure so he could

later be framed...

They LATER ordered him to return to DALLAS and broke their promsie, telling him he

would eb reassigned to Mexico and could even enroll as college student there, be an

informant for the CIA with funding, etc.--BUT IT WOULD BE AFTER CHRISTMAS.

DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS PIECE OF INFORMATION, WHICH MY INNER RESEARCH

CIRCLE KNOWS ABOUT AND MY EDITORS, HAS NO VALUE WHATSOEVER TO THE JFK

RESEARCH COMMUNITY IN UNRAVELING HIOW LEE OSWALD WAS MANIPULATED INTO

GOING TO MEXICO CITY, WHY HE RETURNED TO DALLAS WHEN HE EXPECTED, AS SEEN

IN THE BOOK MARINA AND LEE, NEVER TO SEE MARINA AND THE BABY AGAIN FOR YEARS

AND YEARS?

LEE IS ON RECORD AS WEEPING, AND MARINA, TOO.

OH, HOW I WISH I HAD THAT BOOK AGAIN! GET THAT AND READ IT!

NOW, I 'HAVE NOTHING OF IMPORTANCE TO SAY ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION...'

THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU.

UNDERSTAND, IF I HAD SPOKEN TO THE 'BARB CROWD' ABOUIT THIS, THE EVIDENCE

MIGHT HAVE BEEN HUNTED DOWN AND HAVE DISAPPEARED.

I ASK YOU TO FIND STUDENTS OR SOMEBODY TO SEARCH FOR IT.

THE MEETING IN BATON ROUGE WAS ONE OF SEVERAL.

JVB

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.

[Jack White]

I am trying to understand the timelines of JVB and LHO, so have

been doing some reading, and found the following of interest:

4-20-63: JVB arrives in NOLA.

4-25-63: LHO arrives in NOLA.

4-26-63: JVB meets total stranger LHO in a line at post office.

4-27-63. LHO takes JVB on a NOLA tour to meet...

...Ferrie

...Bannister

...Ochsner

4-27-63: JVB and LHO instructed to watch for classified ad for

employment, 640 Magazine Street, by Alvin Prechter.

5-1-63: Robert Baker arrives in NOLA and demands immediate marriage.

5-2-63: JVB and Baker elope to Mobile Alabama

5-3-63: Baker leaves his bride of one day.

5-4-63: JVB is evicted from her rented room.

5-4-63: LHO arranges a new room for JVB.

5-9-63: LHO and JVB interviewed by Prechter at 640 Magazine.

5-10-63: LHO and JVB hired by Standard Coffee Company.

5-17-63: LHO and JVB transferred to Reily Coffee Company.

7-19-63: LHO fired by Reily.

8-9-63: JVB fired by Reily.

What I gather from these timelines:

1. LHO and JVB knew each other before they worked at Reily's.

2. Within two days of arriving in NOLA, LHO met total stranger JVB

and took her around NOLA introducing her to Ferrie, Bannister and

Ochsner.

3. JVB and LHO were co-employees only from 5-10 until 7-19...

20 days in May, 30 days in June, and 19 days in July...a total of

69 days.

Previously I had been under the impression that ALL of the claimed

association took place at Reily Coffee Company.

Jack

So you never read the two volume book with the tiny footnotes that was published a few years ago? It amazes me that people are spending so much time examining everything she says here under a microscope without reading what she wrote.

I did not know that her book was ever published. I quit buying JFK books about 10 years ago. I have

more than 600 and am planning to donate them to a university. All I know about JVB is from comments

on the internet and discussions with people like Rich DellaRosa and Mary Ferrell. From those, I decided

that pursuing the JVB story was a waste of time. Why spend money on an irrelevant book?

[Jack White]

JVB is clearly wrong about "no photo of John Pic."

"Consider that there is not one photograph of John Pic, Lee's half-brother, as an adult,

in any of the records I've seen."

Pic is included in the "Thanksgiving reunion" photo with Robert, Pic and "Harvey" in 1962.

(Armstrong, p. 462). Armstrong interviewed Pic while he was still living.

Jack

[Jack White]

I am trying to understand the timelines of JVB and LHO, so have

been doing some reading, and found the following of interest:

4-20-63: JVB arrives in NOLA.

4-25-63: LHO arrives in NOLA.

4-26-63: JVB meets total stranger LHO in a line at post office.

4-27-63. LHO takes JVB on a NOLA tour to meet...

...Ferrie

...Bannister

...Ochsner

4-27-63: JVB and LHO instructed to watch for classified ad for

employment, 640 Magazine Street, by Alvin Prechter.

5-1-63: Robert Baker arrives in NOLA and demands immediate marriage.

5-2-63: JVB and Baker elope to Mobile Alabama

5-3-63: Baker leaves his bride of one day.

5-4-63: JVB is evicted from her rented room.

5-4-63: LHO arranges a new room for JVB.

5-9-63: LHO and JVB interviewed by Prechter at 640 Magazine.

5-10-63: LHO and JVB hired by Standard Coffee Company.

5-17-63: LHO and JVB transferred to Reily Coffee Company.

7-19-63: LHO fired by Reily.

8-9-63: JVB fired by Reily.

What I gather from these timelines:

1. LHO and JVB knew each other before they worked at Reily's.

2. Within two days of arriving in NOLA, LHO met total stranger JVB

and took her around NOLA introducing her to Ferrie, Bannister and

Ochsner.

3. JVB and LHO were co-employees only from 5-10 until 7-19...

20 days in May, 30 days in June, and 19 days in July...a total of

69 days.

Previously I had been under the impression that ALL of the claimed

association took place at Reily Coffee Company.

Jack

Apparently few bothered to read the timeline of JVB I posted. The implications of it are clear to me.

It reads like a script for "MISSION IMPOSSIBLE".

IMAGINED SCRIPT:

Hello, Miss Vary. Your assignment, if you choose to accept it, is as follows.

Move to New Orleans at your own expense this summer.

On April 26, watch the line of people at general delivery at the Post Office.

When a young man about 5'9" tall gets in line, approach him and drop a folded newspaper.

If he does nothing, he is not your contact.

If he picks up the paper for you, say "Thank You" to him in Russian.

He will confirm that he is your contact.

He will introduce you to people we want you to know in New Orleans.

The next day he will introduce you to a Dr. Ochsner, Dr. Ferrie and our man Guy Banister.

They will instruct you to watch for a classified ad which will place both of you in one of our front companies.

Once in place, you will await further instructions regarding your assignments.

This tape will self-destruct in five seconds.... 4...3...2...1...pfffffft.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

ANOTHER RESPONSE FROM JUDYTH TO JUNKKARNINEN:

BARB ACTS AS IF NOBODY HAD EVER OFFERED INFORMATION ABOUT ME

TO HER NEWSGROUP, THAT SHE HAD TO GO HUNTING FOR IT. THIS IS NOT

TRUE.

Oh, Judyth, how silly it would be to "act as if nobody had ever offered information" about you! Silly on its face. A lot of people have offered information about you. But "information" like that included in the posts you provided, while supportive of you from someone who met you, enjoyed your company, spent hours listening to your story, as people here have been doing, are not "evidence" and certainly not documentation of your claims.

You wrote on your high school reunion page, after relating many details of your story, that:

I really don’t expect you to believe any of this without documentation and proof. Don’t be concerned: I’ve got the proof.

So you know exactly the type of information required - and if you have it and provide it, it would stop all the debate and argument about whether or not, as Jim put it, you are the "real deal."

It has not been produced, for years your supporters did not look for it. I did, starting in 2008. Others have done some as well. Documentation of your claims that could be expected to yield verification or denial is what I hunted for. ... and I posted exactly what I discovered on the mod group.

Things like whether or not an evening Russian class was created especially for you at Manatee Jr. College starting in the Spring of 1960. I have been able to document from the college and other sources that they already had an evening Russian class since the Fall of 1958.

And, on Roswell Park, where you claim to have presented the best paper at the end of the session and to have had scholarships, grants and awards heaped on you, I was frankly shocked to receive an e-mail from the dean, a professor and vice-president of RP telling me that in seeking to carry out his offer to get some information for me about your mentor while there, he had discovered that you had never completed the program as you had been "dismissed." That was later verified by reporter Chris Anderson for the Florida Herald Tribune when he was doing a story on you a year or so ago. I found two other students who had attended the same session you did and learned much about the program. As you know, one remembered you and one did not ... and I reported recollections from the one who did not recall the problem there that summer as well as the recollections of the one that did.

And my inquiries into your claim about the Indiana Biological Association that turned up no IBA (I went all the way to the secretary of state's records), but through some biology professora at Indiana colleges, I did learn, that while even old timers back as far as 1960 had never heard of the IBA, a couple did suggest the Indiana Academy of Sciences ... and lo and behold, I did find that you had co-presented at one of their meetings ... and I even received a copy of your abstract. And I made sure you got a copy. I could have pretended I never found it and no one would ever have been the wiser, but that is not the way I operate.

I have done claim checking with the American Cancer Society, the National Science Foundation, St. Francis College, the NIH/NCI, Reily's re the green glass, the International Science Fair, I did contact one who knew you ... Rob Strom, the UL Lafayette Library .... and more. The ones mentioned here have all been reported ... exactly what I asked, and what I discovered ... with accompanying documentation like college catalogs, annual reports, letters, etc.

What I have "hunted" for, Judyth, is documentation about your claims ... one way or the other, whichever way they fall.

Documentation is what I ask for. It is what is required, as you acknowledge in the quote I provided from you above. And as Pamela noted so many years ago, verification must be done .... lest people get swept away in it all without knowing it is factually correct.

You tell of terrible things that have befallen you, not only in Dallas and other places in the US, but the Netherlands, Hungary, Sweden ... and more. If you would provide police reports, names, dates and locations, etc, how easy it would be for anyone to verify those things for you.

And with the verifiable stepping stones to New Orleans ... and after ... established ... then people could better assess the likelihood of the veracity of the things you tell that cannot be documented, but that could be of great importance to research if people can be confident they are reliable.

You are a very bright lady. As you noted in the quote above, documentation is required. I hope you will help those seeking to verify elements of your story so that we can all get on to the what really matters here. And how much simpler and less time consuming, your life will be!

BELOW THAT IS A SECOND POST MADE SEVERAL YEARS LATER BY THE SAME

PERSON. THERE HE MENTIONS THAT I HAD THREATS. BARB WANTED EVIDENCE

OF THREATS, ETC. THIS IS FROM A THIRD ARTY AND I OFFER THIS AS A SECOND

EXAMPLE. SHE CAN GO DO RESEARCH ON TO FIND OUT IF IT REALLY HAPPENED,

SINCE SHE ASKED FOR POLICE REPORTS, ETC. AND IMPLIED I MADE THINGS UP.

Accounts from people who heard the information from you do not allow for verification. Names, like the name of the hotel where your room was broken into .... the month and year of that breakin ... and the city. That would be a great start. And, of course police reports from these crimes would take care of it. Easy.

Thank you for anything you can provide to help people document elements of your story and end the vicious circle of arguments ... so we can all get on with resolving the case. And that would free you up to tend to what is important right now ... getting your book finished so Trine Day can get it published!

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

JUDYTH: The U of Louisiana, Lafayette Library

Martin Shackelford started a new thread titled "Judyth Baker on the

Queen of Spades" on alt.assassination.jfk, posting this snippet from a statement by Judyth on

May 15, 2008:

From: "Martin Shackelford" <mshack4@sbcglobal.net>

Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk

Subject: Judyth Baker on the Queen of Spades

Date: 15 May 2008 10:36:35 -0400

the gray book:

At U LA, if you didn't know the name of a book, you couldn't get it

brought down...not knowing what was up there, i could not ask for

it...the library under reconstruction and elevators not working, i was

confined to the first floor for a year....

[Louis] Girdler asked the librarian specifically for a book with "The

Queen of Spades" in it and she described it....but he's such a silly

goose, as he didn't require her to find a book written in russian...my

bad back made it impossible to climb the many stairs to the fourth or

fifth floor...impossible... but what's important is that the ONLY

Russian Pushkin they had up there with the requisite short story the

Queen of Spades--had a RED cover. I described, as you know, a gray

cover. Furthermore, the red cover was a hardback, not floppy.

Judyth has long made claims, as has Martin, that Judyth had done no

research before she came forth with her story ... Judyth noting that

she had no access as the library at the university was undergoing

remodeling/construction for a year (completed in 2000), there was no

elevator service and she couldn't get to an upper floor where any such

materials were kept because her back probs prevented her from climbing

the stairs.

The quote above is a nice short, concise one that contains her 2

claims about the library:

1. There was no elevator service for a year during the

remodel/construction, and ...

2. The library was 5 stories high.

I spoke to Sandy in the reference section of the library on June 8,

2009. She was working there at the time of the remodeling/construction

10 years ago ... before it, through it, and to this day. She told me:

1.The library is now and was 3 stories. The remodeling doubled the

size of the library by adding an addition ... but the number of floors

stayed the same.

2. There was always at least one elevator available throughoutt the

construction/remodel which lasted well over a year. "Oh, gosh, yes"

was her reply to my question as to whether or not elevator service

remained intact during that long time. There is what she called "a

set" of elevators ... the set being two elevators side by side. At

least one was always available.

Here are links to information about the library on the university

website ... as well as the floor plan.

About the library

http://library.louisiana.edu/General/about.shtml

Floor plans

http://library.louisiana.edu/General/floor.shtml

Some details about the construction project here:

http://www.llaonline.org/fp/files/pubs/new.../notes_0201.pdf

Page 3:

"The library was officially

dedicated in a festive ceremony on

Friday, October 27, 2000. The

construction and renovation project

was begun in September of 1997. In the

next three year period 88,000 square feet of

new space were added to the library and 90

percent of the existing 125,000 square feet of

old space was refurbished and renovated. The

library was open to the patrons during the

entire construction period; library services were

available to the students and faculty even

during days of noise and dust.

The dedication ceremony was ..."

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK WHITE'S "CHRONOLOGY":

THE CHRONOLOGY BY JACK WHITE IS NOT CORRECT, SORRY

I WILL CORRECT THE CHRONOLOGY WITH CAPS AND BOLD FACE...

I am trying to understand the timelines of JVB and LHO, so have

been doing some reading, and found the following of interest:

4-20-63: JVB arrives in NOLA.

4-25-63: LHO arrives in NOLA.

4-25-63 LEE EATS DINNER WITH DAVID FERRIE

4-26-63: JVB meets total stranger LHO in a line at post office.

4-27-63. LHO takes JVB on a NOLA tour to meet...

INCORRECT

...Ferrie

...Bannister PROPER SPELLING, IS BANISTER, WRONG DATE, JACK

...Ochsner WRONG DATE, JACK..HE WAS IN SOUTH AMERICA

4-27-63: JVB and LHO instructed to watch for classified ad for

employment, 640 Magazine Street, by Alvin Prechter.

INCORRECT. I WAS NOT INTERESTED IN WORKING ANY SUCH PLACE UNTIL MAY.

THE AD WAS OUT A FULL TWO WEEKS BEFORE WE WERE TOLD TO RESPOND TO

THEM. FULL DETAILS ARE INCLUDED AND I EXPLAIN WHY IN THE BOOK.

5-1-63: Robert Baker arrives in NOLA and demands immediate marriage.

5-2-63: JVB and Baker elope to Mobile Alabama

5-3-63: Baker leaves his bride of one day.

5-4-63: JVB is evicted from her rented room.

INCORRECT. I WAS NOT EVICTED. POLICE RAIDED THE HOUSE.

DEFINITION OF EVICTION:

Legal Definition of Eviction

Some permanent act by landlord, or by person or thing under his control,

which deprives a tenant of enjoyment of the rented premises.

5-4-63: LHO arranges a new room for JVB.

INCORRECT: LHO MEETS MNISTER AND WIFE WHO TOOK JUDYTH IN ,

AFTER THEY CALL THE MURRETS, WHICH SHE DOES NOT DARE DO

BECAUSE HE IS A MARRIED MAN...HE FINDS AN APARTMENT WITH

BEDROOM, BATHROOM, UNFINISHED KITCHEN AND A LARGE LIVING

ROOM AND PORCH WITH A SWEET, LITTLE OLD LADY AS LANDLADY--

SOMEONE HE KNEW WHEN HE WAS A SCHOOL CHILD, DUE TO A

TEACHER WHO HAD LIVED NEXT DOOR. ADDRESS: 1032 MARENGO,

5-9-63: LHO and JVB interviewed by Prechter at 640 Magazine.

5-10-63: LHO and JVB hired by Standard Coffee Company.

5-17-63: LHO and JVB transferred to Reily Coffee Company.

7-19-63: LHO fired by Reily.

NOTE: AD ORDERED SAME DAY TO REPLACE JUDYTH IN TIMES-PICAYUNE

8-9-63: JVB fired by Reily.

CORRECTION: 8-9-63 LEE OSWALD IS ARRESTED AND AS A CONSEQUENCE

OF BEING SEEN NEARBY, JUDYTH IS FORCED TO RESIGN. SHE WAS NOT FIRED.

What I gather from these timelines:

ISN'T JACK WHITE A GOOD RESEARCHER?

OR IS HE USING INACCURATE SOURCES FROM MCADAMS & CO??

I am trying to understand the timelines of JVB and LHO, so have

been doing some reading, and found the following of interest:

4-20-63: JVB arrives in NOLA.

4-25-63: LHO arrives in NOLA.

4-26-63: JVB meets total stranger LHO in a line at post office.

4-27-63. LHO takes JVB on a NOLA tour to meet...

...Ferrie

...Bannister

...Ochsner

4-27-63: JVB and LHO instructed to watch for classified ad for

employment, 640 Magazine Street, by Alvin Prechter.

5-1-63: Robert Baker arrives in NOLA and demands immediate marriage.

5-2-63: JVB and Baker elope to Mobile Alabama

5-3-63: Baker leaves his bride of one day.

5-4-63: JVB is evicted from her rented room.

5-4-63: LHO arranges a new room for JVB.

5-9-63: LHO and JVB interviewed by Prechter at 640 Magazine.

5-10-63: LHO and JVB hired by Standard Coffee Company.

5-17-63: LHO and JVB transferred to Reily Coffee Company.

7-19-63: LHO fired by Reily.

8-9-63: JVB fired by Reily.

What I gather from these timelines:

1. LHO and JVB knew each other before they worked at Reily's.

2. Within two days of arriving in NOLA, LHO met total stranger JVB

and took her around NOLA introducing her to Ferrie, Bannister and

Ochsner.

3. JVB and LHO were co-employees only from 5-10 until 7-19...

20 days in May, 30 days in June, and 19 days in July...a total of

69 days.

Previously I had been under the impression that ALL of the claimed

association took place at Reily Coffee Company.

Jack

Apparently few bothered to read the timeline of JVB I posted. The implications of it are clear to me.

It reads like a script for "MISSION IMPOSSIBLE".

IMAGINED SCRIPT:

Hello, Miss Vary. Your assignment, if you choose to accept it, is as follows.

Move to New Orleans at your own expense this summer.

On April 26, watch the line of people at general delivery at the Post Office.

When a young man about 5'9" tall gets in line, approach him and drop a folded newspaper.

If he does nothing, he is not your contact.

If he picks up the paper for you, say "Thank You" to him in Russian.

He will confirm that he is your contact.

He will introduce you to people we want you to know in New Orleans.

The next day he will introduce you to a Dr. Ochsner, Dr. Ferrie and our man Guy Banister.

They will instruct you to watch for a classified ad which will place both of you in one of our front companies.

Once in place, you will await further instructions regarding your assignments.

This tape will self-destruct in five seconds.... 4...3...2...1...pfffffft.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I DON'T GET IT, BARB. JUDYTH HAS LOADS OF PROOF. YOU SIMPLY IGNORE IT (AGAIN AND AGAIN)!

                                                                                     

YOUR RESEARCH ON JUDYTH APPEARS TO BE ABOUT AS RELIABLE AS JACK'S "CHRONOLOGY"! 

ANOTHER RESPONSE FROM JUDYTH TO JUNKKARNINEN:

BARB ACTS AS IF NOBODY HAD EVER OFFERED INFORMATION ABOUT ME

TO HER NEWSGROUP, THAT SHE HAD TO GO HUNTING FOR IT. THIS IS NOT

TRUE.

Oh, Judyth, how silly it would be to "act as if nobody had ever offered information" about you! Silly on its face. A lot of people have offered information about you. But "information" like that included in the posts you provided, while supportive of you from someone who met you, enjoyed your company, spent hours listening to your story, as people here have been doing, are not "evidence" and certainly not documentation of your claims.

You wrote on your high school reunion page, after relating many details of your story, that:

I really don’t expect you to believe any of this without documentation and proof. Don’t be concerned: I’ve got the proof.

So you know exactly the type of information required - and if you have it and provide it, it would stop all the debate and argument about whether or not, as Jim put it, you are the "real deal."

It has not been produced, for years your supporters did not look for it. I did, starting in 2008. Others have done some as well. Documentation of your claims that could be expected to yield verification or denial is what I hunted for. ... and I posted exactly what I discovered on the mod group.

Things like whether or not an evening Russian class was created especially for you at Manatee Jr. College starting in the Spring of 1960. I have been able to document from the college and other sources that they already had an evening Russian class since the Fall of 1958.

And, on Roswell Park, where you claim to have presented the best paper at the end of the session and to have had scholarships, grants and awards heaped on you, I was frankly shocked to receive an e-mail from the dean, a professor and vice-president of RP telling me that in seeking to carry out his offer to get some information for me about your mentor while there, he had discovered that you had never completed the program as you had been "dismissed." That was later verified by reporter Chris Anderson for the Florida Herald Tribune when he was doing a story on you a year or so ago. I found two other students who had attended the same session you did and learned much about the program. As you know, one remembered you and one did not ... and I reported recollections from the one who did not recall the problem there that summer as well as the recollections of the one that did.

And my inquiries into your claim about the Indiana Biological Association that turned up no IBA (I went all the way to the secretary of state's records), but through some biology professora at Indiana colleges, I did learn, that while even old timers back as far as 1960 had never heard of the IBA, a couple did suggest the Indiana Academy of Sciences ... and lo and behold, I did find that you had co-presented at one of their meetings ... and I even received a copy of your abstract. And I made sure you got a copy. I could have pretended I never found it and no one would ever have been the wiser, but that is not the way I operate.

I have done claim checking with the American Cancer Society, the National Science Foundation, St. Francis College, the NIH/NCI, Reily's re the green glass, the International Science Fair, I did contact one who knew you ... Rob Strom, the UL Lafayette Library .... and more. The ones mentioned here have all been reported ... exactly what I asked, and what I discovered ... with accompanying documentation like college catalogs, annual reports, letters, etc.

What I have "hunted" for, Judyth, is documentation about your claims ... one way or the other, whichever way they fall.

Documentation is what I ask for. It is what is required, as you acknowledge in the quote I provided from you above. And as Pamela noted so many years ago, verification must be done .... lest people get swept away in it all without knowing it is factually correct.

You tell of terrible things that have befallen you, not only in Dallas and other places in the US, but the Netherlands, Hungary, Sweden ... and more. If you would provide police reports, names, dates and locations, etc, how easy it would be for anyone to verify those things for you.

And with the verifiable stepping stones to New Orleans ... and after ... established ... then people could better assess the likelihood of the veracity of the things you tell that cannot be documented, but that could be of great importance to research if people can be confident they are reliable.

You are a very bright lady. As you noted in the quote above, documentation is required. I hope you will help those seeking to verify elements of your story so that we can all get on to the what really matters here. And how much simpler and less time consuming, your life will be!

BELOW THAT IS A SECOND POST MADE SEVERAL YEARS LATER BY THE SAME

PERSON. THERE HE MENTIONS THAT I HAD THREATS. BARB WANTED EVIDENCE

OF THREATS, ETC. THIS IS FROM A THIRD ARTY AND I OFFER THIS AS A SECOND

EXAMPLE. SHE CAN GO DO RESEARCH ON TO FIND OUT IF IT REALLY HAPPENED,

SINCE SHE ASKED FOR POLICE REPORTS, ETC. AND IMPLIED I MADE THINGS UP.

Accounts from people who heard the information from you do not allow for verification. Names, like the name of the hotel where your room was broken into .... the month and year of that breakin ... and the city. That would be a great start. And, of course police reports from these crimes would take care of it. Easy.

Thank you for anything you can provide to help people document elements of your story and end the vicious circle of arguments ... so we can all get on with resolving the case. And that would free you up to tend to what is important right now ... getting your book finished so Trine Day can get it published!

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I FIND BARB'S ABUSE OF THE MEMORY OF MARY FERRELL ESPECIALLY OFFENSIVE.

My interpretation is that Judyth wrote the note to Mary--here, prefaced by, "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"--in the initial belief that it was authentic but that, after sorting things out, she

concluded that it was a fabrication in which Debra Conway played a significant role. That

appears to be consistent with other points she has made about it, including "IT JUST ISN''T

RIGHT..I FORGAVE HER LONG AGO BECAUSE SHE WAS SICK AND UNDER MEDICATIONS,

AND THEY WOULD NOT LEAVE HER ALONE ABOUT ME..." I am now pursuing confirmation.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO VIKLUND AND JUNKKARINEN (FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME):

1) PLEASE--TOO MUCH GOING ON AT ONCE. COULD EVERYONE WHO HAS AN

UNANSWERED QUESTION PLEASE REPOST THE QUESTION IN A SINGLE SENTENCE?

THANK YOU.

MR. VIKLUND: THE DOCUMENT

2) WHAT DOCUMENT IS MR. VIKLUND SHOWING PEOPLE? THEY ARE SAYING THEY

SEE IT, BUT I CANNOT SEE IT. WHERE IS IT?

3) MR. VIKLUND HAS NOT YET STATED HIS OCCUPATION, THOUGH ASKED SEVERAL

TIMES NOW. WHAT DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING, MR. VIKLUND? SWEDEN IS A SMALL

COUNTRY AND MY FRIENDS WANT TO MEET YOU!

MARY FERREL: THE ATTACHMENT

A CONCERN: THEY SAY MARY FERRELL HAD NEVER USED AN ATTACHMENT BEFORE.

THAT SHE HAD TO ASK DEBRA CONWAY HOW TO PLACE THE ATTACHMENT ON HER

EMAIL. THIS 'PROVES' THAT MARY CREATED THE ATTACHMENT?

THINK.

MARY FERRELL IS WRITING AN EMAIL THAT SHE CALLED A "STATEMENT." MOST

STATEMENTS ARE SHORT. THEY ARE NOT LENGTHY LISTS. I WAS AWARE THAT

MARY HAD SENT OUT EMAILS TO HER FRIENDS ABOUT ME IN THE PAST. SHE

TOLD ME SO. SHE SAID SHE WAS UNDER CONSTANT PRESSURE FROM HER

FRIENDS OF SO MANY YEARS TO NEVER ENDORSE ME.

NOTE: IN ANOTHER EMAIL, SHE SAYS SHE NEVER POSTED IN HER LIFE TO

A NEWSGROUP, WHEN ASKED IF SHE HAD POSTED THAT EMAIL. WHY DID

SHE THEN ALLOW MCADAMS TO POST THE EMAIL?

NOTE: SHE SAYS IT'S OKAY TO PUBLISH, IN A CONVOLUTED SENTENCE, BUT

ANYONE WHO HAS STUDIED LINGUISTIC PATTERNS CAN SEE THAT THE ORIGINAL

SENTENCE WAS UNLIKELY TO HAVE AN EXTRA 'NOT' IN IT....IN OTHER WORDS,

MARY LIKELY SAID SHE HAD NOT INTENDED TO HAVE IT PUBLISHED. READ THE

SENTENCE AND SEE WHAT YOU THINK.

WE KNOW THE ATTACHMENT ITSELF WAS REVISED EIGHT TIMES,

ACCORDING TO LONG-TIME MCADAMS NEWSGROUP MEMBER, PAUL SEATON,.

THINK:

YOU ARE WRITING AN EMAIL TO YOUR FRIENDS ABOUT A UNPLEASANT MATTER.

YOU WRITE LOTS OF EMAILS EVERY DAY. LOTS OF THEM.

BUT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN YOUR LIFE, ACCORDING TO THEM, YOU CREATE AN

ATTACHMENT, EVEN THOUGH YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO ATTACH ONE TO YOUR EMAIL.

IS THAT VERY LIKELY?

WHEN FIRST PUBLISHED, THE FIRST HEADER WAS ORIGINALLY A PHOTOGRAPH.

POSTED ALONG WITH THE EMAIL ON MCADAMS' NEWSGROUP. IT WAS TO PROVE

THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE POSTED EMAIL.

I COPIED THAT PHOTO AND SENT IT, ALONG WITH THE WHOLE EMAIL MESSAGE,

TO SHACKELFORD AND PLATZMAN AND A FEW OTHERS.

THAT PHOTO OF THE HEADER WAS THEN ERASED -- AFTER IT WAS POINTED OUT

THAT IT HAD STAYED IN MIDAIR IN CALIFORNIA, AT AN UNKNOWN COMPUTER,

FOR MORE HOURS THAN TIME ZONES CAN EXPLAIN, BEFORE LANDING ON MCADAMS'

DESK.

IT HAD GONE FROM FERRELL TO CALIFORNIA

AND THEN WAS SENT FROM CALIFORNIA TO MCADAMS.

THAT PHOTO VANISHED, AND DAVE REITZES HAND-TYPED IN A NEW HEADER.

IT WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE NOW SUPPLIED TO READERS. BUT VARIOUS

RECIPIENTS WOULD RESULT IN VARIOUS HEADERS. THE CONCERN IS THAT THE

ORIGINAL HEADER SHOWN WAS ERASED AND DAVE REITZES TYPED IN A NEW ONE.

I AM IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND CANNOT SUPPLY THE HEADERS AND MUCH ELSE,

BUT PAMELA MAY ALSO HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THAT HEADER AND MAY RECALL

THAT IT WAS ERASED AND ANOTHER ONE SUBSTITUTED.

I DEEPLY REGRET BRINGING MARY INTO THIS, AS I WISH EVERYONE TO REMEMBER

HER FOR THE YEARS OF HELP SHE GAVE RESEARCHERS AND WITNESSES. IT WAS

BECAUSE I BROUGHT UP THE NAME MARY DEAN THAT SHE BECAME UPSET WITH ME

THE LAST TIME WE MET BEFORE SHE SENT OUT THE EMAIL.

I HAVE THE DOCMENTS I FOUND CONNECTED TO 'MARY DEAN.' I PREFER NOT TO MAKE

THEM PUBLIC. IT IS AMAZING TO ME THAT THESE PEOPLE WOULD EXPOSE MARY AS BEING

EITHER A xxxx (TO ME AND OTHERS WHO ASKED HER IF SHE WROTE THE ATTACHMENT AS

IT NOW STANDS) OR A DELIBERATE FABRICATOR OF WHAT SHE HAD BEEN TOLD.

I HAVE WITNESSES TO OUR FIRST MEETING. I EXPRESSED SURPRISE THAT MARY HAD

HER OWN SET OF 26 VOLUMES--I HAD NEVER SEEN ANY PRIVATE PERSON WITH THEM.

THIS WAS MANGLED. MORE STATEMENTS I MADE WERE SIMILARLY MANGLED.

I AM OFFERING ONE EXAMPLE, BELOW:

===THE "THIS WOMAN'S STORY" NOTE TO FRANK WEIMANN===

IN THE ATTACHMENT, IT STATES THAT MARY WROTE ON A PLAIN PIECE OF PAPER AND THAT

LATER, JUDYTH COPIED IT ONTO PAPER WITH A PHOTO OF HERSELF ON IT. THIS AS THEN

CALLED "A FORGERY BY JUDYTH" BY PEOPLE ON THE FORUM.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT WE MET WELL BEFORE NOVEMBER,

BUT MARY MAY NOT HAVE TOLD HER FRIENDS.

===PHOTO OF A COPY OF THE NOTE IS ATTACHED===

THE DATED (NOV. 27, 2000) TEXT READS: '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.

MARY HAD ASKED ME TO GIVE HER A PIECE OF PAPER TO WRITE ON,

AND THERE WAS ROOM ON THE SHEET I HANDED HER TO WRITE HER MESSAGE.

IT HAD A PHOTO OF ME AND MARINA ON IT.

MARY DOES NOT USE MY NAME BECAUSE SHE SEES THE PHOTO, SO SHE WRITES

'THIS WOMAN'S STORY' NOT "JUDYTH BAKER'S STORY."

IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE.

SO IF THIS SMALL MATTER COULD BE BLOWN INTO A BIG, FAT LIE,

WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THIS EMAIL?

I AM SORRY, BUT IT SEEMS MARY FERRELL'S REPUTATION WAS WORTH ABUSING, IF NECESSARY,

TO DISCREDIT ME. I AM NOT VERY STRONG IN THE BODY, BUT WITH GOD'S HELP, I WILL STAND FIRM.

JVB

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 15, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Stephen Roy]

Reading back through some old JVB postings on this forum, I noted that

for all the CHRONOLOGY in her "book" she relied on someone named David

Blackburst to provide all the research. Yet we are told repeatedly that her

story is told WITHOUT consulting JFK research materials. Is "Blackburst" a

paid researcher?

I find this interesting.

Jack

PS...I decided to google David Blackburst, and discovered that he is AKA

(also known as) STEVEN ROY.

ATTENTION STEVEN ROY, Forum Member:

Did you provide research for Judyth Baker? Are you also known as David Blackburst?

Thanks.

Jack

Jack:

I'd prefer not to be involved with this thread at this time, but...

Yes, my original AOL Screen Name/nom de plume was Blackburst, and I still use it as an e-mail address. I have done quite a bit of original research on Ferrie and the New Orleans cast.

No, I have never done research on behalf of Baker. In the process of a number of e-mail and forum exchanges, a small amount of info has passed back and forth. Baker appears to have read some of my older on-line material.