Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

March 31, 2010

JIM REPLIES TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT JUDYTH VARY BAKER

David,

I appreciate your contributions to this thread. You raise serious questions that

I shall pursue and attempt to nail down. If Judyth is wrong about the date Lee

arrived in New Orleans or when they met, that would clearly adversely affect my

estimate of her credibility. As for Jack, he seems to be unable to acknowledge

his massive bias against Judyth. He has advanced many criticisms against her,

but none of them, as far as I can determine, carry any weight. And he has not

been remotely responsive to points she and I have made that, in my opinion,

raise doubts about some of the evidence advanced to support "Harvey & Lee".

A crucial point I would like to make concerns the claim by you and others that

Judyth is a "fantasist" who is attempting to insert herself into history. Why would

anyone who wanted to "insert herself into history" advance a story that had so

many implausible elements? That is highly unlikely. They would be very cautious

arranging their story in order to eliminate virtually any implausible elements to

protect their claim from refutation. Judyth has done precisely the opposite. It

seems to me that the only way she could know these things--especially those

that initially appear to be very implausible--is because she was actually there!

And, significantly, Judyth has pointed out serious problems with photos that Jack

has advanced in support of the "two Oswalds", where I am having a lot of trouble

swallowing the idea that these two guy were often living in close proximity while

leading parallel lives. The "passport" photo, for example, seems to present a more

rounded face than the original, which Judyth has explained in a post that appears

in the last few pages here. Please tell me if you believe in "Harvey & Lee" or if

you have doubts and, if you have doubts, what are they? Inquiring minds would

like to know. And are you still working on your Oswald book? Thanks very much.

Jim

P.S. Suppose that Judyth did not have a love affair with Lee in New Orleans.

In my opinion, she would still be among the leading experts on this man in

the world today. I believe that she knows more about him that anyone else

on this forum, for example, where her abilities as a researcher and student

of his life are simply astounding. The extent of her knowledge and her skill

in coping with criticism, taken as a totality, are among the most persuasive

reasons why I continue to believe that she is indeed "the real deal", and it

is going to take extremely powerful proof to convince me that I am wrong.

And one final point. I am hardly the only serious student of the death of

JFK who believes in Judyth Vary Baker. The list includes Nigel Turner, who

devoted an entire segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", to Judyth;

Ed Haslam, the author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY, who subjected her to the

most intense interrogation before coming to accept her story; Jim Marrs,

of whom some of you may have heard, who is also among those who are

on Judyth's side; and others unnamed. It seems to me that this intense

focus on me--because I am here--simply ignores the fact I am not alone.

Jim,
On the matter of when Lee arrived in New Orleans, and what he was wearing on April 26, 1963, your statements are incorrect.

Fact 1: We do not know exactly when Lee Oswald arrived in New Orleans. We only know, for sure, that he went for an interview on Friday, April 26, 1963, at which point he was dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie.

Fact 2: Lillian Murrett, Lee's aunt, testified that Lee first called on Monday, April 29, and said he was at the bus station. (And this was corroborated by her daughter Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time).

Putting fact 1 and fact 2 together, it seems clear that Lee was in New Orleans by Friday, April 26, at which time he went for the interview, dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie. (And then called his family on Monday, claiming to have just arrived).

When I spoke with Judyth, who claimed to have met Lee for the first time at the Post Office--and that date being April 26, 1963--and when I asked Judyth how Lee Oswald was dressed, she said he was in workman's clothes. She made a big point of this.

Unfortunately for Judyth, who apparently attempts to insert herself into the record, whereever she spots an opening, she was unaware--I repeate UNAWARE--at the time I spoke with her (on March 4, 2000) of the Rachal Deposition Exhibit, and the Rachal affidavit, both of which are in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission Report.. These two documents offer credible evience as to what Oswald was wearing on Friday, April 26, 1963, at the time of his job placement interview at the Louisiana Department of Labor. The Rachal Deposition Exhibit includes John Rachal's handwritten notes, recording Lee Oswlad's appearance when he appeared before him for a job placement interview: "Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite." (Rachal Deposition Exhibit--see WC Volume 21, page 283). In his 6/22/64 Warren Commission affidavit, he swears: "I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview." (WC Vol 11, p. 475).

At my request, Jack White kindly posted an exhibit I prepared depicting the relevant excerpts from these two documents.

That "initial interview" was on Friday, April 26, 1963, and--at the time I spoke with her (March 4, 2000)--Judyth apparently was unaware that the published records of the Warren Commission--in the form of these two Rachal items--offered documentary evidence as to what Oswald was wearing on that particular day.

Consequently, when I questioned her--on March 4, 2000--she glibly asserted that Lee was dressed in workman's clothes, and, as I recall, appeared somewhat grubby. Furthermore, when I asked her a second time (and perhaps even a third time) to nail down this point, she became somewhat hostile and defensive, as if to ask "Why do you want to know?"

Now, 10 years later, and because of the information I released (via Jack White, just in the last week), Judyth has had a serious "Ooops" moment. Now, she realizes that she had Oswald dressed in the wrong clothes, (and on the day of their very first meeting, no less!) And I stress this point because, after all, it is common knowledge that we usually remember what someone who means so much to us was wearing the first time we met them.

So what does Judyth do? Why, she does what she always does: she comes up with an "explanation." In this case, Judyth simply manufactures some new dialogue to her narrative, as if this is not an accurately documented history, but rather a "work in progress," a screenplay which she can change anytime she wishes. And so now she writes: "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."

Let's focus on just what is going on here: I produce evidence --from the 1963/64 record--that, on April 26, 1963, Lee was dressed in a "dress shirt, and tie" and Judyth now adds, in March, 2010, almost 47 years later, "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."

Is this plausible? Is Judyth credible? Are we supposed to take this ad hoc revision serioiusly?

But that's not the end of it, because Lee was not just wearing a dress shirt--he was wearing a suit, (and a tie). So now what can we do about those two "inconvenient truths"?

Well, I'll tell you what Judyth does: she engages in speculation as to where Lee obtained the suit. She writes:

NOW QUOTING FROM JUDYTH'S POST:

" Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt -- he did not mention a suit-- perhaps his relatives generously added the suit?" UNQUOTE

And then she adds these statements:

QUOTE

(1) " Lee leaves me in the morning and has time to see his aunt and change clothes."

(2) " Here is a logical time line: . . .April 25 [Thursday] -- Lee arrives around 11:00 AM from Dallas, checks into the YMCA, calls his

relatives, and they invite him over. . . Most of he day, he spends with his aunt and uncle and cousin, talking. It's been ten years, after all."

UNQUOTE

But here's the problem with Judyth's "logical time line," and her 2010 attempt at a reconstruction: Lee's Aunt, Lillian Murrett, testified that when she first heard from Lee (who said he was calling from the bus station) it was on "a Monday." That's right: Monday, April 29, 1963.

This testimony is also supported by the testimony of cousin Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time.

But Lee's interview in which he was so nicely dresse was on Friday, April 26.

So regardless of what day Lee may actually have arrived in New Orleans--THEY first heard from him on a Monday, and specifically, Monday, April 29, 1963, which means there is a three day "missing period" between Friday, April 26, when he showed up at the Louisiana Labor Dept office, for an interview (and was dressed in a suit, white shirt, tie, etc.) and the time he first called his relatives, said he was calling from the bus station, and claimed he had just arrived in New Orleans (which was obviously not true)..

So: Lee Oswald was obviously not telling the truth as to when he arrived, and where he had been, for clearly, he was at the Louisiana Labor Department on Friday, April 26, dressed in the white shirt, suit, and tie.

But now, back to Judyth, and her "work in progress": Whatever the explanation is for where Lee was for three days (and Judyth will no doubt be adept at coming up with something), the fact is that Oswald could not have borrowed such clothing from his relatives (to wear on Friday, April 26) if he didn't see them until Monday, April 29. Furthermore, his aunt Lillian's reaction on first seeing her nephew was that he needed better clothing and she offered to help him get better clothes. Again, no mention of having loaned him anything--no loan of a suit, tie, dress shirt, etc.

All this bears heavily on assessingt the credibility of Judyth, who we catch in the act of scampering around trying to come up with an explanation for how it was possible for Lee to be wearing a suit, dress shirt and tie, on Friday, April 26, when he had the interview with John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor. Again: If we meet someone who turns out to be important in our lives, we remember what they were wearing when we first met them. But, in her converstion with me, Judyth got it all wrong, and now she's trying to plug this "hole" in her story.

Judyth supposedly met Lee Oswald some 47 years ago, and has written about him extensively, but--apparently--it wasn't until a week ago that she became aware of this glitch in her account.

Unfortunately for Judyth, 10 years have passed since I questioned her on this point--and although I questioned her very carefully on this particular point, I did not reveal the significance of my questions, or my reaction to her answers. And so now, here we are, in March 2010, I reveal this line of questioning, and now, a decade later, Judyth comes up with new (and supposedly legitimate) information, and her entire tone has the defensive, and almost truculent quality, she exhibited when I spoke with her ten years ago: "I am a witness, and I know what happened. Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt. . ."

And we're supposed to take this person seriously?

I must ask you Jim: Is there no limit to your credulity?

At what point do you draw the line, and say, "Enough is enough!"

Judyth is a serial fabricator. She is a deluded woman, a fantast.

And rather than deal plainly and forthrightly with the situation, you are throwing your credibility out the window, and tossing great insults at a long time friend, like Jack White, because he has the common sense to see what is obvious (and so did Mary Ferrell, I might add).

DSL

3/31/10; 2:40 AM

Los Angeles, CA

Edited March 31, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

Glenn Viklund · March 31, 2010

Mr Lifton,

Thanks for your posting. Your account of your encounter with JVB is indeed self explanatory. It should be evident to anyone exactly what you're stating at the end:

"Judyth is a serial fabricator. She is a deluded woman, a fantast."

Assuming that people are not plain stupid, the only reason to "believe" her phantasmagora is that too much intellectual powder has been spent on the assumption that she is "the real deal", as Jim Fetzer repeatedly describes it. No dry powder left to spend on the obvious. What you have described above is the same pattern that she has shown contiously over the past decade.

I noted that Jim Fetzer diligently avoided to answer my question: If JVB is not telling the truth with regards to the asylum issue, would you then agree that this potentially have serious implications to her credibility?

Her antics related to her alledged "asylum"- not knowing that what she said and did in relation to that issue would ever be possible to check - bears the same disturbing characteristics. It is indeed remarkable that no one has commented on this with regards to her credibility, much less Jim Fetzer himself.

Your question is probably very painful for some to answer:

"At what point do you draw the line, and say, "Enough is enough!""

Edited March 31, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

March 31, 2010

Mr. Viklund,

Several posts have already rebutted your drivel about Judyth's asylum status,

in case you missed them. There is more, but I did not regard it as worth adding

to (what I take to be) your dishonest attempts to smear her, when her asylum

status was already apparent. Indeed, if Judyth were simply the "fantasist" she

has been portrayed as being, then her history of harassment and abuse would

make no sense. She would not have massive attacks on her credibility along

with physical attempts on her life--nor would a "Glenn Viklund" come out of the

woodwork to attack her when her associates abroad have vouched for the truth

of her asylum status. Nor, I dare say, would I have also received the first death

threat in nearly two decades of JFK research the day of my first blog about her.

Jim

Mr Lifton,
Thanks for your posting. Your account of your encounter with JVB is indeed self explanatory. It should be evident to anyone exactly what you're stating at the end:

"Judyth is a serial fabricator. She is a deluded woman, a fantast."

Assuming that people are not plain stupid, the only reason to "believe" her phantasmagora is that too much intellectual powder has been spent on the assumption that she is "the real deal", as Jim Fetzer repeatedly describes it. No dry powder left to spend on the obvious. What you have described above is the same pattern that she has shown contiously over the past decade.

I noted that Jim Fetzer diligently avoided to answer my question: If JVB is not telling the truth with regards to the asylum issue, would you then agree that this potentially have serious implications to her creditibility?

Her antics related to her alledged "asylum"- not knowing that what she said and did in relation to that issue would ever be possible to check - bears the same disturbing characteristics. It is indeed remarkable that no one has commented on this with regards to her credibility, much less Jim Fetzer himself.

Your question is probably very painful for some to answer:

"At what point do you draw the line, and say, "Enough is enough!""

Pamela Brown · March 31, 2010

Nice of Lifton to share with us his research process and in the process expose some of its flaws. For one thing, Lifton is a researcher, not a witness. He even implies he knows when LHO changed his clothes. Ridiculous. Therefore, whatever information Lifton may come by should be presented as simply that.

Lifton also is comfortable making the assumption that he has all the answers, when it is painfully obvious to anyone reading his posts that he does not. He has fallen prey to the fallacy of false alternatives.

It is my hypothesis that Lifton was predetermined against Judyth before he had anything to do with her, and that this could be the reason for his interviewing her in the first place. If that is the case, whatever 'conclusions' or 'insights' he may come up with are tainted by his bias. His ongoing rabid fury at anything connected to Judyth gives corroboration to the possibility of his having an agenda before he even met her. If he claims a documented witness is a xxxx and a fraud, what credibility should we give to what he has to say?

Lifton would also lead us to think that his process is the 'only' process. That is of course a false assumption. There is a process that is much more objective and much simpler that can be followed. But wait, that is called research.

J. Raymond Carroll · March 31, 2010

Lifton would also lead us to think that his process is the 'only' process.

I'd say that most people who have looked at Judith's claims consider them ridiculous, a complete waste of time.

March 31, 2010

And I would reply that what she has to tell us may well be more authoritative than

what we find in HARVEY & LEE, for reasons that I am about to explain.

Lifton would also lead us to think that his process is the 'only' process.

I'd say that most people who have looked at Judith's claims consider them ridiculous,

a complete waste of time.

March 31, 2010

JIM RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT "HARVEY & LEE"

Let me say that I am just the least bit taken aback by your cavalier attitude

toward the "hunting photo", which has been among those you have used to

establish the existence of "Lee" as a person separate from "Harvey", whom

you insist was the person Judyth knew in New Orleans--the one who was

born in Hungary, could not drive, intellectual and interested in philosophy,

and all that, while "Lee" was the one who was hot-tempered, uninterested

in Marxism and could not speak Russian. You observe that the man in the

"hunting photo" does not look like "Harvey", which is true, but then almost

any random photo of an adult male would not look very much like "Harvey":

The "hunting photo" is NOT my photo, but was a personal photo allegedly

taken by Robert when he took Lee hunting just before Lee "departed

for New Orleans" for his defection. I copied the photo from LEE, written

by Robert Oswald. The way a Marine handles a rifle is not necessarily

indicative of what he would do when out hunting. Not everyone behaves

according to any preconceived notion. I have no opinion on the veracity

of the photo. It may be genuine, it may be faked. But it does not resemble

the LHO of Dealey Plaza.

I am also disturbed by your source, which is Robert, after I have explained

that he appears to be a prime candidate for impersonating his bother and

for publishing a phony book about him, including fake photographs. You do

not seem to appreciate the depth of instruction provided by the Marine Corps

with respect to the proper handling of weapons. It is not something you can

"turn on and off" like a spigot. It is a set of habits deeply ingrained within a

recruit that they are required to maintain. That you should have "no opinion"

of the veracity of the photograph raises extremely disturbing questions, not

just about the photograph but about the methodology behind "Harvey & Lee".

You have insinuated that, if Judyth or I do not know that the "Oswald ID" you

and John featured on the cover of HARVEY & LEE is fake, then we have no

qualifications for undertaking a study of the adequacy of your research on

this subject. And, of course, as you observe, it is featured on the cover:

On the inside flap, however, the immediate images that one encounters are these,

albeit with the order of the images reverse, "Harvey" to the left, "Lee" to the right:

where, as you may or may not know, Judyth has questioned the authenticity of the

image you label "Lee", suggesting that his face appears somewhat bloated, which

not only does not resemble the man in the "hunting photo" but, if you consider her

take on how it may have been produced, actually does resemble the man whom you

have labeled "Harvey" in the Oswald arrest photo. Where, if she is correct, then one

of the key pieces of photographic evidence that you have advanced to establish the

existence of "Harvey & Lee" tends to merge into two photos of one man, "Harvey".

From the photo image, I infer that you and John are well aware of the possibility of

forged documents and other forms of fakery in the documentary records, where, as

I have asked before, the methodology used to sort out the authentic from the non-

authentic requires consideration. You have told me (independently) that John only

relied upon "public sources", which guaranteed that these documents were genuine.

But that only establishes that they were "genuine documents" as physical entities,

not with respect to their actual contents. Indeed, in the Introduction to HARVEY &

LEE, which I find quite fascinating, John offers a brilliant explanation of the process

followed by the FBI to take evidence from Dallas, launder it and return it, and then

stage an elaborate "retaking of evidence" to create the impression that it was being

taken into possession by the FBI for the very first time! Which is a brilliant scheme.

I am less impressed, however, by the assertion on fourth page of the unnumbered

Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission,

who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence

Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what

John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page

WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26

volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that

was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry

for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275,

279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459,

461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here?

Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of

this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her

SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as

the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976)

explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland,

has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In

2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the

Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of

publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions,

and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>.

Which leads me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong!

Not to belabor the point, but you have no warrant in taking for granted that the

documents and records that John Armstrong vacuumed up from "public sources"

are authentic in relation to their content as well as their existence as documents.

Unless you can authenticate the content of those documents, then we have what

most students of the assassination would call "a serious problem". And when we

factor in the propaganda expertise of Frank Wisner and his mastery of the media,

where he referred to his capacity to manipulate it to his will--CBS, NBC, ABC, The

New York Times, The Washington Post, and all that--as "The Mighty Wurlitzer", I

am more than a little floored by your reluctance to address the problem. Because

if we don't know which have authentic content and which do not, then what you

and John provided is only a starting point and not the answer to "Harvey & Lee".

The "hunting photo" is NOT my photo, but was a personal photo allegedly
taken by Robert when he took Lee hunting just before Lee "departed

for New Orleans" for his defection. I copied the photo from LEE, written

by Robert Oswald. The way a Marine handles a rifle is not necessarily

indicative of what he would do when out hunting. Not everyone behaves

according to any preconceived notion. I have no opinion on the veracity

of the photo. It may be genuine, it may be faked. But it does not resemble

the LHO of Dealey Plaza.

Jack

JIM COMMENTS ON THE ALLEGED "HUNTING PHOTO OF LEE"
Let me state that his "hunting photo of Lee" categorically falsifies your

theory. "Lee", of course, on your scenario, was in the Marine Corps. I

can assure you that no one who had ever served in the Marine Corps

would hold a rifle or shotgun in the manner shown here. They would

have the weapon across their arms, cradled with the end pointed up-

ward. They would never display the casual, grab-ass behavior that is

displayed by the "Lee" of your photograph, which, as I have observed

before, looks like a completely phony photo in any case. But once a

man has served in the Marine Corps and acquired a minimal degree of

competence with a rifle, they would not handle a long gun as shown.

Either the man in the photo is not your "Lee" or the photo is a phony.

I will reply to your questions in segments, because the forum format is
not good for a "mass reply".

Segments to follow.

Jack

Jack,
OK. Let's see if we can sort some of it out together. By "you guys", I am

referring to you, John Armstrong, and David Lifton, whom I have taken

to be the leading experts on Lee Harvey Oswald. I know that John and

you believe there were two, one "Lee", the other "Harvey", and that the

one Judyth knew in New Orleans was the one to whom you refer to as

"Harvey". According to Dawn Mededith, the one you call "Lee" (not the

one whom Judyth knew) was short-tempered, non-intellectual and could

not speak Russian, while the one you call "Harvey" was mild-mannered,

intellectual and fluent in Russian. You say the one called "Harvey" was

born in Hungary and liked the name "Harvey", while Judyth's says that

he was born in Louisiana, had a slight Cajun accent, and hated the name

"Harvey". So we know that at least some of this has to be wrong. OK?

I do not know if Lifton believes there were "two Oswalds", but I rather

suspect he does not. So what we know about "Oswald" is very obscure.

Now, in this new post you say that you have been suggesting for years

that Robert was involved in framing "Harvey", the man Judyth knew in

New Orleans as "Lee", who, according to you, was not his brother, even

though they looked enough alike that they were virtually "dead ringers"

for one another. In addition, in a recent post, you make this observation:

Today, 05:23 PM

Post #674

Super Member

****

Group: Members

Posts: 7127

Joined: 26-April 04

Member No.: 667

Robert Oswald, of course, knew that Harvey was not his brother, and to this

day he "cooperates" with the perpetrators, as does Marina...for safety reasons.

Robert, Marina and Ruth Paine are the only remaining living persons who

knew both Harvey and Lee. If they were to tell what they know, the case

would be solved.

Robert likely was an unwitting participant. Because both he and Lee were

Marines, and they looked very much alike, the military had photos and

records of both to use in creating confusion in the official record. I am

fairly certain that photos of Robert were in some cases used to portray

Lee. Of course Robert was ASTOUNDED when the assassination happened

and Harvey was named the assassin. What he had assumed was a rather

benign assignment of Lee took a very terrible turn. Read his testimony for

his reaction to the event.

Jack

So here are my questions:

(1) The man who died, according to you, was "Harvey", whom Judyth

knew as "Lee" and who was shot to death by Jack Ruby on 24 November.

(2) Although Robert was the brother of the one you call "Lee" and not of

the one Judyth knew and Ruby shot, they were "dead ringers" of each other.

(3) According to your latest, #678, you have always insisted that Robert

was involved in framing the man that Judyth knew and that Ruby shot.

(4) In your earlier, #674, however, you state (a) that Robert likely was an

unwitting participant and ( was astounded when "Harvey" was fingered.

(5) Now, if Robert was helping to frame "Harvey", how could he possibly

have been astounded when "Harvey" was blamed for the the assassination?

(6) Reading his testimony for his reaction to the event sounds like a waste

of time when we know that (a) he "found" the Imperial Reflex camera no one

had been able to locate in the Paine's garage; ( he had an affair with Marina

following her husband's death; and, © he move into a nice, new brick home,

which he previously could not have afforded. What speaks louder to you?

(7) Moreover, Judyth has shown that, when you correct for distortion, the

images of "Lee" and of "Harvey" tend to converge, which suggests to me

that, while there may have been "two Oswalds", they are not adequately

identified as "Harvey & Lee" but instead more plausibly as "Robert & Lee":

So my question for you, my friend, is how can you reconcile what I have

just presented, especially your claims (i) that Robert was involved in the

framing of "Harvey" and (ii) that he was an unwitting participant who was

"astounded" when "Harvey" was fingered as the assassin? I don't get it.

It is plausible to me that Robert was impersonating Lee on some occasions.

And I hope you are not going to suggest that Robert "found" the Imperial

Reflex camera, had an affair with Marina, and purchased a new brick home

because he had to "play along" with the perpetrators "for safety reasons"!

Jim

Who are the YOU GUYS you refer to?
What are your questions?

I have always said that Robert Oswald participated in the framing of Harvey.

Harvey was not his brother, so he cooperated in framing him. Now what is

your question about this opinion? Are you saying I am wrong about Robert?

I have long said that some photos of "Lee" are really of Robert. Are you

disputing this? Your questions are not clear.

It is clear to me that Robert helped frame "LHO". I have said this for about

thirty years. Are you disputing this? I do not understand your accusation.

Jack

JIM HAS MORE QUESTIONS FOR JACK ABOUT ROBERT OSWALD:

In post #469 on page 32, Judyth made the following observations:

I knew that Lee was aware of and even wanted impersonations. We covered up our tracks very well and after Lee left Reily, I could never dare meet him outside there anymore.

Just trying to say, when you know the man, you know some things simply aren’t true.

Then it's easy to find what is true and present it.

Lee told me he even had a relative there. In New Orleans, two of his relatives were working for Reily when he was, and one worker describes a relative as smoking who was actually Lee, as Lee mentioned his male relative smoked.

People should notice that the boy is leaning back...the photo itself has been altered slightly around the nose ...as many other photos, as well...also, though this is supposed to be the Bronx Zoo, Robert Oswald has a fuzzy memory on a lot of stuff, and remember, Lee was visiting John Pic's home, not Robert's, in New York.

Robert has committed various errors and told lies as well, due to his affair with Marina shortly after Lee's death.

He 'found' the damning Imperial Reflex camera in the PAINE garage that had been so thoroughly searched...

Right after being caught with Marina....

Robert then moved into a nice new brick house that he could not have afforded before then.

Then catch what Robert has to say about his brother Lee as the assassin of JFK during a PBS "Frontline" interview:

(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ews/oswald.html)

Robert Oswald:

In your mind, are there questions about whether Lee shot President Kennedy?

There is no question in my mind that Lee was responsible for the three shots fired, two of the shots hitting the president and killing him. There is no question in my mind that he also shot Officer Tippit. How can you explain one without the other? I think they're inseparable. I'm talking about the police officer being shot and the president. You look at the factual data, you look at the rifle, you look at the pistol ownership, you look at his note about the Walker shooting. You look at the general opportunity -- he was present. He wasn't present when they took a head count [at the Texas School Book Depository].

I watched the deterioration of a human being. You look at that last year -- his work, his family, trying to go to Cuba, trying to go back to Russia. His wife is wanting to go back to Russia. Everything is deteriorating.

You look at all the data there, and it comes up to one conclusion as far as I'm concerned -- the Warren Commission was correct.

JIM'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE ALLEGED "EXPERTS" ON LEE HARVEY OSWALD:

These observations suggest to me that Robert was a key player in framing Lee. This is quite outrageous. You guys are supposed to be the "experts" on Lee Harvey Oswald and I have to learn about Robert having what appears to be motive, means, and opportunity to frame him from Judyth? And you guys have the nerve to challenge her background and her competence and her qualifications? The situation here is entirely outrageous. This woman appears to me to be doing more to solve the case in relation to Lee Harvey Oswald than you and John Armstrong and David S. Lifton put together.

Lee and Robert were almost as interchangeable as twins.
Jack

Edited March 31, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

Greg Burnham · March 31, 2010

Jim,

I have a suggestion. I think it would be helpful if you listed the claims (in list format, without qualification or justification) that you believe Judyth has already adequately explained in her response to detractors. For instance, the whole Cancun issue, the clothing issue, the ability to drive issue... I guess what I'm suggesting is that you put forth the items you feel are explained and allow her critics to "check off" the items that they also agree her explanations COULD ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN. IOW: even if they tend to disbelieve these explanations, surely there are at least a few (or even just one) explanation that they can "allow" as a possibility.

If there are NONE -- there is a serious problem, no? Even her most staunch detractors shouldn't be so closed minded as to reject ALL claims irrespective of merit. If they do, there is a problem. If they do--and it is truly HONEST--the problem may lie elsewhere.

Jack White · March 31, 2010

Jim,
I have a suggestion. I think it would be helpful if you listed the claims (in list format, without qualification or justification) that you believe Judyth has already adequately explained in her response to detractors. For instance, the whole Cancun issue, the clothing issue, the ability to drive issue... I guess what I'm suggesting is that you put forth the items you feel are explained and allow her critics to "check off" the items that they also agree her explanations COULD ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN. IOW: even if they tend to disbelieve these explanations, surely there are at least a few (or even just one) explanation that they can "allow" as a possibility.

If there are NONE -- there is a serious problem, no? Even her most staunch detractors shouldn't be so closed minded as to reject ALL claims irrespective of merit. If they do, there is a problem. If they do--and it is truly HONEST--the problem may lie elsewhere.

Great idea, Greg. But I would suggest some "partial" documentation also. For instance, she says her

streetcar line passed LHO's house and they rode to and from work together. How about naming

the streetcar line and its route. Otherwise it is just an assertion.

Jack

J. Raymond Carroll · March 31, 2010

what she has to tell us may well be more authoritative than
what we find in HARVEY & LEE...

Thanks, but no thanks. John Armstrong's theory is ALSO a bunch of hocus-pocus.

Greg Burnham · March 31, 2010

Great idea, Greg. But I would suggest some "partial" documentation also. For instance, she says her
streetcar line passed LHO's house and they rode to and from work together. How about naming

the streetcar line and its route. Otherwise it is just an assertion.

Jack

Well, I don't know if that item is one that Jim feels she has already adequately explained. My suggestion is that he list ONLY the items he feels she has adequately explained, including especially those items that have been challenged. I would think it more constructive for Jim to refrain from justification and/or qualification for this exercise. Let's just see if there are ANY points that have been (even partially) resolved.

April 1, 2010

JUDYTH REPLIES TO LIFTON ON LEE'S ARRIVAL IN NEW ORLEANS

NOTE: While I have previously responded to this Lifton post in more

general terms, Judyth refutes the purported details of his account. As

readers can discern for themselves, Lifton appears to have committed

a serious of blunders in making assumptions that turn out to be false.

This is a nice example of presumptuous reasoning passing for research.

The matter is settled decisively by Marina and Ruth's testimony about

his date of departure and the travel time by bus. Unless you think it is

more reasonable for Lee to sleep in the street, he checked into the "Y".

She provides an explanation that is about as reasonable as it could get.

I cannot imaging a more convincing refutation of Lifton's argument than

she has provided here. Consider this as one where Judyth defeats Lifton.

Lifton's statements are presented her in italics, Judyth's in roman fonts.

NOTE: JUDYTH CAUGHT TWO TYPOS ABOUT DATES I AM CORRECTING.

[name=David Lifton' post='188327' date='Mar 31 2010, 10:50 AM]

Jim,

On the matter of when Lee arrived in New Orleans, and what he was wearing on April 26, 1963, your statements are incorrect.

Fact 1: We do not know exactly when Lee Oswald arrived in New Orleans. We only know, for sure, that he went for an interview on Friday, April 26, 1963, at which point he was dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie

FROM JUDYTH BAKER:

FACT 1: From the Mary Ferrell Chronology:

April 23, 1963 (Tuesday) - Marina says that Oswald checks some baggage to New Orleans on his bus ticket on the day before he leaves. (WC Vol 22, p. 778; WC Vol 23, p. 526)

Question from JVB: WHY did Oswald check 'some baggage to New Orleans" on the day before he leaves by bus?

Answer: He had a lot of stuff: several boxes, sea bags, suitcases, a zippered bag, etc.

Question: Did Lee Oswald ever spend time in a YMCA, activities largely unknown, before making his presence known to wife or relatives?

Answer: Yes. Upon his return from Mexico City, Lee checked into the YMCA and did not tell his wife he was in town for a day and a half:

"October 3, 1963: Dallas: LHO checks in at the YMCA. Later in the day, he files a claim at the employment office

October 4, 1963: LHO applies for work at Padgett Printing Co. ..Later, he telephones Marina and asks for a ride to Ruth Paine's home and is denied.

He hitchhikes the 12 miles to Ruth's house."

Question: Did Lee Oswald use the YMCA at any other time, when his activities -- before he got a job a Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, and, subsequently after work hours at J-C-S -- were largely unknown?

Answer: Yes. On Oct. 15, 1962, Gary Taylor drove Oswald to the YMCA, where he checked in to room 415. He checked out of the YMCA on Oct. 19th. Between Oct. 19 and Nov. 2, his address was undiscoverable to the Warren Commission. From Oct. 9 until he filed for a post office box, sometime on Oct. 11, 1962, nobody knew where Oswald was.

Question: When did Lee Oswald leave Texas for New Orleans?

Answer: Oswald had considerable baggage, including boxes, sea bags and suitcases. Marina Oswald told the Warren Commission that on April 23, 1963 , a Tuesday, Oswald checks baggage to New Orleans on his bus ticket "the day before he leaves."

Note: Marina's testimony as to when Oswald leaves for New Orleans is 7 months after the fact, while Mrs. Lillian Murret's testimony is that Lee moved in with them a while after Easter, perhaps as early as a week after EASTER (APPROX. April 22). However, Mrs. Murret also testified that Lee Oswald stayed with her family about 3-5 days, at which time he obtained a job and called his wife to join him in an apartment -- this was MAY 9, 1963. Marina arrived May 11.

Question: If Lee Oswald stayed 5 days with the Murrets, then he was not present there before May 5, 1963.

Answer: Marna said Lee Oswald left for New Orleans on April 24, a Wednesday. When Baker met Oswald on the 26th, he told her he had arrived in town on April 25th. It is 523 miles between Dallas and New Orleans, and the trip lasted at least twelve hours. If Oswald left Dallas on the 24th, he could easily have arrived after midnight on the 25th.

It is not surprising that he would follow a pattern used before -- first checking into the YMCA and contacting relatives later.

Question: But what about Oswald calling his relatives at the bus station, where all his baggage was located?

Answer: Imagine trying to move everything from the bus station -- boxes, sea bags, etc. -- to the YMCA after a long and weary rip on he bus. And at the "Y" it must then be kept safely -- in a locker -- and a cab has to be hired to carry all the objects to the "Y". And lee must spend money with the cab timer running in order to transfer baggage into the multi-story building and then to an upstairs room. It would take several trips to do so and run up the tab.

Instead, Oswald did the logical thing. He took the bag of things he needed with him, and -- just as he had checked in his baggage a day early at the bus station in Dallas -- in New Orleans he checks in his luggage and sea bags into a couple of lockers at the bus station again, which he will later have moved by the Murrets.

Question: Why didn't he go to the Murrets sooner?

Answer: Lillian Murret forgot that, when she first saw Lee -- and she testified to this -- he came over with just a small bag and had nothing suitable to wear to hunt for a job. She asked him to return and said that she would find something appropriate for him to wear.

Lee spent a Saturday night with his aunt and uncle, I think, because he reported eating a nice supper with them. Lee was very busy working with Guy Banister during his first week in New Orleans -- and also helping me find a room.

When a police raid forced me to move, the pastor and his wife who helped me called Lee Oswald at his aunt and uncle's house. The date was May 4. Lee Oswald came over about noon, ate lunch with the pastor, wife and me and then made calls from the rectory's phone there. He was able to find an apartment for me. Lee was located a hat time -- May 4 -- at the Murret's.

He had moved in with them recently. But when I met him on April 26, he was living at the YMCA.

Charles "Dutz" Murret picked Lee up at he bus station where Lee retrieved all his possessions and stacked them into the car. He did not want to burden them for too many days with his presence...

He was also a bit shy, not knowing how hey might treat him when he had been a (fake) "defector,."

For that reason, he had not contacted them from Texas after moving back to the US from the USSR.

So he was shy about simply moving in, and stayed at the "Y."

Later, he felt welcome and then moved in. NO long packages such as a rifle were reported or observed. Lee's things were placed in the Murret's garage stacked next to their washing machine. He began an active job search (for show) and they were then handy witnesses -- but, in fact, his Reily job had already been prearranged.

As the respected witness, Adele Edisen, has made clear -- and I concur -- Lee Oswald's address was known to more than one person before he moved into his apartment. He knew what his address would be when he placed me within easy walking distance of his own apartment at 4905 Magazine S. (often erroneously listed as 4907 Magazine, a false address he had placed on many documents, which I explain in my book), to which address the Murrets then transferred his luggage, sea bags and boxes upon the arrival of Marina and Ruth Paine. Lee had one suitcase full of Marina's clothes and baby clothes, by the way.

April 23, 1963 (Tuesday) - Marina says that Oswald checks some baggage to New Orleans on his bus ticket on the day before he leaves. (WC Vol 22, p. 778; WC Vol 23, p. 526)

Fact 2: Lillian Murrett, Lee's aunt, testified that Lee first called on Monday, April 29, and said he was at the bus station, which has been corroborated by her daughter, Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time.

==DISPUTED: Lee moved in with the Murretts some time after April 27, 1963, at the earliest. I have already explained that, based upon Marina's reports and bus ticket information, we know when Lee arrived -- early on April 25th.

Lifton errs in MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, once again, without checking the full record.

He assumed that because Lee called from the bus station--and that the Murrets assumed that that was when he arrived -- that that was when he arrived from Texas.

Marilyn said she talked to Lee the first day she thought he arrived in town and ha they had quite a long talk. But, as stated above, Lee might not always tell tell people the date on which he arrirved. Marilyn was VISITING with the Murrets -- a grown daughter -- and I believe had even been to Atsugi, Japan, and many other places by then.

Mr. Lifton failed to read what Marina -- who surely should know -- had to say about when Lee left Texas. As for me, I sought it out because I knew what date to look for -- the 25th -- which Lee had told me was the day he arrived.

Why can we trust this element of Marina's testimony? How could she remember this date?

An inventory of Ruth Paine's papers exists at Swarthmore College, showing that Ruth Paine took Marina Oswald into her home on April 24th and that she drove Oswald to the bus station that same day. It would be a date hard for Marina to forget.

Putting fact 1 and fact 2 together, it seems clear that Lee was in New Orleans by Friday, April 26, at which time he went for the interview, dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie. (And then called his family on Monday, claiming to have just arrived).

==Amazing -- and cause for concern -- is that Lifton again ignores his Aunt's testimony that Lee had came to her home the day before and HAD NO SUIT and that he had to return to her home the next day. Obviously, if he has to return to her, Lee Oswald is not living there.

Lifton DARES to again state what he has been shown to be false. This is a mater of concern. Does Mr. Lifton cherry-pick evidence to suit him, even if it is not true? or is it only in relation to his efforts o discredit me as a witness? Will he, in the future, continue to assert this blatant falsehood for the world to see?==

When I spoke with Judyth, who claimed to have met Lee for the first time at the Post Office--and that date being April 26, 1963--and when I asked Judyth how Lee Oswald was dressed, she said he was in workman's clothes. She made a big point of this.

Unfortunately for Judyth, who apparently attempts to insert herself into the record, whereever she spots an opening, she was unaware--I repeate UNAWARE--at the time I spoke with her (on March 4, 2000) of the Rachal Deposition Exhibit, and the Rachal affidavit, both of which are in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission Report.. These two documents offer credible evience as to what Oswald was wearing on Friday, April 26, 1963, at the time of his job placement interview at the Louisiana Department of Labor. The Rachal Deposition Exhibit includes John Rachal's handwritten notes, recording Lee Oswlad's appearance when he appeared before him for a job placement interview: "Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite." (Rachal Deposition Exhibit--see WC Volume 21, page 283). In his 6/22/64 Warren Commission affidavit, he swears: "I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview." (WC Vol 11, p. 475).

I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE MY EYES (WHICH ARE GETTING VERY TIRED; SORRY ABOUT CAPS). WE HAVE ALREADY DETERMINED THAT LEE OSWALD HAD TO GO TO HIS AUNT'S HOME TO OBTAIN A SUIT TO WEAR, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE ONE. UNBELIEVABLY, LIFTON IGNORES THIS FACT.

SO NOW I SHOW THAT LEE OSWALD LEFT FOR NEW ORLEANS ON THE 24TH.

LIFTON TRIES TO PROVE THAT OSWALD ARRIVED ON THE 26TH -- DESPITE EASILY VERIFIABLE FACT THAT OSWALD'S TRIP WAS NOT MORE THAN 15 HOURS. WHICH MAKES HIM ARRIVE ON THE 25TH, JUST AS I SAID.

SADLY, LIFTON DISPLAYS PREJUDICE AND ALLOWS IT TO CLOUD HIS JUDGMENT. ONCE AGAIN, ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT MARINA AND RUTH PAINE HAD TO SAY ABOUT THIS.

FACT: LEE OSWALD PLACED LUGGAGE AND BAGGAGE IN A LOCKER AT THE BUS STATION A DAY PRIOR TO LEAVING TEXAS.

FACT: MARINA MOVED IN WITH RUTH PAINE AND RUTH DROVE LEE TO THE BUS STATION ON APRIL 24.

FACT: THE TRIP TAKES ABOUT 14 HOURS. LEE OSWALD OLD JUDYTH VARY BAKER HE ARRIVED IN NEW ORLEANS ON APRIL 25TH. HE SAID HE CHECKED IN AT THE YMCA.

FACT: LEE OSWALD HAD TO BE STAYING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN APRIL 25 AND AT LEAST UNTIL APRIL 27TH, THE DATE ON WHICH LIFTON INSISTS OSWALD MOVED IN WITH THE MURRETS.

FACT: LEE OSWALD IS ON RECORD AS HAVING LIVED AT YMCA'S AND NOT TELLING RELATIVES HE WAS THERE, WHICH MEANS WE HAVE PRECEDENT.

FACT: AS A WITNESS, I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. LIFTON IS A RESEARCHER WHOSE ASSUMPTIONS HAVE NOW -- SEVERAL TIMES, ACTUALLY -- LED HIM DOWN THE WRONG TRAIL. PERHAPS HE WILL LISTEN TO ME IN THE FUTURE.

At my request, Jack White kindly posted an exhibit I prepared depicting the relevant excerpts from these two documents.

That "initial interview" was on Friday, April 26, 1963, and--at the time I spoke with her (March 4, 2000)--Judyth apparently was unaware that the published records of the Warren Commission--in the form of these two Rachal items--offered documentary evidence as to what Oswald was wearing on that particular day.

Jack has only helped mire Daid Lifton deeper in his own set of errors for everyone to see and contemplate....everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness

Consequently, when I questioned her--on March 4, 2000--she glibly asserted (PREJUDICED STATEMENT: THE WORD HE USED BEFORE WAS 'INSISTED', WHICH HAS NOW BEEN DEGRADED) that Lee was dressed in workman's clothes, and, as I recall, appeared somewhat grubby.

==IF HE MAKES THAT CLAIM, THEN I SUSPECT THAT MY SOUND BYTES HAVE BEEN ALTERED==

Furthermore, when I asked her a second time (and perhaps even a third time) to nail down this point, she became somewhat hostile and defensive, as if to ask "Why do you want to know?"

==I HAVE NEVER BEEN HOSTILE OR DEFENSIVE IN ANY INTERVIEW. IT WAS LIFTON WHO WAS COLD AND CALCULATING WHEN HE SPOKE WITH ME AND SECRETLY AND ILLEGALLY TAPED ME.==

Now, 10 years later, and because of the information I released (via Jack White, just in the last week), Judyth has had a serious "Ooops" moment.

==EVERYONE READING THIS MUST REALIZE BY NOW THAT LEE OSWALD LEFT TEXAS ON THE 24TH, AS BOTH MARINA OSWALD AND RUTH PAINE TESTIFIED, AND THAT -- UNLESS OSWALD SLEPT ON THE STREETS FOR SEVERAL DAYS -- HE APPARENTLY CHECKED INTO THE 'Y.'

MOREOVER, THIS WAS CHARACTERISTIC AND PREDICTABLE BEHAVIOR ON HIS PART.

AND FURTHER, BECAUSE HE WAS FRUGAL, OSWALD, KEPT HIS BELONGINGS AT THE BUS STATION IN A LOCKER, PRECISELY AS I TOLD EVERYBODY IN 1999.

FOR A DECADE I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET THE FULL DETAILS OF LEE OSWALD'S LIFE TO THE PUBLIC.

SOMEBODY PLEASE ASK LIFTON AND JACK WHITE TO STOP REPEATING ACCUSATIONS PROVEN EMPTY.

SEEING THAT MR. LIFTON IGNORED EVERYTHING THAT DR. JAMES FETZER POSTED ON MY BEHALF -- AND EVEN THOUGH I HAVE BACKED UP EVERYTHING WITH OFFICIAL RECORDS -- THEN, SINCE LIFTON IS AN INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUAL, I AM FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT HE IS WILLING TO BEAR FALSE WITNESS TO ACCOMMODATE HIS OWN PURPOSES.

THIS MEANS HE IS CAPABLE OF REPEATING THESE FALSEHOODS ELSEWHERE IN PRINT TO OTHERS AT ANY TIME. IF HE DOES SO, THAT CONSTITUTES LIBEL. IF HE SPEAKS PRIVATELY TO OTHERS REGARDING THESE ISSUES, HE IS COMMITTING SLANDER.

MR. LIFTON APPEARS TO BE COMFORTABLE DESTROYING A WITNESS.

I HAVE GIVEN UP A GREAT DEAL FOR THE SAKE OF THE TRUTH.

ON THE OTHER HAND, MR.LIFTON HAS MADE ASSUMPTIONS AND BEEN SLOPPY IN RESEARCH. AND SEEING WHAT MR. LIFTON MANAGED TO MISS IN JUST THIS SMALL SECTION OF OSWALD'S LIFE, PERHAPS IT'S BETTER THAT HE HAS NEVER PUBLISHED HIS OSWALD BIOGRAPHY.==

Now, she realizes that she had Oswald dressed in the wrong clothes, (and on the day of their very first meeting, no less!) And I stress this point because, after all, it is common knowledge that we usually remember what someone who means so much to us was wearing the first time we met them.

==REPEATING FALSEHOODS -- HE ACTS AS IF I HAD NOT REFUTED THIS -- SEE ABOVE==

So what does Judyth do? Why, she does what she always does: she comes up with an "explanation." In this case, Judyth simply manufactures some new dialogue to her narrative, as if this is not an accurately documented history, but rather a "work in progress," a screenplay which she can change anytime she wishes. And so now she writes: "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."

==NOTHING NEW HERE. I STATED THE SAME IN 1999. YOU COULD HAVE BEEN THERE, ASKING QUESTIONS. SHACKELFORD, LIVINGSTONE, PLAZTMAN, DANKBAAR, TURNER, DEVRIES, AND MARRS GOT THOUSANDS OF ANSWERS. WHERE WAS LIFTON? HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT I'VE SAID.

HE HAS ONLY SEEN WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED. ALL RESEARCHERS WORKING WITH ME KNOW I DO NOT POST EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT A SUBJECT. THEY GET EXTRA INFORMATION. LIFTON HAS NO CONCEPT OF WHAT I HAVE TOLD HONEST RESEARCHERS. HE IS IN NO POSITION TO JUDGE==

Let's focus on just what is going on here: I produce evidence --from the 1963/64 record--that, on April 26, 1963, Lee was dressed in a "dress shirt, and tie" and Judyth now adds, in March, 2010, almost 47 years later, "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."

==HE REPEATS HIS FALSE STATEMENT YET AGAIN. HE KNOWS THAT IF SOMETHING IS REPEATED ENOUGH IN THE THREAD, SOMEBODY MIGHT READ IT AND MISS THE TRUTH.==

Is this plausible?

==YES. IT IS CERTAINLY MORE PLAUSIBLE THAN HAVING LEE SLEEPING IN THE STREET==

Is Judyth credible?

==IS MR. LIFTON CREDIBLE?

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

1) HE ASSUMED LEE OSWALD ARRIVED APRIL 26, 1963 WHEN MARINA OSWALD AND RUTH PAINE SHOW HE LEFT TEXAS APRIL 24TH. REPEATING THIS ERROR AFTER BEING CORRECTED DOES NOT MAKE HIS VERSION TRUE.

2) HE ASSUMED LEE OSWALD HAD A SUIT, WHEN HE DID NOT.

3) HE ASSUMED THAT LEE OSWALD MOVED IN RIGHT AWAY WITH THE MURRETS WHEN WE HAVE LILLIAN MURRET SAYING LEE CAME OVER WITH NO CLOTHES AND RETURNED THE NEXT DAY FOR A SUIT.

4) HE ASSUMED--BECAUSE MCADAMS' WEBSITE SAYS SO?--THAT LEE LIVED WITH THE MURRETS BETWEEN APRIL 27 AND MAY 11, WHEN MARINA ARRIVED. BUT THE MURRETS SAID HE WAS LIVING WITH THEM ONLY 3-5 DAYS. LEE IN TOWN FROM APRIL 27. LIFTON'S VERSION WOULD HAVE LEE OSWALD AT THE MURRETS FOR 13-14 DAYS.

5) HE ASSUMED THAT BECAUSE LEE CALLED THE MURRETS FROM THE BUS STATION THAT HE HAD JUST ARRIVED IN NEW ORLEANS -- ACCORDING TO HIM, ON APRIL 27.

6) HE IGNORED THE BUS TRAVEL TIME DISCREPANCY

7) HE IGNORED MARINA'S AND RUTH'S TESTIMONIES

8) HE IGNORED THE EVIDENCE I HAVE PROVIDED

Are we supposed to take this ad hoc revision serioiusly?

==IT IS LIFTON WHO HAS PRODUCED AN INACCURATE 'AD HOC' VERSION. IT IS NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.==

But that's not the end of it, because Lee was not just wearing a dress shirt--he was wearing a suit, (and a tie). So now what can we do about those two "inconvenient truths"?

==HERE IT IS, REPEATED AGAIN!==

Well, I'll tell you what Judyth does: she engages in speculation as to where Lee obtained the suit. She writes:

NOW QUOTING FROM JUDYTH'S POST:

"Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt -- he did not mention a suit-- perhaps his relatives generously added the suit?" UNQUOTE

==I WAS NOT PRESENT TO SEE LEE OSWALD IN THE CLOTHING DESCRIBED. BUT I WAS ABLE TO READ THAT HIS AUNT HAD SAID SHE WAS GOING TO PROVIDE SUITABLE CLOTHING FOR HIM. I ALSO KNEW THAT LEE SAID HE HAD TO 'LEAVE' BECAUSE HE HAD 'TO PICK UP A WHITE SHIRT.' THIS IS NOT SPECULATION,. THIS IS A STATEMENT FROM THE WITNESS. LEE OSWALD BROKE OFF OUR CONVERSATION AND GAVE ME A REASON FOR BREAKING IT OFF.==

And then she adds these statements:

QUOTE

(1) " Lee leaves me in the morning and has time to see his aunt and change clothes."

(2) " Here is a logical time line: . . .April 25 [Thursday] -- Lee arrives around 11:00 AM from Dallas, checks into the YMCA, calls his relatives, and they invite him over. . . Most of he day, he spends with his aunt and uncle and cousin, talking. It's been ten years, after all."

UNQUOTE

But here's the problem with Judyth's "logical time line," and her 2010 attempt at a reconstruction: Lee's Aunt, Lillian Murrett, testified that when she first heard from Lee (who said he was calling from the bus station) it was on "a Monday." That's right: Monday, April 29, 1963.

==LIFTON AGAIN REPEATS EVERYTHING ABOVE--SO THAT HIS READERS WILL ONLY SEE HIS ARGUMENT A THE END. BUT I WILL STICK WITH HM. ONCE AGAIN, SCROLL TO NEAR THE TOP OF HIS LONG MESSAGE TO SEE THAT LEE OSWALD KEPT HIS BELONGINGS AT THE LOCKER AT THE BUS STATION. OSWALD WAS DESCRIBED ON HIS FIRST VISIT TO THE MURRETS AS CARRYING JUST ONE BAG WITH HIM. READ ALL OF IT ABOVE, DO NOT REPLY ON LIFTON'S MISSATEMENTS (AGAIN! WHY REPEAT HIMSELF? IT'S AN OLD TRICK TO HAVE HIS STATEMENT AT THE BOTTOM, FOR PEOPLE TO SEE AS THE 'FINAL VERDICT". I WILL NOT LET THAT HAPPEN. SCROLL UP AND SEE THE TRUTH.==

This testimony is also supported by the testimony of cousin Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time.

==REPEATED AGAIN....SCROLL UP AND SEE THE RUTH.==

But Lee's interview in which he was so nicely dresse was on Friday, April 26.

==HE REPEATS THIS AGAIN AND REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE AS REASONABLE REFUTATIONS OF HIS MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS==

So regardless of what day Lee may actually have arrived in New Orleans--THEY first heard from him on a Monday, and specifically, Monday, April 29, 1963, which means there is a three day "missing period" between Friday, April 26,

==LIFTON IS REPEATING HIMSELF AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, NEVERTHELESS==

when he showed up at the Louisiana Labor Dept office, for an interview (and was dressed in a suit, white shirt, tie, etc.) and the time he first called his relatives, said he was calling from the bus station, and claimed he had just arrived in New Orleans (which was obviously not true)...

==INSTEAD OF NEEDING TO READ ANY MORE, SAVE SOME TIME AND SIMPLY SCROLL TO THE TOP FOR THE TRUTH AND READ THE EARLIER POST WHERE I REFUTED WHAT LIFTON NOW IGNORES.==

So: Lee Oswald was obviously not telling the truth as to when he arrived, and where he had been, for clearly, he was at the Louisiana Labor Department on Friday, April 26, dressed in the white shirt, suit, and tie.

==THERE IS NO CONFLICT. THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT WAS CREATED BY LIFTON'S OWN FAILURE TO ASK WHAT TIME I SAW OSWALD. HE ASSUMES OSWALD CAME TO NEW ORLEANS AFTER A 14 HOUR BUS RIDE READY TO INTERVIEW AT AN EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, WHERE HE LOOKED CRISP AND FRESH. THIS, HOWEVER, VERGES ON THE PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.==

But now, back to Judyth, and her "work in progress": Whatever the explanation is for where Lee was for three days (and Judyth will no doubt be adept at coming up with something),

==I AM ADEPT AT "COMING UP WITH SOMETHING" BECAUSE I TELL THE TRUTH. I AM A WITNESS. I WAS THERE. LIFTON IS A RESEARCHER WITH OBVIOUS PREJUDICES. HE MAKES ASSUMPTIONS AND DOES NOT DO SUFFICIENT RESEARCH, AS PROVEN IN THIS THREAD. I AM NOT SAYING THIS MALICIOUSLY. I HAVE POINTED OUT KEY TESTIMONY THAT HE HAS IGNORED, ASSUMPTIONS HE HAS MADE, AND OMISSIONS HE HAS OVERLOOKED. LIFTON HAS OSWALD TAKING A 2 DAY BUS RIDE AND ARRIVING FRESH FOR AN INTERVIEW IN A SUIT OR SLEEPING ON THE STREETS FOR 2 DAYS, THEN GOING FIRST THING IN THE MORNING, FRESH AND CRISP, IN SUIT, TIE, ETC.==

the fact is that Oswald could not have borrowed such clothing from his relatives (to wear on Friday, April 26) if he didn't see them until Monday, April 29. Furthermore, his aunt Lillian's reaction on first seeing her nephew was that he needed better clothing and she offered to help him get better clothes. Again, no mention of having loaned him anything--no loan of a suit, tie, dress shirt, etc.

==MURRET'S TESTIMONY SHOWS SHE IS CONCERNED AND SAYS SHE WILL PROVIDE HIM WITH CLOTHING TO HELP HIM...SHE IS ON RECORD AS BUYING A FULL SET OF NEW SCHOOL CLOTHING FOR LEE WHEN HE CAME BACK FROM NEW YORK. SO THIS IS TYPICAL BEHAVIOR FOR HER. THE MURRETS EVEN BOUGHT HIM A BASEBALL GLOVE AND GOT HIM BASEBALL SHOES. THEY GAVE HIM MONEY TO RENT BICYCLES SO HE COULD GO RIDING BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE A BIKE. YES, IT'S IN THEIR TESTIMONY. THEY LOVED HIM.

LIFTON IS REPEATING EVERYTHING OVER AND OVER TO GET THE LAST WORD AND WEAR OUT THE READERS. HE WANTS THE READERS TO GIVE UP AND NOT CARE.

PLEASE CARE, READER. THE TRUTH IS AT THE TOP OF THIS LONG DIATRIBE.

I WILL NOT LET LIFTON HAVE THE LAST WORD AND MAKE IT APPEAR AS THOUGHT HE IS RIGHT WHEN HE IS WRONG. BUT I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE TRUTH TO BE BURIED==

All this bears heavily on assessingt the credibility of Judyth,

==ACTUALLY, IT BEARS HEAVILY ON ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY OF DAVID LIFTON==

who we catch in the act of scampering around trying to come up with an explanation for how it was possible for Lee to be wearing a suit, dress shirt and tie, on Friday, April 26,

==HE REPEATS HIS HOPELESSLY INADEQUATE ACCOUNT AS THOUGH REPETITION WOULD MAKE A FALSE ACCOUNT TRUE. AND NOW HE INTRODUCES THE WORD "SCAMPERING", WHICH MIGHT BETTER DESCRIBE HIS EFFORTS TO CONVINCE YOU OF A VERSION THAT IS CLEARLY FALSE==

when he had the interview with John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor. Again:

==JUST BECAUSE HE REPEATS EVERYTHING AGAIN AND AGAIN DOES NOT MEAN HE HAS DONE ALL HIS RESEARCH. SAYING A PERSON HAS ONE TOE DOES NOT MEAN THAT "OTHER TOES" DO NOT EXIST.... HIS REASONING IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED....SCROLL UP TO SEE THE TRUTH.==

If we meet someone who turns out to be important in our lives, we remember what they were wearing when we first met them. But, in her converstion with me, Judyth got it all wrong, and now she's trying to plug this "hole" in her story.

==REPEATING HIMSELF AGAIN. SIMPLY SCROLL UP THIS POST TO SEE THE TRUTH.==

Judyth supposedly met Lee Oswald some 47 years ago, and has written about him extensively, but--apparently--it wasn't until a week ago that she became aware of this glitch in her account.

==JUST BECAUSE HE HASN'T NOTICED SOMETHING I HAVE SAID HERE IN PRINT OR NEVER HEARD IT, HE THINKS IT'S A NEW STATEMENT. , WHEN IT ASSUREDLY IS NOT. LIFTON WAS NEVER WAS INVOLVED IN THE YEARS OF QUESTIONS THAT OTHER RESEARCHERS WHO NOW SUPPORT ME ENGAGED IN. GOOD RESEARCHERS.

LIFTON HAS BEEN REPEATING EVERYTHING OVER AND OVER. WITHOUT PRESENTING ANYTHING NEW IN ORDER TO WEAR YOU OUT. HE DOES NOT WANT YOU TO READ THIS. HE WANTS TO BURY YOU IN WORDS. DON'T FALL FOR IT. SCROLL UP AND READ THE TRUTH AT THE TOP.==

Unfortunately for Judyth, 10 years have passed since I questioned her on this point--and although I questioned her very carefully on this particular point, I did not reveal the significance of my questions, or my reaction to her answers.

==MR. LIFTON HAS REPEATED THE SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THIS POST. TO SAVE TIME, SCROLL ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP AND READ HE TRUTH. YOU WILL NOT FIND ANYTHING IN LIFTON'S STATEMENTS HERE THAT YOU WILL TAKE SERIOUSLY AFTER READING WHAT IS AT THE TOP. LIFTON AGAIN FAILED TO FIND THE ESSENTIAL RECORDS. I WROTE BETWEEN HIS MANY REPETITIONS, AFTER PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE HE SHOULD HAVE ACCESSED HIMSELF, TO SHOW YOU WHERE LIFTON HAS USED UP YOUR TIME. YOUR TIME AND MINE IS VALUABLE.==

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. SCROLL TO THE TOP AND SAVE SOME TIME BEFORE YOU READ MR. LIFTON'S LITANY.

RESPECTFULLY,

JUDYTH VARY BAKER

And so now, here we are, in March 2010, I reveal this line of questioning, and now, a decade later, Judyth comes up with new (and supposedly legitimate) information, and her entire tone has the defensive, and almost truculent quality, she exhibited when I spoke with her ten years ago: "I am a witness, and I know what happened. Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt. . ."

And we're supposed to take this person seriously?

I must ask you Jim: Is there no limit to your credulity?

At what point do you draw the line, and say, "Enough is enough!"

Judyth is a serial fabricator. She is a deluded woman, a fantast.

And rather than deal plainly and forthrightly with the situation, you are throwing your credibility out the window, and tossing great insults at a long time friend, like Jack White, because he has the common sense to see what is obvious (and so did Mary Ferrell, I might add).

DSL

3/31/10; 2:40 AM

Los Angeles, CA

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

Jim,
On the matter of when Lee arrived in New Orleans, and what he was wearing on April 26, 1963, your statements are incorrect.

Fact 1: We do not know exactly when Lee Oswald arrived in New Orleans. We only know, for sure, that he went for an interview on Friday, April 26, 1963, at which point he was dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie.

Fact 2: Lillian Murrett, Lee's aunt, testified that Lee first called on Monday, April 29, and said he was at the bus station. (And this was corroborated by her daughter Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time).

Putting fact 1 and fact 2 together, it seems clear that Lee was in New Orleans by Friday, April 26, at which time he went for the interview, dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie. (And then called his family on Monday, claiming to have just arrived).

When I spoke with Judyth, who claimed to have met Lee for the first time at the Post Office--and that date being April 26, 1963--and when I asked Judyth how Lee Oswald was dressed, she said he was in workman's clothes. She made a big point of this.

Unfortunately for Judyth, who apparently attempts to insert herself into the record, whereever she spots an opening, she was unaware--I repeate UNAWARE--at the time I spoke with her (on March 4, 2000) of the Rachal Deposition Exhibit, and the Rachal affidavit, both of which are in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission Report.. These two documents offer credible evience as to what Oswald was wearing on Friday, April 26, 1963, at the time of his job placement interview at the Louisiana Department of Labor. The Rachal Deposition Exhibit includes John Rachal's handwritten notes, recording Lee Oswlad's appearance when he appeared before him for a job placement interview: "Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite." (Rachal Deposition Exhibit--see WC Volume 21, page 283). In his 6/22/64 Warren Commission affidavit, he swears: "I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview." (WC Vol 11, p. 475).

At my request, Jack White kindly posted an exhibit I prepared depicting the relevant excerpts from these two documents.

That "initial interview" was on Friday, April 26, 1963, and--at the time I spoke with her (March 4, 2000)--Judyth apparently was unaware that the published records of the Warren Commission--in the form of these two Rachal items--offered documentary evidence as to what Oswald was wearing on that particular day.

Consequently, when I questioned her--on March 4, 2000--she glibly asserted that Lee was dressed in workman's clothes, and, as I recall, appeared somewhat grubby. Furthermore, when I asked her a second time (and perhaps even a third time) to nail down this point, she became somewhat hostile and defensive, as if to ask "Why do you want to know?"

Now, 10 years later, and because of the information I released (via Jack White, just in the last week), Judyth has had a serious "Ooops" moment. Now, she realizes that she had Oswald dressed in the wrong clothes, (and on the day of their very first meeting, no less!) And I stress this point because, after all, it is common knowledge that we usually remember what someone who means so much to us was wearing the first time we met them.

So what does Judyth do? Why, she does what she always does: she comes up with an "explanation." In this case, Judyth simply manufactures some new dialogue to her narrative, as if this is not an accurately documented history, but rather a "work in progress," a screenplay which she can change anytime she wishes. And so now she writes: "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."

Let's focus on just what is going on here: I produce evidence --from the 1963/64 record--that, on April 26, 1963, Lee was dressed in a "dress shirt, and tie" and Judyth now adds, in March, 2010, almost 47 years later, "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."

Is this plausible? Is Judyth credible? Are we supposed to take this ad hoc revision serioiusly?

But that's not the end of it, because Lee was not just wearing a dress shirt--he was wearing a suit, (and a tie). So now what can we do about those two "inconvenient truths"?

Well, I'll tell you what Judyth does: she engages in speculation as to where Lee obtained the suit. She writes:

NOW QUOTING FROM JUDYTH'S POST:

" Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt -- he did not mention a suit-- perhaps his relatives generously added the suit?" UNQUOTE

And then she adds these statements:

QUOTE

(1) " Lee leaves me in the morning and has time to see his aunt and change clothes."

(2) " Here is a logical time line: . . .April 25 [Thursday] -- Lee arrives around 11:00 AM from Dallas, checks into the YMCA, calls his relatives, and they invite him over. . . Most of he day, he spends with his aunt and uncle and cousin, talking. It's been ten years, after all."

UNQUOTE

But here's the problem with Judyth's "logical time line," and her 2010 attempt at a reconstruction: Lee's Aunt, Lillian Murrett, testified that when she first heard from Lee (who said he was calling from the bus station) it was on "a Monday." That's right: Monday, April 29, 1963.

This testimony is also supported by the testimony of cousin Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time.

But Lee's interview in which he was so nicely dresse was on Friday, April 26.

So regardless of what day Lee may actually have arrived in New Orleans--THEY first heard from him on a Monday, and specifically, Monday, April 29, 1963, which means there is a three day "missing period" between Friday, April 26, when he showed up at the Louisiana Labor Dept office, for an interview (and was dressed in a suit, white shirt, tie, etc.) and the time he first called his relatives, said he was calling from the bus station, and claimed he had just arrived in New Orleans (which was obviously not true)..

So: Lee Oswald was obviously not telling the truth as to when he arrived, and where he had been, for clearly, he was at the Louisiana Labor Department on Friday, April 26, dressed in the white shirt, suit, and tie.

But now, back to Judyth, and her "work in progress": Whatever the explanation is for where Lee was for three days (and Judyth will no doubt be adept at coming up with something), the fact is that Oswald could not have borrowed such clothing from his relatives (to wear on Friday, April 26) if he didn't see them until Monday, April 29. Furthermore, his aunt Lillian's reaction on first seeing her nephew was that he needed better clothing and she offered to help him get better clothes. Again, no mention of having loaned him anything--no loan of a suit, tie, dress shirt, etc.

All this bears heavily on assessingt the credibility of Judyth, who we catch in the act of scampering around trying to come up with an explanation for how it was possible for Lee to be wearing a suit, dress shirt and tie, on Friday, April 26, when he had the interview with John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor. Again: If we meet someone who turns out to be important in our lives, we remember what they were wearing when we first met them. But, in her converstion with me, Judyth got it all wrong, and now she's trying to plug this "hole" in her story.

Judyth supposedly met Lee Oswald some 47 years ago, and has written about him extensively, but--apparently--it wasn't until a week ago that she became aware of this glitch in her account.

Unfortunately for Judyth, 10 years have passed since I questioned her on this point--and although I questioned her very carefully on this particular point, I did not reveal the significance of my questions, or my reaction to her answers. And so now, here we are, in March 2010, I reveal this line of questioning, and now, a decade later, Judyth comes up with new (and supposedly legitimate) information, and her entire tone has the defensive, and almost truculent quality, she exhibited when I spoke with her ten years ago: "I am a witness, and I know what happened. Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt. . ."

And we're supposed to take this person seriously?

I must ask you Jim: Is there no limit to your credulity?

At what point do you draw the line, and say, "Enough is enough!"

Judyth is a serial fabricator. She is a deluded woman, a fantast.

And rather than deal plainly and forthrightly with the situation, you are throwing your credibility out the window, and tossing great insults at a long time friend, like Jack White, because he has the common sense to see what is obvious (and so did Mary Ferrell, I might add).

DSL

3/31/10; 2:40 AM

Los Angeles, CA

Edited April 1, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

Glenn Viklund · April 1, 2010

Mr Fetzer,

Quote:

"Mr. Viklund,