Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT THE "STREET CAR" ROUTE

NOTE: It is just the least bit embarrassing when Jack does not know the

difference between a "street car" and a bus route. Judyth expresses her

agreement with Monk's suggestion about making an inventory of all the

issues that have been raised in this thread, which will take a while to put

together, but where I believe that the consequences will be illuminating.

JUDYTH'S REPLY:

Greg Burnham suggested making a list of all points. I will be happy to

make a list of everything already discussed.

Secondly, I remain astonished at Jack White's lack of accuracy regarding

what he thinks I claim.

He now wants me to provide the "streetcar route" to show it went past

Oswald's apartment. I have always said it was the Magazine Bus. This

is mentioned in the "14 Reasons to Believe in Judyth Vary Baker" that

you, Dr. Fetzer, asked Jack to read.

The Church at Napoleon and Magazine Streets

The Magazine Street Bus (Not Streetcar) Route

Misquoting happens so often that I am amazed. There is no effort to quote me,

or to show citations. All is hearsay.

See attached showing a map...Also Jack has never read DR. MARY'S MONKEY

and therefore knows less than nothing, whereas Ed Haslam has spent over

2,000 hours verifying my statements--which was reported to me a year ago.

Painstaking checking of NEW evidence is the major reason the book has been

delayed so long. Plus, some files "vanished" in some kind of cyber attack they

have experienced at the publisher’s. They fight them off constantly. But the

book will have every possible map and many photos as well as evidence files.

What can't fit in the book, such as my map of the Mental Hospital--yes, I even

have a map of the East Louisiana Hospital at Jackson--I hope to put online at

my (currently google-blocked) blog at http://judythbaker.blogspot.com/

East Louisiana Mental Hospital Map

The Clinton Courthouse Map

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

Edited April 1, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Stephen Roy]

Again, just a quick quote from the Forum Rules:

"(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned."

I presume this applies to inactive members who post through other people, too.

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

Thanks for that detailed lesson in logic. I appreciate it and I "get it" too. I stand corrected.

[David G. Healy]

Again, just a quick quote from the Forum Rules:

"(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned."

I presume this applies to inactive members who post through other people, too.

nervous?

[Pamela Brown]

Again, just a quick quote from the Forum Rules:

"(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned."

I presume this applies to inactive members who post through other people, too.

Why would you make such a presumption?

[Kathleen Collins]

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.

Can someone post the "hunting photo"?

Kathy C

[Evan Burton]

Again, just a quick quote from the Forum Rules:

"(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned."

I presume this applies to inactive members who post through other people, too.

It would seem Judyth has an account here and as such is a member. The rule should apply.

I haven't read the thread, but is there a reason that Judyth does not post herself?

[Glenn Viklund]

Mr Fetzer:

"Judyth never expected permanent political asylum. In fact, conventions

suggest she should have been deported right away. Viklund is splitting

hairs over the idea that she "received political asylum". She did not get

PERMANENT political asylum and was an asylum seeker. But Judyth has

benefited from more than ten months of shelter and protection and other

forms of consideration, for which she is very grateful. Let us move on."

Well, you see, this is what I don't understand. On the one hand, you are insisting that you believe her, that she's "the real deal". In that case, I have a hard time understanding why you don't want her to be the subject of the same scrutiny that any other "witness" is subjected to?

I know it's a pain in the butt to have to deal with this issue of her "asylum", as it is so painfully obvious that she's been doing anything but telling the truth. You want to "move on". The thing is, this is not old news. This was not done 45 years ago. It was done starting three years ago - and counting. That is, during the exact same time frame that she's continuosly been adding details and changing her original account of her role as "a witness" to the Kennedy assassination.

Let's see. Ten years ago, she first told her story about her relation to LHO. This story has since been changed, it has grown, more details have been added and it has been changed again and again - for a varitey of reasons. As far as I can tell, it's still a living organism, or better; "a moving target", as JW so adequately phrased it.

And what does she have to corroborate her story? There is no hard evidence at all - yes, there is one paper that shows her being employed by O'Reily. That's it. Beyond that, it's all about her credibility. Is she to be believed or not? Without hard evidence what does a normal court do? They gather info about what the person have said and done before, one way - and here most likely the only way - of determining a persons credibility.

In this case, however, it's a lot better than that alone. In this case we can actually see what she said and did when she thought no one was paying attention or that her story could ever be properly checked! The most revealing instance that you can ever go by.

">“I was unable to show you the Holland permits until now --- as the Swedish

>government kept my passport. I can now show you one of the permits. NOTE:

>I am choosing to leave Sweden, after ten months. The law is an American

>can stay only 90 days in Sweden, but I was given political asylum for ten

>months. INTERESTING: BECAUSE I WAS IN POLITICAL ASYLUM, MY PASSPORTHAS

>NOT BEEN STAMPED ! NOT AT ALL! IT'S THE WAY THEY DO ITIF YOU ARE IN

>POLITICAL ASYLUM. NO RECORD OF WHERE YOUWERE. ALL FOR MY PROTECTION, YOU

>CAN'T TELL I WAS EVER IN SWEDEN! My life was saved. I could have

>petitioned for permanent residency, here, but I'd probably be rejected

>because of my age (over 65). I can't afford to stay without social

>security here,on MY social security, with the dollar in trouble, it is too

>expensive, so I'm moving. I've been given a letter explaining that I was

>not deported, because Barb and others will of course try to say that, and

>that is not true.”"

In short:

- No asylum given. In fact she was denied, twice (which she diligently avoid to mention).

- She did not choose anything - she had to leave when her options were exhausted.

- She thought no one could see her trails, alright. But she was certainly wrong about that.

- Her age has got nothing to do with this at all.

- No actions whatsoever were taken specifically - more than normal ones - with regards to her "safety and protection".

- I'll be willing to bet that there's no paper of her "not being deported".

All of this done for one purpose alone: she tried her very best to connect and fit this story to her role "as a witness", which is utterly proposterous.

All of these fantasies she told her friends, who told this story on the forums.

This stuff is very revealing indeed. Any court would use this to thoroughly, once and for all, demolish any credibility she has left.

And yet, Mr Fetzer - you want to move on? You want to disregard this entire little episode where she's making a fool out of herself? You are trying to imply that this is of no importance, that this says nothing about her credibility?

You are certainly entitled to hold that view. Just don't try to discredit me or anyone else for not agreeing to that view of yours. I can't think of anything that says more about her personality than this does.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Karl Kinaski]

xxx

Edited October 27, 2010 by Karl Kinaski

[David Lifton]

Jim:

Contrary to your glib assertions (“Judyth refutes the purported details of his [Lifton’s] account”) Judyth has refuted nothing. My facts are impeccable, and my logic sound. Contrary to your statement that “Lifton appears to have committed a ser[ies] of blunders in making assumptions that turn out to be false,” it is you have become entangled in the false details of Judyth’s tale, to the point where you have been bamboozled by a woman promulgating a thoroughly false and fictitious account of a non-existent relationship with Lee Oswald.

Candidly, I could care less if the only casualty was whether or not—either through carelessness or excessive credulity--you were taken in by this lady. What concerns me is the role you have played in attempting to expose major fraud in the physical evidence, and what I am talking about, of course, is the Zapruder film.

Because surely, as this situation unwinds—and it will-the question will be asked: if a person cannot distinguish between the false and the real, when it comes to the matter of Judyth Baker, can we trust that person’s judgment when it comes to the far more important situation of “fraud in the evidence,” and especially in a matter as technical as the Zapruder film?

Do you remember a month or two back, when a photo was circulating supposedly showing JFK's body--laid out on the autopsy table? And you were rather enthusiastic about that item? Within a ay or so, when it became obvious that that was nothing but a mock-up, one created in connection with the making of the movie JFK, you changed your opinion. Well, that photo sure looked real--and, at first glance, Judyth's story can look real, and even be appealing. Unfortunately, it is all bogus, and the prodocut of someone who is the victim of what, medically, is called "pseudologia fantastica" or "mythomania."

Unfortunately, you have been taken in my all this; and it is sure to result in great harm.

Anyway, those are my concerns—but I am sure you will not be deterred in doing what you personally believe is right—even if it is provably incorrect.

So let me now drop that subject, and turn to Judyth’s latest post, as conveyed by you, to all the readers on this board.

MY RESPONSE TO JUDYTH”S LATEST POST (i.e., to the one titled “Judyth Replies to Lifton on Lee’s Arrival in New Orleans”)

Judyth’s very long post is loaded with weak arguments, circular logic, and just plain false statements. If this were a university test booklet, the reader would give her a failing grade, writing again and again, either “irrelevant,” or “so what?” or “false inference.”

Let’s review the immutable facts:

Fact: Lee’s journey from Dallas to New Orleans began on Wednesday, April 24. We know that from the testimony of Ruth Paine, who says she brought Lee to the bus station, with some bags. Then—after dropping those bags off at the bus station, and after offering Marina the option of not accompanying Lee to New Orleans, but instead staying with her-- they returned to his apartment and emptied what was left from his apartment. Then, they all returned (and by “they all” I’m referring to Ruth Paine, Lee, and Marina) to Paine’s home. Ruth Paine testified that Lee left that evening, Wednesday, April 24, for New Orleans, but she does not say who took Lee from Irving back to the Greyhound bus station in Dallas. All she does is mention that Lee would have had to take a city bus to get back to Dallas from Irving, and then board the Greyhound bus for New Orleans.

Did he do that? The fact is—we don’t know. The assumption is that he did, but he could just as well have used Greyhound to carry his baggage, and gone to New Orleans by some other means (and in fact I’m very open, if not partial, to that possibility). Judyth notes an interesting fact that I have not dwelt on here--that twice in FBI interviews, Marina says that Lee went to the bus station the day before April 24--i.e., on April 23--to check some bags. Marina told the FBI that (the believed) Ruth drove Lee there, the day before, but Ruth's account says nothing about that. If Marina is correct, and Lee checked some bags on 4/23/63, then obviously, someone else was involved with Lee, in making preparations for this trip to New Orleans, and that also raises the possibility that he simply shipped his bags by Greyhound, but did not actually use the bus, to get to New Orleans.

BUT, for the purpose of this discussion, let’s return to what the Warren Report states. That keeps the discussion very simple, and permits us to see how Judyth is attempting to “burrow into” a small hole in the actual historical record, one at the New Orleans end of the line.

Fact: Lee traveled to New Orleans –as far as the Warren Commission investigation is concerned—alone. Further, according to the Warren Report, he traveled by bus—i.e., on the Greyhound bus carrying his bags. Marina stayed with Ruth Paine. If the bus left on the evening of Wednesday, April 24 (as Ruth Paine testified was the case) then –if it was a 14 hour trip—it would have arrived late on the evening of Thursday, April 25, or perhaps in the early AM of Friday, April 26.

Fact: The contemporaneous record created by John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor, records the data that Lee was attired in a suit and tie on Friday, April 26, at the time of his interview. His handwritten notes read “Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite” (See Rachel deposition Exhibit, Volume 21, p. 283, of the WC hearings) and his June 1964 Warren Commission affidavit reads: “I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview.” (Volume 11, p. 475).

Fact: Lillean Murret testified that she first heard from Lee on a Monday—when he called from the bus station, saying that he had “just arrived” in New Orleans.” That statement is provably untrue because he had already had an interview on Friday, April 26, at which point he was dressed in “a suit, dress shirt, and tie.”

Fact: Monday—the day Lillian Murret first heard from Lee, who said he was calling from the bus station, and had “just arrived” etc.—would have been Monday, April 29, 1963. This is a critical time-marker: nothing Judyth says can change that immutable fact. “Monday” was April 29.

FACT: No one was ever located, nor did any one ever come forward to say that they were on that bus—or any bus—with Lee Oswald, from Dallas to New Orleans, leaving on or about Wednesday evening, April 24, 1963. Unlike the situation regarding Oswald’s trip to Mexico, where the FBI was able to locate people who were halfway around the world on that bus, we have no eyewitness placing Oswald on a bus from Dallas to New Orleans on or about April 24, 1963. The Dallas-to-New Orleans bus journey—with Lee Oswald (and not just his luggage) on board, is all conjecture—perhaps reasonable conjecture, based on his having brought his boxes to the bus station—but there is no evidence that he actually rode on the bus to New Orleans. All we know is that he was in New Orleans on Friday, April 26, 1963, when he appeared at the Louisiana Department of Labor, and had the interview with John Rachal.

FACT: As any discerning reader can see, this leaves a small “time hole” in the record—one extending from Lee’s putative “time of arrival” in New Orleans, until his April 26, 1963 placement interview with Rachal; and then another between that same placement interview and Monday, April 29, 1963, when he called his Aunt Lillian for the first time, said he was at the bus station, and desired help in getting all his boxes over to her place.

FACT: No one –except Judyth—says that Lee Oswald stayed at the YMCA between April 25 and April 29. She can say anything she wants, but that does not make it so. The YMCA keeps records. No one has ever produced such a record.

FACT: Anyone who has studied the records of the warren Commission knows how careful and meticulous the FBI could be (when it wanted to be); and how hotels and motels were scoured for records of Lee’s whereabouts. When he stayed at the Dallas YMCA, for example, between October 15 an October 19, 1962, the actual records were produced, which listed his room number, and even accounted for the $1 deposit for a room key. (See the deposition exhibit of John Hulen, in volume 10 of the Warren Commission, and the Hulen Deposition Exhibits, in Volume 21).

Question: where did Lee stay between the time he arrived in New Orleans—however he got there, and whenever he got there—and Friday, April 26, 1963? And where did he stay between Friday, April 26, and Monday, April 29, when he first called his aunt? Honest answer: we don’t know. According to Aunt Lillian’s testimony, Lee did not call her (saying he had “just arrived” etc.) until a Monday—which would be April 29, 1963—when he called from the bus station, and when his uncle Dutz (Lillian’s husband) then went to pick him up, and his luggage.

But Lee’s statement about when he “first arrived” was clearly false, i.e., a deliberate lie—and that’s obviously so based on the data proferred by John Rachal, and published in the Warren Report. Lee was there some days earlier, and was certainly there on Friday, April 26. Well, then, where did he stay? Truthful answer: We don’t know.

Fact: No Murrett family member—not Aunt Lillian, not Uncle Dutz, not cousin Marilyn—ever stated, in any statement to the FBI, nor in any Warren Commission testimony, that Lee had said he had stayed in the YMCA. That is purely an unsupported assertion of Judyth.

Fact: Because no Murrett family member ever stated, or even speculated, that Lee had stayed at the YMCA, the FBI never checked the New Orleans YMCA for any record of his having stayed there. (If I am wrong on this point, and there was in fact an FBI investigation on this point, I would sure appreciate being informed where it can be found). Nor, for that matter, did the FBI ever check hotels or rooming houses seeking to find where Lee stayed between April 24, 1963 and April 29, 1963. In other words, this “gap” wasn’t spotted by the official investigation. And so there is no paper trail that Lee ever stayed at the YMCA—or anywhere else, for that matter—upon arriving in New Orleans in the Spring of 1963, and one reason there is no paper trail is that there was never any FBI investigation; and the reason there was no FBI investigation is that there is not a scintilla of testimony that Lee ever said he stayed anywhere prior to the time he called Aunt Lillian.

So now we turn to Judyth’s justification and rationale for invoking the YMCA.

JUDYTH AND HER STATEMENTS ABOUT LEE OSWALD HAVING STAYED AT THE YMCA

Fact: Lee stayed at the Dallas YMCA in the fall of 1962, for some four days, when he moved from Fort Worth to Dallas (10/15-10/19/62). Lee also stayed at the Dallas YMCA on the night of Thursday, October 3, 1963, upon his return from Mexico City, and before he hitched a ride out to the Paine house on Friday, October 4, 1963. In each case there is a clear YMCA paper trail. The room number is listed; the amount paid; even the $1 deposit for a room key (See the testimony of John Leroy Hulen, who’s deposition was taken by WC attorney Jenner, and the document admitted into evidence at that time—called the Hulen Deposition Exhibit, in Volume 20 of the Warren Report).

We now come to an important false inference by Judyth Baker, one which exposes her entire methodology.

False Inference By Judyth: in effect, Judyth claims—but has no right to—that because LHO stayed once before at the Y in Dallas (and would later stay at the YMCA after his Mexico City trip) she can now infer that he stayed at the YMCA in New Orleans late April, 1963. That is what she does—repeatedly. (She wonders aloud: Where ELSE could he have stayed? Did he sleep on the street? And Jim Fetzer chimes in: Yeah, what do you say to that? Did he sleep on the street?”

What do I say to that? Here’s what I say. Everyone has heard the phrase “junk science.” This is “junk history.” What Judyth has done, in an attempt to insert herself into the valid history of this event—a history that (admittedly) has some gaps in the record—is to use the concept of “pattern evidence” to find a home for Lee Oswald in the brief period between the time she infers the bus from Dallas must have arrived, and the time Lee called Aunt Lillian on Monday, April 29. So the YMCA serves that purpose—it is, for Judyth, her “Motel 6.” But it is as contrived as the Single Bullet Theory, with all its twists and turns. In that case, we have a trajectory designed to account for a multiplicity of wounds. Here we have an itinerary, custom-designed by Judyth Baker, to account for some missing nights. This is her invention concerning the YMCA. This is her device for inserting herself into the Oswald narrative. And the gullible buy into that and say, “Well, where could he have stayed? Did he sleep on the street?”

Sorry, but posing such a question is no substitute for evidence as to where he stayed.

THE LACK OF A YMCA PAPER TRAIL

Unfortunately, for Judyth, there is no New Orleans YMCA paper trail, nor is there a smidgeon of evidence that Lee ever told anyone that he stayed at the YMCA—not his aunt, not his uncle, not his cousin, not his own wife. (And, to repeat, had he said any such thing, the FBI would have been all over it—interviewing the YMCA people and checking the records.) But no such investigation ever occurred, and it’s a safe inference that it did not because no one ever reported Lee as having said any such thing. And that’s a crucial missing link: no statements about the YMCA, no FBI investigation of the New Orleans YMCA; no YMCA paper trail. Just unsupported assertions by Judyth.

No doubt Lee stayed somewhere—but Judyth has struck out here (and once again, I might add) by positing it was the New Orleans YMCA, and then attempting to crawl into this interstitial space, by manufacturing dialogue and events.

JUDYTH’s “Ooops” moment

BUT (as in “ooops,” as I have said), Judyth did not realize—until this past month, when Jack White posted the exhibit I prepared--that there is a documentary record of how Lee was dressed on Friday, April 26, the day she claims to have met him at the post office; and that record, created by John Rachal, of the Louisiana Deaprtment of Labor, and published in the Warren Report, established that Lee was attired in a suit and tie. I have just quoted that record, earlier in this post: handwritten notes by Rachal made on 4/26/63, plus his Warren Commission affidavit: “Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite” (the notes) and “Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview” (Rachel Affidavit, 11 WCH 475).

The second aspect of this “oops” moment concerns me, and the first (and only) time I ever spoke with Judyth—on March 4, 2000. Yes, it is a tape recorded conversation, but not because I was lying in wait, or anything of the sort. It was tape recorded because –initially—I gave Judyth the benefit of the doubt, thought I’d be speaking to someone the official investigation had missed, and wanted there to be an accurate record of what she said.

So what happened?

Judyth was unaware, until a few days ago, that not only did she now have to contend with the Rachal Exhibit, and what it says, but another “inconvenient truth” as well: what Judyth told me on March 4, 2000. That’s when I personally questioned Judyth, on this very point, as to how he was dressed, on April 26, 1963, the day she supposedly met Lee Oswald at the Post Office. And she told me he was in workman’s clothes. At that time (3/4/2000), Judyth was decidedly uncomfortable with my repeated questions on the subject, and wanted to know why, but I declined to say. In other words, I did not say, “Judyth, I am asking you a very important question, and you keep answering it the wrong way, so let’s repeat the question, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding.” No, I did not say that. But I asked my question more than once, because I knew very well the implication of the false response I was getting, and she kept answering it all wrong—and further (I might add) she also has it wrong in her manuscript.

WHERE WE ARE NOW—10 YEARS LATER (i.e., in March-April, 2010)

Well, ten years have passed, and now she knows. Judyth now knows that ten years ago, on March 4, 2000, in my first and only telephone conversation with her, and at a time when I (but not she) was fully aware of the Rachal evidence, I carefully questioned her as to how Lee was attire on the day she met him at the Post Office, and she answered in workman’s clothes.

And so now—i.e., in March, 2010—having just found this out—Judyth has to deal with this double whammie: the record of April, 1963, and, in addition, the record she herself created in March 2000, in her conversation with me, a conversation which was tape recorded. And so, having just had this embarrassing “ooops” moment—she goes back to her story, and –like a screenplay writer after a meeting with the producer, and after being informed that there is a glitch in her account—Judyth now adds new dialogue to her narrative. “Lee told me he was going to borrow a shirt,” she now lamely writes.

Well, then, what about the suit? (And what about the tie?) Well, she speculates, perhaps he borrowed that (the suit) from the Murrets. (Lee “told me” he was going to borrow a tie, she says; but, unfortnatley (for Judyth), that won’t work, because—say what she might-- Lee didn’t meet the Murrets until Monday, April 29, when she called Aunt Lillian, and when Aunt Lillian’s husband, Uncle Dutz, came to the bus station to pick up Lee and his luggage. And so now Judyth has become all tangled up in the problem of her fabricated chronology. Because regardless of whether or not Aunt Lillean wanted to buy Lee some clothes—i.e., later—that cannot (and does not) account for his attire on Friday, April 26. But Judyth is unfazed. She proclaims: “I am a witness. . I know. . I was there.” She wants us to believe; indeed, she practically demands that we do so.

And so now she embroiders some more. Well, what can be done about the chronology?

Here’s what Judyth does. Judyth, ignoring the record while attempting to amend her story, says that Lee actually arrived on April 25, and stayed with the Murrets, and they cooked him a nice dinner, loaned him clothing, etc etc. ad nauseum.

I write ad nauseum because it is all false, and contrary to the known record.

And throughout, she makes all kinds of personal accusations against me, and furthermore, adopts the tone that she is some kind of exalted witness:

Just get a whiff of her tone:

QUOTE:

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. UNQUOTE

My comment:: “Lee spent a Saturday night with his aunt and uncle, I think, . . . “

Notice the “I think”—how modest of you Judyth, followed by “because he reported eating a nice support with them. . “

Reported? Reported to whom? To the FBI? Not at all. “Reported” as in “reported” to Judyth, of course. In this manner, she becomes a corroborating witness to her own false story.

ANOTHER INSTANCE:

Judyth writes: “everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness” Notice how she now narrates her own story in the 3rd person.

What gall. She’s both narrator—as if she was speaking from the bench—and a witness. Just read that again: “everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness.”

Translated: Everyone should believe what I say and believe it to be a fact, even thought I’m a fabricator, because I claim the status of being a witness.

Judyth: who are you kidding? Do you really believe everyone is that gullible? That we should heed your command when you say: “I’m a witess. . I know what happened. . everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness.”

Finally: I must make the following personal statement, directed at Judyth.

A PERSONAL STATEMENT TO JUDYTH

Lee Oswald is not akin to some wall in a pubic toilet, where you can inscribe your destructive graffiti. Besmirching the personal reputation of a man with a wife and child, and expecting another (daughter Rachel, born on 10/20/63) on the way. Lee Oswald was a real person, with a real wife and a young child, both of whom he loved very much—and who had just learned she was pregnant with their 2nd child.

The notion that he was carrying on an affair with you in New Orleans is not just false—it is ludicrous.

I knew Marina, very well—having spoken to her dozens of times, over a thirteen year period, after Best Evidence was published in 1981.

And, as Lloyd Bentsen said to Senator Dan Quayle, “Senator, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine, and you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

Judyth: Marina Oswald was a friend of mine—and I (along with another writer) even threw her daughter a party here in Hollywood, when the Warner Brothers movie was being made. So let me assure you, Judyth Baker: I knew Marina quite well, and Judyth, you’re no Marina. Not even close.

If you wish to write fiction, go take a course in creative writing, and try your hand at a screenplay—but lay off the Oswald family and spin your false yarns elsewhere.

Again: Lee Oswald’s life is not akin to a public washroom, where you can go and inscribe graffiti, while you run around attempting to manufacture a counterfeit version of history.

DSL

4/2/2010; 4:40 AM

[Karl Kinaski]

Again: Lee Oswald’s life is not akin to a public washroom, where you can go and inscribe graffiti, while you run around attempting to manufacture a counterfeit version of history.

DSL

4/2/2010; 4:40 AM

Well, that's exactly the manner the Warren Commission misused Lee Oswalds life...

KK

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Judyth has been subjected to a great deal of abuse on other fora in the past. She is nearly blind, needs glasses, and has a Hungarian keyboard where what I receive from her is a mix of caps and bold and lots of underlining with numerous typos and missing "t"s and incomplete sentences. By preparing them for posting, I circumvent the kinds of trivial complaints that would otherwise arise and make them "ready for prime time", if that's OK with you? This is the procedure we have been following here from inception up to now more than 796 posts.

Again, just a quick quote from the Forum Rules:

"(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned."

I presume this applies to inactive members who post through other people, too.

It would seem Judyth has an account here and as such is a member. The rule should apply.

I haven't read the thread, but is there a reason that Judyth does not post herself?

Apparently she has a Hungarian keyboard and bad eyesight which prevents her from posting on the Forum.

What I don't inderstand is, If she can post information via the internet to Jim Fetzer, why can't she just post her information directly here herself?

That way, her information will be recorded as accurate and from the horse's mouth, whereas anything posted by Jim Fetzer can not be guarenteed to be so.

It all seems a bit dubious to me.

Edited April 2, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Judyth has witnesses there who attest to what she has been reporting to

me about her standing. Since you have made yourself clear in multiple

posts and I have replied to you in #67, #168, #243, #244, #255, #269,

#276, #297, #451 and #454 (as I have been reminded, but you can see

for yourself) and several more recent posts, it would be difficult for you

to deny that your voice has been heard. Since I am not allowed to raise

questions about your motives, let me repeat a few graphics of relevance:

Mr Fetzer:

"Judyth never expected permanent political asylum. In fact, conventions

suggest she should have been deported right away. Viklund is splitting

hairs over the idea that she "received political asylum". She did not get

PERMANENT political asylum and was an asylum seeker. But Judyth has

benefited from more than ten months of shelter and protection and other

forms of consideration, for which she is very grateful. Let us move on."

Well, you see, this is what I don't understand. On the one hand, you are insisting that you believe her, that she's "the real deal". In that case, I have a hard time understanding why you don't want her to be the subject of the same scrutiny that any other "witness" is subjected to?

I know it's a pain in the butt to have to deal with this issue of her "asylum", as it is so painfully obvious that she's been doing anything but telling the truth. You want to "move on". The thing is, this is not old news. This was not done 45 years ago. It was done starting three years ago - and counting. That is, during the exact same time frame that she's continuosly been adding details and changing her original account of her role as "a witness" to the Kennedy assassination.

Let's see. Ten years ago, she first told her story about her relation to LHO. This story has since been changed, it has grown, more details have been added and it has been changed again and again - for a varitey of reasons. As far as I can tell, it's still a living organism, or better; "a moving target", as JW so adequately phrased it.

And what does she have to corroborate her story? There is no hard evidence at all - yes, there is one paper that shows her being employed by O'Reily. That's it. Beyond that, it's all about her credibility. Is she to be believed or not? Without hard evidence what does a normal court do? They gather info about what the person have said and done before, one way - and here most likely the only way - of determining a persons credibility.

In this case, however, it's a lot better than that alone. In this case we can actually see what she said and did when she thought no one was paying attention or that her story could ever be properly checked! The most revealing instance that you can ever go by.

">“I was unable to show you the Holland permits until now --- as the Swedish

>government kept my passport. I can now show you one of the permits. NOTE:

>I am choosing to leave Sweden, after ten months. The law is an American

>can stay only 90 days in Sweden, but I was given political asylum for ten

>months. INTERESTING: BECAUSE I WAS IN POLITICAL ASYLUM, MY PASSPORTHAS

>NOT BEEN STAMPED ! NOT AT ALL! IT'S THE WAY THEY DO ITIF YOU ARE IN

>POLITICAL ASYLUM. NO RECORD OF WHERE YOUWERE. ALL FOR MY PROTECTION, YOU

>CAN'T TELL I WAS EVER IN SWEDEN! My life was saved. I could have

>petitioned for permanent residency, here, but I'd probably be rejected

>because of my age (over 65). I can't afford to stay without social

>security here,on MY social security, with the dollar in trouble, it is too

>expensive, so I'm moving. I've been given a letter explaining that I was

>not deported, because Barb and others will of course try to say that, and

>that is not true.”"

In short:

- No asylum given. In fact she was denied, twice (which she diligently avoid to mention).

- She did not choose anything - she had to leave when her options were exhausted.

- She thought no one could see her trails, alright. But she was certainly wrong about that.

- Her age has got nothing to do with this at all.

- No actions whatsoever were taken specifically - more than normal ones - with regards to her "safety and protection".

- I'll be willing to bet that there's no paper of her "not being deported".

All of this done for one purpose alone: she tried her very best to connect and fit this story to her role "as a witness", which is utterly proposterous.

All of these fantasies she told her friends, who told this story on the forums.

This stuff is very revealing indeed. Any court would use this to thoroughly, once and for all, demolish any credibility she has left.

And yet, Mr Fetzer - you want to move on? You want to disregard this entire little episode where she's making a fool out of herself? You are trying to imply that this is of no importance, that this says nothing about her credibility?

You are certainly entitled to hold that view. Just don't try to discredit me or anyone else for not agreeing to that view of yours. I can't think of anything that says more about her personality than this does.

Edited April 2, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This, of course, is Jack's work and Jack's caption and, in case anyone has

missed it, I suspect Robert of playing a key role--both as an impersonator

and as a conspirator--implicating his brother for a crime he did not commit.

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.

Can someone post the "hunting photo"?

Kathy C

[Bernice Moore]

, it may be faked. But it does not resemble

the LHO of Dealey Plaza.[/i]

Can someone post the "hunting photo"?

Kathy C

kATHY IT'S LOOKING AT YOU, ON THE LEFT..IT SAYS HUNTING PHOTO....B

Edited April 2, 2010 by Bernice Moore