Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[John Simkin]

All this took far too much time, and I have decided that I do not want to waste further precious time on the matter of Judyth Baker.

DSL

I think most researchers will agree to that statement. Judyth Baker is old news. She had her chance and she blew it.

[David Lifton]

Judyth,

Regarding my filmed interview with Rachel some 20 years ago:

You are sliming it up again, and your statements are completely inaccurate. Since you basically engage in fiction writing, this probably does not bother you--but it does bother me. FYI: Rachel was not paid "a few dollars", and no one took advantage of her. Rachel was paid thousands of dollars, and made the choice herself that a filmed interview we had previously done (the year before) be utilized by HARDCOPY, in producing a brief program that would be just as positive as the one we had done the year before about her mother. In that case, four segments were produced, and Marina was quite satisfied with them. Her husband was portrayed as innocent, based on my research on the medical evidence (i.e., on the Bethesda autopsy being a fraud, based on BEST EVIDENCE) and the interview permitted us to air some very powerful footage of Marina stating that Lee "adored" Kennedy. I had significant control over the program content, sitting in the control room with the Executive Producer of HARDCOPY, who admired my work, and was sympathetic to my view of Oswald as innocent.

So now we hoped for an equally positive --and very brief--program about Rachel, the daughter of someone falsely accused. The opportunity to do this was a real "mitzvah," as they say in the Hebrew tradition, and I was proud of it. Further, and returning to the subject of money: those payments to Rachel, which I personally paid (along with additional money paid by Paramount TV) were of considerable assistance to Rachel in going to graduate school in nursing. (Moreover: I was personally thanked by Kenneth Porter for providing those sums of money).

Subsequently, I was amazed and upset at the poor judgment shown by the HARDCOPY segment editor who was placed in charge, when the top level person with whom I had been dealing, had to suddenly leave town on another matter. The new "segment producer" created what we both thought was a rather tasteless show. It was eight minutes in length, and we were all upset with it--I, as well as the family. Nonetheless, Kenneth Porter told me that the money Rachel received permitted her to start her graduate studies a year earlier than would otherwise have been the case. Another offshoot was the fact that a major European media outfit flew her to Europe for a trip of about a week. And, perhaps most important of all, is what Marina told me after I first interviewed Rachel, reviewed Lee's life with her, casting him in a very positive light. After those days spent with Rachel, the phone rang, and it was Marina--telling me of how the interview had changed things a bit. Said Marina to me, in her thickly accented Russian: "Thankyou for giving me my daughter back."

Now those are the facts, Judyth--and you too, Jim Fetzer--and I don't care what the Mayor of Houston (or anyone else) said years ago. I have the canceled checks to prove the thousands given to Rachel, and I will always remember Marina's positive response to my own actions.

In other words, I had a genuine relationship with Marina, and the family--not the fantasy you have constructed.

So step into the gutter, if you must, and stir the pot--but those are the facts.

Further: your statements about "computer technology" are also false. Once the TV show was transmitted by satellite, I had no control whether some producer in a foreign land did a "frame grab" of some picture, and sold it to a tabloid. Nor did I have any control over the captions that people unknown to me, and located halfway around the world, write to go with such photos.

As everyone knows, the media is a jungle, and when Rachel said yes, and the financial arrangements were made--and, like her birth father, she was one very smart lady to bank the money and use if for college--we all crossed our fingers, and hoped for the best. But "the best" is not what we got, and I will always regret that.

So--both of your--take your speculations and false information and peddle them elsewhere.

DSL

PS: And oh yes, give the ex-Mayor of Houston my regards. Perhaps you can meet her in Cancun, "at a fine hotel," to exchange further information.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This may be the first time in the history of the forum that John Simkin has twice descended from on high to offer his definitive statement, which appears to bear no relationship whatsoever to the content of this thread. And for David S. Lifton to "bow out" with such a feeble excuse tells me that he has run out of arguments that are even remotely plausible. He has not even stated his position on HARVEY & LEE, which simply dumbfounds me.

So of these two very prominent Judyth bashers, one abuses his position by denouncing her without deigning to offer any justification related to this thread and the other simply abandons the field. I invite anyone who has been following what may be the longest thread in the history of this forum, which appears to be among the most interesting and important in relation to Lee Harvey Oswald, to consider what is going on.

All this took far too much time, and I have decided that I do not want to waste further precious time on the matter of Judyth Baker.

DSL

I think most researchers will agree to that statement. Judyth Baker is old news. She had her chance and she blew it.

Edited April 3, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David, Your flippancy does not become you. Why haven't you stated your position on HARVEY & LEE? And why haven't you sent me a copy of the cassette of your recording of the conversation with Judyth? If you don't want to post an article from The Dallas Observer, so be it. But why not contribute to a better understanding of your position? It is not as though these matters were of no historical significance. I think you should reconsider. Jim

Judyth,

Regarding my filmed interview with Rachel some 20 years ago:

You are sliming it up again, and your statements are completely inaccurate. Since you basically engage in fiction writing, this probably does not bother you--but it does bother me. FYI: Rachel was not paid "a few dollars", and no one took advantage of her. Rachel was paid thousands of dollars, and made the choice herself that a filmed interview we had previously done (the year before) be utilized by HARDCOPY, in producing a brief program that would be just as positive as the one we had done the year before about her mother. In that case, four segments were produced, and Marina was quite satisfied with them. Her husband was portrayed as innocent, based on my research on the medical evidence (i.e., on the Bethesda autopsy being a fraud, based on BEST EVIDENCE) and the interview permitted us to air some very powerful footage of Marina stating that Lee "adored" Kennedy. I had significant control over the program content, sitting in the control room with the Executive Producer of HARDCOPY, who admired my work, and was sympathetic to my view of Oswald as innocent.

So now we hoped for an equally positive --and very brief--program about Rachel, the daughter of someone falsely accused. The opportunity to do this was a real "mitzvah," as they say in the Hebrew tradition, and I was proud of it. Further, and returning to the subject of money: those payments to Rachel, which I personally paid (along with additional money paid by Paramount TV) were of considerable assistance to Rachel in going to graduate school in nursing. (Moreover: I was personally thanked by Kenneth Porter for providing those sums of money).

Subsequently, I was amazed and upset at the poor judgment shown by the HARDCOPY segment editor who was placed in charge, when the top level person with whom I had been dealing, had to suddenly leave town on another matter. The new "segment producer" created what we both thought was a rather tasteless show. It was eight minutes in length, and we were all upset with it--I, as well as the family. Nonetheless, Kenneth Porter told me that the money Rachel received permitted her to start her graduate studies a year earlier than would otherwise have been the case. Another offshoot was the fact that a major European media outfit flew her to Europe for a trip of about a week. And, perhaps most important of all, is what Marina told me after I first interviewed Rachel, reviewed Lee's life with her, casting him in a very positive light. After those days spent with Rachel, the phone rang, and it was Marina--telling me of how the interview had changed things a bit. Said Marina to me, in her thickly accented Russian: "Thankyou for giving me my daughter back."

Now those are the facts, Judyth--and you too, Jim Fetzer--and I don't care what the Mayor of Houston (or anyone else) said years ago. I have the canceled checks to prove the thousands given to Rachel, and I will always remember Marina's positive response to my own actions.

In other words, I had a genuine relationship with Marina, and the family--not the fantasy you have constructed.

So step into the gutter, if you must, and stir the pot--but those are the facts.

Further: your statements about "computer technology" are also false. Once the TV show was transmitted by satellite, I had no control whether some producer in a foreign land did a "frame grab" of some picture, and sold it to a tabloid. Nor did I have any control over the captions that people unknown to me, and located halfway around the world, write to go with such photos.

As everyone knows, the media is a jungle, and when Rachel said yes, and the financial arrangements were made--and, like her birth father, she was one very smart lady to bank the money and use if for college--we all crossed our fingers, and hoped for the best. But "the best" is not what we got, and I will always regret that.

So--both of your--take your speculations and false information and peddle them elsewhere.

DSL

PS: And oh yes, give the ex-Mayor of Houston my regards. Perhaps you can meet her in Cancun, "at a fine hotel," to exchange further information.

Edited April 3, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO BARB ABOUT SEEKING ASYLUM

Barb asks the question about my applying for political asylum but never expecting a 'positive':

Then why did she apply for it? And when it was denied, why did she then appeal that decision?

1) I was advised to leave Hungary after a death threat

2) I was advised not to return to the US because I would be locatable through airline tickets, etc.

and the death threat applied there as well. This was a second warning given to me, AFTER I had

purchased the expensive tickets to the US--and then my hotel room was broken into and almost

everything I owned was taken. The entry into my hotel room was violent and frightened everybody.

There was no attempt at stealth.

3) I was advised to seek political asylum and to explain my problems, even though I could never be

given a final permission to stay.

4) I was assured I would not be deported back to Hungary by Sweden (which was my concern, as

they were Schengen countries).

5) I was to ask for enough time for my family to arrange safe havens for me overseas

6) I was assigned for deportation soon after arriving. By filing an appeal, the deportation order was

inhibited, an unusual action. I was given directions on how to obtain the inhibition.

7) I was thus able to stay for over ten months and was given all the time I needed.

JVB

NOTE: The name "Schengen" originates from a small town in Luxembourg. In June 1985, seven European Union countries signed a treaty to end internal border checkpoints and controls. More countries have joined the treaty over the past years. At present, there are 15 Schengen countries, all in Europe.

The 15 Schengen countries are: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. All these countries except Norway and Iceland are European Union members.

Traveling in Europe has been simplified with the introduction of the Schengen visa. As a visitor to the Schengen area, you will enjoy the many advantages of this unified visa system. Download the SCHENGEN VISA APPLICATION and apply today.

With a Schengen visa, you may enter one country and travel freely throughout the Schengen zone. Internal border controls have disappeared; there are no or few stops and checks. This means that internal air, road and train travel are handled as domestic trips, similar to travel from one US state to another. Those who traveled in Europe before Schengen know the difference.

Judyth never expected permanent political asylum.

Then why did she apply for it? And when it was denied, why did she then appeal that decision?

Edited April 3, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ON HER PHOTO STUDIES

The comment about how I can analyze these photos with my bad eyesight:

I print them out and measure them with a tape measure. I can see very well

at about an inch from a page.

In fact, I can see details most people cannot because their vision does not

focus so close to a page. I can see details that others would miss without

a magnifying glass.

But I cannot type on a computer with my nose an inch from the keyboard.

Try it sometime for yourself.

JVB

She is nearly blind, needs glasses,

In that case, if she is nearly blind and needs glasses, how then can she analyze the photographs which you are presenting on her behalf.

Something stinks here.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO DEAN HAGERMAN ON FRIENDSHIP

NOTE: This has nothing to do with loyalty and everything to do

with truth. My relationship with Jack and with David is not going

to change because of our differences about Judyth. But what we

know and understand about Lee may change because I am willing

to stand up for her and give her another opportunity to be heard.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Jim

Please think about this for a second

Is it really worth it to you to put a wedge in your friendships with Jack White and David Lifton, two guys who have worked with you on the Z-film and many other things for over 10+ years, two guys who back you up and have the same theories as you over Judyth whom you have been talking with for a very short period of time?

==FRIENDSHIPS ARE IMPORTANT. SO IS THE TRUTH. YOU HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THEORIES. I AM A WITNESS. ==

It really hurts me to see you guys trading words over Judyth who is sitting at home right now laughing her butt off over the fact that she is turning fellow researchers against each other.

==BY NO MEANS HAVE I BEEN LAUGHING. I WARNED JIM WHEN THIS BEGAN THAT HE WOULD BE ATTACKED BY JACK WHITE AND OTHERS IF HE POSTED ON THE FORUM. THIS BEGAN WITH SOME INTERVIEWS AND THE IDEA OF HAVING A BLOG. I MOURN THE FACT THAT FEELINGS ARE GETTING INVOLVED. I HAVE STAYED OFF THE FORUMS FOR OVER FIVE YEARS. I HAD NO DESIRE OR INTENT TO DIVIDE PEOPLE.==

Please Jim take a step back and look at whats going on.

I hate this thread, I hate the fact that Judyth has done this, I know she is very happy that she has you against Jack and David two researchers who dont believe her story

==HE KNOWS THIS? HE'S VERY WRONG. I GRIEVE OVER IT.====

I hope you dont take my post the wrong way Jim because im behind you no matter what, im also behind Jack and David no matter what

Dean

DEAN, YOU NEVER MET ME. YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW IT FEELS TO BE ATTACKED. HOW CAN I BE LAUGHING WHEN I'M PERSONALLY ATTACKED AND DR. FETZER IS BEING FAULTED FOR HAVING INTERVIEWED ME AND COLLECTED INFORMATION, AND THEN SEES THAT I HAVE BEEN UNFAIRLY ATTACKED ON THE FORUM? LOOK HOW JOSIAH THOMPSON GOES AFTER DR. FETZER, AND IT'S REALLY BECAUSE OF THE Z FILM, NOT ME -- JUST A CHANCE TO JUMP IN AND TAKE HIS DIGS. I THINK JACK WHITE AND DAVID LIFTON HAVE DONE FINE RESEARCH, BUT PERSONAL APPEALS ABOUT FRIENDSHIP HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ESTABLISHING THE TRUTH. I COMMEND DR. FETZER FOR INSISTING ON LEAVING 'FRIENDSHIP' OUT OF HIS. HIS FEELINGS FOR JACK WILL NEVER CHANGE. WE CAN HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS ON SOME THINGS WITHOUT ANY AFFRONT TO TRUE FRIENDSHIP. DIVISION OVER INTERPRETING THESE SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVABLE MATTERS SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PERSONAL MILIEU OF FRIENDSHIP.

JVB

Jim

Please think about this for a second

Is it really worth it to you to put a wedge in your friendships with Jack White and David Lifton, two guys who have worked with you on the Z-film and many other things for over 10+ years, two guys who back you up and have the same theories as you over Judyth whom you have been talking with for a very short period of time?

It really hurts me to see you guys trading words over Judyth who is sitting at home right now laughing her butt off over the fact that she is turning fellow researchers against each other.

Please Jim take a step back and look at whats going on.

I hate this thread, I hate the fact that Judyth has done this, I know she is very happy that she has you against Jack and David two researchers who dont believe her story

I hope you dont take my post the wrong way Jim because im behind you no matter what, im also behind Jack and David no matter what

Dean

Edited April 3, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Mike Williams]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ON HER PHOTO STUDIES

The comment about how I can analyze these photos with my bad eyesight:

I print them out and measure them with a tape measure. I can see very well

at about an inch from a page.

JVB

This leads to the obvious question.

If you can't see the letters of a keyboard properly from an inch or any further distance away, leaving Jim Fetzer to correct your mistakes and finish sentences,

then how can you read a tape measure with any guaranteed degree of accuracy, and how can anyone, including Jim, know your measurements are correct?

Braille tape measure. Its new from the makers of the Braille digital camera.

[Mike Williams]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ON HER PHOTO STUDIES

The comment about how I can analyze these photos with my bad eyesight:

I print them out and measure them with a tape measure. I can see very well

at about an inch from a page.

JVB

This leads to the obvious question.

If you can't see the letters of a keyboard properly from an inch or any further distance away, leaving Jim Fetzer to correct your mistakes and finish sentences,

then how can you read a tape measure with any guaranteed degree of accuracy, and how can anyone, including Jim, know your measurements are correct?

Braille tape measure. Its new from the makers of the Braille digital camera.

Measure fine detail with a braille tape measure from an inch in front of an image?

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I doubt that very much.

Can she read braille? If so, why does she not get a braille keyboard or braille keyboard stickers?

If she is smart enough to get a braille tape measure, then surely she would be smart enought to get, and use a braille keyboard or stickers.

Duncan,

I was joking. I should have said braille ping pong.

Mike

[Linda Minor]

Monk...

Many JVB claims appear "plausible" and some cannot be "refuted", simply because all are

her OPINIONS, things she SAYS she witnessed, without proof offered. I do not care whether

her tales are true or not.

Some of her tales are irrelevant. What is the relevance to JFK studies if she claims an illicit

affair with a man she just met? What does it matter that she thinks she resembles Marina?

What does it matter that she thinks she and LHO pledged to meet somewhere in Mexico and

explore ancient ruins? What does it matter that she claims to have personally met Shaw,

Banister, Ferrie, Ochsner, Sherman, etc. etc.? Her knowing these well documented figures

adds NOTHING to the information already known. Her information changes frequently as

it suits her purpose. I will even grant that if everything she says is true it does not amount

to a bigratsass in the overall study of the investigation. Cancun or Kan Kun...who cares?

Thanks, Monk.

Jack

Jack,

Your definition of "information" and mine vary considerably. I am interested in history and the way our American government violates the rule of law set forth in the Constitution by using cutouts and compartmentalized intelligence operatives who are trained not to question their handlers. This is the only reason I have ever studied the assassination. I do not get excited about bullet trajectories or faked photos or any of those elements of physical evidence because none of that explains to me how the system (what I tend to refer to as the infrastructure) of the entire secretive intelligence operation works, and by whom it is directed. In other words, I myself do not focus on trees, but on the forest, to use a trite metaphor.

For that purpose, what Judyth tells is more essential to my historical research than anything since the information presented by Dick Russell about Richard Case Nagell.

We all have a focus on different aspects, fortunately, but we tend to weigh the importance of these interests differently and, consequently and unfortunately, often impute personal motives to those with whom we differ. I have attempted previously to insert remarks about why Judyth's information is extremely significant, at least to me, because of the historical context it provides. But there was no response made. My comments were ignored, and that is fine with me; but my research will continue nonetheless.

[Jack White]

Monk...

Many JVB claims appear "plausible" and some cannot be "refuted", simply because all are

her OPINIONS, things she SAYS she witnessed, without proof offered. I do not care whether

her tales are true or not.

Some of her tales are irrelevant. What is the relevance to JFK studies if she claims an illicit

affair with a man she just met? What does it matter that she thinks she resembles Marina?

What does it matter that she thinks she and LHO pledged to meet somewhere in Mexico and

explore ancient ruins? What does it matter that she claims to have personally met Shaw,

Banister, Ferrie, Ochsner, Sherman, etc. etc.? Her knowing these well documented figures

adds NOTHING to the information already known. Her information changes frequently as

it suits her purpose. I will even grant that if everything she says is true it does not amount

to a bigratsass in the overall study of the investigation. Cancun or Kan Kun...who cares?

Thanks, Monk.

Jack

Jack,

Your definition of "information" and mine vary considerably. I am interested in history and the way our American government violates the rule of law set forth in the Constitution by using cutouts and compartmentalized intelligence operatives who are trained not to question their handlers. This is the only reason I have ever studied the assassination. I do not get excited about bullet trajectories or faked photos or any of those elements of physical evidence because none of that explains to me how the system (what I tend to refer to as the infrastructure) of the entire secretive intelligence operation works, and by whom it is directed. In other words, I myself do not focus on trees, but on the forest, to use a trite metaphor.

For that purpose, what Judyth tells is more essential to my historical research than anything since the information presented by Dick Russell about Richard Case Nagell.

We all have a focus on different aspects, fortunately, but we tend to weigh the importance of these interests differently and, consequently and unfortunately, often impute personal motives to those with whom we differ. I have attempted previously to insert remarks about why Judyth's information is extremely significant, at least to me, because of the historical context it provides. But there was no response made. My comments were ignored, and that is fine with me; but my research will continue nonetheless.

Linda, I agree IF HER TALES ARE FACTUAL. To me they seem to be largely FICTIONAL.

Fiction has popular appeal, but it is not history. GONE WITH THE WIND is great HISTORICAL

FICTION about the Civil War, and gives some idea what the people went through, and presents

facts mixed with romance. The JFK case does not need a GWTW approach about the romance

of Romeo and Juliet as imagined by JVB. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

Jack

[Pamela Brown]

All this took far too much time, and I have decided that I do not want to waste further precious time on the matter of Judyth Baker.

DSL

How unfortunate; just when I was going to begin to pursue the hypothesis that there may be a connection between at least two of the things Lifton gets most rabid about -- Judyth and the Garrison investigation.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Observation and measurement are basic to scientific inquiries, Duncan.

Judyth is reporting the results of her studies. If you want to replicate

them to verify or falsify them, they you should do that, precisely as in

the case of any other scientific inquiry. You can redo the experiments

of Galileo and review the calculations of Newton, if you like, or perhaps

you can print out photos and see if you obtain the same results Judyth

is reporting. I would think you are smart enough to have figured that

out. But of course that is not really the point of your posts, is it? And,

since she is getting new glasses, it's a good thing you are doing this

now, since your posts will be even more pointless in the future. I am

sure that everyone who has been following this thread appreciates it.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO DUNCAN MACRAE ON HER PHOTO STUDIES

The comment about how I can analyze these photos with my bad eyesight:

I print them out and measure them with a tape measure. I can see very well

at about an inch from a page.

JVB

This leads to the obvious question.

If you can't see the letters of a keyboard properly from an inch or any further distance away, leaving Jim Fetzer to correct your mistakes and finish sentences,

then how can you read a tape measure with any guaranteed degree of accuracy, and how can anyone, including Jim, know your measurements are correct?

[Pamela Brown]

Linda, I agree IF HER TALES ARE FACTUAL. To me they seem to be largely FICTIONAL.

Fiction has popular appeal, but it is not history. GONE WITH THE WIND is great HISTORICAL

FICTION about the Civil War, and gives some idea what the people went through, and presents

facts mixed with romance. The JFK case does not need a GWTW approach about the romance

of Romeo and Juliet as imagined by JVB. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

Jack

Jack has no trouble accepting undocumented witnesses, such as Whittaker, and believing everything they say, whether or not it even makes sense. However, a different standard seems to apply when it comes to Judyth.

[Pamela Brown]

I am not taking sides in this debate, as I don't claim to know one way or the other. -- However...

Look, let's not all get our panties up in a bunch, boys. Granted, Jim has a tendency--by his own admission--to be overly combative. ...

If we assume that Jim has committed an error of etiquette--so be it. His social skills my have offended some here.

"An error of etiquette?" "Social skills?" You must be kidding. What is closer to the truth is what Mrs. Farnsworth, his kindergarten teacher, wrote to his parents many years ago: "Jimmy doesn't play well with other children."

Josiah Thompson

With all due respect, you seem to be confusing Jim's standing up to bullying of Judyth with popularity.