Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

For those unaware Judyth was a member in the past and that her reports about her research have been highly consistent over the years:

One of the problems I have seen is that Judyth will make a statement, some researchers will jump to conclusions, creating myriad strawmen; then Judyth will attempt to clarify the statement, which just tends to complicate things.

What Judyth knows firsthand is the most significant and reliable, imo. What she has heard, or believes to have occurred, are at another level.

Also, in some respects, she may have complicated her own situation by not being simply a witnesses and insisting that others do whatever research needs to be done to add to her account. In her fervor to vindicate Lee Oswald she has become something of a researcher herself. Her writing a book has just added insult to injury when it comes to the purists who would prefer that a witness be *overseen* by researchers and/or a writer.

Nonetheless, to those willing to push the envelope about what we know about the assassination and what actually happened in NOLA in the summer of 1963, Judyth's statements provide consistently intriguing and sometimes startling insights and have opened up and/or corroborated tangential areas such as the involvement of the medical community in developing a bioweapon and adding to the probability that the murder of Dr. Mary Sherman was connected to what she knew about the assassination.

Edited by Pamela McElwain-Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

Actually, John, you observed that she was already a member of the forum in a post of your own dated Mar 13 2004 as follows. Given the interest in her (real or imagined) experiences, I am also posting some of the earliest exchanges about her and her replies. They can serve as a kind of "base line" for measuring the consistency of her reports across time, where none of us would be expected to be completely consistent in every respect. There is a lot of very interesting information here and Judyth has been extremely forthcoming.

John Simkin

Rating: 5

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts

post Mar 13 2004, 09:59 AM

Post #1

Super Member

****

Group: Admin

Posts: 14119

Joined: 16-December 03

From: Worthing, Sussex

Member No.: 7

In November, 2003 Judyth Baker appeared in the television programme made by Nigel Turner, The Men Who Killed Kennedy: The Love Affair. In the film Judyth tells of her (at first, unwitting) involvement in an anti-Castro conspiracy. A young woman who had received specialized training in cancer research, she was invited to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner to aid Dr. Mary Sherman in a research project that was being developed to kill Fidel Castro.

In 1963, Judyth met Lee Harvey Oswald and became involved on the clandestine side of the research project. Both had unhappy marriages and were attracted to each other. She and Oswald began working together: they were both hired May 10, 1963, at Reily's Coffee Company, which provided cover jobs for them. Several labs were involved, including a tumor and tissue culture processing mini-lab, at an apartment owned by anti-Castroite Dave Ferrie. Lee Oswald was selected to courier the biological materials to Mexico City, but the project was called off due to Hurricane Flora. Oswald was ordered to Dallas.

Oswald kept in touch with Judyth: they planned to escape to Mexico after his major assignment - his voluntary infiltration of an assassination ring against John F. Kennedy. Oswald believed a highly conservative Texas-sponsored cartel was working with the Mafia and rogue elements of the CIA and the FBI in the plot against Kennedy. He suspected that David Atlee Phillips was his handler. After Kennedy was assassinated, Dave Ferrie called Judyth and told her she was being watched: if she talked, she would die.

Researchers are divided on Baker's story: a number of researchers have seen most or all her original evidence files and defend her (such as Jim Marrs, Martin Shackelford, Wim Dankbaar, Howard Platzman) while other researchers attack her story (Jack White, David Lifton, John MacAdams, Dave Reitzes). Baker points out that almost all the researchers who have attacked her story have never met her or viewed her original evidence files.

You can read the John MacAdams account below:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm

I believe his account is full of inaccuracies. As Judyth Baker is a member of the forum I hope she will point this out for us.

+Quote Post

John Simkin

Rating: 5

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts

post Mar 29 2004, 04:29 PM

Post #3

Super Member

****

Group: Admin

Posts: 14119

Joined: 16-December 03

From: Worthing, Sussex

Member No.: 7

I still have a few problems with the story. As do most people who have studied the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is not only John Macadams who have found the story difficult to believe. This is not to say the story is not true. However, researchers will need to see documentary evidence that Judyth Baker was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in a conspiracy in New Orleans to develop a new biological weapon.

(1) This story involves several characters who had the potential to reveal the truth of why Oswald was in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Therefore it was understandably why people who knew about the conspiracy (Lee Harvey Oswald, Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie and Guy Banister etc.) were murdered or died in mysterious circumstances soon afterwards. I would have thought that if this was the case than Judyth Baker would have been killed during this period.

(2) I would have found the story more believable if characters were named who were still alive to answer questions about the case. Characters like David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Mary Sherman, David Atlee Phillips, Carlos Marcello, etc. have been mentioned several times before. One of the advantages of naming these characters is that they are dead and cannot contradict the theory.

I would definitely be interested in hearing from the “two living witnesses” who could back-up this story. You say “these recorded interviews could not be used in the documentary because these witnesses have been threatened thereafter”. Who is still alive to keep these witnesses from talking. For example, Billie Sol Estes has recently provided information on the case because all those involved in the original conspiracy are now dead.

(3) Researchers have found it difficult to believe that a 19 year old girl, however talented, would have been recruited for such a project. Why was David Ferrie, someone with no medical qualifications, recruited by the CIA for this plot. Mary Sherman was a doctor but she was not a cancer specialist (she was a orthopaedic surgeon).

(4) If this cocktail of a virus designed to knock out Castro’s immune system and cancer cells that would infect him and cause his death, was developed by Dr. Mary Sherman and her team, has it been used since? (Jack Ruby?). Why has this means to kill people remained a secret since 1963?

(5) Why did the CIA have to develop a new method to kill Castro? Surely they had plenty of undetectable poisons that would have been able to kill him?

(6) Some critics have suggested that Judyth read Ed Haslam’s book “Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus” and inserted herself into the story. The book describes the cancer research story and the discovery of simian virus contamination of the Salk vaccine, which is believed to be responsible for a particular cancer variant occurring in some patients today.

Despite these doubts I believe Judyth deserves a hearing. I would like to think that by rational debate we can eventually get near the truth of why Kennedy was killed. I have been dismayed by the attitude of some Kennedy researchers who have attempted to stop her from communicating her story to a large audience. It is hoped that this forum will provide a place where people with a wide variety of different views can debate these important issues.

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

John Simkin

Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1365

General Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk

JFK Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm

Watergate: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/watergate.htm

Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

Spartacus Travel Guide: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/travelguide.htm

Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post

Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*

post Mar 29 2004, 06:08 PM

Post #4

Guests

When I wrote the above I was relying on the information I obtained from the television programme and on internet websites. Over the last couple of days I have been in email communication with Judyth Baker and I have to confess I have been impressed by her willingness to answer my detailed questions.

I still have a few problems with the story. As do most people who have studied the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is not only John Macadams who have found the story difficult to believe. This is not to say the story is not true. However, researchers will need to see documentary evidence that Judyth Baker was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in a conspiracy in New Orleans to develop a new biological weapon.

(1) This story involves several characters who had the potential to reveal the truth of why Oswald was in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Therefore it was understandably why people who knew about the conspiracy (Lee Harvey Oswald, Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie and Guy Banister etc.) were murdered or died in mysterious circumstances soon afterwards. I would have thought that if this was the case than Judyth Baker would have been killed during this period.

(2) I would have found the story more believable if characters were named who were still alive to answer questions about the case. Characters like David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Mary Sherman, David Atlee Phillips, Carlos Marcello, etc. have been mentioned several times before. One of the advantages of naming these characters is that they are dead and cannot contradict the theory.

Judyth was never called to testify in any case or hearing (like Ferrie, Giancana, Nicoletti, Roselli etc), nor did she volunteer any information (like Cheramie, Kilgallen, Craig, Pitzer, Ruby, etc)

"How could I contradict the official story? All my witnesses kept dying on me." - Jim Garrison

I would definitely be interested in hearing from the “two living witnesses” who could back-up this story. You say “these recorded interviews could not be used in the documentary because these witnesses have been threatened thereafter”.

You have to ask Judyth about them. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to release their names.

Who is still alive to keep these witnesses from talking.

Heirs and friends of LBJ, George H. W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Arlen Specter and on and on.

For example, Billie Sol Estes has recently provided information on the case because all those involved in the original conspiracy are now dead.

Billy Sol is blowing smoke or just does not have the full picture. Chauncey Holt applied the same reasoning. He was just wrong. This was a compartimentalized operation.

(3) Researchers have found it difficult to believe that a 19 year old girl, however talented, would have been recruited for such a project. Why was David Ferrie, someone with no medical qualifications, recruited by the CIA for this plot. Mary Sherman was a doctor but she was not a cancer specialist (she was a orthopaedic surgeon).

Yeah, well, ther was a time researchers found it difficult to believe the earth is round.

(4) If this cocktail of a virus designed to knock out Castro’s immune system and cancer cells that would infect him and cause his death, was developed by Dr. Mary Sherman and her team, has it been used since? (Jack Ruby?).

Bingo!

Why has this means to kill people remained a secret since 1963?

Because this secret is even more damning than the truth about the Kennedy assassination. How would you feel if you know your polio vaccine had been contamined with a cancer causing virus?

(5) Why did the CIA have to develop a new method to kill Castro? Surely they had plenty of undetectable poisons that would have been able to kill him?

Because this one would furnish plausible denial. Ochsner was just promoting that cigarette smoke causes cancer. Castro smoked cigars like a chimney.

(6) Some critics have suggested that Judyth read Ed Haslam’s book “Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus” and inserted herself into the story. The book describes the cancer research story and the discovery of simian virus contamination of the Salk vaccine, which is believed to be responsible for a particular cancer variant occurring in some patients today.

I know Ed and he knows Judyth. They didn't know each other before Judyth came out with her story. They got to know each other when they were both invited for CBS 60 minutes, which was canceled last minute (of course). Ed believes Judyth. Simple as that. He had been familiar with the name Judyth Vary Baker for 30 years.

Despite these doubts I believe Judyth deserves a hearing. I would like to think that by rational debate we can eventually get near the truth of why Kennedy was killed. I have been dismayed by the attitude of some Kennedy researchers who have attempted to stop her from communicating her story to a large audience. It is hoped that this forum will provide a place where people with a wide variety of different views can debate these important issues.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

This post has been edited by dankbaar: Mar 29 2004, 06:10 PM

Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post

Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*

post Mar 30 2004, 09:12 AM

Post #5

Guests

Oh, and one more thing: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet, especially not on McAdams' website. Mary Sherman was not only a surgeon, but also a BONE CANCER SPECIALIST, BONE CANCER SPECIALIST, BONE CANCER SPECIALIST. She was especially brought down from Chicago by Ochsner to head his bone clinic. She was also on the BOARD of his CANCER clinic. Now why is that not in his biography???? And why has the picture of board members including Mary Sherman been removed from the second printing onwards?

Wim

Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post

Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*

post Apr 7 2004, 04:50 PM

Post #6

Guests

http://www.spitfirelist.com/f316.html

FTR#316—Update on the Politics of SV40—(Two 30-minute segments) (Sources are noted in parentheses.) (Recorded on 7/29/2001.)

Note: FTR#’s 260-315, 317, FTR#325 and succeeding programs are streaming on Real Audio at www.wfmu.org/daveemory. FTR#’s 01-270, 316-324 are available for download only, also on Real Audio, at http://archive.wfmu.org:5555/archive/DX/.)

Note: Users of this website are emphatically encouraged to create a word document out of the program descriptions and do a “search” on individual subjects in order to more completely reference those items.

Note: Users of this website (as well as the two WFMU web addresses noted above) are emphatically encouraged to use the internet to disseminate as much of the audio and printed material as possible. It is all FREE!

Providing valuable supplemental information to previous programs about the cancer-causing monkey virus SV40, this broadcast highlights articles from the mainstream press that reinforce the remarkable research done by Ed Haslam, the author of the vitally important recent book Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus: The Story of an Underground Medical Laboratory. (For more about Ed and his historic research, see, among other programs, FTR#’s 16, 19, 62, 63, 76, 198, 199, 269, 308. In particular, the listener is referred to FTR#19, a detailed, three-hour interview with Ed Haslam that covers the subject material of his book at length and in detail.) A contaminant in the original polio vaccine, the SV40 appears to be the cause of a soft-tissue cancer epidemic.

1. The program begins with discussion of a front-page story in the San Francisco Chronicle that is strongly supportive of information presented in previous programs about SV40. “A growing number of medical researchers fear that a monkey virus that contaminated the polio vaccine given to tens of millions of Americans in the 1950’s and ‘60’s may be causing rare human cancers. For four decades, government officials have insisted that there is no evidence the simian virus called SV40 is harmful to humans. But in recent years, dozens of scientific studies have found the virus in a steadily increasing number of rare brain, bone and lung-related tumors—the same malignant cancer SV40 causes in lab animals.” (“Rogue Virus in the Vaccine” by William Carlsen; San Francisco Chronicle; p. A1.)

2. As reported in previous programs on SV40, there is evidence that the virus (and, consequently, the cancers it causes) are contagious. “Even more troubling, the virus has been detected in tumors removed from people never inoculated with the contaminated vaccine, leading some to worry that those infected by the vaccine might be spreading SV40.” (Idem.)

3. The number of researchers who feel that SV40 is a threat is growing. “The discovery of SV40 in human tumors has generated intense debate within the scientific community, pitting a handful of government health officials, who believe that the virus is harmless, against researchers from Boston to China who now suspect SV40 may be a human carcinogen. At stake are millions of research dollars and potential medical treatments for those afflicted with the cancers SV40 may be causing.” (Ibid.; pp. A1-A16.)

4. Four years after the development of the Salk vaccine, Bernice Eddy of the National Institutes of Health discovered the contamination of the vaccine with SV40. “Four years later, Bernice Eddy, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health, noticed something strange while looking through her microscope. Monkey kidney cells—the same kind used to make the vaccine—were dying without apparent cause. So she tried an experiment. She prepared kidney extracts from eight to 10 rhesus monkeys and injected tiny amounts under the skin of 23 new born hamsters. Within nine months, ‘large, malignant, subcutaneous tumors’ appeared on 20 of the animals.” (Ibid.; p. A16.)

5. Eddy’s results were dismissed by NIH researchers. “On July 6, 1960, concerned that a monkey virus might be contaminating the polio vaccine, Eddy took her findings to Dr. Joseph Smadel, chief of the NIH’s biologics division. Smadel dismissed the tumors as harmless ‘lumps.’ The same year, however, at a Merck laboratory in Pennsylvania, Dr. Maurice Hilleman and Dr. Ben Sweet isolated the virus. They called it simian virus 40, or SV40, because it was the 40th virus found in rhesus kidney tissue.” (Idem.)

6. Other experts, however, shared Eddy’s concern. “But U.S. Public Health Service officials were worried. Tests had found SV40 in both the Sabin and Salk vaccines—it was later estimated that as much as a third of the Salk vaccine was tainted—and that SV40 was causing cancer in lab animals. In early 1961, they quietly met with the agency’s top vaccine advisers. The agency found no evidence that the virus had been harmful to humans, but in March, the officials ordered manufacturers to eliminate SV40 from all future vaccine. New procedures were adopted to neutralize the tainted polio virus seed stock and SV40-free African green monkeys were used to produce the bulk vaccine instead of rhesus monkeys.” (Idem.)

7. Although the vaccine-making procedures had been altered, the public was kept in the dark. “But officials did not recall contaminated Salk vaccine—more than a year’s supply—still in the hands of the nation’s doctors. And they did not notify the public of the contamination and SV40’s carcinogenic effect on newborn hamsters. [Maurice] Hilleman would later explain that government officials were worried that any potentially negative information could ignite a panic and jeopardize the vaccination campaign. The first public disclosure that the Salk vaccine was contaminated came in the New York Times on July 26, 1961. A story on Page 33 reported that Merck and other manufacturers had halted production until they could get a ‘monkey virus’ out of the vaccine. When asked to comment, the U.S. Public Health Service stressed there was no evidence the virus was dangerous.” (Idem.)

8. As discussed in FTR#’s 198, 199, Michele Carbone was able to confirm the contamination of the vaccine. In addition, Carbone discovered that the vaccine contained a second form of SV40 that may have continued to contaminate vaccines! “For years, researchers had believed that all SV40-contaminated Salk vaccine made between 1955 and 1963 had been used or discarded. Then in 1999, Carbone was contacted by a former public health director in Oak Park, Ill., who said he had seven sealed vials of vaccine dated October 1955 in a refrigerator in his basement. Carbone, who had left the NIH and joined the faculty at Loyola University Medical Center, ran tests on the vaccine and made a startling discovery: Not only was the vaccine contaminated, it contained a second form of the virus—an ‘archetypal’ SV40 strain.” (Ibid.; p. A17.)

9. The continued contamination of the vaccine-making process is highlighted in the passage that follows. “Although manufacturers switched from rhesus monkeys to SV40-free green African monkeys to grow the bulk vaccine in 1961, they have continued to use potentially contaminated polio seed strains originally grown on the rhesus monkey tissue to start the bulk vaccine process. [italics are Mr. Emory’s] Manufacturers check the purity of their vaccine with a series of 14-day tests to detect whether any SV40 slipped through. But when Carbone replicated the tests, he found that the second, slower-growing ‘archetypal’ strain took 19 days to emerge. It was possible, Carbone noted in a published report, that this second strain of SV40 had been evading manufacturers’ screening procedures for years—and infecting vaccine recipients after 1962.” (Idem.)

10. The National Cancer Institute continues to drag its feet with regard to SV40 and its relationship to human cancer. Historically, that institution is deeply tainted. More about that later in this program description. “But the NCI recently acknowledged that there is evidence to suggest that SV40 ‘may be associated with human cancer.’ The NCI statement, released last month, also said that SV40’s interaction with ‘tumor suppressor proteins’ indicates ‘possible mechanisms that could contribute to the development of cancer.’ Top NCI officials declined to be interviewed on the record for this report. Fraumeni also declined several requests for an in interview. Dr. James Goedert, the chief of the NCI’s Viral Epidemiology Branch who supervised Strickler’s work, said that if SV40 is in human tumors, it must be at extremely low levels. To critics who claim the government has down played SV40’s potential health risks, Goedert responded: ‘Absolutely not.’ He acknowledged that research is needed to resolve the question of whether SV40 is prevalent in the human population and, if so, how it might be spreading. But Goedert said he has no plans for such studies. ‘It’s not our highest priority,’ he said.” (Idem.)

11. A subsequent article by William Carlsen supplements the above information concerning the SV40 contamination of more recent vaccines. “A monkey virus linked to human cancers may have contaminated the oral polio vaccine for years after the U.S. government ordered manufacturers to remove it, according to drug company documents obtained by The Chronicle. The Chronicle reported last week that the simian virus SV40 had contaminated early polio vaccine given to millions of Americans. When health officials discovered in 1961 that SV40 caused malignant tumors in lab animals, they ordered the virus eliminated from all future vaccine.” (“New Documents Show the Monkey Virus is Present in More Recent Polio Vaccine” by William Carlsen; San Francisco Chronicle; 7/22/2001; p. A6.)

12. More details about the subsequent contamination indicate the possibility of liability. (As this description is being written, the Homeland Security Act has been passed containing a clause eliminating the civic liability of vaccine makers for the product that they manufacture.) “But internal memos from Lederle Laboratories, the chief producer of polio vaccine in the United States, indicate SV40 may not have been completely removed. According to one memo, SV40 was found in three of 15 lots of the oral vaccine seven months after the federal directive was issued in March 1961. Lederle released the contaminated vaccine to the public anyway, the memo shows. The documents also suggest that the company failed to test the monkey-kidney seed strains used to make the bulk polio vaccine for contamination, despite a written warning from Dr. Albert Sabin, who developed the oral vaccine.” (Idem.)

13. Next, the broadcast sets forth the work of one of Bernice Eddy’s heroic (and relatively unrecognized) co-workers, Sarah Stewart. After relating the disastrous discovery of the SV40 contamination of the vaccine, the text highlights Ms. Stewart’s work. “In the aftermath of the debacle, Bernice Eddy was taken off of polio research and transferred to the influenza section by the thankless NIH management. She shared her frustrations with a small group of women scientists who ate brown-bag lunches on the steps of one of the laboratories. There, Eddy met a tenacious woman scientist named Sarah Stewart, who was waging her own battle against the official paradigms of bureaucratic medicine. Bernice Eddy and Sarah Stewart became close friends.” (Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus: The Story of an Underground Medical Laboratory; Copyright 1995 [sC]; Wordsworth Press; p. 97. Again, listeners are encouraged to download the six-part, three interview with Ed Haslam in order to obtain a more complete overview of the discussion. http://archive.wfmu.org:5555/archive/DX/.)

14. Although her contributions remain unrecognized, Sarah Stewart’s work led to the application of recombinant DNA, in addition to confirming the role of viruses in the development of cancer. “Sarah Stewart’s name remains virtually unknown today despite her huge contribution to modern medicine. Not only did she prove that some cancers were caused by viruses, but subsequent research on the virus she discovered led o the discovery of DNA recombination, which is the most powerful tool in medical research today.” (Idem.)

15. Ms. Stewart’s work on cancer-causing viruses supplemented the work of Bernice Eddy and influenced and anticipated the efforts of their collaborator, Dr. Mary Sherman. “From the beginning, Sarah Stewart promoted the idea that cancer was caused by viruses. Due to this, she was not well accepted by the NIH or NCI staffs who described her as ‘an eccentric lady’ determined to prove her theory was right. ‘No one believed her . . .’ Finally, she was given access to an NCI laboratory in Bethesda where she could try to prove her theories. In 1953, she almost succeeded, but her work was not accepted by the ruling crowd at NIH. They found her methods sloppy and objected to the fact that she did not culture her viruses. So in 1956, her lunch partner Bernice Eddy showed Sarah Stewart how to grow her viruses in a culture of mouse cells. She now had all the ingredients she needed and began a series of experiments which are called ‘classic’ by modern day NIH researchers.” (Ibid.; p. 98.)

16. Stewart’s work was rejected by many of her colleagues. Notable among those colleagues was her supervisor Alan Rabson—a name to remember in the context of discussion to follow. “As her work progressed, she realized she stood on the edge of an extremely important discovery and became very protective of her techniques. In staff presentations, she would bewilder NIH pathologists by showing them slides of things they had never seen before. Then, when they asked how she produced her results, she would giggle and say ‘It’s a secret.’ To quote her supervisor Alan Rabson: ‘She drove everybody crazy.’” (Idem.)

17. Stewart and Eddy discovered a carcinogenic virus called “polyoma,” which shed a great deal of light on the discovery of SV40. “In 1957, Stewart and Eddy discovered the polyoma virus which produced several types of cancer in a variety of small mammals. Polyoma proved that some cancers were indeed caused by viruses. Her discovery officially threw open the doors of cancer virology. As Rabson phrased it, ‘Suddenly, the whole place just exploded after Sarah found polyoma.’ It was the beginning of a new era of hope. But it raised some dark questions about earlier deeds. Before long Yale’s laboratory discovered that the polyoma virus that had produced the cancer in Stewart’s mice and hamsters turned out to be virtually identical to Simian Virus #40 (SV-40), a monkey virus that caused cancer.’” (Idem.)

18. Highlighting the discussion that is presented in the first part of the program, Mr. Haslam relates Bernice Eddy’s discovery of the contamination of the polio vaccine. He then goes on to describe the reaction of the NIH to her disclosures. “In October 1960, Eddy gave a talk to the Cancer Society in New York and, without warning NIH in advance, announced that she had examined cells from the monkeys kidneys in which the polio virus was grown and had found they were infected with cancer causing viruses! Her inference was clear: There were cancer-causing monkey viruses in the polio vaccine! This was tantamount to forecasting an epidemic of cancer in America! When the word got back to her NIH bosses, they exploded in anger. When the cussing stopped, they crushed Bernice Eddy professionally. Any mention of cancer-causing monkey viruses in the polio vaccine was not welcomed by NIH. They took away her lab, destroyed her animals, put her under a gag order, prevented her from attending professional meetings, and delayed publication of her scientific paper. In the words of Edward Shorter, author of The Health Century, ‘Her treatment became a scandal within the scientific community.’ Later, it became the subject of a congressional inquiry. In the words of Dr. Lawrence Kilham, a fellow NIH researcher who wrote a latter of protest to the Surgeon General’s office, ‘the presence of a cancer virus in the polio virus vaccine is the matter demanding full investigation . . .’” (Ibid.; pp. 98-99.)

19. In that context, one should note the following, referenced from the Congressional Record, U.S. Senate, Consumer Safety Act of 1972. In turn, the quote is from Ruth Kirchstein of the NIH. Along with the aforementioned Alan Rabson, hers is a name to be remembered. “The insiders already knew there was a cancer-causing virus in the polio vaccine, but they had not announced it. . .” (Ibid.; p. 99.)

20. The media cover-up of the SV40 contamination followed the institutional cover-up. “On the heels of the polio fiasco, the medical hierarchy feared the judgment of the masses. Their ability to destroy a painstakingly constructed scientific career overnight had been clearly proven. Another spate of bad news might shatter the public’s confidence in vaccines altogether. Where would the world be then? Where would the public health establishment be then? As SV40 discoverer Maurice Hilleman put it, the government kept the contamination of the polio vaccine secret to ‘avoid public hysteria.’” (Ibid.; pp. 99-100.)

21. In that context, it is worth noting that Sarah Stewart and Bernice Eddy had developed a prototypical vaccine to protect animals against polyoma as early as 1959! “Developing a vaccine against a spectrum of cancer-causing monkey viruses already inoculated into millions of people in the polio vaccine was at best a long shot. But there was some evidence that anti-cancer vaccines were possible. Quoting Time magazine [“The New War on Cancer via Virus Research & Chemotherapy;” 7/27/1959; p. 54.]: ‘Stewart and Eddy have gone a vital step farther . . . and made a vaccine that protects a big majority of normally susceptible animals against the polyoma virus’s effects.’” (Ibid.; p. 104.)

22. After discussing the relationship between Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, Dr. Alton Ochsner (like David Ferrie, a key figure in the investigation into the JFK assassination) and the (almost certain) work that was underway in New Orleans on a cancer vaccine, Mr. Haslam goes on to describe the relationship between Dr. Mary Sherman, the aforementioned Ruth Kirchstein and Alan Rabson. “Mary Sherman also knew Ruth Kirchstein at NIH. Kirchstein, who was thirteen years younger than Sherman, was an instructor at Tulane Medical School in 1954 and 1955. During these years, Mary was an Associate Professor in Tulane’s Department of Orthopedic Surgery and was that department’s specialist in pathology. Both Sherman and Kirchstein had common interests in pathology and cancer and taught in the same medical school. It is reasonable to assume they knew each other well. In 1957, immediately following the polio shake-up, Kirchstein went to the National Institute of Health where she stayed for the rest of her career. At NIH, Kirschstein began working as a pathologist in the Biologics division where Bernice Eddy worked. Her specialties were listed in the medical directories as virology, polio, and oncology. But since Kirschstein was barely out of medical school when Sherman, Stewart and Eddy were already nationally recognized authorities, I do not consider their direct contact to be very strong, but there are two things about Kirschstein that should be kept in mind. First, once at NIH, Kirschstein dated and later married, Alan Rabson, who was Sarah Stewart’s supervisor. Therefore, she was in a position to know things about both Stewart and Eddy’s research that she might not have known otherwise. And secondly, Kirchstein credits much of her professional success to the personal support and professional guidance of Tulane Medical School’s Chief of Surgery, Dr. Alton Ochsner, who is known to have enjoyed using his considerable contacts to help Tulane medical graduates find good professional positions. Did Kirschstein keep Ochsner informed about the research activities at NIH and NCI? It would be hard to criticize her for keeping her mentor informed about the progress of cancer research at the national labs, especially since he was the former president of the American Cancer Society and held many important positions in the world of medicine. Additionally, as an expert in polio who lived in New Orleans in 1955, Kirschstein would also have been keenly aware of the problems that Dr. Ochsner faced after injecting his grandchildren with Salk’s polio vaccine. When Eddy and Hilleman broke the news about the cancer-causing monkey virus in the polio vaccine, it would not have been unreasonable for Kirschstein to notify Ochsner about the danger his granddaughter faced. Noting the coincidence of the time frame, we ask the question: ‘Did the ‘Sensitive Position’ that Dr. Ochsner was cleared for in October 1959 have anything to do with a secret attempt to develop a cancer vaccine to protect the American public from an epidemic of cancer?’” (Ibid.; pp. 105-106.)

23. Mr. Haslam goes on to develop more connections between biological warfare research, the NIH, New Orleans and the milieu of the Kennedy assassination. (Full detail must obtained from FTR#19 and other programs about the JFK assassination. The latter include, among other programs: The Guns of November, Parts I-IV, RFA#’s 11-13, 15, 37—all available from Spitfire—and FTR#’s 47, 54, 108, 120, 188, 190, 191, 244, 246, 288. For more about the Col. Jose A. Rivera connection, see FTR#’s 62, 63, 76.) “There were other connections between NIH and New Orleans. Of particular interest was Jose Rivera, M.D. Ph.D., who sat on the NIH Board of Directors in the 1960’s. We will note that the Dr. Rivera was really Col. Jose A. Rivera, one of the U.S. Army’s top experts in biological warfare, and that in the summer of 1963 he was in New Orleans handing out research grants from NIH (Institute for Neurological Diseases and Blindness) to Tulane Medical School, LSU Medical School, and the Ochsner Clinic. It is not my objective to pin Ferrie’s possession of the treatise on any one person, but I am trying to show that there were numerous connections between NCI and New Orleans, any one of which might explain how Mary Sherman and/or David Ferrie wound up with an internal document from NIH or NCI.” (Ibid.; p. 106.)

24. In the second edition of his book, Mr. Haslam highlights another intriguing detail about the connection between the JFK assassination and the investigation into the SV40/cancer connection. “ ‘The Warren Commission Volumes. The FBI went to the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital on 11/25/63 looking for evidence of either Lee Harvey Oswald or A.J. Hidell. They went back a second time on 11/26.’ The FBI was looking for Oswald at the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital! I could hardly believe my ears. ‘Why?’ ‘According to the Dallas Police, Oswald had a vaccination card issued to him by the U.S. Public Health Service on 6/8/63, when he lived at 4907 Magazine Street in New Orleans. It was issued to Lee Harvey Oswald, signed by Dr. A.J. Hidell. The FBI reports are in Volume 19. I’ll send you the citations.’ Had Lee Harvey Oswald been on the grounds of the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital at the time the linear particle accelerator was there? Take a look at this map. [For obvious reasons, Mr. Emory cannot reproduce the map here. Dr. Ochsner’s house, Oswald’s apartment, Children’s Hospital, the Infectious Disease Laboratory Building and the U.S. Public Health Service Hospital are within a 1-mile radius of one another.]” (Ibid.; p.127.)

25. Subsequently, Dr. Ruth Kirchstein went on to become Acting Director of the National Institutes of Health. “Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am Ruth Kirchstein, the Acting Director of the National Institutes of Health.” (“Department of Health and Human Services: Statement by Dr. Ruth L. Kirschstein Acting Director, National Institutes of Health on Fiscal Year 2001 President’s Budget Request for the National Institute of Health;” 2/15/2000; accessed at www.nih.gov/about/director/02152000.htm .)

26. Alan (“Al”) Rabson went on to become the Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute. “NIH WORKING GROUP ON PRIORITY SETTING: [Names include] Al Rabson—Deputy Director, National Cancer Institute.” (“Setting Research Priorities at the National Institutes of Health;” September/1997; p. 10; accessed at: www.nih.gov/news/ResPriority/priority.htm .)

27. Although it was not in the original broadcast of FTR#316, an article published on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle on 3/9/2002 supplemented the material on the SV40/cancer connection in an important way. Referencing two articles from the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, the article implicates SV40 in the development of non-Hodgkins lymphoma—one of the soft tissue cancers that Mr. Haslam documents as having assumed epidemic proportions. (“Simian Virus in Polio Shots Tied to Cancer: Two Studies Support Widely Disputed Theory” by William Carlsen; San Francisco Chronicle; 3/9/2002; p.A1; accessed at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...Lwww.sfgate.com .) It is included below as a separate “rtf” file for the convenience of the listener.

“Scientists have found traces of a monkey virus that contaminated the polio vaccine in the 1950s in a common form of highly malignant human cancer that has mysteriously doubled in incidence over the past 30 years. Two studies, published yesterday in the British journal Lancet, found a link between the virus, called SV40, and non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, a disorder ranked fourth or fifth among cancer deaths in the United States among women and men, respectively. Results suggest that the virus may play a much wider role in cancer than previously suspected.” (“Simian Virus in Polio Shots Tied to Cancer: Two Studies Support Widely Disputed Theory” by William Carlsen; San Francisco Chronicle; 3/9/2002; p.A1; accessed at: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file.../www.sfgate.com .)

“‘No obvious risk factors have emerged for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in the general population, but a viral cause has been postulated,’ said a group of eight researchers at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas led by Dr. Janet Butel. ‘This finding sheds new light on the possible genesis of (this) important group of malignant disorders.’ The scientists added that their findings may also offer hope for new therapies for the malignancies.”

“In laboratory tests, hamsters injected with SV40 developed a variety of malignant tumors, but early government studies indicated that the virus appeared to have no negative effect in humans who had been exposed. That view began to change in the 1990s when DNA detection techniques became much more refined and evidence of the virus started showing up in human tumors.”

“The Salk polio vaccine, administered by injection in the United States and worldwide from 1955 through 1963, was grown on minced kidney tissue from rhesus monkeys. At the time, the manufacturing process was considered safe. But in 1960, it was discovered that large batches of the vaccine were contaminated with the simian virus later named SV40. An estimated 90 million Americans received Salk vaccine injections and as many as 30 million were exposed to the virus.”

“In laboratory tests, hamsters injected with SV40 developed a variety of malignant tumors, but early government studies indicated that the virus appeared to have no negative effect in humans who had been exposed. That view began to change in the 1990s when DNA detection techniques became much more refined and evidence of the virus started showing up in human tumors.”

“The group included rare brain, bone and lung-related cancers called mesotheliomas. Other research has also turned up SV40 in tumors of children and adults born after the contaminated vaccine was taken off the market in 1963, leading to the still-unsolved mystery of how the virus is being transmitted.”

“Yesterday's reports indicate that SV40 may be involved in a much broader group of human cancers, playing a possible role in nearly half of the 55,000 new cases of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma diagnosed annually. The cancer, which can be highly aggressive, has been associated with HIV- positive patients, and it was thought that the suppression of the immune system in these patients may have had a connection with the dramatic increase in lymphomas since 1970.”

“The new studies examined lymphomas from HIV-positive and -negative patients. Results suggested that both groups had either about the same level of SV40 DNA fragments, or that the HIV-negative samples had a greater incidence.”

“The second group of researchers were at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle and the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. Remarkably, both groups of researchers using slightly different detection techniques came up with almost identical results: SV40 fragments were found in 42 percent of 154 lymphomas sampled in one study, while the other found 43 percent in 68 cases.”

“No virus was detected by either study in nonmalignant lymphoid samples and other cancers used as controls. A Chronicle investigation reported last year that there is a heated controversy surrounding detection of SV40 and that most U.S. government's studies over the past decade have debunked the theory that SV40 is causing human cancer or is even present in tumors.”

“But The Chronicle found that more than 60 studies from 30 laboratories around the world have reported detections of the virus in human malignancies. ‘I've been in meetings where people say there is nothing to it,’ said Dr. Jay A. Levy, a renowned virologist at the University of California at San Francisco. ‘That attitude is wrong.’”

“Levy said he had carefully reviewed the papers published yesterday and was impressed with the research. ‘You just can't walk away from it,’ he said, noting that the association found was very strong. ‘But there is still quite a difference between association and causation,’ he added, ‘and proving causation is very difficult.’”

“Dr. Adi Gazdar of the University of Texas, who led the second study, said yesterday that the ‘data is very, very solid.’ He said it had to be more than coincidence that the four types of tumors found in hamsters after injection with SV40 -- brain, bone, mesothelioma and lymphomas -- are now exactly the same tumor types in humans found with detectable levels of SV40.”

“‘The chances are 10 million to 1 it is a coincidence,’ he said. Evidence of how the virus works in tumors is growing as research shows that proteins from SV40 have a powerful effect in turning off tumor suppressor genes in humans.”

“Gazdar and the other researchers said that the recent SV40 discoveries also could help lead to effective cancer treatment, by using SV40 as a target for therapies. ‘A vaccine targeting SV40 in mesothelioma is now being developed,’ he said. ‘But it's still only a potential therapy, and we don't know if it will work yet.’”

“He said that U.S. officials have all but ignored the SV40 detections and that government funding and support for research has been nonexistent. One reason given by Gazdar and other scientists is that the government is worried about its role in promoting polio vaccination campaigns in the 1950s. ‘And maybe it's because the first SV40-related cancers that were discovered were such rare ones,’ Gazdar said. ‘But you can't ignore lymphoma; it's too widespread and too important a cancer. Jackie Kennedy and a lot of other well- known people have died from it [italics are Mr. Emory’s].’”

Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post

howpl

Rating: 0

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts

post Apr 8 2004, 03:56 AM

Post #7

New Member

*

Group: Members

Posts: 2

Joined: 8-April 04

Member No.: 625

I have known Judyth Baker for 5 years. (I also "know" dankbar from a usenet newsgroup, though we have never met.) I am writing this note in the hopes that this is a group of educators (as opposed to Prof. McAdams, the immoderate "moderator of that newsgroup) whose "article" on Ms. Baker, is a pile of trash. Pardon the immoderate language, but this nominal academic has been particularly destructive. Anyone who has spent the number of hours it takes to see Judyth's evidence and hear her story knows that she is the genuine article. McAdams never even met her, though her door was wide open and her telephone number widely circulated.

I co-wrote a book with Judyth, and also spent 14 months going back and forth with 60M on their intention, stated quite emphatically on the last go-round, to do a segment favorable to her. As Don Hewitt later said on C-SPAN, "the door was slammed in our face." Now what do you think he meant by that. The forces arrayed against Don Hewitt - the godfather of investigative journalism (on TV at least) were that powerful. Both he and Wallace believe her story, but as the diligent Nigel Turner segment proved, you really do have to hear the WHOLE story and see the evidence in context. It was nice, and I am thankful for the courage he showed, but viewers should not have had to rely on the talking head alone.

Unfortunately, so-called "researchers" in the JFK community, who spent little time interrogating her and viewing her evidence, have -- to protect their own books -- fought hard and fought dirty to sabotage both the book and the 60M show. They tried hard to stop Turner, too. This may surprise you, but the only thing that surprised me was the intensity of it. Who knew there were conspiracy theorists willing to go this far. Case in point: At the annual Lancer conference, held in Dallas, panelists have been informed that they may not discuss Ms. Baker's story. For this and other atrocities, the head of Lancer has disgraced the research community. I am sure that dankbar has joined this forum in the hopes of finding a true academic sanctuary where open discussion is treasured, not banned.

As for me, I am not sure that I can respond in a detailed manner to questions that come up here. It has been a wild, tiring, and discouraging five-year ride. But I do want it on record somewhere that I believe Judyth Baker knew the real Lee Harvey Oswald. I believe it without a single doubt. As she told me at the outset, the truth is complicated, but it is logical. But nobody has time for complicated in today's world. It takes too much work.

How does one reach responsible academics (unlike the History-for-Sale Channel's "Warren Commission" of LBJ experts, whose very existence should be an embarrassment and whose conclusions come preformed)? Is this the place?

Howard

Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post

Judyth Baker

Rating: 0

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts

post Apr 24 2004, 04:06 PM

Post #8

Experienced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 85

Joined: 27-March 04

Member No.: 606

I still have a few problems with the story. As do most people who have studied the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It is not only John Macadams who have found the story difficult to believe. This is not to say the story is not true. However, researchers will need to see documentary evidence that Judyth Baker was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald in a conspiracy in New Orleans to develop a new biological weapon.

(1) This story involves several characters who had the potential to reveal the truth of why Oswald was in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. Therefore it was understandable why people who knew about the conspiracy (Lee Harvey Oswald, Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie and Guy Banister etc.) were murdered or died in mysterious circumstances soon afterwards. I would have thought that if this was the case than Judyth Baker would have been killed during this period. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM)

REPLY

1)I was known in the project as "Judy Vary." But I became "Mrs. Robert A. Baker,III" only days later. At Reily, I was "Mrs. Baker." At Dave's and Mary's, I was "Judy (Vary)." My father's name was D.W. Vary, I was working with D.W. Ferrie. I always believed this also helped people lose track. "Vary" is an uncommon name. "Ferrie"was being talked about. Marina Oswald was asked about a "Mr. Farry" also.

2) I was removed from the scene of action. I moved to Florida before the final stage of the project was resolved. I was no longer in New Orleans after September 2, 1963. Dave Ferrie, an intelligent man, managed to survive until the Garrison investigation. Shortly before he was to be indicted, he died of a brain hemorrhage. Dr. Sherman was viciously murdered the day the Warren Commission came to New Orleans to get testimonies, July 21, 1964. By then, Banister had been dead one month. I did not attend my own sister's wedding in 1964. I did not attend my own grandfather's funeral in 1965. I did not attend my grandparents' funerals, within a year of each other, in 1969. Why? All these names were VARY. When I returned to study at University of Louisiana, I was so concerned that someone might remember the name 'Vary' even after all those years that I called myself 'Judyth Avary Baker' to hide the middle name, 'Vary.'

When I published short stories or poems, they were under fake names, such as James Rising, Marilyn Ryan, etc. Most important, I was afraid to go into the medical field. I obtain a degree at last - TWENTY FIVE YEARS LATER. The 'whiz kid' did not even get a degree. I contented myself with small-town politics, plunged inmto the Mormon community, which is self-contained, and raised five children, plus some foster children from time to time.

(3) Think: if I wanted to get attention and money from this, and I do have evidence of my relationship with Lee - WHY wouldn't I say he was guilty? Then everybody would have lapped it up. I would have been featured on TV, who knows what else. But I have in fact declined interviews. I have, in fact, insisted Lee was innocent, bringing down all sorts of censures on my head. I even lost my teaching job by speaking out. Note that it is VERY difficult to reach me, even now. Only a few people are even aware of where I live. I recently moved again to make it even more difficult to find me. ONLY because I'm writing to you would you have any contact. ONLY because I'm responding, do you have any input. Otherwise, I remain inaccessible. It has always been so.

(2) I would have found the story more believable if characters were named who were still alive to answer questions about the case. Characters like David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, Mary Sherman, David Atlee Phillips, Carlos Marcello, etc. have been mentioned several times before. One of the advantages of naming these characters is that they are dead and cannot contradict the theory. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM)

REPLY:

There are persons alive who were aware of my story from the beginning. My sister, Lynda, for example, knew about my love affair with Lee in 1964. My children knew from 1981 that Lee and I 'were friends.' We have statements from members of Marcello's family that they remembered me and Lee. Anna Lewis and her husband David (an investigator who had worked for Guy Banister), and Lee and I double dated. This has been twisted about by those who like to rewrite what I have actually reported. Anna spontaneously spoke of me as Lee's mistress, and went into detail before six witnesses. This poor woman has been threatened and harrassed since. I have a Mafia soldier on tape, three times. We knew each other by sight, not as friends, in New Orleans. His name is "Mac" McCullough. I've proven I knew Lee to Gerry Hemming, because I told Gerry some things Lee knew about him that nobody knew. There are others who know. They just don't want to talk. They remain silent.

As for the clandestine part, think how long it has taken to even get the government to admit that the CIA and Mafia were working together. Ask yourself WHY does the government REFUSE to release many records on Lee and his activities - what national security problem would be discovered if they were released? IF he were the Lone Gunman, and there was no conspiracy, why aren't these records available?

There are slips here and there - Sam Giancana's Chicago-based Mafia knew about our project. It's mentioned on page 416. I have a book coming out. It will provide enough evidence to make manifest that I'm telling the truth.

I would definitely be interested in hearing from the “two living witnesses” who could back-up this story. You say “these recorded interviews could not be used in the documentary because these witnesses have been threatened thereafter”. Who is still alive to keep these witnesses from talking. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM)

You only need to see how The History Channel was beleaguered by LBJ's friends to see how much power these people can exert to make people lose their jobs, have problems with their credit cards, have money disappear from their bank accounts, to receive harrassing and threatening phone calls in the mioddle of the night - all of which happened to me after I started talking. The Ochsner family is alive and well, and do not want it to seem that their revered Alton Ochsner might have been involved in a plot to kill the President. Most important, I KNOW information that has NOT been released. Gerry Hemming, in fact, wrote to his entire INTERPEN group concerning that, although he said I had learned of these things without understanding how important they were. Oh, I indeed DO understand how important the secret records are. The American public will finally get 'records' -thanks to modern technology - that will replace the originals. The original records are probably destroyed. There are still people left alive, such as Gerald Ford, Arlen Specter, Dich Cheny, and others, whose careers/reputations would be heavily damaged by what I KNOW.

For example, Billie Sol Estes has recently provided information on the case because all those involved in the original conspiracy are now dead. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM)

No, not because they are dead. Because he, himself, might have been blamed for the deaths of these people, in some cases. Besides, he knew he would not be believed because he was a felon, so it was safe to speak out. As for me, I'm not a felon. I founded a humane society, have five outstanding children, do not smoke, drink and have never been arrested. I NEVER got in any trouble anywhere. So they have to assassinate my character, such as bringing up that I bred dogs, trying to make a breed, and somehow, that makes me a bad person because I actually sold the dogs and founded a dog club. The fact that we donated dogs to handicapped children isn't mentioned. My reputation has to be destroyed, because I'm not a felon, or a prostitute, etc. I have read the most incredible batch of lies about my life, that these characters made up about me!

(3) Researchers have found it difficult to believe that a 19 year old girl, however talented, would have been recruited for such a project. Why was David Ferrie, someone with no medical qualifications, recruited by the CIA for this plot. Mary Sherman was a doctor but she was not a cancer specialist (she was a orthopaedic surgeon). (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM)

Whoa!! Dave Ferrie spoke and read Greek, ancient Greek, Latin, French, German, Spanish, Italian and English. He was a first-rate pilot. He had medical books and had been doing private research on cancer with mice and rabbits for years.

It's a lie that Mary Sherman was just an orthopedic surgeon, as usual, promoted by McAdams and his crew. Here is a quote from the Times-Picayune, for July 22, 1964:

"Dr. Sherman Directed Lab

"Bone cancer treatment and flowers and books were described by friends and co-workers as the main interests of Mary Stults Sherman, who was stabbed to death early Tuesday in her St. Charles Ave.(sic) apartment. Sherman, who was Director of Ochsner Medical Foundation's bone pathology laboratory, had a large following of physicians who respected her work in the field of bone pathology, primarily the study of tumors, benign and lalignant,of bones and joint." The article THEN goes on to say Dr. Sherman was ALSO an orthopedic surgeon. How convenient to pretend that Dr. Shermna was not a cancer research specialist, when her papers on the subject can still be found in journals up to a year after her death!

But this is very typical of the many distortions and outright lies that have been written about me, and, obviously, others I have mentioned. That's why I have decided to speak out, to some extent, to set the record straight.

It is impossible to go into sufficient detail as to how many lies and distortions have been made by these people. That's why the report of people such as Wim Dankbaar, who has personally seen these films, tapes and other pieces of evidence, is important. Nigel Turner also saw them, and for the FIRST TIME EVER devoted an ENTIRE segment JUST to my story, alone. He protected my witnesses, who were being threatened. Even my sister, who was shown in his film, did not state that she knew about my love affair with Lee since 1964. He cut that out of her filmed testimony, to protect her. My sister, after all, lives in Texas.

(4) If this cocktail of a virus designed to knock out Castro’s immune system and cancer cells that would infect him and cause his death, was developed by Dr. Mary Sherman and her team, has it been used since? (Jack Ruby?). Why has this means to kill people remained a secret since 1963? (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM)

REPLY

(1) the bioweapon is not well-described by my detractors. It MUST be accompanied by radiation and/or chemotherapy to be useful - and those adjunct forces could be manipulated. For example, I have a newspaper article stating Jack Ruby was placed in front of x-rays for forty-five minutes. Do you know what that kind of potential exposure would do to YOUR immune system? It was destruction of the immune system that wpuld allow strengthened cancer cells to survive and reproduce in the victim's body.

(2) I was assined in Gainesville, Florida, to make certain compounds that help biological materials withstand liquid nitrogen freezing. Yes, I believe the materials we developed are in deep freeze. Jack Ruby was shown that extra x-rays were needed... or radiation... he also knew a LARGE GUAGE needle was needed to inject cancer cells. It would be a painful, intravenous shot, not intramuscular, which would merely cause necrosis. He was a 'health nut' and experienced painful shots given him, as recounted by Al Maddox (I have additional written statements from Maddox), who was present when Jack Ruby died. Maddox was told by Ruby that he'd been injected with cancer cells. Ruby would have been able to figure that out, as explained above. Maddox said a doctor from Chiacgo (Dr. Sherman was from Chicago) gave the shots, then left Texas after Ruby died. Sam Giancana's book says a scioentist 'from Illinois' was involved with the injection/radiation/cancer project to get Castro that Moody described to his brother. While Giancana's book is full of rumors and legends as well as facts, rumor indeed is what he reports coming out of the get-castro project - and he was right on the money.

(5) Why did the CIA have to develop a new method to kill Castro? Surely they had plenty of undetectable poisons that would have been able to kill him? (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM)

Think about this: none of them worked! So they needed to try something else. Castro's doctors and compadres were close and dedicated. But LAB TECHS were not nearly so. It ios the LAB TECH who runs the X-ray machine. It is the LAB TECH who brings the vial of 'penicillin' to be injected. It is the LAB TECH who can add living cancer cells to a blood sample drawn from Fidel Castro and show that his blood is full of cancer cells running around in it. There were several lab techs upon which the project was going to rely. These techs, however, were dispersed with other medically trained people to help Cubans by the tens of thousands who were made homeless and otherwise distressed by the ravages of Hurricane Flora. Hospital labs were closed down, electrcity not available - the bioweapon would not have survived such conditoons, and the project was abandoned at the last moment due to the hurricane.

As for "undetectable poisons' - you still have the problem of how to get the poison into Castro and not be suspected. But when Castro went to get his shots, such as penicillin shots to keep him safe from cholera, his DPT shots to keep him safe from diphtheria, as he was often out in the field, his tetanus shots - at such a time, or during a regular check-up when blood is drawn, the cycle could begin. Nobody checks tissue cultures being kept in a lab - they have numbers. etc. and are always being grown for one purpose or another in a good pathology lab or university lab. Remember that the CIA did reveal some pretty ridiculous plans -exploding seashells, beryllium in Castro's shoes, a wetsuit laced with deadly bacteria - even toxic cigars. Each idea meant somebody would be suspected.

But if Castro was 'discovered' to have cancer cells running around in his system, and then got a big dose of x-rays woith a machine secretly adjusted just for him--he'd get quite ill. It would be blamed on the çancer' - he'd receive injections. Some would contain huige doses of virulent cancer cells. Today, AIDS sufferers, whose systems are totally unable to fight cancer, get Kaposi's sarcoma and other rare cancers. The lymphoma/lung cancer we devised was so powerful that in a compromised immune system it could kill its victim within a month, usually through side effects. Jack Ruby died within a month of his x-ray treatments, which, by the way, continued and continued. He died of complications - a blood clot. Had he had on elastic stockings, he might not have died of a blood clot in his leg. Cruelly, Jack Ruby also suffered form a huge build-up of ascites fluids from his lung cancer. They let it build up in him until he must have been in agony, and almost drowning, because newspaper articles mention more than two quarts of fluids drawn off. That's disgusting and evidence of the neglect that Jack Ruby was suffering - in Parkland Hospital, where Lee and President Kennedy also died. Parkland and its sister hospiytal, by the way, were replete with staff that had been trained in New Orleans' Charity Hospital-Tulpane-Ochsner system, along with Touro Infirmary. I was shocked at how many of these doctors/residents/interns were trained in New Orleans.

(6) Some critics have suggested that Judyth read Ed Haslam’s book “Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus” and inserted herself into the story. The book describes the cancer research story and the discovery of simian virus contamination of the Salk vaccine, which is believed to be responsible for a particular cancer variant occurring in some patients today. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM)

As Martin Shackelford and Howard Platzman will tell you, the book was difficult to even find in 2000. I own almost no books on the assassination - only what people have given me - as I am extremely limited financially. I finally did get a copy of Haslam's book. It took over three months to get it. Then I and critiqued it. Haslam's speculations and what I know are not parallel by any means.

I wrote fifty pages on what really happened, which are owned by Platzman and Shackelford - I do have copies. There are important differences. Long before I had access to Haslam's book, I'd already said the same things. I was very pleased at the high quality of Haslam's research. By the way, Haslam himself is on record on film - that two different film producers took - where he describes running into people in New Orleans who knew all about me and my research in New Orleans. This is NOT in his book. But he IS on film concerning this. It wasn't in the book because, previously, he had no idea who "Judyth Vary Baker" was, so he could not confirm what he had learned.

Despite these doubts I believe Judyth deserves a hearing. I would like to think that by rational debate we can eventually get near the truth of why Kennedy was killed. I have been dismayed by the attitude of some Kennedy researchers who have attempted to stop her from communicating her story to a large audience. It is hoped that this forum will provide a place where people with a wide variety of different views can debate these important issues. (John Simkin, Mar 29 2004, 02:29 PM)

I very much appreciate your effort to get at the truth, and your honesty. Interestingly, honest researchers who have taken the time to come visit me and see the evidence believe me and usually defend me (some have been afraid to do so). McAdams has never even talked to me on the phone, has never met me, has never seen a bit of evidence first-hand. Some of the materials he posted are mere gossip. He claims, for example, that Dr. Platzman and ex-FBI man Luis Girdler met and discussed that my living witness, Anna Lewis, was bribed. David Lifton wrote that Platzman looked down with embarrassment, scuffled his feet, was ashamed, when Girdler asked if he had bribed Lewis.

IN FACT SUCH A MEETING NEVER OCCURRED, BUT GIRDLER ALLOWED LIFTON TO OPRETEND THAT IT DID. After Anna Lewis made her witness film - and in fact, it would never have been made except one person brough, unannounced, a camcorder with her - AFTER the film was made, Howard Platzman, learning that Anna Lewis was very poor, said if the book Judyth was writing ever made any money, we would try to get her some air conditioning. We learned she had a twenty-year-old son with half his brain gone, sitting in a high chair. He has a little goatee and screams a lot. Then we learned she lives in a wooden hut and has no air conditioning - in Louisiana, where that is almost torture, it's so hot and humid. We felt sorry for her and only hoped to help her. Later, Anna was told complaints would be made about poor conditions for her son and then the state would take away her son, if her film ever appeared in public. She begged us not to use her film publicly. By the way, she was also told she would lose her job as an armed guard.

David Lifton and Debra Conway were working together on Lifton's book, CHARADE, a biography about Lee Oswald. Publishers learned about my book and realized Lifton's book said nothing about the love affair, etc. and lacked a great deal that they had seen in a version of my manuscript that was submitted. Lifton and Conway were very angry - after all, Lifton had been working on this book for about twelve years.

It was supposed to come out for the 40th anniversary. Instead, Conway, at her Lancer conference in Dallas, spent quite awhile attacking THE LOVE AFFAIR, virtually ignoring the other two Nigel Turner segments. It was reported to me that people thought she had a lot of vitriol to vent against me, and they couldn't understand why.

Conway told me she never got a college degree, and it meant a lot to her to be running Lancer - which is a FOR PROFIT organization. I had become friends with Mary Ferrell, a researcher who was getting very old, and I advised Ferrell to change her will and not give Lancer so much money. Ferrell was going to give Lancer a million dollars. I suggested that she give the Poor Clares most of that bequest. It's a long story about why I suggested this, which I'll be happy to explain in greater detail privately, but Conway heard of it and has hated me ever since. She then began spreading stories about my having coerced Ferrell, etc. Forutnately, I have Ferrell on tape, proving otherwise.

One must wonder, if my story is so ludicrous and unworthy of attention, WHY McAdams has written 36 pages - many of them using only a single little word here and there to render an entire concept or activity as absurd or improbable - why has he bothered? Why have over 12,000 attacks been made against me on the internet in his newsgroup by him and his friends - mostly saying I'm a joke, I'm demented, or I'm a silly xxxx - no evidence, you understand - simply nasty remarks to belittle me - one must wonder WHY he has gone to all this trouble if my story is so easily disproven. As a matter of fact, McAdams' diatribes only underscore the same kind of desperation that caused The Hisotry Channel to be compelled to cancel, withdraw and destroy the controversial Turner series, with apologies to the Johnson family.

I appreciate this opportunity, once more, to offer some balance to what has been written about me elsewhere. I ask patience, until my book comes out. If the book is not quashed and also hushed, that is!

Yours very truly,

Judyth Vary Baker

p.s. please forgive my typos. I was in two 'accidents'in Dallas and sustained a brain concussion. I also have severe headaches and vision problems, which is why I blink my eyes so much in the documentary. I am almost 61 and really regret not speaking out before now, but I was afraid. Now, I live in Europe after a death threat. I've been here over a year now. I miss my family, friends, grandchildren VERY MUCH! JVB

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

Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1675

Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post

John Simkin

Rating: 5

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts

post Apr 26 2004, 08:53 AM

Post #9

Super Member

****

Group: Admin

Posts: 14119

Joined: 16-December 03

From: Worthing, Sussex

Member No.: 7

Thank you for your detailed response to my questions. You make some good points about the JFK research community. It is true that once researchers have developed a theory they are reluctant to change their mind when new evidence becomes available. This is especially a problem when that evidence undermines a theory that has been published in a book or website. I believe it is important that historians remain open-minded about subjects they feel strongly about. Historians, like politicians, should not be afraid to admit they have changed their mind about a particular issue.

You are to be commended for the tone of your replies. Far too many people involved in this case are quick to make abusive comments about the people they disagree with. I don’t see why we cannot disagree politely with each other. The main objective is to reach the truth. I believe the best way we can achieve this is by having an open, rational debate. It will also set a good example to the students who are reading these pages.

This debate also raises issues about the way history is being written in the age of the internet. In the period following the assassination the mass media was able to largely shape the way people interpreted the death of JFK. Later, the situation changed when large media organizations realised they could make a large amount of money by publishing books about possible conspiracy theories. This has now changed and in recent years conspiracy theorists have had great difficulty getting their books published.

However, more and more people now obtain their information via the internet. When someone goes online for the first-time they often type in their name in a search-engine. Sometimes this gives them a link to a page on my website. (For example, if you type in “Judyth Baker” in Google you get 1,490 pages. John McAdams comes first and I come second.) People often email me to complain about what I have written about them or a close relative). Negotiations usually take place which often involves the submission of documentary evidence. In some cases the web page is changed as a result of these negotiations. In some cases I refuse to change the narrative but I do add their comments to the sources section. You are an example of someone who has persuaded me to change the content of my page on you. As a result, the pages on you contained on McAdams and my pages are very different. They are definitely two very different interpretations of the same story. It is up to the reader to make up their own mind about what really happened. This to be seems very different to the way that history has been written in the past.

I have a few questions I would like to ask.

(1) When did you meet Lee Harvey Oswald for the first time? What were the circumstances of this meeting?

(2) Did Oswald introduce you to Ferrie or was it the other way round?

(3) Did Oswald ever mention David Atlee Phillips by name? Did he give you the names of any of his other CIA contacts?

(4) Did Oswald ever give you any idea of who was behind the plans to assassinate JFK? If so, did he say anything about the reasons for the assassination?

(5) Was the work you did with Dr. Sherman part of an “official” CIA operation or was it being run by “rogue” elements in the agency?

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

John Simkin

Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1365

General Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk

JFK Website: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKindex.htm

Watergate: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/watergate.htm

Operation Mockingbird: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

Spartacus Travel Guide: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/travelguide.htm

Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post

Guest_Wim Dankbaar_*

post Apr 29 2004, 04:31 PM

Post #10

Guests

I saw that Martin Shackelford joined this forum. He and Howard Platzman are perfectly qualified to answer your 5 questions.

Wim

Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post

Judyth Baker

Rating: 0

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts

post May 3 2004, 06:04 PM

Post #11

Experienced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 85

Joined: 27-March 04

Member No.: 606

(1) When did you meet Lee Harvey Oswald for the first time? What were the circumstances of this meeting?

Thank you for the opportunity to answer this question. We met April 26, 1963, at about 1:00 PM at the General Delivery counter at the Main Post Office in New Orleans. I have letters dated and marked proving I came to that post office in April several times, and even the bus ticket showing I arrived April 19, 1963.

Lee was standing in line with me at the General Delivery counter, where transients pick up mail, when I dropped the names Robert A. Baker and 'Rourke' and Eglin Air Force Base (Florida), in order to claim a letter from my fiance: he had asked me to write to him using 'Rourke'' on the envelope so his parents wouldn't know I was writing to him.

Lee believed these names referred to people he had recently met in Florida: secret agent Robert A. Baker (Miami, Florida) instead of my husband-to-be, and Alex Rorke at Eglin Air Force Base, instead of Raleigh Rourke, Robert's friend. When I dropped a newspaper that had a coded message circled in it (my fiance also asked me to put the coded message in the paper so he knew I had arrived safely in New Orleans - we planned a secret elopement - and on top of this, I spoke a thank-you in Russian when Lee handed me the paper when I dropped it, he began talking to me to find out what was going on.

I said I had come to New Orleans to work with Dr. Mary Sherman in a ground-breaking cancer research project. Lee had just dined with David Ferrie the night before, the day he'd arrived in New Orleans, and Dave mentioned he was engaged in a cancer research project with Dr. Sherman. Lee believed he was doing me a favor introducing me to Dave Ferrie ASAP because I was short on money and Dr. Ochsner was at that time in South America. I had come two weeks early (my university had altered its schedule to a Trimester system) and was shocked to find out my YWCA rent was not covered for those two weeks early. With Ochsner unavailable to confirm my needs, and Sherman also presently out of town, I was on my own and got a waitressing job to pay my way.

I happened to have got a job at the Royal Castle on Airline close to Carlos Marcello's Town & Country. That Royal Castle was the drop site for FBI and CIA surveillance of the Mafia Don. I had to show the paycheck I had from the Royal Castle as ID, and Lee saw it and believed, all things considered, that I was on the clandestine side of the cancer research project. This was not originally the way it was going to be. But that's how Lee and Dave got 'fooled.' A mix-up of names, my Russian, the Royal Castle, the coded newspaper message, and my cancer research seemed to prove to them I was the help they had been promised.

Thus I was let in on the clandestine side of the project, and when Ochsner returned, he decided to keep me on that side of it since I already had accidentally been filled in on the get-Castro plot. Yes, this was sponsored by the CIA - with assistanjce from Marcello, Ochsner, etc. who distanced himself as much as possible. But I can show his ties, nevertheless.

I was anti-Castro anyway: my former boyfriend was Tony Lopez-Fresquet, son of Castro's first Finance Minister, Rufo Lopez Fresquet. Unlike some, I was fiercely anti-Castro. This was only six months after the Cuban Missile Crisis when nuclear weapons were aimed at me and my family in Florida as well as elsewhere. I believed such irresponsibility toward the potential death of 40 million people by Castro, and all I had learned about his torturing some of my anti-Castro friends, was incentive enough for me to agree to do what I could to push the project, which had begun a year earlier, to completion.

I apologize that I do not have the time to answer all the other questions right now. I'm having vision problems, etc. Yes, I can prove I dated Tony Lopez Fresquet. I can prove I studied Russian. I can prove I worked at that Royal Castle. I can prove I had the weird announcement in the paper, that 'Rourke'/Rorke was a name involved, etc. I can even prove I was in the same post office Lee used. We moved into apartments within days of each other, of course, and we began work at Reily's the same day, etc. Documents will be prnted in the book. JVB

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

Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1675

Go to the top of the pageReport Post

+Quote Post

Judyth Baker

Rating: 0

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts

post May 3 2004, 06:22 PM

Post #12

Experienced Member

***

Group: Members

Posts: 85

Joined: 27-March 04

Member No.: 606

I only wish to add that when I say the project was 'sponsored by the CIA' I do NOT mean directly. Ochsner and Sherman were already involved in other projects that interested the CIA. This was an offshoot of a polio research project. There were a number of sponsors of this project who did not know anything but very general details: another plot to try to get Castro, using medical means. The CIA was doing projects such as an exploding seashell, a scuba diving suit laced with botulinum toxin bacteria, and AMLASH got a poison pen filled with Blackleaf 40 - nicotinic acid from cigarettes that, injected in the veins, causes quick and painful death. The beauty of Ochsner's project was the attempt to make it seem a natural death. The ediving suit had to be delivered to Castro by somebody - who would do that? An exploding seashell could be picked up by almost anybody with Castro. Who would have the guts to stick Castro with a pen's hypodermic needle full of deadly Blackleaf 40? But if Castro seemed to get cancer... who could be blamed for that? 'Everybody knew' that you can't get cancer via injections. Right? But Dr. Grace, at Roswell Park Institute, where I was trained in 1961, had, in 1959, minced up human cancer tumors and injected them into young mice. ALL the mice got cancer. Dr. Grace's son had died of leukemia, and he was determined to hunt down the virus. He gave the mice the human cancers with a clear liquid - no cancer cells in it at all - and ALL the mice got cancer from the virus that remained in the filtrate. How hard would it have been to give HUMANS cancer from HUMAN tumors? What if Castro got a shot of clear liquid that would give him cancer? Who would ever guess?

Dr. Ochsner and Dr. Moore of Roswell Park traveled together to testify in 1960 and later against cigarette smoking, as a cause of lung cancer. My first sponsor, Dr. Diehl, Vice President of the American Cancer Society, was the third of this triumvirate to testify. He also, as did Ochsner, wrote books against smoking. If Castro could be given lung cancer, it could be blamed on the cigars he smoked. In 1964, the Surgeon General declared that smoking could cause cancer.

So that was the basis of this project. Billions of dollars and forty years later, do YOU know if cancer can be given by injection? Jack Ruby knew all these things: he brought money from Texas for the project. When he said he was injected with cancer, nobody believed him. Forty years after Dr. Grace's work, do you really believe nobody ever moved forward on his findings in the government, the same government anxious to develop anthrax, and other biological weapons?

Who has access to the government's biological weapons? Who knows what's in the deep freeze? I, myself, was asked to custom-create chemicals that would aid in the deep-freeze of such biological materials only a couple of months after the product was ready. I worked on that project at Peninsular ChemResearch and have records proving my many hours of after-hours work, etc. at this highly advanced laboratory. JVB p.s. please forgive typos, my eyes are not good,. Thanks.

During the interview Judyth Vary Baker states the following:

By the way, the reason The Education Forum's JFK forum exists is because I wrote to John Simkin and asked him to form it. He did, and for some time I posted there, until Jack White and others began attacking me.

That is not quite true. The JFK section began on 13th March 2004. See first posting:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=511

Judyth then contacted me about my page on her:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbakerJ.htm

I then invited her to answer my question on the Forum. She agreed and joined on 27th March 2004. However, she did withdraw because some members raised doubts about the truth of her testimony.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Dr Riveras first name known?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Anyone who wants to check out what I am discovering with Judyth can

visit http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesFetzerNews#p/a or my program

archives at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com or my blog, where I have

just posted the second about her, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com.

How well I know that Jack and David L. and Rich and others do not take

her seriously. Those who have found her credible include Jim Marrs,

Nigel Turner, Ed Haslam, Wim Dankbarr, Howard Platzman, and now me.

Those who want to know more should continue to follow this thread.

My only request is that you consider the evidence before you reject

her, which, in my opinion, has been done in the past based upon a

very distorted impression of where she stands and what she knows.

I agree with Pamela about this. We both take Judyth to be genuine.

For those unaware Judyth was a member in the past and that her reports about her research have been highly consistent over the years:

One of the problems I have seen is that Judyth will make a statement, some researchers will jump to conclusions, creating myriad strawmen; then Judyth will attempt to clarify the statement, which just tends to complicate things.

What Judyth knows firsthand is the most significant and reliable, imo. What she has heard, or believes to have occurred, are at another level.

Also, in some respects, she may have complicated her own situation by not being simply a witnesses and insisting that others do whatever research needs to be done to add to her account. In her fervor to vindicate Lee Oswald she has become something of a researcher herself. Her writing a book has just added insult to injury when it comes to the purists who would prefer that a witness be *overseen* by researchers and/or a writer.

Nonetheless, to those willing to push the envelope about what we know about the assassination and what actually happened in NOLA in the summer of 1963, Judyth's statements provide consistently intriguing and sometimes startling insights and have opened up and/or corroborated tangential areas such as the involvement of the medical community in developing a bioweapon and adding to the probability that the murder of Dr. Mary Sherman was connected to what she knew about the assassination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Forum Members,

First, to John Simkin. My condolences on the loss of your mother. It seems lived a good long life. Your tribute was well-taken.

Next, I can't help but think that this discussion of Judyth Vary Baker will be more productive once the members have read her soon-to-be-released book ME AND LEE, which will be her official autobiographical portrait of how her quest to find a cure for cancer lead her to work as a secretary at the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 under the direction of an ex-FBI agent and at the exact same time that Lee Oswald worked there. Trine Day Press has put a great deal of effort into making sure that the documents are well presented and that her story is properly edited for a thoughtful read by those who really want to hear her tale. Like many, I wish such a book had been available many years earlier. Unfortunately, it was not.

I do hope that this forum's members, which are among the best informed JFK assassination researchers engaged in public debate, will read this important book with an open mind. And I look forward to their discussion about it, once they do.

Until then, all involved should realize that what is being discussed here is based primarily upon an incomplete recounting of her story and illuminated by a constellation of malignant perceptions which emerged over years of inadequate, and occassioanally inappropriate, representations. What you will read is the personal story of a witness to an important, albeit infamous, chapter of our history - one which deserves a fair hearing, a full review of the evidence, and the benefit of solid analysis. Once that happens, I look forward to reading your thoughts about it.

My Best to all,

Ed Haslam

author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Forum Members,

First, to John Simkin. My condolences on the loss of your mother. It seems lived a good long life. Your tribute was well-taken.

Next, I can't help but think that this discussion of Judyth Vary Baker will be more productive once the members have read her soon-to-be-released book ME AND LEE, which will be her official autobiographical portrait of how her quest to find a cure for cancer lead her to work as a secretary at the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 under the direction of an ex-FBI agent and at the exact same time that Lee Oswald worked there. Trine Day Press has put a great deal of effort into making sure that the documents are well presented and that her story is properly edited for a thoughtful read by those who really want to hear her tale. Like many, I wish such a book had been available many years earlier. Unfortunately, it was not.

I do hope that this forum's members, which are among the best informed JFK assassination researchers engaged in public debate, will read this important book with an open mind. And I look forward to their discussion about it, once they do.

Until then, all involved should realize that what is being discussed here is based primarily upon an incomplete recounting of her story and illuminated by a constellation of malignant perceptions which emerged over years of inadequate, and occassioanally inappropriate, representations. What you will read is the personal story of a witness to an important, albeit infamous, chapter of our history - one which deserves a fair hearing, a full review of the evidence, and the benefit of solid analysis. Once that happens, I look forward to reading your thoughts about it.

My Best to all,

Ed Haslam

author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY

Hi, Ed. One question please. The JVB story was previously told in works by Martin Shackleford and

by Howard Platzman, from which all previous researcher opinions were formed. Will the new book

be based on different information than written by Shackleford and by Platzman?

Thanks.

Jack White

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Forum Members,

First, to John Simkin. My condolences on the loss of your mother. It seems lived a good long life. Your tribute was well-taken.

Next, I can't help but think that this discussion of Judyth Vary Baker will be more productive once the members have read her soon-to-be-released book ME AND LEE, which will be her official autobiographical portrait of how her quest to find a cure for cancer lead her to work as a secretary at the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 under the direction of an ex-FBI agent and at the exact same time that Lee Oswald worked there. Trine Day Press has put a great deal of effort into making sure that the documents are well presented and that her story is properly edited for a thoughtful read by those who really want to hear her tale. Like many, I wish such a book had been available many years earlier. Unfortunately, it was not.

I do hope that this forum's members, which are among the best informed JFK assassination researchers engaged in public debate, will read this important book with an open mind. And I look forward to their discussion about it, once they do.

Until then, all involved should realize that what is being discussed here is based primarily upon an incomplete recounting of her story and illuminated by a constellation of malignant perceptions which emerged over years of inadequate, and occassioanally inappropriate, representations. What you will read is the personal story of a witness to an important, albeit infamous, chapter of our history - one which deserves a fair hearing, a full review of the evidence, and the benefit of solid analysis. Once that happens, I look forward to reading your thoughts about it.

My Best to all,

Ed Haslam

author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY

Hi, Ed. One question please. The JVB story was previously told in works by Martin Shackleford and

by Howard Platzman, from which all previous researcher opinions were formed. Will the new book

be based on different information than written by Shackleford and by Platzman?

Thanks.

Jack White

________________

Sorry Jack, I'm bringing your post forward because I also have a question but a minor one. When I asked for Dr Rivieras first name, there is a reason for it. I've come across a doc that may be relevant or may not be, if it is I don't know what to make of it, it's even got what seems to be code in it. What will tell me whether it is relevant is if someone could give the first name of the Dr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Forum Members,

First, to John Simkin. My condolences on the loss of your mother. It seems lived a good long life. Your tribute was well-taken.

Next, I can't help but think that this discussion of Judyth Vary Baker will be more productive once the members have read her soon-to-be-released book ME AND LEE, which will be her official autobiographical portrait of how her quest to find a cure for cancer lead her to work as a secretary at the Reily Coffee Company in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 under the direction of an ex-FBI agent and at the exact same time that Lee Oswald worked there. Trine Day Press has put a great deal of effort into making sure that the documents are well presented and that her story is properly edited for a thoughtful read by those who really want to hear her tale. Like many, I wish such a book had been available many years earlier. Unfortunately, it was not.

I do hope that this forum's members, which are among the best informed JFK assassination researchers engaged in public debate, will read this important book with an open mind. And I look forward to their discussion about it, once they do.

Until then, all involved should realize that what is being discussed here is based primarily upon an incomplete recounting of her story and illuminated by a constellation of malignant perceptions which emerged over years of inadequate, and occassioanally inappropriate, representations. What you will read is the personal story of a witness to an important, albeit infamous, chapter of our history - one which deserves a fair hearing, a full review of the evidence, and the benefit of solid analysis. Once that happens, I look forward to reading your thoughts about it.

My Best to all,

Ed Haslam

author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY

Hi, Ed. One question please. The JVB story was previously told in works by Martin Shackleford and

by Howard Platzman, from which all previous researcher opinions were formed. Will the new book

be based on different information than written by Shackleford and by Platzman?

Thanks.

Jack White

________________

Sorry Jack, I'm bringing your post forward because I also have a question but a minor one. When I asked for Dr Rivieras first name, there is a reason for it. I've come across a doc that may be relevant or may not be, if it is I don't know what to make of it, it's even got what seems to be code in it. What will tell me whether it is relevant is if someone could give the first name of the Dr.

I believe it was JOSE RIVERA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very first time I became aware of Judyth Vary Baker was from Gerry Patrick Hemming about 10 years ago. He asked me if I would be willing to hear her out in a face to face interview. Other than it involving the assassination of JFK, Gerry supplied very little by way of a clue as to what the subject matter to be discussed would be about. Gerry knew that when I am conducting primary research (particularly eyewitness interviews) I always prefer to first form my own conclusions—independent of the judgments of even those whom I respect the most. Therefore he didn’t offer nor did I solicit his opinion of her credibility. I knew we could discuss that at a later date—compare notes, etc.

So, I agreed to meet with her—at her expense. She would be responsible to travel literally across the country and meet with me in a predetermined, busy, public location—which ended up being a sufficiently, but not too crowded restaurant—in the greater Los Angeles area. Little did I know, but this interview would take the better part of the entire day.

I was my normal charming self. For those of you who don't know me, that means I was ruthless in my bluntness; somewhat insensitive or at least dispassionate; and I was not sympathetic to her story at all. I was very much skeptical as soon as she told me the outline of her account. And, frankly, I didn’t give a damn about some extra-marital affair that she was alleging to have had with Lee Harvey Oswald. Against my own will, however, I found Judyth to be credible. She held up under my scrutiny—and I pulled no punches in my relentless attempt to “crack” her.

Then something happened. The importance of her story began to emerge and most of it had little to do with Lee Harvey Oswald. Don’t misunderstand, that was the least interesting part to me. I am unable to determine how important the affair was to the big picture, how much information she was privy to about the plot, but I did find her various relationships with others that have already been discussed on this forum to be much more relevant. Oschner, Rivera, Ferrie, et al. After the interview she and I stayed in touch for years, exchanging information, and she answered my questions without hesitation as far as I could tell.

Rather than re-hash the details of her story over again in this post, I would prefer to merely say that when all the smoke cleared, I believed her. I didn’t always arrive at the same conclusions as she did based on the same evidence, but the EVIDENCE is just that: EVIDENCE—and it needs to be treated as such.

Judyth participated on another JFK forum, but received an undeserved, negative, harshly critical, less-than-welcome there. That was most unfortunate. I attempted to defend her and was involved in many battles with other friends and well respected researchers. I stand by my original assessment, and I support her.

It is not constructive to dismiss the EVIDENCE offered by a witness simply because we don’t find them likeable or we find them otherwise objectionable. If a critic finds a witness less than credible, it seems that the critic needs to demonstrate why before summarily rejecting the witness, let alone rejecting the EVIDENCE! The dismissal of the “bathwater with the baby” is not a play on words in this case. It is difficult to debunk the EVIDENCE she has provided because it is so strong. That evidence “means something” and possibly leads somewhere. I am not in a position to suggest that everyone believe her story, agree with all of her conclusions about what the evidence means, or even personally like her. However, I would hope that honest researchers would find it beneath them to conduct their inquiry in a manner rife with ad hominem declarations.

Those who suggest that I and others, by virtue of being males, were placed “under her spell” – are mistaken. We are no longer in high school boys and girls. This is a serious subject, a serious witness, providing serious evidence.

A note to Judyth: Thank you for your sincerity and courage.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Jack. It's Emilio I was hoping for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Monk, Thanks for speaking out--and to Ed Haslam, too. Judyth is

so controversial that I thought I would invite an expert in the area

of psychological operations and covert actions to review what I have

posted about her, including my blogs and YouTubes. I sent him the

following invitation, to which I received three responses, one before

and one after reviewing this thread, plus a PS. He is a very candid

guy and would tell me if he thought I were making a mistake here.

----- Original Message -----

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To:

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2010 12:19:19 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central

Subject: Invitation . . .

Jim,

I would like you to check out what I am finding out about Judyth

Baker at http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesFetzerNews#p/a or show

archives at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com or my blog, where I have

just posted the second about her, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com,

or, of course, The Education Forum, where I have a thread about her

at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15559 Some

friends, Jack White, David Lifton and, Rich DellaRosa, do not take

her seriously. Those who have found her credible include Jim Marrs,

Nigel Turner, Ed Haslam, Wim Dankbarr, Howard Platzman, and now me.

Thanks.

Jim

RESPONSE (1):

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 06:51:05 +0000 [12:51:05 AM CST]

From:

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: Invitation . . .

I believe that she is credible. And her claims about being harassed by intel

make sense based on what has happened to other key witnesses. I forget

the name of the lady at the curb who was taken upstairs in front of some

generals and was told she only heard three shots, and then had an FBI car

down the street outside her house for over a year (these FBI even sabotaged

her car one time).

Often witnesses like her are so harassed that this takes a toll on them emotionally

over the years causing them to act somewhat disturbed which affects their

credibility to researchers who examine their story. The more folks doubt them

and the more they get harassed and criticized, the more upset and irrational

they often come across.

So Jim, unless proven otherwise, she comes off as credible to me.

RESPONSE (2):

Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:15:48 +0000 [01:15:48 AM CST]

From:

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: Invitation . . .

Jim, I haven't read Judyth's book so I can't comment on her claims. But I do think

it is well established that she worked at Riley Coffee and that was a spy nest which

could cause her harassment based on that alone. She may have confabulated details

about Oswald and created more than was there to put together a book.

Normally when someone like Judyth is harassed by intel they are being harassed for

things different than what they think. She may know something that is more important

than she realizes, some little detail could be behind all her harassment.

And Bill Kelly's and others claims that her story adds nothing may be true, but that may

have nothing to do with her value to exposing the intel aspects of the case. And the last

possibility is that some witnesses were clandestinely drugged with weird chemicals from

Technical Services at the CIA, things like BZ which could damage one's white matter,

hippocampus and cause some confabulations.

If she is a "hanger on" who has confabulated a story to write a book and get attention,

that does not in and of itself mean that she doesn't know something that intel wants

covered up. According experienced retired intel ops I have talked too many such

witnesses are seriously harmed emotionally by the harassment process which are

designed to destroy folk's credibility.

Now Jim, as one of the world's top experts on logic, if not the top one, you don't need

to be reminded of the faulty logic which many appear to be using to attack Judyth with.

Correlation isn't necessarily an indicator of causation, and non-correlation of aspects of

a story does not mean both are false if one is false and vice versa. So part of her story

could be confabulated or emotionally enhanced and that does not mean another part is

not true and neither means that she might not be harassed for totally unknown reasons

of some small detail she represents or could expose not directly related to her book or

her story. This unrelated small detail issue is one which often gets folks harassed by intel

according to experts I have consulted with. The first questions always should be, "what

info or detail does this lady represent or is linked to that could be a loose end or a threat

to intel?"

Jim, thanks for telling me about your new web site. . . .

Best regards form one truth junkie to another.

RESPONSE (3):

Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 17:51:33 +0000 [11:51:33 AM CST]

From:

To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: Invitation . . .

Jim, I was referring to Jean Hill, who was needlessly harassed for years and wasn't talking

to anyone then anyway. The harassment caused her to later talk.

The very first time I became aware of Judyth Vary Baker was from Gerry Patrick Hemming about 10 years ago. He asked me if I would be willing to hear her out in a face to face interview. Other than it involving the assassination of JFK, Gerry supplied very little by way of a clue as to what the subject matter to be discussed would be about. Gerry knew that when I am conducting primary research (particularly eyewitness interviews) I always prefer to first form my own conclusions—independent of the judgments of even those whom I respect the most. Therefore he didn’t offer nor did I solicit his opinion of her credibility. I knew we could discuss that at a later date—compare notes, etc.

So, I agreed to meet with her—at her expense. She would be responsible to travel literally across the country and meet with me in a predetermined, busy, public location—which ended up being a sufficiently, but not too crowded restaurant—in the greater Los Angeles area. Little did I know, but this interview would take the better part of the entire day.

I was my normal charming self. For those of you who don't know me, that means I was ruthless in my bluntness; somewhat insensitive or at least dispassionate; and I was not sympathetic to her story at all. I was very much skeptical as soon as she told me the outline of her account. And, frankly, I didn’t give a damn about some extra-marital affair that she was alleging to have had with Lee Harvey Oswald. Against my own will, however, I found Judyth to be credible. She held up under my scrutiny—and I pulled no punches in my relentless attempt to “crack” her.

Then something happened. The importance of her story began to emerge and most of it had little to do with Lee Harvey Oswald. Don’t misunderstand, that was the least interesting part to me. I am unable to determine how important the affair was to the big picture, how much information she was privy to about the plot, but I did find her various relationships with others that have already been discussed on this forum to be much more relevant. Oschner, Rivera, Ferrie, et al. After the interview she and I stayed in touch for years, exchanging information, and she answered my questions without hesitation as far as I could tell.

Rather than re-hash the details of her story over again in this post, I would prefer to merely say that when all the smoke cleared, I believed her. I didn’t always arrive at the same conclusions as she did based on the same evidence, but the EVIDENCE is just that: EVIDENCE—and it needs to be treated as such.

Judyth participated on another JFK forum, but received an undeserved, negative, harshly critical, less-than-welcome there. That was most unfortunate. I attempted to defend her and was involved in many battles with other friends and well respected researchers. I stand by my original assessment, and I support her.

It is not constructive to dismiss the EVIDENCE offered by a witness simply because we don’t find them likeable or we find them otherwise objectionable. If a critic finds a witness less than credible, it seems that the critic needs to demonstrate why before summarily rejecting the witness, let alone rejecting the EVIDENCE! The dismissal of the “bathwater with the baby” is not a play on words in this case. It is difficult to debunk the EVIDENCE she has provided because it is so strong. That evidence “means something” and possibly leads somewhere. I am not in a position to suggest that everyone believe her story, agree with all of her conclusions about what the evidence means, or even personally like her. However, I would hope that honest researchers would find it beneath them to conduct their inquiry in a manner rife with ad hominem declarations.

Those who suggest that I and others, by virtue of being males, were placed “under her spell” – are mistaken. We are no longer in high school boys and girls. This is a serious subject, a serious witness, providing serious evidence.

A note to Judyth: Thank you for your sincerity and courage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome, Monk! We will all benefit from your input here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...