Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

Jack White · April 5, 2010

Thanks for the info. Will utilize that in the future. DSL

David...I cannot figure what post you are referring to.

Jack

Kathleen Collins · April 5, 2010

Professor Fetzer, there are other photos there that are not LHO. In the second row, #2 is the faked Lee photo, #3 is Lee Oswald (of Harvey and Lee) -- a faked photo. There was someone on this forum who removed the top layer of whatever was used on that photo and it wasn't Harvey. IMO it was Lee.

Uh...what?

Please read Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong. There were 2 Lee Harvey Oswalds. Ruby shot Harvey and Lee was in on that and escaped. He may have been given another identification.

Kathy C

April 5, 2010

HOWARD PLATZMAN COMMENTS ON BARB'S RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

NOTE: I am still getting my feet wet in many respects about Judyth's life story and history on various fora. Howard Platzman sent me this, which seems important enough to post her. I certainly expect Barb to respond to the question he raises about the abstract of Judyth's research that she discovered long ago.

HOWARD COMMENTS:

I dropped away from Barb's research adventure after it became clear that she could not see the clear implication of what she discovered. She tries to refute J's claim that she did any serious work at Roswell when, in fact, she proved the opposite. Judyth lost the paper she wrote up based on her Roswell work and was heartbroken about it. In the end, Barb found the abstract for it. I thanked her for her diligence and her success -- and I meant it. She didn't seem to understand -- or didn't want to.

Barb did confirm that Judyth got into trouble for trying to move off site -- something I was made aware of in 1999. She believes that Judyth was tossed out of the program for this violation. Judyth insists she was merely reprimanded. But this is a red herring. What is important is that Barb turned up the abstract the paper Judyth wrote -- and (see her quote) actually takes credit, believe it or not, for not burying her finding. Wow! A principled researcher! She might as well have buried it since her tack after producing it was to run quickly away from the true impact of it. She danced around the only issue of real importance: the existence and content of the abstract and how Judyth's experience related to what Judyth was to do in 1963.

Ever the steadfast researcher, she interviewed a goodly horde of people. She asked other students for their opinions of Judyth and the fellow Mirand who was most peeved at her for seeking off-campus digs, ex-high-school acquaintances, et al. Judyth may not have been universally liked (much as she may have wanted to be) because she was not a typical girl. She was a wunderkind with all kinds of self-confidence. Maybe they saw her as odd. For some reason I'm sure they never understood (I'm not sure even whether she herself understood at the time, she was physically separated from the other students. She was the only one who worked directly with the Center's director, George Moore (whose own history is highly suggestive), and the only one not allowed to live at the university dorm with the other girls. Mirand said "other" girls were housed at the "Y' with her, but Judyth met none of them.

But why should we care about ANY of this? Barb found the abstract, and it shows that Judyth did the work she claimed she did, whatever else she did or didn't do. Frankly, it matters not a whit if she never got an official certificate for completing the program (point of argument, not point conceded). Papers speak louder than certificates. I still have a science fair certificate in the basement somewhere.

PLEASE ASK BARBARA TO SUMMARIZE HER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PAPER THAT JUDYTH WROTE. You will find, as I did, that she is not up to it -- which renders hollow her initial insistence that the Roswell sojourn was probably no more significant than a prolonged student science fair. Judyth may not have presented the paper to the field's leading lights; still, she presented the paper to professionals -- while, unfortunately, remembering only the name of the informal group that encouraged her to present her lecture, but not remembering the organization that acually heard it -- another red herring Barb is only too happy to use to obscure the true impact of her finding.

Although we have been unable to recover the paper itself, the existing abstract gives one a sense of the content and sophistication of the work she did. So, Barb, what was the paper about? Care to engage Judyth in a dialogue on the subject? She should have been your first interviewee. Were she, she may have been your last.

Barb Junkkarinen · April 5, 2010

So why did you bring it up again now, right after this blockbuster about Lee's missing tooth? You trade in trivia, while Judyth is making major contributions. Linda has it right: You post nothing significant because you have nothing significant to post. Your conduct here is utterly transparent.

Oh please. There are many issues being discussed in this thread. I was responding to something Pamela said ... and used that as an example for her to tell us all how I "cherrypick" ... as I had posted it many many pages and posts ago, so it was already here.

But, I do stand in awe ... for you actually seem unaware that the debate over the "two Oswald's" .... Harvey vs Lee, the 2 schools, etc... and yes, the tooth ... is very old news! Your "blockbuster" has been discussed and discussed over the years. How can you really not already know this stuff ... and that it has been hotly debated over the years? Funny ... I even found an exchange Doug Weldon and I had on the issue in 1999 ... when someone else mentioned putting a tooth in milk so it could be put back into the socket. Ah, but it's Judyth's "blockbuster" that is the news and importance here, you'll say!

But this is not the first time Judyth has written/spoken about this ... she has on Rich's forum, on BlackOp and on the moderated group. Back as far as at least 2002.

It really astounds me that you seem to think this is some new groundbreaking news on Judyth's part ... and that you are so unaware of her story over the years. Yet you chastise others as if you are teaching them!

Her story was a little different then ... changed in midstream when a problem with her chronology was pointed out. First she had LHO telling her all about how Ferrie had slugged him and at least loosened the tooth after a CAP gathering at Ferrie's house (in her post here now she says LHO rode with Ferrie on a Harley to Ferrie's house after a CAP gathering) and then a week later it was knocked out by someone at school. She notes there was a famous photo showing it. The problem is that the photo was taken, and the school incident occurred, months before LHO attended CAP meetings and met Ferrie.

At one point she has Ferrie telling LHO about milk, at another time she has an unnamed person at school advising him to put the tooth in milk.

I did a post in 2004 that includes a chronology of it all ... something Dave Reitzes had put together of quotes and posted in 2002. Looks like most of this story was related by Judyth on the jfkResearch forum ... and Dave had those posts.

It is long, so here is the link for anyone who is interested. I could post it all here, but if this works for everyone, there is no need.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...r%3Ajunkkarinen

Kind of a wonder that Judyth wanted to delve back into this one, especially with the new change, though she did now say she may have mixed up some small details. :-)

Barb Junkkarinen · April 5, 2010

Thank you, Jack.

Happy Easter,

Barb :-)

I often disagree with some of Barb's writings and ALLIANCES, but I MUST SAY I AM IN 100 PERCENT AGREEMENT
WITH WHAT SHE WRITES BELOW. I could not have written it better.

I must say that I have studied for credibility all new witnesses who have come forward in later years. I find

most are credible. The ones NOT CREDIBLE, in my studied opinion, are James Files, Chauncey Holt, and

Judyth Baker. I admit that all three had some very MINOR association with some players in the plot, but

their tales border on the absurd and their motives are transparent. Baker is by far the strangest** of these

historical hitch-hikers.

Jack

**One of JVB's oddest claims is that she hated her family name of AVARY...so she changed it to VARY.

I consider this as weird as if I were to change my name from WHITE to HITE.

Count me on Judyth's side. I found more valuable information on her book than in any "research" from Barb, Jack, Dixie and Bill combined. I'm not saying they haven't contributed anything, only that I'm not aware of what it might be. Yet they have the gall to attack her. Rather than simply dispute this, please inform me what any of the named researchers has contributed to solving the answer of who killed John Kennedy and why. I would be grateful to know that answer. I don't understand why they feel so compelled to attack Judyth, especially since most have not even seen the previous botched version of her book, which I found so valuable.

Hi Linda,

We are a research community of people with varied interests, some only get involved with their specific area of interest, some get involved on a more general across the board basis, or find themselves interested in a certain topic when something new appears to have come forward. And newly found documents, as well as newly claimed witnesses, have come forth from time to time over the years.

Some of those documents, like one posted here not long ago, had been found to be fraudulent. Any information must be evaluated carefully to verify it's validity, or how can it have any value to a search for the truth about the assassination of JFK?

The same is true of witnesses .... no matter who it is .... Brennan, Jean Hill, James Files, Judyth, Beverly Oliver, etc. ... whomever, it does not matter. If they are credible, they may have very important information that can open new avenues of research and lead to discovery. If they are not credible, they only serve to muddy the waters of an already confusing arena and set well meaning researchers off on false trails.

One way, imo, to assess the veracity of a witness, is to fact check all of those claims that can be fact checked ... not all can be. But if those that can be fact checked fail the verification process, then just how much credibility ... and reliability ... can anyone place on their claims that cannot be fact checked?

Fact checking is not a personal "attack" on a witness ... it is the necessary process by which we can evaluate new information and evidence, or assess the value some new information may or may not have, as well as if a source, like in the case of a new witness, has credibility. In my opinion, any source whose claims in general fail simple fact checking verification, are not sources that can be trusted for valid research based on their word alone and their claim to be a witness.

When one claims to be a witness, but also is known to have done a great deal of research, their opinions, discoveries, work as a researcher, are certainly as valid as anyone else's as long as it can be documented, if being claimed as fact just like all of us must do. Claims of fact that rely on "I am a witness so what I tell you is true" necessarily must lead back to the evaluation of the veracity of any of that witnesses claims ... they either check out, or they don't.

Will I attack documentable falsehoods? You bet. No matter who puts them out. We get no closer to the truth, in fact the waters

get more muddied, any other way.

We all perceive evidence in different ways, we all have different opinions ... thank you for sharing yours.

Happy Easter to you,

Barb :-)

Kathleen Collins · April 5, 2010

I am very disappointed in my friend Jim, who purchased the book Harvey & Lee...but
WITHOUT READING IT, thinks he knows what is in it.

He keeps imagining that it is based on "faked documents" which John "vacuumed up"

when that is untrue. John relied largely on PERSONAL INTERVIEWS OF PEOPLE WHO

KNEW LHO.

Read pages 91-92 about the fight between LHO and Riley which knocked out a tooth.

Why Jim resists reading the book, I cannot fathom. I guess he is afraid of learning that

some of his fervent adoration of JVB might be baseless.

Jack

(The graphic below was posted on the internet in 2002 by J. Pruitt)

In my opinion the 2 photos are of Lee (of Harvey and Lee).

Karl Kinaski · April 5, 2010

xxx

Edited October 27, 2010 by Karl Kinaski

Bill Byas · April 5, 2010

Professor Fetzer, there are other photos there that are not LHO. In the second row, #2 is the faked Lee photo, #3 is Lee Oswald (of Harvey and Lee) -- a faked photo. There was someone on this forum who removed the top layer of whatever was used on that photo and it wasn't Harvey. IMO it was Lee.

Uh...what?

Please read Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong. There were 2 Lee Harvey Oswalds. Ruby shot Harvey and Lee was in on that and escaped. He may have been given another identification.

Kathy C

I was aksing about "There was someone on this forum who removed the top layer of whatever was used on that photo and it wasn't Harvey."

April 5, 2010

JIM REPLIES TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH" AND MUCH, MUCH MORE

I have now read pages 91-92 of HARVEY & LEE, which seem to imply that "Lee" suffered a permanent

loss of tooth. What struck me is that the alleged difference between "Lee" and "Harvey" is explainable

by the scenrio Judyth has sketched of the tooth having been restored. Are there records of either of

the alleged "Oswalds" having a false tooth? Are there adult photos of "Lee" as opposed to "Harvey",

because I have considerable reservations about the photo studies that have been discussed, where it

seems to me, apart from a few that do not belong in these sets, they may all be of the same person.

Since I am responding to your concerns and concede that my description may have been overblown,

how about reciprocating in relation to the question that Howard has raised about your having found

the abstract of a paper that Judyth had said she had presented, but which--like every other claim she

has made--has been vigorously disputed by someone on this forum or elsewhere? Would you be so

kind as to summarize the content of the paper whose abstract you discovered? That you have found

substantiation for some of her claims leads me to believe you may not be as biased as I have thought.

Reading more of HARVEY & LEE, I am getting a better sense for why Jack finds it impossible to even

talk about these things without making explicit his reference to "Lee" or to "Harvey", because John is

relentless in his usage of those names. It seems to me that Judyth's knowledge of the man she knew

in New Orleans--whom Jack and John call "Harvey"--does not depend on the refutation of the possible

existence of the other, but clearly does call into question some of the traits attributed to him, including

his place of birth, whether he could drive, and such, but not necessarily refuting their entire scenario.

It would certainly be a good idea, however, if one or the other of you were more responsive to some

of the points upon which Judyth appears to possess superior knowledge, such as Jack's false claim

that he was "undesirably discharged" (post #904), his false claim about the "index" in his attempt to

shield John from my criticism (posts #777 and #925), his false claim that we do not know how Lee

traveled to New Orleans (post #926), and his false claim about "Harvey" being unable to drive (post

#928), for example, which undermines any prospect for rational discussion of all of this (post #785).

I also believe that Judyth has raised legitimate questions about the photographic record that should not

be swept under the rug, as post #704, #830, #876, and #878, are serious contributions. I know her to

extremely gifted and knowledgeable about the man she knew in New Orleans and her arguments, such

as her eye color study in post #736, are brilliant and deserve to be acknowledged. I am deeply troubled

Robert's role in all of this has not been examined with more diligence. Posts as early as #469, #676, #679,

#689, #800, and especially #813 offer indications of the reasons for my suspicions. Perhaps David Lifton

will take pains to track Robert's role relative to his brother, which appears to me to be the key to the case.

There are obvious disadvantages to my becoming involved in this, since I have not been exposed to the

interrogations of Judyth in the past. For that very reason, however, I believe I have a contribution that

others cannot make. Sometimes a fresh look with a new pair of eyes can make a difference. I believe

that she has not been given a fair shake in the past, which I am attempting to provide here. And that I

am not immersed in the conception of "Harvey & Lee" also grants the intellectual freedom to consider a

different pair of "Oswalds", Robert and Lee, which I would like to believe may provide the stimulus for a

new look at the other brother who, in my estimation, is the ideal candidate to have impersonated Lee.

So why did you bring it up again now, right after this blockbuster about Lee's missing tooth? You trade in trivia, while Judyth is making major contributions. Linda has it right: You post nothing significant because you have nothing significant to post. Your conduct here is utterly transparent.

Oh please. There are many issues being discussed in this thread. I was responding to something Pamela said ... and used that as an example for her to tell us all how I "cherrypick" ... as I had posted it many many pages and posts ago, so it was already here.

But, I do stand in awe ... for you actually seem unaware that the debate over the "two Oswald's" .... Harvey vs Lee, the 2 schools, etc... and yes, the tooth ... is very old news! Your "blockbuster" has been discussed and discussed over the years. How can you really not already know this stuff ... and that it has been hotly debated over the years? Funny ... I even found an exchange Doug Weldon and I had on the issue in 1999 ... when someone else mentioned putting a tooth in milk so it could be put back into the socket. Ah, but it's Judyth's "blockbuster" that is the news and importance here, you'll say!

But this is not the first time Judyth has written/spoken about this ... she has on Rich's forum, on BlackOp and on the moderated group. Back as far as at least 2002.

It really astounds me that you seem to think this is some new groundbreaking news on Judyth's part ... and that you are so unaware of her story over the years. Yet you chastise others as if you are teaching them!

Her story was a little different then ... changed in midstream when a problem with her chronology was pointed out. First she had LHO telling her all about how Ferrie had slugged him and at least loosened the tooth after a CAP gathering at Ferrie's house (in her post here now she says LHO rode with Ferrie on a Harley to Ferrie's house after a CAP gathering) and then a week later it was knocked out by someone at school. She notes there was a famous photo showing it. The problem is that the photo was taken, and the school incident occurred, months before LHO attended CAP meetings and met Ferrie.

At one point she has Ferrie telling LHO about milk, at another time she has an unnamed person at school advising him to put the tooth in milk.

I did a post in 2004 that includes a chronology of it all ... something Dave Reitzes had put together of quotes and posted in 2002. Looks like most of this story was related by Judyth on the jfkResearch forum ... and Dave had those posts.

It is long, so here is the link for anyone who is interested. I could post it all here, but if this works for everyone, there is no need.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...r%3Ajunkkarinen

Kind of a wonder that Judyth wanted to delve back into this one, especially with the new change, though she did now say she may have mixed up some small details. :-)

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

April 5, 2010

JUDYTH REPLIES ABOUT "HARVEY" AND "LEE" AND THEIR RESPECTIVE HEIGHTS

NOTE: Here is another example where Judyth's argument about heights deserves to be

taken into account. Yet in none of the illustrations I have offered in my last post has

anyone acknowledged that Judyth was making good points or that she was correct!

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

We have a witness who states that Lee Oswald was much shorter, wanted to be called

"Harvey" and lived on Exchange Alley over a ballroom.

We can calculate the approximate height of Lee Oswald, using geometry, when he was

attending Beauregard at the same time that a teacher, Myra DaRouse, said Lee was in her

8th grade homeroom (the only homeroom she held). She has some strong memories of Lee.

But there are problems with her account:

Discrepancies

1) The name "Harvey":

DaRouse said that Lee wanted to be called "Harvey" -- a name Lee told JVB he actually

disliked. But Ed Voebel, whom she mentions as an 'only' friend, (though at least one

other friend is in the records) -- Voebel did not call his friend "Harvey." Voebel called

him "Lee. "

2) "...so I asked him where he lived, and he said on Exchange Alley, down near the river.

So I drove him down, and it was kind of a disgusting place. And I was very glad I didn't

live there. And he lived upstairs over a ballroom (69)."

But Lee (Jack's "Harvey") told me he lived above a pool hall.

And Voebel, I just found out, said the same:

Mr. VOEBEL: He lived over the top of the pool hall.

Mr. JENNER. ... Exchange Alley?

Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; or Exchange Place, whatever you call it.

Notice that Voeble corrects (WC) Jenner and says "Exchange Place..."

In 1963, at least, residents of "Exchange Alley" usually called it "Exchange Place." For

example, Mildred Sawyer:

WC testimony: Mrs . MILDRED SAWYER, 126 Exchange Place, New Orleans,. Louisiana

furnished the following information: ... November 27, 1963....

Would Lee have been more likely to ask the teacher to take him to "Exchange Place"

rather than to "Exchange Alley"?

The Warren Commission liked "Exchange Alley" as it denigrated the address, and it is best

known by that name to researchers today. Did the old lady hear the name "Exchange

Alley" before she was filmed? How much was said between the lady and the researcher

before she was interviewed? Contamination of witnesses is common by researchers who try

to obtain information that they want...sometimes they may ask leading questions or supply

names to 'refresh the memory.'

4) DaRouse also said she held a homeroom in the basement -- the only homeroom she ever

held -- for the 8th graders, but a record exists showing Lee Oswald was on a 3rd floor 8th

grade homeroom roster. I have seen an argument that this is a (naturally) hand-written

record, but who would change Lee Oswald's 8th grade homeroom record, as to which floor

he was on, and why?

"...John Armstrong had recently found a report card or a school record of some kind --

actually a registration card -- for Oswald in the eighth grade that listed his homeroom

as room 303, a room on the third floor. I asked her if that could be consistent with her

homeroom rollcall in the basement; could she have been assigned room 303 despite

actually using the stage in the basement? "No, 303, that's the ninth grade," she said.

"You mean the whole third floor was for the ninth grade?" "Right." Yet this registration

form at the National Archives said Oswald was in room 303 in the eighth grade."

The former teacher said the "whole third floor" was "for the ninth grade"

but the registration card showed Lee Oswald in room 303 for the 8th grade.

Oddity: This teacher said she only had ONE home room throughout her teaching at that

school...She only teaches girls in PE, but 'somehow' made friends with Lee Oswald, who

wanted to be called "Harvey." Yet she does not quite describe his residence correctly.

A record shows the 8th grade was on the third floor, not in the basement, and she

describes the boy about 8 inches shorter than he was described in New York.

She is elderly, however. Did a researcher 'refresh' her memory for her? God forbid.

Still, we have evidence that her memory of Lee H. Oswald's height is faulty:

But before we continue, a word about contaminating witnesses, whether accidentally or

purposefully:

An Example about Ferrie witnesses: I protested the contamination of Ferrie witnesses by

Stephen Roy (David Blackburst) who stated he gathered them together to talk (allowing

dissonances to be resolved-- and to be recorded ---but gahering witnesses together should

never be done by an honest researcher --...differences in tesimony vanish when they are

brought together, 'refreshing' each others' memories. When I told Mr. Roy that he had

done wrong, and that the method was reprehensible, he wroe tha he would do it again, that

it wasn;t wrong. Hence, none of the statements collected on tape or in interviews of

"Ferrie witnesses" after 1998 should be considered as pristine and untainted. Needless to

say, Mr. Roy does not like me very much. Wish I had never spoken to him about it...but it

was important to tell him that his methodology was poor.

5) The most important problem with Myra DaRouse is her statement that:

"Well, I'm about 5'3" now, but I was about 5'4" back then, and I would say he came up to

about here [indicating]. I would say he was about 4'8", 4'6", or about 4'8"."

"That small -- 4'6" or 4'8"?"

"Yeah, he was little, scrawny" (70).

"Myra DaRouse saw Harvey every day at Beauregard in 1955. Myra's description of a 4'6" or

4'8" Lee Harvey Oswald in the spring of 1954 differs considerably with his New York court

and school records -- if this is the same Lee Harvey Oswald. In his 1952-53 school records,

in the two columns marked for the seventh and eighth grades, Oswald's height is listed as 64

inches, or 5'4". He has shrunk eight inches or more since leaving New York (71)."

We should not couch comments in this kind of language. It helps prejudice the reader.

The comment should be something like: "We need to find more records about Oswald in this

time zone to see if this description is accurate."

And if we look for more records, here's what we find:

Lee and his friend Ed Voebel were in the Civil Air Patrol in 1955. We have a photo taken

during a CAP summer campout where Dave Ferrie and Lee are shown in the same photo:

Applying geometry and the rules of perspective, and taking into account that both Ferrie

and Oswald have their heads lowered -- and Ferrie is wearing a helmet that adds ~3" to his

height -- that both are standing with feet separated, which also reduces height somewhat

for each, we can calculate well enough -- because we know the size of the helmets -- and

Ferrie's height --to obtain an adequate estimate of Lee Oswald's height. Ferrie measured

at 5' 9". With the above compensations accounted for, we obtain an approximate height for

Lee Oswald between 5' 3" and 5' 4" in the CAP photo. It is doubtful that Lee Oswald grew

some eight inches in a few months.

Conclusion: The photograph has to be considered more accurate than Myra DaRouse.

Jim writes (which I could not locate):
...to distract attention from the blockbuster post I have just made

about the "missing tooth"

Just what is this blockbuster post about a missing tooth? It is

covered in great detail in Harvey & Lee...pages 91-92. Jim and

Judyth may be surprised to learn that it was LEE who had the

missing tooth...NOT HARVEY. (It was Harvey that JVB knew.)

So what is the JVB blockbuster? Armstrong DOCUMENTS IT

BY INTERVIEWING A CLASSMATE, Ed Voebel, who was present

during the fight between LEE and Robin Riley, who punched

Lee in the mouth. If the JVB version of the blockbuster differs

from this, it is FALSE.

Voebel told John that Riley knocked out an LHO tooth. It was on

the schoolyard of Beauregard Junior High School. That's it.

Jack

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

April 5, 2010

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON LEE'S RELATIONSHIP WITH DAVID FERRIE

NOTE: I no longer understand Jack's position or, should I say, I understand it all

too well. He appears to be completely closed minded and unwilling to admit even

when Judyth has shown him to be mistaken about Lee's discharge, about the way

in which he traveled to New Orleans, about whether or not he could drive, about

the "index" to the supporting volumes, and much more. I am at a loss as to what

to say to my dear friend, since we appear to be at an impasse. I shall continue to

post information that Judyth provides for the benefit of the research community.

This is a compendium of testimony about Ferrie and Oswald from HSCA sources.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

No matter how many ways some people will try to say that Lee did not know Ferrie, I

know better. BELOW IS A LIST OF PEOPLE REPORTING OSWALD AND FERRIE WERE

CONTEMPORARIES IN THE Civil Air Patrol, which by the way was founded by Mr. Byrd,

[who was a Texas oil man], who purchased the building where the TSBD was located

not long before the assassination. (Note the citation I provide at the end of this post.)

1) Edward Voebel, stating that Lee Oswald may have attended a party at Dave

Ferrie's house during the CAP period (and I support that):

"On November 27, 1963, 5 days after President Kennedy's murder, Voebel was also

interviewed by New Orleans Police Department officers. In a report of this interview,

prepared for P.J. Trosclair, Jr., of the department, it was noted that Voebel believed

Oswald had attended the Moisant CAP meetings for "only about 1 month."

During the course of this police interview, however, Voebel also stated that while he

could not be sure, he thought that Oswald may once have attended a party

given by Ferrie during their involvement with the CAP.

According to the HSCA report (which I have broken into segments for easier reading):

Voebel stated that he believed Oswald attended a party (not sure) at the home

of David Ferrie (captain) right after the members of the CAP received their stripes?

Below are some records related to Lee's CAP registration and Ferrie's involvement, unofficially, in CAP during that time span.

2) In an FBI interview on November 27, 1963, another CAP executive was able to supply partial information regarding Oswald's involvement. Joseph Ehrlicker told FBI agents that while he was unable to find a CAP application by Oswald, he was able to locate a record indicating that "Oswald was enrolled as a CAP cadet on July 27, 1955, at which time he was given Serial No. 084965." Oswald was then enrolled in the cadet squadron at Moisant Airport. The records did not indicate when Oswald left the CAP unit. Also with regard to

David Ferrie:

"Ehrlicker was able to determine that Ferrie's first period as Squadron Commander was terminated December 31, 1954. He was working at Moisant Airport at this time. It was later found out that Ferrie subsequent to this date was working with the squadron at Moisant without official connection with the CAP. As of late 1955 he was no longer with the squadron.

From the fragmented CAP membership documentation provided by Ehrlicker, Ferrie was involved with the Moisant CAP unit (in an apparently unofficial capacity) for an uncertain period of time between December 31, 1954, and "late 1955?' The same CAP documentation indicated that Oswald had been involved in the same CAP unit in the summer of 1955, having officially enrolled on July 27, 1955. Thus, while the CAP documentation available in 1963 did not permit a conclusive determination, the records themselves lent substantial credence to the possibility that Oswald and Ferrie had been involved in the same CAP unit during the same period of time. While Ferrie stated during his November 25, 1963, FBI interview, that he had been a commander of the Lakefront Airport CAP unit, it was not until December 10, 1963, when he provided another statement to the Bureau, that he said he had also worked with the Moisant Airport CAP."

3) "In another interview with the committee on December 9, 1978, another former CAP member recalled Oswald's participation in the New Orleans unit. Collin Hamer, now an official of the New Orleans Public Library, stated that he had attended "about ten or twelve meetings" of the CAP unit during which Oswald was also present. Hamer knew both Oswald and Voebel and said that Oswald had begun attending the CAP meetings sometime around the summer of 1955. He stated that the 10 or 12 meetings that Oswald attended were held at the Eastern Airlines hangar at the Moisant Airport. He further stated that Oswald had attended the meetings for roughly 2 months, during which the unit usually met twice a week, on Friday nights and Sunday afternoons. Hamer commented that he had never been interviewed by the FBI following the assassination of President Kennedy.

According to Hamer, David Ferrie had been present during the CAP meetings that Oswald attended: "Ferrie was at all the meetings during the time Lee and I were involved in CAP. He didn't always do the teaching, but he was always there." Hamer told the committee that Oswald "was a real quiet kid" and that Ferrie "treated Oswald just like the rest of us. He was just the teacher so to speak."

Hamer further stated, "I don't know anything about whether or not Ferrie and Oswald had any contact outside of the CAP. All I know is that Oswald was in our unit for about 2 months, and Ferrie ran it during that time." Hamer further recalled that Ferrie was "a tough commander" who became irritated if the cadets "goofed around at all." Hamer also recalled calling Oswald's home on one occasion to make sure that Oswald was going to attend a CAP meeting. Hamer did not know why Oswald left the CAP unit.

Hamer also told the committee that he was aware that some CAP cadets had "hung around" at Ferrie's house and engaged in outside activities with him. He did not know if Oswald ever had such contact with Ferrie. Finally, Hammer said that he, himself, had become an adjutant of the CAP unit several years later and "weeded out a lot of the old files then," but did not recall handling any files on Oswald."

4) The committee also interviewed a former commander of the Moisant Airport CAP squadron, Mrs. Gladys Durr.

"Mrs. Durr had been interviewed by the FBI on November 25, 1963. In that interview, she advised that she had assumed command of the CAP unit in October or December 1955, which would have been several months after the CAP records indicated Oswald left. Mrs. Durr stated that she did not recall knowing Lee Oswald, but that David Ferrie had been "expelled" from the CAP squadron "at about the time" she joined it. While Mrs. Durr became commander of the squadron subsequent to the time when Oswald was a member, her recollection that Ferrie was still active in the unit until late 1955 would indicate that he probably was in fact with the unit during the period that Lee Oswald was in it."

"In her committee interview, Mrs. Durr stated that while she did not know Oswald, she could recall other cadets remembering that he attended the meetings. She further recalled that Ferrie had originally conducted CAP classes at New Orleans Lakefront Airport, but had then begun teaching at Moisant Airport where she was commander. She said Ferrie was a magnetic and intelligent man who had a strong following among the cadets. He also had a reputation for having bad moral character, and on one occasion some CAP cadets had become drunk at his home and engaged in various activities in the nude. [insertion by JVB: is it such a stretch to say Lee Oswald went to a party at Ferrie's after a meeting with oher CAP members, then went upstairs by himself to look a Ferrie's 'science room' --and that the other boys left, and that Oswald, who needed a ride home via Ferrie's motocycle, found himself alone with Ferrie, and feared Ferrie was going to sexually assault him? ) Mrs. Durr stated that such incidents were what led to Ferrie being expelled from that particular CAP unit. [JVB: note the plural 'incidents.']

5) "The committee interviewed another former commander of the New Orleans CAP, John Irion, active with the group from 1955 to 1959. Irion, a management and public relations consultant, worked closely with Ferrie during their years with the CAP. The two were personal friends for over 10 years, and Irion once testified on Ferrie's behalf during a legal proceeding against him. Irion, Ferrie, and the mayor of New Orleans were once photographed together a CAP photograph later published by the New Orleans Times Picayune... Irion recalled that Ferrie was a "dynamic" leader known for his intelligence. He recalled being introduced by Ferrie to Carlos Marcello's attorney, G. Wray Gill, on more than one occasion. Irion told the committee that he recalled Lee Oswald going through "basic training" with the CAP during the period in which he and Ferrie were with the New Orleans squadron, but he could not recall any specific personal contact between Oswald and Ferrie. He believed that contact was highly probable during that period."

6) "The committee was able to locate and interview Anthony Atzenhoffer, who had served as the platoon sergeant for the Moisant Airport CAP squadron in late 1954 and 1955. Atzenhoffer recalled helping coordinate the small CAP unit at Moisant and noted that his duties had included calling the roll at meetings and handling registration matters? Atzenhoffer recalled attending a party with Ferrie and other CAP cadets during that period; the party may have been at Ferrie's house. He also recalled that Ferrie once tried to recruit his CAP cadets in the squadron to participate in some kind of medical experiment."

7) The committee also interviewed Jerry Paradis, the former recruit instructor of the New Orleans Lakefront CAP unit. In confirming that Oswald had attended the Lakefront squadron meetings (in addition to the Moisant CAP meetings), Paradis corroborated the accounts of other Oswald colleagues in the CAP. Paradis, now a corporate attorney, told the committee that Oswald attended the Lakefront CAP meetings for several weeks or several months. During the period that he had served as recruit instructor, Paradis could recall that Oswald came to "at least 10 or 15 meetings," attending the CAP sessions "quite a few times."

In his interview with the committee on December 15, 1978, Paradis stated that he had never been contacted or interviewed by, the FBI about his past involvement in the CAP with Oswald and Ferrie. He also stated that no other investigators had ever interviewed him. Paradis told the committee that Oswald had attended numerous CAP meetings at which Ferrie had been the instructor. Ferrie "was always there" during the period in which Oswald attended the Lakefront squadron. Paradis repeated that he believed there were "at least 10 or 15 meetings" during which Oswald and Ferrie were present. He told the committee, "Oswald and Ferrie were in the unit together. I know they were there because I was there." Further, "I specifically remember Oswald. I can remember him clearly, and Ferrie was heading the unit then. I'm not saying that they may have been there together, I'm saying it is a certainty." Paradis noted that he and Ferrie were good friends and he had always respected Ferrie, even though Ferrie was somewhat "unusual." Paradis stated that he had no knowledge of any relationship between Oswald and Ferrie outside of the CAP meetings and did not recall anything unusual about their contact at the meetings.. He recalled that Ferrie was a "fairly stern, but generally likable" instructor. Paradis also stated that Ferrie and others from the Lakefront CAP unit sometimes participated in the Moisant CAP squadron meetings and that Ferrie later left the Lakefront unit to instruct at Moisant full-time. Paradis recalled that he had been surprised that he was not interviewed by the FBI following the President's assassination, stating, "I sure could have told them when Oswald and Ferrie were in the CAP. I could have given them what they wanted."

Reference for the above information, regarding the HSCA Committee:

David Stager: OSWALD, DAVID FERRIE AND THE CIVIL AIR PATROL

Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 23:39:44 GMT

Organization: Master of Technology, Inc.

Lines: 610

Message-ID: <3n1j9b$9o8@nntp.crl.com>

NNTP-Posting-Host: crl9.crl.com

X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent v0.46

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

April 5, 2010

JUDYTH REPLIES TO YET ANOTHER FALSE CLAIM BY JACK WHITE

NOTE: This one seems to belong on the list with Jack's other blunders about Lee's discharge,

about how we know how he traveled to New Orleans, his flawed defense of John Armstrong's

blunder about the "index", and whether or not Lee could drive. Strictly speaking, a lie is (1)

an assertion (2) that is false (3) that is asserted in the knowledge that it is false (4) with the

intention of misleading the audience. Jack may have picked it up somewhere and simply be

repeating it without having verified the claim made, but the situation here is so odd that, in

my opinion this claim properly qualifies as "a lie" and she is justified to be pissed off about it.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK:

**One of JVB's oddest claims is that she hated her family name of AVARY...so she changed

it to VARY. I consider this as weird as if I were to change my name from WHITE to HITE."

JACK HAS WRITTEN A FALSEHOOD. WHERE DID HE GET IT FROM? SOMEONE HAS SUPPLIED

THIS FALSEHOOD TO HIM WHO DOESN'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO JACK'S REPUTATION.

JACK NEVER OFFERS CITATIONS. BUT HE SHOULD EXPLAIN WHO GAVE HIM THIS LIE?

1) MY FAMILY NAME IS "VARY" AND IT IS ON MY BIRTH CERTIFICATES. IT IS ALSO ON MY WEBSITE.

2) I USED 'AVARY' AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE TO DISGUISE MY MAIDEN NAME

'VARY' BECAUSE OF MY PAST IN NEW ORLEANS IN THAT STATE: I DID NOT WANT ANYBODY TO BE

ALERTED THAT I HAD RETURNED TO LOUISIANA. AND I DID THAT NAME CHANGE BEFORE SPEAKING

OUT BECAUSE I WAS AFRAID, YET WANTED TO SEE IF I COULD FIND A FEW WITNESSES WHO MIGHT

REMEMBER ME.

WONDERING ABOUT WHO LIVED AND WHO DIED, WHEN I WAS OFFERED A FELLOWSHIP IN A DOCTORAL

PROGRAM THERE AND I ACCEPTED THE OFFER.

JACK SEEMS TO BE ACCESSING A SERIES OF BLATANT FALSEHOODS ABOUT ME--AND NOT CITING HIS

SOURCES. OR IS HE MAKING THIS UP ABOUT ME?

GOD FORBID.

AGAIN, Jack White wrote:

**One of JVB's oddest claims is that she hated her family name of AVARY...so she changed it to VARY.

I consider this as weird as if I were to change my name from WHITE to HITE."

And again (to review all this):

1) My family name is "Vary".

2) I never hated my family name, and it was not 'Avary.'

3) I used the name "Avary' for my first name BEFORE speaking out a U of LA at Lafayete because I

was afraid to have 'Vary' out there, due to my past with Lee Oswald, in New Orleans, which I was still

attempting to hide.

This was 1996. A the end of 1998, I saw JFK and decided to speak out, despie the consequences, and

despie the lies I knew would be spread about me.

Indeed the lies have been generated--such as this one.

Where did this lie come from, Mr. White?

JVB

I often disagree with some of Barb's writings and ALLIANCES, but I MUST SAY I AM IN 100 PERCENT AGREEMENT
WITH WHAT SHE WRITES BELOW. I could not have written it better.

I must say that I have studied for credibility all new witnesses who have come forward in later years. I find

most are credible. The ones NOT CREDIBLE, in my studied opinion, are James Files, Chauncey Holt, and

Judyth Baker. I admit that all three had some very MINOR association with some players in the plot, but

their tales border on the absurd and their motives are transparent. Baker is by far the strangest** of these

historical hitch-hikers.

Jack

**One of JVB's oddest claims is that she hated her family name of AVARY...so she changed it to VARY.

I consider this as weird as if I were to change my name from WHITE to HITE.

Count me on Judyth's side. I found more valuable information on her book than in any "research" from Barb, Jack, Dixie and Bill combined. I'm not saying they haven't contributed anything, only that I'm not aware of what it might be. Yet they have the gall to attack her. Rather than simply dispute this, please inform me what any of the named researchers has contributed to solving the answer of who killed John Kennedy and why. I would be grateful to know that answer. I don't understand why they feel so compelled to attack Judyth, especially since most have not even seen the previous botched version of her book, which I found so valuable.

Hi Linda,

We are a research community of people with varied interests, some only get involved with their specific area of interest, some get involved on a more general across the board basis, or find themselves interested in a certain topic when something new appears to have come forward. And newly found documents, as well as newly claimed witnesses, have come forth from time to time over the years.

Some of those documents, like one posted here not long ago, had been found to be fraudulent. Any information must be evaluated carefully to verify it's validity, or how can it have any value to a search for the truth about the assassination of JFK?

The same is true of witnesses .... no matter who it is .... Brennan, Jean Hill, James Files, Judyth, Beverly Oliver, etc. ... whomever, it does not matter. If they are credible, they may have very important information that can open new avenues of research and lead to discovery. If they are not credible, they only serve to muddy the waters of an already confusing arena and set well meaning researchers off on false trails.

One way, imo, to assess the veracity of a witness, is to fact check all of those claims that can be fact checked ... not all can be. But if those that can be fact checked fail the verification process, then just how much credibility ... and reliability ... can anyone place on their claims that cannot be fact checked?

Fact checking is not a personal "attack" on a witness ... it is the necessary process by which we can evaluate new information and evidence, or assess the value some new information may or may not have, as well as if a source, like in the case of a new witness, has credibility. In my opinion, any source whose claims in general fail simple fact checking verification, are not sources that can be trusted for valid research based on their word alone and their claim to be a witness.

When one claims to be a witness, but also is known to have done a great deal of research, their opinions, discoveries, work as a researcher, are certainly as valid as anyone else's as long as it can be documented, if being claimed as fact just like all of us must do. Claims of fact that rely on "I am a witness so what I tell you is true" necessarily must lead back to the evaluation of the veracity of any of that witnesses claims ... they either check out, or they don't.

Will I attack documentable falsehoods? You bet. No matter who puts them out. We get no closer to the truth, in fact the waters

get more muddied, any other way.

We all perceive evidence in different ways, we all have different opinions ... thank you for sharing yours.

Happy Easter to you,

Barb :-)

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

Stephen Roy · April 5, 2010

Baker wrote (through Fetzer):

"An Example about Ferrie witnesses: I protested the contamination of Ferrie witnesses by