Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Monk, Thanks for speaking out-- ...

My pleasure, Jim.

GO_SECURE

monk

Hi, Monk!

Somebody here asked whether Prouty encountered GHWB in the CIA. Since you

are the Prouty expert, maybe you know.

Jack

Hi Jack! I must be the last researcher to join this forum, huh?

Prouty’s office provided the two ships used for the Bay of Pigs invasion support. Since we now know that the Bay of Pigs was “Poppy” Bush’s operation (Codenamed after his Oil Company: ZAPATA) it follows that Bush procured the ships from Prouty. It’s interesting to note Bush Senior’s arrogance, even then. He named the ships the Houston (his home town), and the Barbara J (his wife’s name), as well as the operational codename: ZAPATA. He doesn’t appear to be attempting to keep the US hand in the operation a secret to me. Or maybe he just wanted to add his own personal signature to it? Well, guess what Georgie, your op failed and was discovered! Great work…

In any event, Fletch never directly said to me that he had personal contact with George Bush, but he many times said that: "I (Prouty) knew he (Bush) must have been behind this or that thing” – Here’s a quote from "Understanding Special Operations" regarding the Bay of Pigs:

[PROUTY]

“They asked me to see if we could find – purchase – a couple of transport ships. We got some people that were in that business, and they went along the coast and they found two old ships that we purchased and sent down to Elizabeth City and began to load with an awful lot of trucks that the Army was sending down there. We deck-loaded the trucks, and got all of their supplies on board. Everything that they needed was on two ships. It was rather interesting to note, looking back these days, that one of the ships was called the Houston, and the other ship was called the Barbara J --. Colonel Hawkins had renamed the program as we selected a name for the Bay of Pigs operation. The code name was "Zapata." I was thinking a few months ago of what a coincidence that is. When Mr. Bush graduated from Yale, back there in the days when I was a professor at Yale, he formed an oil company, called "Zapata", with a man, Lieddke, who later on became president of Pennzoil. But the company that Lieddke and Mr. Bush formed was the Zapata Oil Company. Mr. Bush's wife's name is Barbara J. And Mr. Bush claims as his hometown Houston, Texas somewhere around. Now the triple coincidence there is strange; but I think it's interesting. I know nothing about its meaning. But these invasion ships were the Barbara J and the Houston, and the program was "Zapata." George Bush must have been around.”

GO_SECURE

monk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Emilo Rivera was apparently a professor (adelphi college ny) travelling with students to little rock in '61, stopped in natchez and sent a letter to the bursar in tulane. Is there any way it could be the same dr rivera?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Emilo Rivera was apparently a professor (adelphi college ny) travelling with students to little rock in '61, stopped in natchez and sent a letter to the bursar in tulane. Is there any way it could be the same dr rivera?

Hi John,

FWIW: You might want to cross reference the two names through the Catholic Diocese records of Natchez. Rivera is a Hispanic (and presumably) Catholic surname. It may show up--several thousand times, since it is common--but possibly worth a shot. In the early 1960's the Bishop of Natchez diocese was The Very Reverend R. O. Gerow. The address was in Jackson at: 237 East Amite. Gerow himself was interviewed by the FBI on December 20th 1963 by Special Agent Roger J Fontanella because his name "came up" regarding the assassination due to a possible link to a third suspect. Oh yes, there were other suspects...

GO_SECURE

monk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, here's the link ( I have no background knowledge to know what to make of it, but the timing, the institutions, the name etc made me wonder) :

http://mdah.state.ms.us/bugle/sovcom/resul...98|1|1|1|25339|

scroll down for page 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, here's the link ( I have no background knowledge to know what to make of it, but the timing, the institutions, the name etc made me wonder) :

http://mdah.state.ms.us/bugle/sovcom/resul...98|1|1|1|25339|

scroll down for page 2

Perhaps to maintain thread integrity this subject is best discussed as a New Topic so as not to break the Judyth Vary Baker discussion? Just a suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If nothing is there that's relevant to those interested in JVB then there is no need to persue it in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If nothing is there that's relevant to those interested in JVB then there is no need to persue it in any way.

I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't relevant to JVB. Sorry for the misunderstanding. It just seems like it might be worthy of its own thread, IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's cool, I didn't take it that way. I'm ignorant of JVB, but thought those in the know may see a connection. If there is none, I was just saying That's fine. I personally can't think of another reason to persue it, that's all. Maybe there is one, I don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

Thanks for your questions. I have great admiration for the work that you have done over the years. I will say that I am confident that if you read ME AND LEE with the same "close scrutiny" that you have used to study all those photos, then you will come to reasonable answers... whatever they may be. And I will be interested to hear your thought about them when you do.

From my own experience, I will say that, despite the considerable contact that I had with Judyth since Nov. 2000 and all of the other previous attempts by others to recount her tale, I did not understand "the flow" of her story. While I did think that certain "landmarks" grounded her story (such as the W2 form from Reily Coffee and her time at Roswell Park Cancer Institute), there was still a forest of unanswered questions for me. I found much of her tale "disconnected" and her retelling of it "confusing," particularly on important issues like how she became involved with people like Dr. Alton Ochsner and the erratic path of her college career. I queried Judyth relentlessly about these issues, the gaps in the story, and many other issues. There were many tense moments during this process, and she became frustrated with me at times. But I finally realized this was because there were things that she was reluctant to discuss, some for personal reasons. This process took more time than I anticipated, but eventually what I found was that the key to understanding her New Orleans activities lies in the years before she ever arrived in New Orleans and before she ever met Lee Oswald. I finally realized that understanding what made young "Judy Vary" tick was as important as anything we have heard to date about her romance with Lee Oswald. She was the resource that they needed to create the bio-weapon secretly, and there is nothing glorious or glamorous about killing baby mice, amputating their tumors and grinding them up in a blender. In fact, she became disgusted with what she was doing and realized that she had been lead down the path of evil by those she trusted. In the final analysis, I consider Judyth "a witness," not "a researcher," and I think that her story must be understood in that light. But the questions remain: What insights can we gain from the recollections of this witness? And do they help us understand what happened in Dallas?

Overall, I will say that my view of her Judyth shifted as I read ME AND LEE. The portrait is paints of her is not particularly flattering, but it rings true. And it is a better grounded story than I expected to find. One that makes far more sense than anything I had heard from earlier versions. One whose pieces fit together better than I had expected. One that I hope that you (and the others seriously concerned about this subject) will read with an open mind.

My Best,

Ed Haslam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

That is an excellent contribution, Ed. Many thanks for posting. I have a second blog on Judyth

at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/14...udyth-vary.html, which includes a second

YouTube interview, which is also found at

and JamesFetzerNews, which is located at http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesFetzerNews

Jack,

Thanks for your questions. I have great admiration for the work that you have done over the years. I will say that I am confident that if you read ME AND LEE with the same "close scrutiny" that you have used to study all those photos, then you will come to reasonable answers... whatever they may be. And I will be interested to hear your thought about them when you do.

From my own experience, I will say that, despite the considerable contact that I had with Judyth since Nov. 2000 and all of the other previous attempts by others to recount her tale, I did not understand "the flow" of her story. While I did think that certain "landmarks" grounded her story (such as the W2 form from Reily Coffee and her time at Roswell Park Cancer Institute), there was still a forest of unanswered questions for me. I found much of her tale "disconnected" and her retelling of it "confusing," particularly on important issues like how she became involved with people like Dr. Alton Ochsner and the erratic path of her college career. I queried Judyth relentlessly about these issues, the gaps in the story, and many other issues. There were many tense moments during this process, and she became frustrated with me at times. But I finally realized this was because there were things that she was reluctant to discuss, some for personal reasons. This process took more time than I anticipated, but eventually what I found was that the key to understanding her New Orleans activities lies in the years before she ever arrived in New Orleans and before she ever met Lee Oswald. I finally realized that understanding what made young "Judy Vary" tick was as important as anything we have heard to date about her romance with Lee Oswald. She was the resource that they needed to create the bio-weapon secretly, and there is nothing glorious or glamorous about killing baby mice, amputating their tumors and grinding them up in a blender. In fact, she became disgusted with what she was doing and realized that she had been lead down the path of evil by those she trusted. In the final analysis, I consider Judyth "a witness," not "a researcher," and I think that her story must be understood in that light. But the questions remain: What insights can we gain from the recollections of this witness? And do they help us understand what happened in Dallas?

Overall, I will say that my view of her Judyth shifted as I read ME AND LEE. The portrait is paints of her is not particularly flattering, but it rings true. And it is a better grounded story than I expected to find. One that makes far more sense than anything I had heard from earlier versions. One whose pieces fit together better than I had expected. One that I hope that you (and the others seriously concerned about this subject) will read with an open mind.

My Best,

Ed Haslam

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

That is an excellent contribution, Ed. Many thanks for posting. I have a second blog on Judyth

at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/14...udyth-vary.html, which includes a second

YouTube interview, which is also found at

and JamesFetzerNews, which is located at http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesFetzerNews

Jack,

Thanks for your questions. I have great admiration for the work that you have done over the years. I will say that I am confident that if you read ME AND LEE with the same "close scrutiny" that you have used to study all those photos, then you will come to reasonable answers... whatever they may be. And I will be interested to hear your thought about them when you do.

From my own experience, I will say that, despite the considerable contact that I had with Judyth since Nov. 2000 and all of the other previous attempts by others to recount her tale, I did not understand "the flow" of her story. While I did think that certain "landmarks" grounded her story (such as the W2 form from Reily Coffee and her time at Roswell Park Cancer Institute), there was still a forest of unanswered questions for me. I found much of her tale "disconnected" and her retelling of it "confusing," particularly on important issues like how she became involved with people like Dr. Alton Ochsner and the erratic path of her college career. I queried Judyth relentlessly about these issues, the gaps in the story, and many other issues. There were many tense moments during this process, and she became frustrated with me at times. But I finally realized this was because there were things that she was reluctant to discuss, some for personal reasons. This process took more time than I anticipated, but eventually what I found was that the key to understanding her New Orleans activities lies in the years before she ever arrived in New Orleans and before she ever met Lee Oswald. I finally realized that understanding what made young "Judy Vary" tick was as important as anything we have heard to date about her romance with Lee Oswald. She was the resource that they needed to create the bio-weapon secretly, and there is nothing glorious or glamorous about killing baby mice, amputating their tumors and grinding them up in a blender. In fact, she became disgusted with what she was doing and realized that she had been lead down the path of evil by those she trusted. In the final analysis, I consider Judyth "a witness," not "a researcher," and I think that her story must be understood in that light. But the questions remain: What insights can we gain from the recollections of this witness? And do they help us understand what happened in Dallas?

Overall, I will say that my view of her Judyth shifted as I read ME AND LEE. The portrait is paints of her is not particularly flattering, but it rings true. And it is a better grounded story than I expected to find. One that makes far more sense than anything I had heard from earlier versions. One whose pieces fit together better than I had expected. One that I hope that you (and the others seriously concerned about this subject) will read with an open mind.

My Best,

Ed Haslam

Thanks, Ed. As I do with all things, I will read ME AND LEE with an open mind.

But as I do with all things, I will be comparing it with previous information which

with which it may conflict. I will also be comparing it with "official records" I know

about. I hope it will answer many unanswered questions without raising others.

When you speak of "earlier versions" I assume you refer to the efforts of

Shackelford and Platzman...which may be the source of much misinformation.

You are unlikely to hear my thoughts, however, as I have concluded that any

discussion of JVB leads to bitter disputes among researchers and is counter-

productive. While perhaps INTERESTING, the JVB story adds nothing, in my

opinion, to solving the crime. But MY opinion matters little in the overall scheme

of things.

Thanks for sharing!

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Jack,

Thanks for your questions. I have great admiration for the work that you have done over the years. I will say that I am confident that if you read ME AND LEE with the same "close scrutiny" that you have used to study all those photos, then you will come to reasonable answers... whatever they may be. And I will be interested to hear your thought about them when you do.

From my own experience, I will say that, despite the considerable contact that I had with Judyth since Nov. 2000 and all of the other previous attempts by others to recount her tale, I did not understand "the flow" of her story. While I did think that certain "landmarks" grounded her story (such as the W2 form from Reily Coffee and her time at Roswell Park Cancer Institute), there was still a forest of unanswered questions for me. I found much of her tale "disconnected" and her retelling of it "confusing," particularly on important issues like how she became involved with people like Dr. Alton Ochsner and the erratic path of her college career. I queried Judyth relentlessly about these issues, the gaps in the story, and many other issues. There were many tense moments during this process, and she became frustrated with me at times. But I finally realized this was because there were things that she was reluctant to discuss, some for personal reasons. This process took more time than I anticipated, but eventually what I found was that the key to understanding her New Orleans activities lies in the years before she arrived in New Orleans and before she met Lee Oswald. I finally realized that understanding what made young "Judy Vary" tick was as important as anything we have heard to date about her romance with Lee Oswald. She was the resource that they needed to create the bio-weapon secretly, and there is nothing glorious or glamorous about killing baby mice, amputating their tumors and grinding them up in a blender. In fact, she became disgusted with what she was doing and realized that she had been lead down the path of evil by those she trusted. In the final analysis, I consider Judyth "a witness," not "a researcher," and I think that her story must be understood in that light. But the questions remain: What insights can we gain from the recollections of this witness? And do they help us understand what happened in Dallas?

Overall, I will say that my view of her Judyth shifted as I read ME AND LEE. The portrait it paints of her is not particularly flattering, but it rings true. And it is a better grounded story than I expected to find. One that makes far more sense than anything I had heard from earlier versions. One whose pieces fit together better than I had expected. One that I hope that you (and the others seriously concerned about this subject) will read with an open mind.

My Best,

Ed Haslam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Judyth has made some very insightful observations about the opinions

of the expert on psy ops that I had consulted. I think her remarks on

"the golden mean" by splitting the difference between conflicting points

of view--as though there were a compromise when one is true and the

other is false--is highly pervasive. My confidence in Judyth has grown

stronger and stronger through the course of this discussion and debate.

------------------------------FIRST EMAIL --------------------------------

Well, the expert Jim asked to look into this assessed only what he read on

the blog and so on...

The 'golden mean' logical error comes into play.

I have explained it probably to you before.

Position a: Judyth tells the truth.

Position c: McAdams lies and says I am lying.

Position b: the erroneous 'golden mean' that people choose after reading

both sides, trying for 'fairness'--but it always hurts the truth-teller, and

hope you pass this on to Jim.

The truth teller's position in the golden mean is reduced to 'might be

telling the truth".

This is weighted against "she is lying" at position c.

The golden mean for the 'she is lying' statement is "maybe she is lying".

The outcome using this fallacy that is taught in our schools is that, for

example, there is no 'pure' good or 'pure' evil--not true.

In my case, the result are two statements:

Judyth might be lying.

McAdams' statement indicates Judyth might be lying.

Outcome: Judyth might be lying, not McAdams might be lying.

Because the subject is Judyth and goes through two cycles, whereas Mcadmas

only goes through one cycle, of reasoning...

Thus whenever a witness statement is disputed, forever the witness is then

marked as 'maybe did not tell the truth'; whereas the one who raised the

objection gets no such judgment.

Note that the first impression of the 'expert'; was more positive.

Then he read the objections against me and moderated that to 'maybe she is

not telling the truth'.

Nobody can come to the conclusion "she is 100% telling the truth" after

reading a list of accusations and objections in our society, the way we have

been brainwashed to accept the golden mean, which is indeed tarnishing our

ability to accept anyone as a truth-teller once any objection is raised.

This filters into the news where 'balance' always includes, no matter how

much truth is out there, 'the other side' so that after all this time they

are still arguing in the news about whether water-boarding, used by the

Spanish Inquisition, can be called 'torture.'

The redefinition of 'torture' has now come to mean no visible marks left on

the body and no permanent damage. Thus it is no longer torture to pull out

all the fingernails and toenails and then after they have grown back,

release the prisoner who says he was tortured but cannot 'prove' it because

no marks were left on his body.

Of course, electro-shocking people also is not torture?

The redefinition and skirting of the Geneva Accords on their subject

demonstrates the paucity of real logic that is allowed to exists = when

mind control of the public is paramount.

Therefore, Dr. Fetzer, to not look too bad, will eventually have to modify

his statement that I am telling the truth all the time, because of all the

objections raised by others. If he stands up for the Zapruder film 100% as

he does, and yet the press has failed to say a peep about it, how can he

defend me, a truth-teller whose statements have been altered on the

internet?

All I can do is cite the past, letters of recommendation, etc. And here

'students' I do not even know their names, have spoken out saying silly and

untrue things about me.

Character assassination of the Kennedy family has been going on at a great

clip ever since the government's complicity has become more and more

evident and obvious.

The government will never try itself for the death of JFK.

It was a coup.

Interestedly, Gerry Hemming told me that I was stating things about covert

operations of which I was unaware, which could get me killed. He secretly

cc'd his emails to his interpen organization and I have saved them, showing

me his confidence in my statements. It was he who directed Nigel Turner to

me, as well.

Attached are photos of Gery that I made, and one that he sent me, of his

family and him...his jacket was stolen--the one I photographed was

re-created by interpen for him.

Gerry had as much stolen from him as I had.

Judy

------------------------------SECOND EMAIL --------------------------------

The 'golden mean' concept has made it impossible for witnesses to stand as

truth-tellers against government and its biased media that uses "the golden

mean" as a ploy that 'fairness' is thus presented. Actually, as

repeated below, adding in the same story objections to it reduces

every truth teller to 'might be lying' status.

News stories are not being 'fair' by presenting news with 'both sides'.

Such news stories are often in debate format. Stories opposing the

original statements should be written referring to the original, which

should always be available for comparison.

Can you imagine if every scientific paper had to list all the objections to

its statement within its declaration of new findings in research? They

cite a history, but they do not break up the scientific paper's new

information and evidence with dissents from former researchers to 'be

fair.'

Scientific method regarding witnesses should allow a full, unadulterated

original story to reach the public. Later stories should always show where

the original story can be accessed.

Then statements where they alter the information stated can be compared

easily to the original in every instance.

No forum that purports to be an education forum should make a statement

without citing a reference. Stating, for example, that our hotel bills were

paid by Carlos Marcello (added with a sneer) should have been backed up with

a citation.

I had to wade in and correct.

But then it gets buried.

McAdams would always put the original nasty statement at the end, as if it

had never been disproven.

The same tactic was used on the education forum when John Simkin kept

reposting the original message that I had joined the forum weeks later and

so could not make the claim that I had asked him to start the forum, he also

did not cite--failing to show the first post, which was about me, perhaps

because that strengthened my position.

Instead, he kept reposting, as does McAdams, as if the question had not been

resolved. I note that Dr. Fetzer would then repost the answer. Good for him.

Thus the slanted playing field gets somewhat corrected.

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.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
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...