Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

So NOW we have TWO JUDYTH VARY BAKERS? And some find the idea of TWO LEE HARVEY OSWALDS incredible.

Has anyone checked out which is the real JVB?

Jack

Jim, thank you for apologizing. You've proven true to your word to me the other day:

When I think I may have made a mistake, I check it and, if so, I correct it!

I prepared this response before I read your last post. It might be a little testy, but I've decided to leave it as written.

Judyth Baker writes:

"Shackelford's treatment of me had nothing to do with his massive knowledge of the case. In addition, I did not

know Haslam was writing another book. It came as a complete surprise, or otherwise I would have warned

him about the unauthorized status of the book.

Because he kept asking questions, I knew that inaccuracies in the book of concern did not affect what Haslam

learned from me. I never told Haslam why I withdrew the book, because I did not want him to have any

prejudice against Mr. Shackelford.

My personal feelings were not as important as Shackelford's input to Haslam.

.....I hope this explains why I did not bring up why the book was withdrawn to Haslam. I don't think he ever knew

that Shackelford was involved in the matter. I don't know."

On page 316 of Dr Mary's Monkey, Ed Haslam writes:

"Judyth has been kind enough to corroborate (and correct) my version of her account."

If not for a book, what did Judyth Baker think she was corroborating and correcting?

This is a very odd report. At this point in time, Ed Haslam has interviewed

Judyth for around 1,000 hours and has interrogated her more extensively

than anyone else alive, so far as I am able to ascertain.

He has told me that he does not want to take on extensive discussion about Judyth

until her book, ME & LEE, has appeared, no doubt to have a basic reference

work to which interested parties can be directed.

To recap: Ed Haslam was writing a book wherein Judyth Baker was going to play a major role: his witness.

He was able to get her to corroborate and correct his version of her story without letting her in on it.

Haslam was putting his personal and professional neck of credibility on the line in support of Judyth Baker,

yet he kept his book secret ("a complete surprise") from her during the many hours they talked. Haslam

and Baker had been talking for a period lasting more than five years. Okay, seems plausible.

And Judyth Baker, during all these hours spent talking with Ed Haslam, (who was sympathetic, supportive

and empathetic to her and her cause) decided not to tell Haslam about the shortcomings contained in her book

for the reasons she has just given.

I'm sure her failure to level with Haslam on such an important matter did wonders for her credibility with him..

After all, he had referred his readers to her book in order to make up their minds whether or not to believe Judyth's story.

Whatever he thought, he was now boxed in. He has continued to say he believes Judyth Baker "as a person."

His endorsement of the Lee Harvey Oswald love story angle seems tepid, at best.

As Haslam writes: "From my perspective, I was particularly concerned that 60M could easily discredit her story as

a means of discrediting my story. Such were my initial thoughts."

Maybe he still harbors similar concerns today.

Maybe that is why Haslam, as Jim relates, "does not want to take on extensive discussion about Judyth until her book,

Me & Lee, has appeared, no doubt to have a basic reference work to which interested parties can be directed."

No doubt.

Jim, I would like to revisit my question about Haslam's account of meeting a Judy Vary Baker as detailed in his Chapter 13.

Why do you think Haslam (living in New Orlean during the middle of the Garrison investigation)

showed so little interest in meeting with someone that said she knew Lee Harvey Oswald?

This encounter is one of the biggest blockbusters in Dr Mary's Monkey. Haslam allows that "the 1972 incident

caused confusion and distrust among the 60M team. Their only evidence was my word and my memory."

I find it strange that Haslam makes no mention of trying to find his girlfriend at the time, or any of the people

that were at that party (including Baker's husband) to verify his story. Sixty Minutes certainly had the investigative

wherewithal to do that, it would seem. If such a witness would have be found, you might not be having to argue Judyth's case today.

I shake my head that Haslam doesn't even mention any attempts to find these witnesses.

As I'm sure you're aware, Haslam references his interview with Jim Marrs. It is available on YouTube and the part about his

1972 encounter with a Judyth Vary Baker begins at the 42 minute mark. He talks of meeting Baker's husband (talked to him extensively)

and baby. He talks about being "suspicious of this party" to begin with. Warning light number two to Haslam was this lady's failure to

know of his father, who was well-known at Tulane. He had the impression that she might have been connected to the CIA,

because of her steadfast refusal to discuss details of her work. None of these details made his book.

Listen to his account for yourself and tell me how convincing Haslam is concerning his refusal to talk to JVB at the party.

How convincing is his account of declining to meet her privately? Why did he not express the slightest regret in his decision?

I can't help it, I find his description of this seminally important event lacking in much detail. Haslam's reason

for not meeting with a woman that wanted to discuss the Garrison investigation and was a "good buddy" of Lee Harvey Owald

(Although Haslam used this term to Marrs, he chose not use it in his book) are just not convincing to me.

When asked by Jim Marrs to assess Judyth Baker's credibility, Haslam says that he was not concerned "with which finger

did Lee Oswald wear his wedding ring on?" He said he "tried to look at her as a person and did she make sense to him as a person?"

He thinks she is is the "genuine article."

There are other subtle differences in Haslam's accounts. This is one that perplexes me, and I would like your take:

As Haslam tells it to Marrs, when the documents from 60 Minutes arrived there was a phone number for Judyth Baker

and, after recognizing the name, he called her immediately, expecting her to be the same woman he met in 1972.

Haslam was "surprised" to find out this Judyth Baker did not live in New Orleans in 1972.

In Dr. Mary's Monkey, Haslam makes no mention of this phone call. In fact, in the book Haslam makes it clear

that he contacted Judyth Baker directly, "after the 60M debacle." He implies that by that time he had already figured out

they could not be the same woman.

Why does Haslam give two different accounts of how he first encountered the "real" Judyth Baker? What am I not seeing?

I am not implying anything about Ed Haslam, other than I don't understand some of his claims.

After this exchange, it is my intention to withdraw from this thread. What I think about the Judyth Baker story is of little significance

to anyone other than myself. I intend to read her book when it comes out.

Again Jim, I appreciate your apology.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

When I read this latest post, I picked up my copy and noticed that, while Michael

said that he had reread the appendix, "Judyth's Story", but apparently he ignored Chapter

13, The Witness, which he does not mention. I question the competence

of someone who claims to have read a book but forgets the key chapter in

relation to Judyth. (emphasis mine) It discusses "60 Minutes" enthusiasm for featuring her

on one of its programs, where it spend more time and money on her than

on any other prospective feature. So Michael might want to reread it, too.

More than half my post dealt with the JVB Haslam said he encountered in 1972.

I quoted Haslam directly from Chapter 13. I describe Haslam's story as he wrote it.

All from Chapter 13. What's wrong with you, Jim?

Why do you think Haslam (living in New Orlean during the middle of the Garrison investigation)

showed so little interest in meeting with someone that said she knew Lee Harvey Oswald?

Why do you think Haslam made no mention of Baker's book being unauthorized by her,

when his book came out a year after hers did?

Your avoidance of those two elementary issues shows that, contrary to your words much

earlier in this thread, you have no interest in a fair discussion on the subject of JVB.

You'd rather deflect posts by questioning motives or insulting the intelligence of the poster.

You're not really in an advantageous position to question other people's competence

when it comes to this subject. You didn't make one reply of substance in regard to my

original post. Not one.

You can rectify that by giving your take on my two questions above. You might want to

read Chapter 13 before answering.

Why don't you address your false and misleading use of the term "evasive?"

I can answer for you. When you are wrong, you prefer insults over facts. You prefer insinuations

and innuendo about others' competence over substance. You love to give advice and seldom take any.

You are on the right side of many issues. It's a shame. You could do so much better.

Well stated, Michael. And I appreciate your original post regarding Ed Haslam as well.

By all accounts, Ed Haslam is one heck of a nice guy, very intelligent, well spoken, well read. I do not dispute any of that, but like you, I have questions about the episode he relates as to when he met a "Judyth Vary Baker" in New Orleans.

There is no mention of any such incident in his original book, "Mary Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" published in 1995. After Judyth emerged with her claims, and after Mr. Haslam became aware of her, my memory, and that of one other person who is a member here and has posted elsewhere her memory before, is that Haslam originally related how he met a "Judyth" at this 1972 New Orleans gathering, who claimed to have known Oswald. (I agree with you that it seems odd to meet someone like that, when you are interested in the subject, and choose to walk away from it.) And, at that time, as both myself and the other person recall, he did not claim to know the full name of the person he had met. I do not know if the other member is following this thread, but if so, perhaps they will weigh in here on this.

I am also looking for a post I recall where one in touch with Haslam at the time related Haslam telling him about when he met the "Judyth" in NO, that he asked her if that would be "Judy" and she said no, "Judyth ... and going on to say he didn't know her last name. I will surely post it if I can find it.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Michael Hogan]

I am also looking for a post I recall where one in touch with Haslam at the time related Haslam telling him about when he met the "Judyth" in NO, that he asked her if that would be "Judy" and she said no, "Judyth ... and going on to say he didn't know her last name. I will surely post it if I can find it.

Haslam relates that incident in his interview with Jim Marrs, available on YouTube. He and his girlfriend were

driving around, trying to find the party of which Judyth Baker was the hostess. It comes up shortly after the 42 minute mark.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT RACHEL OSWALD

In the midst of this brouhaha does not appear to be a promising time to take a mini-family vacation.

The endless onslaught of attacks reminds me of the point I and others have made about the Warren

Commission sealing testimony and records for 75 years based upon national security considerations.

If the Warren Commission version of events were true, there were no "national security aspects" to

the assassination. If Judyth were a fantasist, as David, Jack, and others have claimed, why would

there be any reason to attack her? None of this makes any sense. Here is Judyth's reply to Lifton on

Rachel, which, together with the summary of the article by Laura Miller in The Dallas Observer, offers

evidence that Judyth had good reasons to believe that Lifton had pulled "a fast one" on Rachel. What

I would like is a copy of Miller's article, if anyone can provide me with a copy, because it appears to

have "disappeared" from the internet. With it or without it, my inference is that Judyth had grounds

to believe that Lifton had shortchanged Rachel, which means that, even if her belief turns out to be

false, as Lifton insists, she did not satisfy the third or fourth conditions for committing a lie. Under

these circumstances, it seems to me that it is Lifton who owes Judyth an apology and not vice versa.

JUDYTH REPLIES

Dear Jim--

Firs of all, I want to state that my family has not abandoned me over this issue. My dad and my mother always

staunchly defended me. Two of my five children have sacrificed tremendously to get me safe shelter overseas.

One son spent over $45,000, cashing in his retirement fund, to help me stay safe. He was a witness to some of

the threats and harrassments I've endured.

Another son offered me a beautiful, free house in Florida (he owns some fifteen houses and is wealthy) and offered

to publish my book, with all revenues going to me, if I would publish it as "historical fiction." When I turned him down,

he broke off contact with me. Another son also cut me entirely from his life. It's heartbreaking.

About Rachel Oswald Porter

I stated what I did about Rachel Oswald because I received an email from Rachel--and Wim Dankbaar and Linda Minor

have both verified that the email was from her. Even then I did not know what Rachel might be talking about by having

mentioned Lifton, which was an unsolicited comment, so I asked some researchers to tell me what they knew.

Here is Rachel Butterman's email to me:

From: Rachel Buttermann [coneheads@XXXXXX]

Sent: Tuesday November 18, 2003 7:47

To: elec...@xs4all.nl

Subject: A note from LHO's daughter

Hello,

My name is Rachel Oswald. I was born 10/20/1963. I just saw your

interview on the History Channel. After 40 years of unwanted

attention, I want to thank you for placing the light on yourself and

not my poor mother who becomes distraught every November at this time.

I wanted to tell you that either you are a victim of too much

knowledge and are delusional or you are telling your truth about what

you believed happened to you in 1963.

Personally, I just wanted to know what you can tell me about my

father.

Sincerely,

Rachel Oswald Porter

P.S. I cannot stand David Lifton and believe he would sell his mother

if the price were right. Your thoughts?

==I replied with two sincere letters about her father, and how much she had meant to him. The emails were not rejected.

Then Wim Dankbaar found her address and phone number and called her, but her husband wisely and protectively refused

access. Then she changed her email address. I would NEVER have given out her last name, where she lives, etc. but the

McAdams' newsgroup got that email and others stolen from me, and published it on their newsgroup, on May 24, 2008, at

12:58 AM with no compunctions about revealing her last name. Four days later, they wrote:

NOTE: The moderators have redacted information in this post that might compromise the privacy of Rachael Oswald.

Then they published her letter again, but left the former post and her name still visible higher in the thread.

I always try to verify what I'm told. Rachel said, "I cannot stand David Lifton and believe he would sell his mother if the

price were right. Your thoughts?"

It was Rachel who made the negative statement. I did seek evidence to see why she made that statement, and learned

that the present (at that time) Mayor of Houston, Laura Miller, had written an story about David Lifton. Lifton did not sue.

One person on the Internet, Deb Hart, wrote to David Nesbitt:

debhart94103@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:55nervc9uvcpjq7i4rk8mj61m3g87egk70@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:39:52 GMT, "David P. Nesbitt"

> <cnesbitt@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Get a copy of the Dallas Observer article, written by Laura Miller

> (current mayor of Dallas, TX), which lays it out in all its sordid

> detail. In summary, [Lifton] lied to Miss Oswald-Porter,

> claiming he wanted to "interview [her] for historical purposes only".

> He paid her a few dollars (literally) "for her time" and got a

> "release". (she was a nursing student, working her way through school

> at the time). Then, he turned around and SOLD THE TAPE to HARD COPY

> FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS.. She was literally waiting tables in a

> restaurant in Austin, TX when she looked up at a screen to see herself

> on HARD COPY.

>

> And THAT'S NOT ALL.

>

> He used computer technology to take a "still" picture from the video

> tape, and sold it to tabloids ALL OVER EUROPE for THOUSANDS MORE.

>

> This guy has given EVERYONE foolish enough to call himself a

> "conspiracy theorist" (he invented the demeaning term) the WORST

> possible reputation.

>

> Even the *cameramen* at HARD COPY (not to mention the executive

> producers) considered him scum.

Thanks for the info, Deb! I had no idea that this had occurred. It is sad

that there are so many who shamefully capitalize on this national tragedy.

==============end post by Deb Hart==================

Was Laura Miller an investigative report for The Dallas Observer? Yes:

"Laura Miller (born November 18, 1958) served as mayor of Dallas, Texas (U.S.) from 2002 through 2007...

In 1991, Miller became an investigative reporter for the Dallas Observer ...In 1998, Miller was elected to the

Dallas City Council representing Oak Cliff and southwest Dallas. In 2002, Miller was elected as Mayor of Dallas."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Miller

Miller was always against corruption: wrote one newsgroup person:

"Laura Miller is an independent minded councilwoman who

has a history of standing up to the downtown power system.

While her power is somewhat limited as a mere council member,

she has a large following in the city from her days as a journalist

for the Dallas Observer..." She later was elected Mayor of Dallas.

Deb Bert (under a different name) on April 4, 2001, two years before she wrote in response to Rachel's complaint

against Lifton, told readers about what he had done to Rachel (and, I do not think Rachel would bring it up in an

email to me unless she felt, in 2003, a BIG grudge against Lifton for some BIG reason, as the email was short):

"It was Ms. Miller who wrote the excellent article on his exploitation of one of the Oswald daughters. After reading

that article, I decided that nothing written ....by [Lifton] was to be trusted. Someone who would lie to Oswald's

daughter would lie to the rest of us as well."

To which another person replied:

<wparker...@home.com>

I would appreciate it if you could direct me to where I could find Miller's article on [Lifton].

I used to believe he was sincere until I had some unfortunate personal dealing with him

Bill Parker

REPLY: "The article was published in the Dallas Observer in the spring or early summer of 1992,

and should be available in their archives for a small fee. It leaves NOTHING to the imagination."

[NOTE: Her articles in the Dallas Observer: http://www.dallasobserver.com/authors/laura-miller

do not include the one of interest. I would appreciate it if someone could send a copy to me.]

Re Lifon's Book, originally to be called something like "I Led ThreeLives" and then, "Charade" one

researcher stated:

David P. Nesbitt

View profile

Nov 14 2003, 3:20 am

Well, the timing has been bad a couple of times. Norman Mailer's book came

out and then Oswald and the CIA, so there was starting to be a glut of books

which is a bad thing for sales. But I don't know what the problem has been

the last 5 years.

Another wrote:

> "He was on Black Op radio recently and said that he was still working

> on his book about Oswald. " (Nov. 2003)

==But Lifton never contacted me but a single time, if only to dismiss my claims after thoroughly investigating them.

I had been willing to cooperate thoroughly.

Why did Rachel Oswald say he would sell his own mother if the price was right?

It was she who brought up a money angle.

In fact, I kept that email from Rachel to myself.

I had not sought to place Mr. Lifton in a bad light by using it-- even though he had attacked me, by then, many times.

I kept he email private.

Rachel's security meant more to me than revealing her email to defend myself against Mr. Lifton.

Then, somebody who is an acknowledged mental case, who had gotten hold of my emails, published Rachel's email to

me on McAdams' newsgroup.==

Summary:

Failure to keep confidentiality: David Lifton broke his word, saying he would keep our only conversation confidential.

The broken promise tells me that he can lie.

Secret and illegal taping: this tells me he can do unscrupulous things.

An unsolicited complaint from Rachel Oswald sating that he would sell his own mother for money. Obviously, something

bad happened between Rachel and Lifton regarding money: this tells me that something to do with money occurred

between Rachel Oswald and David Lifton, to her disadvantage.

He has misrepresented my statements to him and refused to acknowledge his misinterpretations of my statements when

they were pointed out to him at the Education Forum in 2010: he is willing to continue a misrepresentation even after it

has been shown to be wrong.

Conclusion:

David Lifton did something harmful to Rachel Oswald Porter Butterman, financially, and I am justified in pointing it out,

not only because it has already been mentioned elsewhere, and not just because it was brought up by Butterman, but

because Mr. Lifton has also treated me unscrupulously.

It seems he will delay his book in hopes I will die first, because he knows I will come out swinging if he misrepresents

anything about Lee Oswald that I know not to be the truth, such as, for example, getting the very date of his arrival in

New Orleans wrong, just for starters.

Even when Dr. Fetzer corrected him, Mr. Lifton ignored his correction, and again insisted that Oswald arrived on the 26th

instead of the 25th of April, 1963, in New Orleans. Was that because I said Oswald met with David Ferrie on the 25th?

What kind of biography would Lifton's book represent about the real Oswald, if he is willing to hide a claim that Lee

Oswald met with David Ferrie on 25 April, 1963?

JVB

David,

While we both know that our different takes on Judyth has created tension in our (your and my) relationship, I would

observe that four conditions must be satisfied for an assertion A to qualify as a lie: one party (1) must assert A to be

the case, (2) when A is not the case, (3) yet the party is still asserting A deliberately, even though s/he knows that A is

false, and (4) with the intention to deceive their audience. Neither of you trusts the other, even remotely, where each

of you has "good reasons". But if Judyth sincerely believes what she has said, then that assertion does not satisfy the

third condition for properly qualifying as a lie. The word is used too freely within this community, where the fact that

someone is making an assertion that another party regards as false does not mean that the first party is committing a

lie. Based upon my interaction with Judyth, which has been overwhelmingly greater than your own, I have found her

to be painstakingly committed to getting things right, where she has corrected my own understanding on specific points

on more than one occasion. Indeed, I have found her commitment to "getting things right" extremely persuasive about

her integrity and truthfulness. I regard her as extremely scrupulous and therefore I will be very surprised if she has, in

fact, committed a lie. I regard the prospect that she was acting on a false belief as enormously more likely than that

she was deliberately distorting the truth, if, as you claim, she has asserted something that is actually false. So I will be

certain that she responds to this post as promptly as she can and, if she's made a mistake, ask her to apologize to you.

By the same token, however, if she sincerely believed what she was saying, you should extend an apology to her. OK?

Jim

Judyth,

Re your statement concerning my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel Oswald, you write, QUOTE:He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing. UNQUOTE

Judyth, you're a bald faced xxxx, and --as the saying goes--someone should wash your mouth out with soap.

As I have already noted, in a previous (and fairly detailed) post, explaining the full circumstances of my 1991 filmed interview with Rachel, in Austin:

1. Rachel Oswald consented to be interviewed by me, in 1991--an interview that was extremely detailed, ran about two hours; and covered many aspects of what it was like to grow up as the daughter of Lee Oswald. For that privilege, Rachel Oswald was paid about $1500.

2. A year later, HARDCOPY learned about this interview, and wanted to broadcast a small portion--about 5 minutes worth. Rachel was approached, consented, and was paid an additional $2500.

In sum, Rachel was paid a total of about $4,000 (at least, for I do not know the full arrangement) for a five minute broadcast version of her multi-hour interview with me.

In connection with that broadcast (or as a consequence, I do not remember the exact details), Rachel was also flown to Europe for about a week, all expenses paid, to the Netherlands.

Marina Oswald Porter, Rachel's mother, told me that Rachel was very pleased with the two hour 1991 interview, after it occurred.

Her stepfather, Kenneth Porter, told me that she banked the money and it helped accelerate her entry to graduate school. He, too, thanked me personally.

Flashing forward now a full year to the 1992 broadcast: Both Rachel and I were angry at the tasteless manner in which HARDCOPY used the few minutes they were licensed to use.

Returning now to your false charge: whether the show was up to par or not (and it definitely was not) Rachel received about $4,000.

To this day, some 18 years later, I have a signed copy of a release for the entire two hour interview, but only about 5 minutes have ever publicly been used.

As is often the case, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Returning now to your statement: "He promised to help Rachel Oswald and sold her story out from under her and gave her nothing."

I repeat what I said at the outset of this post: This is a total falsehood, and your continued repetition of this false statement expose you as nothing but a cheap and uninformed xxxx. Further, very time you repeat this, I'm going to post a rebuttal, until you stop lying about it.

For whatever reason, Jim Fetzer insists on believing you, and has invested his self image and reputation in the rubbish you promote.

But I won't stand for your nonsense.

DSL

4/10/10; 2:10 AM PDT

Los Angeles, California

P.S. I could care less whether you now say you were referring to "Kan Kun" rather than "Cancun" in your March, 2000 conversation with me. You said "Cancun"--that is quite obvious--but if you can't

be trusted to relate the truth about whether someone was paid $4,000 in fees, for the use of several minutes of a 2 hour filmed interview, and instead promote the fiction they were paid nothing, etc.,

then I have no interest in anything else you have to say, for that incident alone provides an accurate barometer to your utter lack of truthfulness and connection to reality.

Edited April 11, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

In searching for information about JVB, I came across a JFK website that

lists these ALIASES.

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

David,

One last note on Cancun, somewhere in this morass, I already posted an e-mail response from Judyth to Mary Ferrell saying that Rorke was supposed to fly her to "Cancun." She wrote "Cancun" ... that was, if I recall correctly, in October 2000 ... after you had spoken to Judyth, but *before* you had posted anything about her saying it and there not having been a Cancun at the time.

In addition, there is this document that Judyth sent to her team when working on the book ... it is self explanatory, her working on the phone call section of her manuscript (which includes the going to Cancun, staying in a fine hotel" scenario, calling recipients attention to any section in caps that is a change, etc. Here's an excerpt, the entire document can be seen at:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/endofline.pdf

I have included the part about how she made the call ... some may want to compare and contrast this with info she has given in this thread about how they called one another.

==============the next section will deal with the last two telephone calls====thanks.j

Last Phone Call, November 20th, 1963

“It’s me again,” he said.

“Oh, Lee!”

I couldn’t act the part I wanted to play of the light-hearted and encouraging lover. We were

both very down. A weight had settled upon us. I very well knew i might never hear his voice

directed to me again, nor would he hear my words of love. I felt like I was choking. It was a cool

afternoon, and he had called me back right away. It was either this date, or on the 18th, that I had

to call Lee, because he missed the call to me i had expected on the 19th, and Dave had called to

tell me that Lee had to set up a new call schedule for me: it was getting very close to impossible

for him to call me again.

I was able to place a person-to-person call through the operator, but Dave’s operator was not

yet in place, and the lady who took the call made me tell her Lee’s exact name, or she would not

put through the call. I was quite spoiled with our special operator, and angry that this operator

had taken the call, but there was no help for it: I had already asked to be put through to the Texas

State Book depository, to cue in Lee that I could take his call whenever he was ready, and this

lady demanded his name before she would put the call through. Okay, I thought to myself, this is

not our operator, so i will be very brief, in case she listens in! I certainly would not wait for Lee

to answer the phone, as I had originally planned. . At least he knew that I had been reached by

Dave. After a minute, and some trouble as it seemed to me, a lady answered the phone, and I

used my most official-sounding adult voice, clearly and slowly asking her if Lee Oswald worked

there. It seemed to me that she was not sure, and then I told her that he was a janitor. “Janitor”

was the code word that meant “J.A.” (My first two initials) was calling. We felt that lee could

possibly be described as a janitor without anybody catching on, if I had to contact him. I asked

the lady to pass the message on to the “janitor” that somebody had called for him, and hung up.

The exchange at Covington must have been put into order again pretty quickly, or else Lee

took a chance, because I waited less than an hour at PenChem’s phone (I often worked overtime,

and Robert would only pick me up when i called him, so I had time to wait for this call). My

paycheck stubs from this time period show i was working an extra hour a day--mostly because i

was working on Dave’s chemical projects — and also because I could get phone calls with

nobody around at the payphone there, if Lee said not to use the payphone station set-up.

Because time was so short now, Lee told me there wouldn’t be another call from him unless he

reached Laredo.

“Lee,” I said slowly, “you didn’t say until. You said “unless.’”

“I apologize,” he answered. I heard him suck up his breath. We were both very close to tears.

Outside, it was sunset.

“You’ll go to Cancun,” Lee said. “You’ll stay in a fine hotel. I’ll be there — if they---”

We were both speechless.

“You know,” he said then, “if I don’t make it out— you have to go on with everything.”

“Oh, sure!” i said, bitterly. I told him that I would never allow anyone to replace him in my

heart.

“But promise me,” he said. “That you’ll have babies.”

“I don’t want to have babies with anyone but you.”

“Oh yes you will,” he answered. “You take home baby birds and feed them. So you have to

have babies. So promise me.”

I promised.

Four and a half years after Lee’s death, the first baby, conceived with Robert, was born. I

named her Susan, calling her “Susie” in honor of Susie Hanover. Susie’s middle name

“Mavinee” satisfied me because it rhymed with Lee and had two ee’s.

Bests, Barb :-)

ps whether you now say you were referring to "Kan Kun" rather than "Cancun" in your March, 2000 conversation with me. You said "Cancun"--that is quite obvious--but if you can't

be trusted to relate the truth about whether someone was paid $4,000 in fees, for the use of several minutes of a 2 hour filmed interview, and instead promote the fiction they were paid nothing, etc.,

then I have no interest in anything else you have to say, for that incident alone provides an accurate barometer to your utter lack of truthfulness and connection to reality.

[Jack White]

I have been trying to play "catchup" on JVB. The Lancer Forum has archived emails from way-back. I found

some interesting discussions there. One that struck me from 2005 was Pamela saying:

"An ironic coincidence (to me anyhow) is that in this DVD I get the feeling we have Judyth as Oracle of the assassination. It is a strange feeling, and there is something eery about it."

I agree with Pamela's 2005 assessment. I too find it eerie.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jack,

If you were a woman, who begins life with a first name, middle name,

and family name, but which changes when they marry, I doubt that you

would find this so mysterious. Why don't you ask your wife about it?

Thanks.

Jim

In searching for information about JVB, I came across a JFK website that

lists these ALIASES.

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT RACHEL OSWALD

In fact, I kept that email from Rachel to myself.

No. You responded saying you were sending it to three friends.

I will send a copy of this, your first email, to three people who keep

records in cae anything happens to me - probably nothing will, but

just in case.

==I replied with two sincere letters about her father, and how much she had meant to him.

It was in that very long, very emotional and personal first one where you told her about how her father hit her mother, wasn't it?

When living at 4905 Magazine, your father promised me he would not lay a

hand on your mother again or I said I would have nothing more to do with

him. Your father should not have hit your mother, but on the other hand, I

did hear why, and I would rather not go into this.

The emails were not rejected.

Nor were they replied to. And there were three of them.

After the last one, you received this:

On Tuesday, February 03, 2004 10.22 PM Judyth Vary Baker received this

email from Rachel Oswald's email address (Deleted by Moderators)

I believe you have the wrong e-mail address... in the past a lot of

these types of e-mails have come to this address. Please stop writing

this company. Thank you ...

Then Wim Dankbaar found her address and phone number and called her, but her husband wisely and protectively refused

access. Then she changed her email address. [/unquote]

Is it any wonder.

[Pamela Brown]

I have been trying to play "catchup" on JVB. The Lancer Forum has archived emails from way-back. I found

some interesting discussions there. One that struck me from 2005 was Pamela saying:

"An ironic coincidence (to me anyhow) is that in this DVD I get the feeling we have Judyth as Oracle of the assassination. It is a strange feeling, and there is something eery about it."

I agree with Pamela's 2005 assessment. I too find it eerie.

Jack

Initially, I did find Judyth's statements and experiences somewhat overwhelming. I had worked with some witnesses, but nobody pushed the envelope as she did, and none of them was as controversial.

It took me a while to get to know Judyth and figure out for myself where she was coming from. It was as though she were a genie that had been kept in a bottle, and once she came forward she was fiercely determined to vindicate Lee Oswald no matter what it took. Now I am not surprised or overwhelmed; I accept that she is unique, and I am grateful for her tenacity and grace under pressure.

[Jack White]

I have been searching for information on TWO JUDYTH VARY BAKERS. Nothing.

But I found several interesting tidbits.

...JVB's eyesight is so poor that she has a seeing eye guide dog.

...JVB's former husband Robert gave a version of the story of the assassination contrary

to JBV's. He said that at summer's end, he and Judy were both enrolled at the fall

semester at the University of Florida in Gainesville, and on November 22 the

assassination happened, and that Judy brought home a newspaper showing the

accused assassin, and Judy said, "I think I may have seen this guy in New Orleans".

This is in contrast to the JVB story. Has anyone checked the U of F enrollment records

to see whether Robert and Judy were enrolled there in September?

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM AND JUDYTH RESPOND TO GREENLEE, SHACKELFORD, AND WHITE

NOTE: I suppose that Greenlee, who has been posting nasties to Junkkarinen on

another site, belongs here to add to the fray. How many have now piled on about my

inquiry about some code that was linked to Junkkarinen's site but turned out to be

about her son rather than her? Junkkarinen, Thompson, Farley, Viklund, Greenlee,

and no doubt others. That's a lot of posts for asking about some apparently military

code in the belief that they had come from Barb's page to which his page was linked:

"I'm very sorry for the indefensible crap Fetzer posted about your son", he says. But

the only "indefensible crap" posted is his. The code I posted was some that Barb's son

had included on his own Facebook page. Facebook is public and he had it posted there.

My only mistake was to suppose it came from Barb, when it came from another page

linked to Barb's page. It was nothing more than a simple inquiry in one of my posts:

I addressed this issue in #1018 and in #1047. I am not the only one who finds it odd

that there is very little about Barb to be found on Barb's Facebook page. We already knew

that Vikelund, Junkkarenin, and McAdams were working together. Now Greenlee joins them

This is a nice example of the critics methodology: find something to attack, no matter how

innocuous, and beat it to death! No one will even protest this genuinely indefensible crap!

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Martin has some facts wrong. Two others were involved as witnesses,

and know that Shackelford did not know everything that was going on.

1) I did not take any advance money. I sent back $300. Another $100

I was told was a gift to keep my Internet on, in Hungary, just as we

decided to work together. I never regarded that as an advance.

2) Shackelford was not privy to all that occurred between Livingstone and me.

3) It is a fact that many edits Shackelford and I did together did not make it

into the final product. While I approved the edits, I never saw the final product.

ANYONE who got the book can see that there are errors and typos, plus many

exhibits were illegibly printed.

4) It is not true that I rejected the book over money. Shackelford may remember

that Livingstone wanted to take the film rights that had already been assigned

elsewhere. I have witnesses to that. This was the crux of any financial objections:

I had already signed film rights elsewhere.

5) It was never about money. Shackelford may have thought so, but my conduct

proves otherwise. I shut the book down. I refused to accept a penny from the book.

6) That was in 2006. The book was flawed and I began a rewrite in a different

format to protect it from any claim by Livingstone that 'his' edit had been taken

elsewhere. It was not.

7) Ed Haslam's book came out in 2007 -- Dr. Mary's Monkey.

8) I realized that Trine Day--a courageous press that published

Dan Marvin's book, Expendible Elite-- and won a court case when green

berets sued Dan over it---had done a good job with Haslam's book.

9) I wrote to Trine Day, but then was forced in the political asylum system.

I sent them the manuscript. I never asked for an advance. I asked for nothing.

I just wanted the book to be in good hands. That was my sole objective. Since

I had entered the EU political asylum system, I was unable to even sign a contract,

and my son was given power of attorney to handle my affairs.

10) After reading my manuscript, they decided to publish it in hardback, and I have

had not the least trouble in getting corrections made. Talk about professionalism and

due care! At every step of the way, everything has been vetted, researched and double-

checked, most of which would never be seen in the book--everything from obituaries

to interviews. I am pleased that the book will have very few errors in it.

11) In contrast, Livingstone wanted to put the book out as quickly as possible because

of the thieves. Shackelford was not privy to everything that passed between me and

Livingstone. Two others were, but Martin was not.

JVB

Hi Jack,

Martin Shackleford posted an account of the creation and publication of the "unauthorized"

version of Judyth's book in some newgroup messages a few years ago. i will post highlights

but if you wish to read Martin's complete posts you can find them at the address i post at

the bottom of each quotation.

"How "unauthorized" can a book be when she wrote it and corrected the book

after it was edited. It was published exactly in the form it existed after

she made her corrections. For her to complain--after she went through the

entire book herself making corrections--that the book has "typos" is absurd.

As for "missing photos and other flaws," the same thing applies. It was

published as she corrected it. Nonetheless, she would like to blame Harry

Livingstone for those problems--but he made NO changes after she corrected

the book. After everyone had done their work on the book, and it was ready

for publication, she tried to demand additional business concessions in

return for "permission" to publish it. As both sides had already met all

agreed-upon conditions, there was no legal reason not to publish the book.

The only reason she claims that publication was done "behind her back" is

because she refused further involvement and thus didn't keep up with

developments in the final stages. That's ALL it means.

The story is much muddier than you imagine, and has nothing to do with

whether the book was authentic.

Unauthorized isn't the same as inauthentic, by the way. The conflict was

over other issues entirely."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc

and

"In October 2004, Harrison Livingstone, who had

included a reference to Judyth in his recently-published book The Radical

Right....., learned that Judyth was having difficulty getting her book

published, and offered to publish it under the following conditions:

1) She would provide the complete manuscript (instead, she doled it out a

chapter at a time over a

period of ten months, violating the first condition to which she agreed;

the projected time frame

had initially been much shorter, but we stuck with it, despite mounting

expenses).

2) He would edit the book and arrange for its publication through a POD, the

same way he had been

publishing his own recent books, which she had praised.

3) A colleague of ours with extensive layout skills would do the layout for

the book, for a minimal cost.

(She later denied that she had been told he would be paid, despite

responding to e-mails in which

this had been clearly discussed; she insisted she had been told

everything would be "free"--what

that meant, to the extent it had been said, was that she wouldn't have

to contribute any money--

she translated it to mean that no one's expenses would have to be

reimbursed out of royalties.)

4) We would raise the money to publish the book, relieving her of the costs.

This and the layout guy

(and the $500 advance which she later received) would be repaid out of

royalties, once they began.

5) After the book was edited, she would make corrections; no further editing

would be done.

She agreed to these five conditions enthusiastically, and expressed

gratitude to the investors and those

putting their efforts into the book.

All of these steps were completed--it was at THAT point that she decided she

wanted to change the agreement, and hold the book hostage, AFTER everyone

had donated their efforts for ten months, and

the investments necessary to publish the book. The new conditions she sought

were totally unacceptable.

Since all of the elements of the original agreement had been completed in

full by all parties involved, we went ahead with publication of the

book--but only after several more months of discussions in an effort to get

her to see reason. There was no precipitous decision to "go behind her

back."

She decided, unilaterally, that the book couldn't be published without her

"permission," which was conditional on meeting her new set of demands. Thus,

she was startled when the book was published.

As she had cut off all communication, we were unable to keep her abreast of

developments, and when the book came out, she learned about it indirectly,

even as copies were being boxed (along with promotional materials, etc.) to

ship to her. Things tend to happen "behind their back" when a person turns

their back on all of the work and money invested in a project, and just

expects everyone to walk away.

Finally, in December 2005, after $2200 had been invested in the book, in

addition to materials (more than originally projected, because she insisted

on having over 400 illustrations, which increased the costs), she offered to

"buy back" the book for $500--in other words, she sought only to return her

advance, and wanted everyone to agree to eat their costs while she went

shopping for a more lucrative deal--with a manuscript edited by Livingstone,

who wasn't even to have his costs reimbursed. "

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...f4ffeb92d79a0bc

I am baffled about how an UNAUTHORIZED VERSION could be published by Livingstone.

Did Harry just make up stuff and write FICTION? How and why did the story change?

What did Harry have wrong? What was his source? What portion of Harry's version was

objectionable, and where did it originate? How did Harry get the original manuscript

which he then corrupted? I find this all very strange.

Jack

[Jack White]

Jack,

If you were a woman, who begins life with a first name, middle name,

and family name, but which changes when they marry, I doubt that you

would find this so mysterious. Why don't you ask your wife about it?

Thanks.

Jim

In searching for information about JVB, I came across a JFK website that

lists these ALIASES.

Jack

Jim...you missed the point entirely. JVB has claimed that she "hated" her family name

of AVARY (Judy Ann Avary), so she changed her name to Judyth A. VARY. I consider

this a peculiar thing for a teen girl to do. And then go off all alone to a distant strange

city. Sounds like a bad familial relationship. A runaway?

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

I am also looking for a post I recall where one in touch with Haslam at the time related Haslam telling him about when he met the "Judyth" in NO, that he asked her if that would be "Judy" and she said no, "Judyth ... and going on to say he didn't know her last name. I will surely post it if I can find it.

Haslam relates that incident in his interview with Jim Marrs, available on YouTube. He and his girlfriend were

driving around, trying to find the party of which Judyth Baker was the hostess. It comes up shortly after the 42 minute mark.

Hi Michael,

Thanks ... I listened to it. And it is different from what I had seen before in what turns out to be an email ... I have now found that. It is in an email written from one member of Judyth's team to the others. I have some real reservations about posting this thing because of some comments that are made in it ... and they are relevant.

The you tube interview is from 2003... and Haslam clearly says his girlfriend told him the party hostess' name was "Judyth Vary Baker" This email was written in Sept 2000, by a team Judyth member who had just been told the story by Haslam the day before ... and had taken notes. In it, he says Haslam had the "is that Judy, no, it's Judyth" conversation with the Judyth person herself ... and there is no mention of any name applied to her except "Judyth" - the writer saying he doesn't recall if Haslam said anything about "Vary Baker."

Later in the mail, it is noted that someone else (team member) pointed out that Haslam first related the party incident to any of them after he had spoken to the JVB we know, not before. And there is a comment, that, "In any case, TODAY he seems quite certain that the name was "Judyth Vary Baker." (all caps for TODAY as in original.)

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT JUDYTH AND PAMELA AND MORE

Pamela has changed her position, Jack, as she has learned more about Judyth, Lee, and the

history of New Orleans at the time. How can anyone who has read Ed Haslam, DR. MARY'S

MONKEY, or even listened to my interview with him, which was broadcast yesterday on "The

Real Deal" and is currently archived at http://religionandmorality.net/Podcasts/Haslam/ have

any serious doubts about Judyth's bona fides as a brilliant science student who was out-

performing the NIH in cancer research and was recruited to assist in critical research projects

in collaboration with Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, and Dr. Alton Ochsner? and that early

on she met Lee Oswald, who (apparently by pre-design) was helping her cope with the city?

I have a few questions for you, my friend, which may shed light on the situation between us:

(1) Have you listened to my interview of Ed on "The Real Deal" or via the archived link above?

(2) Have you read Haslam's book, DR. MARY'S MONKEY, which has been in print since 2007?

(3) Have you watched "The Love Affair", from "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", which can be

accessed at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/03/14...udyth-vary.html?

(4) Have you read "14 Reasons to Believe in Judyth Vary Baker" found on that same blog page?

(5) Have you watched the videotaped interview with Anna Lewis also found on that blog page?

(6) Have you listened to my interview with Dean Hartwell about Judyth also found there, too?

JUDYTH COMMENTS ABOUT SOME OF WHAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED HERE SO FAR

We are making progress. We have unmasked so many of the false rumors and statements that

had been traveling under the wire about me that were false, including each of the following:

1) John Simkin showing prejudice against me at once by implying I lied--corrected by Dr. Fetzer;

2) Jack White saying I'd been kicked off DellaRosa's forum for abusive posting--uncovered as untrue;

3) David Lifton's claims about the illegal taping he did have been uncovered as misrerpresenations,

where he has shown amazing and enduring prejudice by attempting to ignore those findings;

4) Barb's 'fact finding" has been proven (for those whose minds aren't closed) to be incompetent;

5) silly claims about me, such as that I changed my name from "Avary" to "Vary" because I hated my

family name, have been exposed;

6) the "Kankun" matter has been settled except for the McAdams' folks, who will never change;

7) the Walter Reed address code factor has been placed back where it belongs in the trivia box;

8) we have shown the truth about Oswald's Tooth, despite the websites that twisted everything I'd said;

9) we have shown that support for "Harvey" and "Lee" attending the same junior high is questionable;

9) we have established that HARVEY and LEE theories ignore some obvioius phoito distortions, where it

seems that Armstrong has been given, or made, bad copies that distorted Oswald: we have more to do;

10) we have established that the entire Murret family would have had to know "both" Harvey and Lee

due to the tooth matter, where Lillian purportedly paid for "Lee"s dental work, as Dr. Fetzer pointed out;

There is much more waiting in the wings--Barb's barbs have proved to be much ado about nothing...--

where the thread has polarized--in other words, exposed--the agendas of many.

I've had so many threats in the past three years that this time, instead of printing an acknowledgment

page as planned, for everyone's safety, there is no such page. Instead, the book is dedicated to those

who have given their lives as witnesses.

JVG

Are you capable of changing your mind like Pam, Jack? I anticipated that the going might get rough, and

I haven't planned to lose any old friends over this. But I'm not going to abandon a witness in whom I believe!

I have been trying to play "catchup" on JVB. The Lancer Forum has archived emails from way-back.

I found some interesting discussions there. One that struck me from 2005 was Pamela saying:

"An ironic coincidence (to me anyhow) is that in this DVD I get the feeling we have Judyth as

Oracle of the assassination. It is a strange feeling, and there is something eery about it."

I agree with Pamela's 2005 assessment. I too find it eerie.

Jack

Edited April 11, 2010 by James H. Fetzer