Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO LEE FARLEY

Much of what you have here I agree with, Lee. Certainly, I had not intended to post private email exchanges with David Lifton until he extracted a part of one and published it out of context in a self-serving attempt to make himself look better when I asked him to send me an audio cassette of his (one and only) conversation with Judyth, which I find reprehensible. He has violated the canons of privacy as well as the standards for research, which has completely transformed my opinion of the man.

Printing my email to him would have been fine with me if he had published it in its entirety. But to edit only the part that makes you look good and post that alone violates basic requirements of honesty. He has even gone to far as to claim that I thereby "threatened him"! Well, take a good look. I gave him a piece of my mind. I did not "threaten him". What was the purported effect he'd endure from continuing to intervene on a thread that he was not reading? Pissing me off? He'd already done that.

With regard to HARVEY & LEE, Jack has been after me to read it for some time, so I obtained a copy and began to read it. Right off the back, I discovered a blunder in an Armstrong remark about the "index" to the 26 volumes. Then, in the context of the discussion of "Lee"s missing front tooth, I discovered that, according to Armstrong, Lillian Murret, who is supposed to have been "Harvey"s aunt, not "Lee"s, paid for "Lee"s dental bill, which she remembered, an absurd scenario reported with a straight face.

There are a number of other studies by Judyth that undermine, but do not disprove, the "two Oswalds" account. One of mine is the apparently studied indifference to Robert, who was Lee H. Oswald's virtual twin, who in my opinion is by far the most obvious candidate to have impersonated his brother. When Jack decided to create a new thread, "Judyth/Jim", to focus on these issues, I reposted about 20 that dealt with issues like these. John was supposed to respond, but has backed out. Gee, I wonder why?

When I began collaborating with Judyth, I assumed that it would be possible to reconcile most of what Armstrong has to say about "Harvey" with most of what she has to say about Lee H. Oswald. But "Harvey" was purportedly born in Hungary, while Lee H. Oswald was not. "Harvey" could not drive, while Lee H. Oswald could. There are more of greater significance, but this gives you the idea. Please check out the first "Judyth/Jim" thread and get back about the issues you are able to sort out. Thanks.

This thread has so much information, garbage, hearsay, facts, lies and insults included in it that I've kinda lost track of what the hell is going on.

Do we all have to make a decision here to believe Judyth and take the "side" of Jim Fetzer or alternatively disbelieve her and take the "side" of David Lifton? Then what? Start a giant pie fight that would put Laurel and Hardy to shame? And would the icing on the proverbial cake (or pie) be the shouting of the F-Word at those who are not on our "side" anymore?

Absolutely pathetic.

The key message in all of this for me is this: has John Armstrong's thesis any legs in light of what JVB has to say?

If Jim struggles with the concept of two Lee Harvey Oswald's can he (or JVB) tell us

a. who the hell J. Edgar Hoover was chasing around in 1960 using LHO's birth certificate?

b. who did Palmer McBride work with in Pfisterer in New Orleans?

c. who was impersonating LHO in Mexico City?

d. who was at the rifle ranges in the lead up to the assassination?

e. who was at Sylvia Odio's house?

f. who was at Red Bird Air Field attempting to charter a plane from Wayne January while LHO was at work in the TSBD?

g. who was buying beer and brittle from Fred Moore in the Jiffy store on Industrial Blvd?

h. who was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater and taken out the rear after LHO was arrested and taken out the front?

i. who owned all the wallets that were found over the course of 22nd-23rd November?

e. who was in the red Ford Falcon seen, and identified as LHO, by T.F. White?

f. who owned the driving license in the files of the TDPS in Austin?

I'm sorry but the evidence of two Oswald's is overwhelming. John Armstrong's hypothesis might not be perfect but it's as good as it can be with the info he had. I believe JA to be the "real deal" in this matter...

...oh and by the way, this is how the whole "alterationist" versus "anti-alterationsist" pissing contest started - the lowering of conscious thought into a tribalistic meme of "thinking" that consists of "you don't think the same thing as me? Well, F*** you!"

Edited April 12, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

Lee Farley said:

Do we all have to make a decision here to believe Judyth and take the "side" of Jim Fetzer or alternatively disbelieve her and take the "side" of David Lifton?

Absolutely not; that is a strawman. The issue is that nobody knows how to reason about the assassination. The govt isn't going to help us, it wants passive sheeple. When the WCR came cout, the govt wanted everyone to 'believe' it and 'disbelieve' everything else. This set up a false criterion. The govt used no research process in writing the WCR and in fact the person they were accusing of everything was dead and not even allowed to have his interests represented.

So why not try a different process that actually works? First, determine if a witness has some sort of objective documentation connecting them to the events they say they have witnessed. These things may be direct, such as Judyth's pay stubs from Reily Coffee, or indirect, such as unusual knowledge of places and people. If the person cannot be placed in the environment they are talking about, that raises a red flag. If they can, allow them an open forum to share their experiences. It is up to the witness to persuade or not persuade others that what they have to say is valuable. We can then weigh and evaluate what they have to say, comparing and contrasting the statements to other available information and witness statements, and then decide for ourselves what to think.

We can also comfortably agree-to-disagree about witnesses, areas of research, theories, etc, and still be colleagues, moving research forward. We can take the high road and not stoop to fallacies of logic or personal invective. We can choose to be a team of CTs moving forward shoulder-to-shoulder against the inevitable onslaughts of the Ongoing Coverup as we move closer and closer to 2013.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Jack White]

What makes this witness SO SPECIAL, as opposed to an important witness like Ruth Paine,

who knew LHO much better than JVB??? If you carefully analyze the last ten years of postings,

it is the SYMPATHY FACTOR. Every message seeks sympathy for her personal problems

and her "lost love". There are some who empathize or sympathize with poor unfortunates

like this, and will believe anything they say, regardless of its truth.

Let me tell a story and you decide whether it applies. On a dark cold night I went to

pick up a pizza. A chilling drizzle was falling. At the stoplight was a man in a tee-shirt

and jeans, obviously very cold. He had a crude cardboard sign lettered HOMELESS,

PLEASE HELP. The window in the car ahead of me opened and a hand extended some

paper money. (It may have been "Pamela". ) He came to my car and I ignored him.

When I came out of the pizza place, I saw him cross the traffic light to his new red

Ford pickup truck, don an expensive black leather jacket, and drive away...having

duped some sympathetic suckers out of hard earned money. Some people are easily

fooled.

Jack

Lee Farley said:

Do we all have to make a decision here to believe Judyth and take the "side" of Jim Fetzer or alternatively disbelieve her and take the "side" of David Lifton?

Absolutely not; that is a strawman. The issue is that nobody knows how to reason about the assassination. The govt isn't going to help us, it wants passive sheeple. When the WCR came cout, the govt wanted everyone to 'believe' it and 'disbelieve' everything else. This set up a false criterion. The govt used no research process in writing the WCR and in fact the person they were accusing of everything was dead and not even allowed to have his interests represented.

So why not try a different process that actually works? First, determine if a witness has some sort of objective documentation connecting them to the events they say they have witnesses. If not, don't bother with them. If they do, allow them an open forum to share there experiences. It is up to the witness to persuade or not persuade others that what they have to say is valuable. We can then weigh and evaluate what they have to say, comparing and contrasting the statements to other available information and witness statements, and then decide for ourselves what to think.

We can also comfortably agree-to-disagree about witnesses, areas of research, theories, etc, and still be colleagues, moving research forward. We can take the high road and not stoop to fallacies of logic or personal invective. We can choose to be a team of CTs moving forward shoulder-to-shoulder against the inevitable onslaughts of the Ongoing Coverup as we move closer and closer to 2013.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

THREE--JIM, JUDYTH, AND HOWARD--RESPOND TO JACK WHITE

JIM REPLIES TO JACK

Jack, I can hardly believe my eyes when you endorse Ruth Paine, whom, you say,

"knew LHO much better than JVB???" You do understand that the Paines were CIA,

do you not? If you don't know that, you are really out of your league in discussing

Judyth. There are at least three reasons for listening to Judyth about the man she

knew in New Orleans: (1) Her reports shed light on very murky activities there at a

crucial time shortly before the assassination; (2) she had a personal relationship in

which she acquired information that was not generally known, even by the Paines;

and, most importantly, (3) she is not one more government shill who is attempting

to portray this man as the "lone assassin". Please read my MRS. PAINE'S GARAGE:

A WORK OF DECEPTION FROM BEGINNING TO END, which you can find archived at

http://assassinationscience.com/mrspaine.html . I am very sorry to say that your

bias toward Judyth has completely discredited you as a serious critic of her story.

If you had really been reading her posts, you would know what makes her special.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO 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, I NEVER CLAIMED I HATED MY FAMILY NAME. SOME IDIOT TOLD YOU THIS. My

family name has always been 'Vary' -- never 'Avary'. I ALREADY TOLD YOU THIS. YOU

IGNORED MY REPLY. No AVARY for a family name, Jack. You're reading lies and then

posting them here. Go ahead and keep reading lies -- by people who say Lee shot JFK.

They lie about everything. What if I wrote about you here, saying "Jack hated his family

name of Johnson and changed his last name to White." And when you corrected me, then

I POSTED IT AGAIN!

JACK, REPEAT AFTER ME: "JUDYTH ANNE VARY BAKER LOVES HER FAMILY NAME OF VARY.

SOME IDIOT SAID' AVARY' WAS HER FAMILY NAME, AND I BELIEVED THE IDIOT. I PROMISE

NOT TO BELIEVE ANYTHING ELSE THIS IDIOT SAYS ABOUT JUDYTH ANNE VARY BAKER. I

PROMISE TO ACTUALLY GO TO HER WEBSITE AND SEE HER FAMILY NAME IN PRINT THERE

FOR MYSELF. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR ALL THE OTHER BAD THINGS I HAVE SAID ABOUT

JUDYTH VARY BAKER THAT THIS IDIOT TOLD ME TO BELIEVE."

LET'S LIGHTEN UP, PEOPLE. THESE SILLY STATEMENTS WOULD BE A LOT FUNNIER IF THEY

HADN'T BEEN CREATED BY SOMEBODY TRYING TO RUIN MY REPUTATION WITH RESEARCHERS

SUCH AS JACK WHITE. I HOPE JACK HAS LEARNED NOT TO TRUST WHOEVER HAS FED HIM

SO MUCH FALSE INFO. I HAVE TO SAY GOODBYE PRETTY SOON. THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO

HAS TREATED ME WITH DECENCY. I HAVE DONE MY BEST TO CORRECT RUMORS AND LIES.

GOD BLESS YOU. JVB

FROM HOWARD PLATZMAN:

It is interesting how CT proponents blithely use arguments from WC apologists when it suits them,

without a hint of caution. Do all these people believe, BECAUSE STEVE ROY (Blackburst) TOLD

THEM SO, that Ferrie and Oswald did not in fact know each other, that Ferrie had nothing to do

with Shaw or anybody or anything documented in hundreds of texts? I'm sure White believes

quite the opposite, so where is the natural suspicion that should attach to anything that Roy (or

McAdams or Reitzes or others of similar bent) claims? And what happens when you start asking

Roy questions? He says "I have my sources who tell me"...and then he refuses to allow you

access to them until his book comes out -- whatever century that is. Roy did not allow Judyth

access to specifically named witnesses -- and at least one I know of has died since.

You'd think perhaps guys like White would try to assess what Roy says rather than just parrot it --

see Roy's agenda and maybe even see THROUGH it. If Roy is that good a researcher, equipped

with investigative skills so beyond reproach, then what he has to say about the Warren Commission

-- that it was right -- deserves serious consideration, it seems to me. Shaw and Ferrie are perfectly

innocent, says Roy and company. Hey, Jack, are you still sure there was a conspiracy afoot in New

Orleans, and if so, who was part of it if not Oswald, Ferrie, and Shaw?

What makes this witness SO SPECIAL, as opposed to an important witness like Ruth Paine,

who knew LHO much better than JVB??? If you carefully analyze the last ten years of postings,

it is the SYMPATHY FACTOR. Every message seeks sympathy for her personal problems

and her "lost love". There are some who empathize or sympathize with poor unfortunates

like this, and will believe anything they say, regardless of its truth.

Let me tell a story and you decide whether it applies. On a dark cold night I went to

pick up a pizza. A chilling drizzle was falling. At the stoplight was a man in a tee-shirt

and jeans, obviously very cold. He had a crude cardboard sign lettered HOMELESS,

PLEASE HELP. The window in the car ahead of me opened and a hand extended some

paper money. (It may have been "Pamela". ) He came to my car and I ignored him.

When I came out of the pizza place, I saw him cross the traffic light to his new red

Ford pickup truck, don an expensive black leather jacket, and drive away...having

duped some sympathetic suckers out of hard earned money. Some people are easily

fooled.

Jack

Lee Farley said:

Do we all have to make a decision here to believe Judyth and take the "side" of Jim Fetzer or alternatively disbelieve her and take the "side" of David Lifton?

Absolutely not; that is a strawman. The issue is that nobody knows how to reason about the assassination. The govt isn't going to help us, it wants passive sheeple. When the WCR came cout, the govt wanted everyone to 'believe' it and 'disbelieve' everything else. This set up a false criterion. The govt used no research process in writing the WCR and in fact the person they were accusing of everything was dead and not even allowed to have his interests represented.

So why not try a different process that actually works? First, determine if a witness has some sort of objective documentation connecting them to the events they say they have witnesses. If not, don't bother with them. If they do, allow them an open forum to share there experiences. It is up to the witness to persuade or not persuade others that what they have to say is valuable. We can then weigh and evaluate what they have to say, comparing and contrasting the statements to other available information and witness statements, and then decide for ourselves what to think.

We can also comfortably agree-to-disagree about witnesses, areas of research, theories, etc, and still be colleagues, moving research forward. We can take the high road and not stoop to fallacies of logic or personal invective. We can choose to be a team of CTs moving forward shoulder-to-shoulder against the inevitable onslaughts of the Ongoing Coverup as we move closer and closer to 2013.

Edited April 12, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Don Jeffries]

Hello to all who have participated in this discussion over Judyth Vary Baker and thanks to John Simkin for allowing me to join:

Most of you may not have heard of me. Briefly, I recently published a book that presented a case against the government for causing infamous events, including the murder of President Kennedy. It is called Dead Men Talking: Consequences of Government Lies. I conclude that Lee Oswald was innocent.

I will disclose my bias in this discussion: I have publicly voiced my support for Judyth.

Though this debate has gone well over 1,000 posts with many assertions made by many people whom I have respect for in the JFK community, the debate will not reach any consensus. Jim Fetzer and others have produced much relevant evidence in support of Judyth and everyone is free to interpret it as they believe. I have no qualms with those who disagree with my point of view, but am concerned about how we come to our conclusion as to her and to other issues.

I will draw an analogy: Suppose someone tells the boss of a company that they witnessed an employee stealing company equipment. No videotape or anything, just one’s word against another.

What does the boss do? It will probably depend on which employee they perceive as the more loyal or the more valuable. They want to be fair, but in reality they are setting the burden of proof for one too high to reach. If the boss sides with the accused, the accuser becomes an Inconvenient Witness.

It serves no purpose for anyone to make Judyth an Inconvenient Witness. Whoever can articulate their position on any issue based on the facts and the weighing of facts for their relevance will have my respect.

Thank you all for your time.

Hi, Dean. It's nice to see you here. I look forward to reading your book and I'm sure we'll all benefit from your input on the forum.

[Kathleen Collins]

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

I think her parents should be looked into also. But about the name change. Teen girls often change the spelling of their names and things like that. For instance, I knew a girl named Nancy who wanted to be called Francesca. I, myself, changed the spelling of my first name to Kathi and had an ID bracelet spelled as such, but later went back to ending my name with a Y. Girls that age have a lot of romantic notions. But her upbringing should be brought to life. What were her parents like, did she have siblings, etc.

Kathy C

[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

I think her parents should be looked into also. But about the name change. Teen girls often change the spelling of their names and things like that. For instance, I knew a girl named Nancy who wanted to be called Francesca. I, myself, changed the spelling of my first name to Kathi and had an ID bracelet spelled as such, but later went back to ending my name with a Y. Girls that age have a lot of romantic notions. But her upbringing should be brought to life. What were her parents like, did she have siblings, etc.

Kathy C

Girls that age have a lot of romantic notions.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO MICHAEL HOGAN ABOUT ED HASLAM'S RESEARCH

Michael, I corresponded with Ed about your questions and he replied that he had not provided "two

accounts" of his meeting with Judyth. I suspect you may be confounding his meeting with a fake

"Judyth Vary Baker" in 1972 and the "Judyth Vary Baker" brought to him by "60 Minutes" in 2000.

On the new blog I have posted about Ed's research, you can find Chapter 17, "The Witness", from

MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS, which may be revised for his new book, but which has

the notation "MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS" printed on the pages we have republished.

I believe that note [2] answers another of your questions about why Ed did not pursue her in 1972.

He observes that there are three most important questions about Judyth for consideration, namely:

1. Is “this Judyth” the real Judyth Vary Baker from Bradenton, Florida? Or is she the impostor?

2. Did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963? If she does not have reasonable

proof to support this claim, then there is little point in pondering her story.

3. Was Judyth trained to handle cancer-causing viruses before she went to New Orleans in 1963?

If 1 and 2 above are true, then this point would qualify her as a suspect for “the technician” that

he wrote about in “The Pandemic” chapter.

Read Haslam's discussion of these questions and you will see why there is no reasonable basis to

conclude that the answers to these questions are anything other than, "Yes", "Yes", and "Yes".

I would hope that Jack White, for example, will find the time to read this brief but important piece.

Ed observes that Judyth added additional details about her research and her relationship, such as:

- 1. Judyth went to New Orleans in the 1963 at the invitation of Dr. Alton Ochsner.

- 2. Ochsner had known Judyth for several years and had previously arranged for her to be trained

at the famous cancer research center discussed above.

- 3. Ochsner promised Judyth early-admission to Tulane Medical School in return for her services in

Dr. Mary Sherman’s cancer lab at Ochsner Clinic. Ochsner also provided her with cancer research

papers on the state-of-the-art techniques such as cancer-causing viruses.

- 4. Judyth wound up working under Sherman’s direction in the underground medical laboratory in

David Ferrie’s apartment instead of in her cancer lab at the Ochsner clinic.

- 5. Judyth met Lee Oswald at the Post Office in what she thought was a chance encounter. In hind-

sight, she realized that this had to be intentional, since Lee was already working with David Ferrie,

Dr. Mary Sherman and Dr. Alton Ochsner on the bio-weapon at the time. Lee introduced her to “Dr.

David Ferrie” the following day and helped Judyth find an apartment.

- 6. When Judyth went to meet Dr. Ochsner in a room within the bowels of Charity Hospital, Lee Oswald

accompanied her to the appointment and went in first to meet with Dr. Ochsner alone.

- 7. Lee was working with ex-FBI agent Guy Banister as has been reported by many sources. Lee took

Judyth to meet Banister in his office to satisfy her concerns that the bio-weapons project is really a

secret government operation. Banister confirmed that Lee was working with them on a get-Castro project.[10]

- 8. When Judyth went to Dr. Sherman’s apartment for a private dinner with her, David Ferrie was the

only other guest. Sherman and Ferrie discussed the nature of their project with Judyth. They deemed

the idea of using cancer-causing viruses to kill Castro as morally ethical since is might prevent World War

III. Lee phoned Judyth that same night at Sherman’s apartment. Dr. Mary Sherman was the operational

director of “the project.” Ferrie and Oswald were participants.

- 9. Lee escorted and transported Judyth all over town, including to Dr. Sherman’s apartment where Judyth

dropped off “the product” and related reports forSherman’s review. Lee was “the runner.”

- 10. Judyth and Lee were provided cover-jobs at Reily Coffee Company where they were allowed to slip

out several afternoons a week to work in the underground medical laboratory in David Ferrie’s apartment.[11]

- 11. Lee Oswald’s connections to the Mafia in New Orleans are much stronger than have ever been reported

publicly.[12] Judyth and Lee ate-for-free at restaurants owned by Carlos Marcello and went to his headquarters

(500 Club and Town & Country Motel).

- 12. Lee’s role in the kill-Castro portion of the project was to transport the bio-weapon into Cuba. The radio

debates and film clips of Oswald’s leafleting were arranged by Ochsner (at Oswald’s request) to make Oswald

appear to be an authentic defector so he could get into Cuba more easily.

- 13. Judyth heard the subject of assassinating JFK was discussed at various times by various people, including

Ferrie, Sherman and Oswald. Part of the logic that was explained to Judyth was that they had to hurry up and

kill Castro with their bio-weapon before Ochsner’s friend ran out of patience and decided to kill Kennedy instead.

- 14. After testing their bio-weapon on dozens of monkeys, they arranged to test it on a human “volunteer,” a

convict brought from Angola State Penitentiary to the Jackson State Mental Hospital in rural Louisiana for that

purpose. The weapon was successful. The man died in 28 days as a result.

- 15. Judyth wrote a letter to Dr. Ochsner protesting the use of an unwitting human in their bio-weapon test and

delivered it to his secretary.[13] Upon seeing the letter, Ochsner exploded in anger and threatened both Judyth

and Lee. Everything fell apart for Judyth as a result. Ochsner reneged on his offer to place Judyth in Tulane

Medical School. Lee was ordered to Dallas. Judyth went back to Florida with her husband.

- 16. For the next few months, Judyth and Lee stayed in contact by telephone, thanks to access to the Mafia’s

“secret” Miami-to-Las Vegas sports betting lines courtesy of David Ferrie. While the phone company and the

U.S. Government might not have been able to listen to their conversations, the Mafia would have been able to!

- 17. On Wednesday, November 20, 1963, Lee told Judyth that there would be a real attempt to kill President

Kennedy when he visits Dallas on Friday. It is the last time they talked.

For reasons that will be obvious to anyone who reads Ed's work, he was in an ideal position to study Judyth.

Judyth also believes that the bioweapon was used to kill Jack Ruby, which, of course, was his contention at the

time. Neither Ed Haslam nor I has discerned any good reason to doubt Judyth's account and, in my opinion,

no one who reads the chapter archived at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html

or the corresponding chapter in DR. MARY'S MONKEY should have any doubt about the basic accuracy of what

Judyth has been telling us or be unable to appreciate why "60 Minutes" was excited to feature her on the show,

which, so far as I am able to sort out, was killed for political reasons and not for any lack of faith in her story.

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.

Edited April 12, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Pamela Brown]

Jack White says:What makes this witness SO SPECIAL, as opposed to an important witness like Ruth Paine,

who knew LHO much better than JVB??? If you carefully analyze the last ten years of postings,

it is the SYMPATHY FACTOR. Every message seeks sympathy for her personal problems

and her "lost love". There are some who empathize or sympathize with poor unfortunates

like this, and will believe anything they say, regardless of its truth.

Wow, you have GOT to be kidding. I would not have thought of you as a fan of Ruth Paine of all people. Her statements are convoluted and mysterious, and I do not think she told the WC much of what she knew. How well did she know LHO? She certainly was directly involved in his life those last months. But was she in his court or setting him up? She comes across as cagey and someone who thinks they are quite clever. Frankly, she gives me the creeps.

I don't see Judyth as someone playing a sympathy card. I don't think that's fair.

Judyth's experiences happened in NOLA, and this is the place nobody can talk much about without getting into terrible trouble. Since Dr. Sherman and David Ferrie, not to mention Guy Bannister, died within a few years of the assassination, there are great gaps in information there. Many times in NOLA Marina did not know where LHO was; Judyth is telling us where he was. LHO didn't even tell Marina he had been fired from Reily for two weeks; Judyth knew at once what had happened.

[Don Jeffries]

Jim/Pamela,

I really don't think Jack's comment about Ruth Paine indicates that he is supportive of her in any way. He can certainly clarify that, but I believe he meant that Ruth Paine is alive, and someone considered by many of us to be a crucial witness, in terms of her association with Marina, getting Oswald the job at the TSBD, her testimony presenting a negative view of Oswald, etc.

[Don Jeffries]

Let's all stay aware of the big picture and remember that our foremost objective ought to be exposing the impossibility of the official story.

With due respect Don, that's long been a fait accompli. That objective was achieved more than forty years ago.

Since then, many private citizens have done their best to expose the dark layers of an obscene conspiracy.

Maybe the foremost objective should have been to bring President Kennedy's murderers to justice, legally or historically.

Never pursued by our own government, that objective has yet to be achieved by two generations of dedicated researchers.

Of course you're right, Michael. At this point, any informed researcher should know that the official story is bogus, even if he/she knows nothing else. However, with all the backsliding we've seen from former CTers, who've either modified their positions (what I call "neo-cons") or even been transformed into LNers, I do think it's important that as many of us as possible stick together on the most basic facts.

None of us can state with certainty that we know exactly what happened in Dallas, but we all ought to be able to agree that the crime was never honestly investigated, and that the facts as we know them prove beyond a doubt that there was a conspiracy.

[Jack White]

Jim/Pamela,

I really don't think Jack's comment about Ruth Paine indicates that he is supportive of her in any way. He can certainly clarify that, but I believe he meant that Ruth Paine is alive, and someone considered by many of us to be a crucial witness, in terms of her association with Marina, getting Oswald the job at the TSBD, her testimony presenting a negative view of Oswald, etc.

Correct! How could ANYONE think otherwise! Thanks!

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Because there is no reason in the world to suppose that Ruth Paine would be a reliable source about Lee H. Oswald.

Jim/Pamela,

I really don't think Jack's comment about Ruth Paine indicates that he is supportive of her in any way. He can certainly clarify that, but I believe he meant that Ruth Paine is alive, and someone considered by many of us to be a crucial witness, in terms of her association with Marina, getting Oswald the job at the TSBD, her testimony presenting a negative view of Oswald, etc.

Correct! How could ANYONE think otherwise! Thanks!

Jack

[Jack White]

Jack White says:What makes this witness SO SPECIAL, as opposed to an important witness like Ruth Paine,

who knew LHO much better than JVB??? If you carefully analyze the last ten years of postings,

it is the SYMPATHY FACTOR. Every message seeks sympathy for her personal problems

and her "lost love". There are some who empathize or sympathize with poor unfortunates

like this, and will believe anything they say, regardless of its truth.

Wow, you have GOT to be kidding. I would not have thought of you as a fan of Ruth Paine of all people. Her statements are convoluted and mysterious, and I do not think she told the WC much of what she knew. How well did she know LHO? She certainly was directly involved in his life those last months. But was she in his court or setting him up? She comes across as cagey and someone who thinks they are quite clever. Frankly, she gives me the creeps.

I don't see Judyth as someone playing a sympathy card. I don't think that's fair.

Judyth's experiences happened in NOLA, and this is the place nobody can talk much about without getting into terrible trouble. Since Dr. Sherman and David Ferrie, not to mention Guy Bannister, died within a few years of the assassination, there are great gaps in information there. Many times in NOLA Marina did not know where LHO was; Judyth is telling us where he was. LHO didn't even tell Marina he had been fired from Reily for two weeks; Judyth knew at once what had happened.

Ruth Paine fan? Wow, you have GOT to be kidding!

JVB sympathy? Lost the love of her life (knew him 4 months). In self imposed exile, a woman without a country

who is harassed to move around the world to escape from those who are out to get her. Is victim of endless

mysterious assaults, accidents and attacks. Has lost her family because of her LHO stand. Is so blind she has

a seeing eye dog and can only see her computer screen from an inch away. Has been harassed all over the

internet forums, from McAdams on the right to JFK Lancer on the left. Was ditched by Mary Ferrell, whom she

thought loved her. Had a husband who left her after one night of marriage, yet had five children by him. Was

blocked from her chosen medical profession by the CIA, which was afraid of her secret knowledge. Has been

double-crossed by JFK Lancer, Mary Ferrell, Bob Vernon, Wim Dankbaar, Harry Livingstone, Martin Shackleford,

Allan Eaglesham, etc etc etc and who knows who else? And to top it off, she has to type on a Hungarian keyboard!

That is the saddest story I have ever heard.

Jack

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO JACK ABOUT SARCASM BASED UPON IGNORANCE

What could be a more striking illustration of your massive bias than this sarcastic post? I am

extremely disappointed with you, my friend. I raised some questions you have yet to answer

in Post #1102. It is time for you to come clean about your massive ignorance about Judyth:

(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?

And you are posting this rubbish after I have put up post #1143 above? This is very bad, Jack.

You are expending all of the good will that we have developed over close to 20 years. Please

read http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html before you embarrass

yourself further. You seem to think smart remarks are a substitute for research. They are not.

Jack White says:What makes this witness SO SPECIAL, as opposed to an important witness like Ruth Paine,

who knew LHO much better than JVB??? If you carefully analyze the last ten years of postings,

it is the SYMPATHY FACTOR. Every message seeks sympathy for her personal problems

and her "lost love". There are some who empathize or sympathize with poor unfortunates

like this, and will believe anything they say, regardless of its truth.

Wow, you have GOT to be kidding. I would not have thought of you as a fan of Ruth Paine of all people. Her statements are convoluted and mysterious, and I do not think she told the WC much of what she knew. How well did she know LHO? She certainly was directly involved in his life those last months. But was she in his court or setting him up? She comes across as cagey and someone who thinks they are quite clever. Frankly, she gives me the creeps.

I don't see Judyth as someone playing a sympathy card. I don't think that's fair.

Judyth's experiences happened in NOLA, and this is the place nobody can talk much about without getting into terrible trouble. Since Dr. Sherman and David Ferrie, not to mention Guy Bannister, died within a few years of the assassination, there are great gaps in information there. Many times in NOLA Marina did not know where LHO was; Judyth is telling us where he was. LHO didn't even tell Marina he had been fired from Reily for two weeks; Judyth knew at once what had happened.

Ruth Paine fan? Wow, you have GOT to be kidding!

JVB sympathy? Lost the love of her life (knew him 4 months). In self imposed exile, a woman without a country

who is harassed to move around the world to escape from those who are out to get her. Is victim of endless

mysterious assaults, accidents and attacks. Has lost her family because of her LHO stand. Is so blind she has

a seeing eye dog and can only see her computer screen from an inch away. Has been harassed all over the

internet forums, from McAdams on the right to JFK Lancer on the left. Was ditched by Mary Ferrell, whom she

thought loved her. Had a husband who left her after one night of marriage, yet had five children by him. Was

blocked from her chosen medical profession by the CIA, which was afraid of her secret knowledge. Has been

double-crossed by JFK Lancer, Mary Ferrell, Bob Vernon, Wim Dankbaar, Harry Livingstone, Martin Shackleford,

Allan Eaglesham, etc etc etc and who knows who else? And to top it off, she has to type on a Hungarian keyboard!

That is the saddest story I have ever heard.

Jack

Edited April 12, 2010 by James H. Fetzer