Jump to content
The Education Forum

Review of Judyth Vary Baker Thread


Recommended Posts

Prof. Fetzer posted a series of insights purported to be those of a psychological warfare expert, which included some thoughts that both Jack White and myself found interesting. I plucked these from the first fifteen pages, and there are probably more but I can't take the time to find them. Perhaps Prof. Fetzer will post the entire series all together so we can take it all in at once. - BK

Jim Fetzer wrote: Judyth is so controversial that I thought I would invite an expert in the area of psychological operations and covert actions to review what I have posted about her, including my blogs and YouTubes. I sent him the following invitation, to which I received three responses, one before and one after reviewing this thread, plus a PS. He is a very candid guy and would tell me if he thought I were making a mistake here.

Jim,

I would like you to check out what I am finding out about Judyth Baker at http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesFetzerNews#p/a or show archives at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com or my blog, where I have just posted the second about her, http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com,

or, of course, The Education Forum, where I have a thread about her at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15559 Some friends, Jack White, David Lifton and, Rich DellaRosa, do not take her seriously. Those who have found her credible include Jim Marrs, Nigel Turner, Ed Haslam, Wim Dankbarr, Howard Platzman, and now me.

Thanks.

Jim

RESPONSE (1):

I believe that she is credible. And her claims about being harassed by intel make sense based on what has happened to other key witnesses. I forget the name of the lady at the curb who was taken upstairs in front of some generals and was told she only heard three shots, and then had an FBI car down the street outside her house for over a year (these FBI even sabotaged her car one time).

Often witnesses like her are so harassed that this takes a toll on them emotionally over the years causing them to act somewhat disturbed which affects their credibility to researchers who examine their story. The more folks doubt them and the more they get harassed and criticized, the more upset and irrational they often come across.

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

RESPONSE (2):

Jim, I haven't read Judyth's book so I can't comment on her claims. But I do think it is well established that she worked at Riley Coffee and that was a spy nest which could cause her harassment based on that alone. She may have confabulated details about Oswald and created more than was there to put together a book.

Normally when someone like Judyth is harassed by intel they are being harassed for things different than what they think. She may know something that is more important than she realizes, some little detail could be behind all her harassment.

And Bill Kelly's and others claims that her story adds nothing may be true, but that may have nothing to do with her value to exposing the intel aspects of the case. And the last possibility is that some witnesses were clandestinely drugged with weird chemicals from Technical Services at the CIA, things like BZ which could damage one's white matter,

hippocampus and cause some confabulations.

If she is a "hanger on" who has confabulated a story to write a book and get attention, that does not in and of itself mean that she doesn't know something that intel wants covered up. According experienced retired intel ops I have talked too many such witnesses are seriously harmed emotionally by the harassment process which are

designed to destroy folk's credibility.

Now Jim, as one of the world's top experts on logic, if not the top one, you don't need to be reminded of the faulty logic which many appear to be using to attack Judyth with. Correlation isn't necessarily an indicator of causation, and non-correlation of aspects of a story does not mean both are false if one is false and vice versa. So part of her story could be confabulated or emotionally enhanced and that does not mean another part is not true and neither means that she might not be harassed for totally unknown reasons of some small detail she represents or could expose not directly related to her book or her story. This unrelated small detail issue is one which often gets folks harassed by intel according to experts I have consulted with. The first questions always should be, "what info or detail does this lady represent or is linked to that could be a loose end or a threat to intel?"

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

Best regards form one truth junkie to another.

RESPONSE (3):

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

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

Jim Fetzer: Judyth has made some very insightful observations about the opinions of the expert on psy ops that I had consulted. I think her remarks on "the golden mean" by splitting the difference between conflicting points of view--as though there were a compromise when one is true and the other is false--is highly pervasive. My confidence in Judyth has grown stronger and stronger through the course of this discussion and debate.

Judyth Vary Baker Responds: Well, the expert Jim asked to look into this assessed only what he read on the blog and so on...The 'golden mean' logical error comes into play. I have explained it probably to you before.

Position a: Judyth tells the truth.

Position c: McAdams lies and says I am lying.

Position b: the erroneous 'golden mean' that people choose after reading both sides, trying for 'fairness'--but it always hurts the truth-teller, and hope you pass this on to Jim. The truth teller's position in the golden mean is reduced to 'might be telling the truth".

This is weighted against "she is lying" at position c. The golden mean for the 'she is lying' statement is "maybe she is lying". The outcome using this fallacy that is taught in our schools is that, for example, there is no 'pure' good or 'pure' evil--not true. In my case, the result are two statements:

Judyth might be lying.

McAdams' statement indicates Judyth might be lying.

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

Because the subject is Judyth and goes through two cycles, whereas Mcadmas only goes through one cycle, of reasoning...Thus whenever a witness statement is disputed, forever the witness is then marked as 'maybe did not tell the truth'; whereas the one who raised the objection gets no such judgment.

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

Then he read the objections against me and moderated that to 'maybe she is not telling the truth'. Nobody can come to the conclusion "she is 100% telling the truth" after reading a list of accusations and objections in our society, the way we have been brainwashed to accept the golden mean, which is indeed tarnishing our ability to accept anyone as a truth-teller once any objection is raised.

This filters into the news where 'balance' always includes, no matter how much truth is out there, 'the other side' so that after all this time they are still arguing in the news about whether water-boarding, used by the Spanish Inquisition, can be called 'torture.' The redefinition of 'torture' has now come to mean no visible marks left on the body and no permanent damage. Thus it is no longer torture to pull out all the fingernails and toenails and then after they have grown back, release the prisoner who says he was tortured but cannot 'prove' it because no marks were left on his body. Of course, electro-shocking people also is not torture?

The redefinition and skirting of the Geneva Accords on their subject demonstrates the paucity of real logic that is allowed to exists = when mind control of the public is paramount.

Therefore, Dr. Fetzer, to not look too bad, will eventually have to modify his statement that I am telling the truth all the time, because of all the objections raised by others. If he stands up for the Zapruder film 100% as he does, and yet the press has failed to say a peep about it, how can he defend me, a truth-teller whose statements have been altered on the internet? All I can do is cite the past, letters of recommendation, etc. And here 'students' I do not even know their names, have spoken out saying silly and untrue things about me.

Character assassination of the Kennedy family has been going on at a great clip ever since the government's complicity has become more and more evident and obvious.

The government will never try itself for the death of JFK. It was a coup.

Interestedly, Gerry Hemming told me that I was stating things about covert operations of which I was unaware, which could get me killed. He secretly cc'd his emails to his interpen organization and I have saved them, showing

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

Attached are photos of Gery that I made, and one that he sent me, of his family and him...his jacket was stolen--the one I photographed was re-created by interpen for him. Gerry had as much stolen from him as I had.

Judy

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

The 'golden mean' concept has made it impossible for witnesses to stand as truth-tellers against government and its biased media that uses "the golden mean" as a ploy that 'fairness' is thus presented. Actually, as repeated below, adding in the same story objections to it reduces every truth teller to 'might be lying' status.

News stories are not being 'fair' by presenting news with 'both sides'. Such news stories are often in debate format. Stories opposing the original statements should be written referring to the original, which should always be available for comparison. Can you imagine if every scientific paper had to list all the objections to its statement within its declaration of new findings in research? They cite a history, but they do not break up the scientific paper's new information and evidence with dissents from former researchers to 'be fair.' Scientific method regarding witnesses should allow a full, unadulterated original story to reach the public. Later stories should always show where the original story can be accessed.

Then statements where they alter the information stated can be compared easily to the original in every instance. No forum that purports to be an education forum should make a statement without citing a reference. Stating, for example, that our hotel bills were paid by Carlos Marcello (added with a sneer) should have been backed up with

a citation. I had to wade in and correct. But then it gets buried. McAdams would always put the original nasty statement at the end, as if it had never been disproven.

The same tactic was used on the education forum when John Simkin kept reposting the original message that I had joined the forum weeks later and so could not make the claim that I had asked him to start the forum, he also did not cite--failing to show the first post, which was about me, perhaps because that strengthened my position.

Instead, he kept reposting, as does McAdams, as if the question had not been resolved. I note that Dr. Fetzer would then repost the answer. Good for him. Thus the slanted playing field gets somewhat corrected.

JIM FETZER : My expert expands on his previous reflections after reading the complete thread. He mentions a book, A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, whose author, H.P. Albarelli Jr., will be my featured guest on "The Real Deal" from 5-7 PM/CT, 15 March 2010, revereradio.net.

_________________________

Jim, I just read the last posts on the educational forum you directed me too. I have now read all of them related to Judyth Vary. I have come to a couple of conclusions:

Most posters do not understand how intel operations are conducted at a higher level. Low level operatives are kept isolated from most decision making which is compartmentalized and narrowly directed as orders and directives. Actual background knowledge of why various min-cointelpro type ops are instituted is usually not communicated to those who are directed to conduct the footwork on these ops.

If there are any posters on the site who DO understand how intel ops are conducted at a higher level, they are not helping to explain the possibilities surrounding Judyth Baker to the other posters, and may even be serving up misinformation to detract from her credibility on purpose.

A lot of harassment of those by intel (mini-cointelpro style, the modus operandi used now against individuals) involves the targeting of an individual for non-obvious reasons (some small detail or loose end that when pulled opens up a whole line of problems that the intel agency does not want uncovered).

Even the most discredited witnesses, even those discredited by their own attempts to create a story that isn't there may have knowledge that is judged to be a danger because of a loose end. So as you know, every bit of a witnesses story needs to be scrutinized in and of itself, even if most parts have been shown to be twisted, tainted or even confabulated. The more folks argue and pick, the more Judyth gets defensive and struggles to provide information to corroborate her claims, all which probably just confound and lead away from what she knows that is really a problem for the intel agency that is stalking her. And we know that at this time there are 37 US intel agencies so we don't know for sure which one has been detailed with her harassment. Since most of the JFK assassination intercept ops were done by the FBI that must be considered. We also know that the JCS ordered the termination of JFK with extreme prejudice and a "signed finding" (by the will of Hoover, LBJ, Nixon, Bush1, Dulles, etc.) and this was likely detailed to the CIA, who like the FBI harassed a lot of the important witnesses, although it is known that mob and cuban operatives were also detailed for some of the dirtiest jobs. Best guess is that her harassment was been detailed to the CIA who just happen to have operatives in France, some working as NOCS and some working as assets which are also completely deniable.

Jim, I agree with you that here has been some very high level influence used against Judyth Vary to harass her, make threats to you and to sidetrack he thread she carries. Where there is smoke there is fire. Why would so much effort be expended to sidetrack and confuse a witness when 90% + of her story doesn't add anything to the JFK murder? It's because of the small thread which probably has nothing to do with the JFK assassination or Oswald.

The more I think about it the more it seems to me that Judyth knows something that is a big problem for intel, and it probably is related to her work before she met Oswald.

In order to figure this out it can be helpful to evaluate what she was working on before she met Oswald and how that could be a loose end relating to current intel operations, which would establish that as a threat to the current operation (which intel works hard to protect at all costs>>>their number 1 goal is to always protect any important current operation and this is done by information control, use of misinformation or disinformation, setting up straw men issues to distract, use of mini-cointelpro type actions, sophisticated harassment which can include use of police, utility workers, psycho-electronic means, drugs, etc.). It is well understood that if a witness is so seriously harassed over time and and driven away from family and friends to be emotionally isolated, it becomes quite easy to elicit psychological and emotional dysfunction, which in and of itself reduces the target's credibility to near zero in most cases. This is called high tech, coordinated PSYOPS. Create isolation, deliver trauma or "blood shock" to create PTSD and then the target is much more suggestible to influence, such as manipulating them down a road making them even more dysfunctional.

So let us take this a bit further. What is the greatest secret that intel in now trying to protect which has a common connection or thread back to Judyth Vary? Where are billions of dollars going into research right now. What is the Pentagon and intel gearing up for in the future?

Jim, I have shared with you the last few months a great deal of information which answers these questions. It relates to high tech biotech, biowarfare and eugenics, the "triple helix"(self-healing super soldier), development of bio-bot war machines, etc. Mary Hartman knows much of the details and has been seriously harassed for walking into the middle of this big ongoing op.

As many know, almost all vaccines are grown in animal media. Polio vaccines have been shown to contain Simian SV-40 virus fragments which have been suspected of causing many different kinds of cancer in recipients later on. Was this a mistake or part of a large scale eugenics secret experiment? And as some medical researchers have suggested, the use of vaccines with servicemen in the Middle East theaters of war may be the largest bioweapon experiment ever devised and implemented. Certainly these vaccines which contained the highly toxic adjuvant squalene may have contributed to so many US soldiers coming back sick. And many suspect the use of depleted uranium in the projectiles was implemented as another experimental biotech/eugenics test. Most know about the Tuskeege experiments, but less know about the current chemtrail ops alleged by some to being run out of the University of Michigan via a DOD bioweapons contract. Samples have been recovered from the planes spraying and these show barium salts, and a mixture of blood cells, haemophilus, and other bugs. The cover story was three fold, allegedly to reflect sunlight to slow the supposed global warming, the bugs to immunize the public against a possible bio weapon attack by foreign terrorists, and the barium to serve as a test for blocking the radar and sensors of foreign governments satellites in orbit to disrupt their spying (to be used in a time of war).

The government was caught releasing bio agents in the NYC subways in the 60's and 70's and placing their own medical folks in nearby hospitals to monitor the effects. We know that the government has engaged in bio and chemical warfare test on the public almost continually since WW2. It was recently documented in newly declassified documents that the CIA drugged a whole town in France with LSD as a test. This was reported in Albarelli's new book, A Terrible Mistake, which is a must read for anyone that wants to know how things really work. The French government just got wind of this and has written a letter to the US Government demanding an explanation. It is rumored that since 5 French folks died because of this, lawsuits and settlements are now likely.

Some top experts have predicted that the wars of the future will be fought by cyber/information warfare, biowarfare, psycho-electronic warfare, satellite telemetried robotic warfare, and independent acting bio-cyber robotic warfare (the buzz word for this is TOTAL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE). There are now over 200 US Patents for stimulation of cortical phenomena from outside the skull at a distance using pulsed beam microwaves and quite a few that have been classified and can't be viewed. The predictions of these insiders are based upon where the government contracts are now being awarded and how the taxpayer funds awarded by Congress and black ops income is being spent.

In cases like Judyth Vary, the reasons for the harassment by intel are usually not what most observers or the target understand. Typically the reasons are to distract from the thread, or provide a complete cover-up of some small thread (even a very small thread) when pulled would or could threaten a current very important operation that the public would not stand for if they became aware. I believe that this thread is biowarfare related and pertains to current top secret DOD biowarfare research, some of which you have been informed of, Jim.

Here is the latest from my psy ops expert:

Jim, the Judyth Vary story is very interesting and one which seems to fit a typical pattern in many intel victims that I am familiar with.

When Tosh Plumlee says he thinks there is something important somewhere in Judyth's history, then I would tend to believe him. Tosh is the real deal from what I know of him. I remember an article about him many years ago about his high altitude parachute jumping which I found fascinating.

Jim, for whatever reasons, I think you have tapped into something big here with your recent interest and communications with Judyth Vary. I just don't know what it is, but it does seem to have some teeth and needs to be thoroughly researched.

I do not have the factual knowledge to evaluate the issues being argued about between Judyth and her detractors and those who doubt much of her story, and therefore I cannot evaluate who is correct on what parts of her story or not. And beyond all that I believe her claim that she has been harassed and is still being harassed. I think it is likely that it is because of some fact which is a thread that when pulled could open up a very big issue that intel does not want opened up.

I stand with my initial view that when comparing the overall situation around Judyth as described, it fits well with many of the cases I am familiar with of intel harassment of folks who know too much about certain government secrets (actual operations or just sources and methods they don't want revealed), folks that somebody high up decides have to be harassed, discredited and stalked. And often there are break-ins along with the stalking, theft of personal items, interference with personal communications and mail, harassment by the IRS and taxing authorities and other government entities and interference in obtaining and holding employment. There are even cases where complex psyops are initiated to turn one's family members against the target.

And now it is known that much of this harassment work is being subcontracted out to specialized corporations that have their own intel operations due to the government's obsession with privatization. This gives even less accountability of intel, breeds lawlessness and provides even better deniability. I can say that I am amazed at just how many resources intel agencies can muster when they want someone stalked, harassed, discredited and beat down. Intel has folks embedded almost everywhere it seems, even though it has been technically illegal for the CIA and miltel to working domestically. Read former Gov. Jesse Ventura's book if you doubt this, or consider operation mockingbird.

Coordinated Psyops programs are the big thing now and like Tosh suggests, only rarely does the government resort to murder anymore unless it is a firsthand witness who directly threatens the existence of a very important deep cover black op. And a fair number of these harassments are carried out as training operations for new intel trainees, some in miltel, some in police intel, and some in various intel units of alphabet agencies. And some of these psyops are used as human subject experiments on how to develop better mind control and interception operations in the future. There appears to be no shortage of new personnel with no consciences to do this dirty work and no apparent shortage of money to finance these operations either.

The best way to stop these illegal activities is to defend them, and these intel agencies know this and that is why some of them are so committed and addicted to raising money from illegal arms sales and drug trafficking. Some of the top officials are allowed to take a cut off the top as long as they funnel a good portion of these funds into special offshore accounts.

So you have a very interesting Lady Judyth Vary who has several important established facts surrounding her story. And then we have some respected researchers disagree with her on much of the rest of her information she has presented and claimed. They imply she is confabulating and doubt her overall veracity. And others who have heard her story believe that she is truthful but perhaps misunderstood and taken out of context.

Even if any of her story is proven to have been partly or mostly incorrect this does not impact the important facts that have already been established. In a number of cases I am very familiar with it usually turns out the reason the person is being harassed by intel is not what the target understands, it turns out to be some small detail or fact that some higher up in intel has decided must remain covered up. Sometimes this is for personal reasons to protect oneself or career, or some long term set of operations, and often to protect and ongoing program that the public would not tolerate it if it became known.

And of course there is always the somewhat infrequent case where one agency pushes a cover up too hard or carelessly on purpose in order to create a leak, and then they work to manage it the way they want. Thus they may do this to expose a program which is competing for dollars, etc., in order to discredit that program or those responsible, sometimes for political reasons, too. I don't know first hand, but I was once told of a secret conflict between the air force and Nasa over funding and that the af had instituted several operations to discredit Nasa and maker their funding much more difficult. It is possible that some agency is using the Judyth matter to pull a string to expose a competitor or stop a program they don't believe in for whatever reason. Quite often a lot of these Psyops matters are very strange in their etiology and hidden agendas.

One more thing. Now is the time for a little compassion. Whatever the way Judyth's story plays out after her book is released for sale, there appears to be no reason to disbelieve that she has had great difficulties to deal with since the JFK assassination for probably a myriad of reasons. And she is a survivor. I say hat's off to her for that and I can empathize with all that she has gone through because of being harassed, because I have seen this type of occurrence a number of times close up. It does occur, it is real, and it usually occurs for unknown reasons which typically take time and a lot of research to sort out. And the most prominent feature ALWAYS is the part related to the DISCREDITING of the target, which is accomplished by top experts in many cases. This strong effort is always a part of any "interception" psyop whether or not related to embellishments or claims of ones story.

I have been told of a number of cases where a high level "asset" with a lot of first hand knowledge of criminal deep cover black ops wanted to "retire". In order to be allowed to walk away with no future ties, the op must agree to allow himself to be arrested, tried and convicted for some offense (whether he did it or not) and it might involve the use of a photo-accurate double if necessary. The more serious the operations that the op was involved in (especially seriously criminal and international deep cover black ops), the more serious the rigged offense and the longer the jail time, that is, the more total the discrediting must be.

Some ops who go off the reservation are arrested for trumped up offenses and some are real, like Edwin Wilson, who broke the law at the direction of his "country" and then was hung out to dry because he allegedly got sloppy and got caught. Or Michael Reconosuito who went off the reservation and testified in the infamous and unresolved Inslaw case and has been made a permanent intel prisoner because of it. Or take the case of Aldrich Ames who was supposedly arrested to being a double agent and taking money as a part of his regular job. This is standard operating procedure for some agents in his capacity and position. But the real reason he was arrested and put away was that he was the one the German BKA called regarding the plane headed for "Lockerbee" and said there is a bomb being loaded on the plane, what do yo want us to do? Ames allegedly said, "let it go" and this was allegedly done to get rid of Charles Tiny McKee and his crew which uncovered the opium pipeline via TWA and were coming back to report it and stop it. That is allegedly the real reason that Ames sits in prison, it was his competitors way of justice.

It is always important to understand that interception ops and psyoops are usually conducted according to formulas which have been determined in the field over many years to be effective. The local police and Sheriffs usually always "stand-down" when credentials and badges are flipped out. Employers usually want to "serve their country" especially after the 9/11 attacks with all the concern for "terrorism". Utility companies, phone and internet providers jump like a monkey on a string to requests for assistance. The major media are usually very, very compliant with requests by intel. You get the picture here. It is very hard for a victim to ever get a fair shake.

Here is my psy op expert's response to Ed Haslam's complete Chapter 17, which includes the extracts that I have posted:

Jim, although I don't know him or anything about him, this man letter here comes off 100% credible to me and I think his analysis makes very good sense. It explains why there has been such a great effort to discredit Judyth's story, to harass her and create confusion. And this man's knowledge from his investigating supports my suggestion that even though Judyth is obsessed with informing the world for the first time of Oswald's normality (that he wasn't a lone-nut-assassin and never could have been) that is not the most important part of her story as I see it (although it is important). To me the most important part of her story which now appears to have already been corroborated is the bioweapons aspect, which by the way, directly links to current, ongoing, highly classified ops going on right now with other related ops in the planning stage for several locations, including Minnesota. The funding has already been set up and is "international" for some of this.

Ed Haslam's report of the use of a double and his confusion as to who was the real Judyth suggests very high level intel involvement and a sophisticated interception ops. This kind of stuff is serious intel "tradecraft". Years ago a retired company man told me that quite a bit of the JFK Assassination research crowd including some of the organizations set up to have meetings about it were either directly dirty or had infiltrators from the company sidetracking them. It's called controlled opposition. If there is no opposition, then it is created and controlled through well developed, sophisticated means. If there is good and valid opposition, then it is infiltrated and sidetracked. This alone is so counter-intuitive to most non-intel folks that they just can conceive it or identify it when it occurs.

Several names of so called researchers were mentioned to me as dirty and some of these folks are still around today detracting from good research, running misinformation websites, muddying up the waters, spreading confusion and disinformation and running intercept ops. Some work for intel, some are sympathetic to intel, and some are just locked into (committed to) their own ego directed and incorrect line of action with no chance for openness or change in their opinions since they have a long term vested interest in staying their course. And then you have a fair number of small timers who never accomplished anything in life who attempt to make their mark on history by opposing any good work done by honest researchers who are really seeking the truth. The internet often gives them a means to do this and some come against you periodically, Jim as you know. And then you have the researchers who basically mean well but don't understand the big picture or how intel ops are directed at the top and tend to be oppositional type persons with any new discovery. And of course some just suffer from petty jealousies of those researchers who have been astoundingly productive in their discoveries.

I don't need to mention any names, one just has to think about this a while and it is usually quite easy to figure out who these oppositional folks and infiltrators are. You can know them by their fruits (there are none, just obstructions). And Jim, I know that you already know who one is because you have butted heads with him many times and his game is so transparent to anyone that know what is going on.

It's important for folks to understand that anytime a major covert op is done like the JFK murder op, the greatest efforts always go into managing the cover-up afterward which typically includes high level based, sophisticated psyops and the associated use of harassment, community mobbing techniques, interference in employment, harassment by government agencies, police and utilities, extensive surveillance and tracking, false friends and/or new neighbors, use of the media, spreading of misinformation and major efforts to discredit any important or secondary witness and confuse and muddle up the issues, etc., etc.xxxxxThe duration of these ops continue until the "mr. bigs" that set up the op are dead, or the line of ops they started are discontinued and "old news". The Judyth Varon case appears to me to be a perfect example of this whole process of a sophisticated "after the fact" long term intercept cover-up op with a lot of psyops used. As you know, Jim, a very fruitful technique often used is to present arguments which are 80-90% facts and then later delivering a twisted payload that misdirects or undermines an important aspect of the matter. This is done to elicit initial credibility so that a "misinformation payload" can be later delivered.

Too much attention has now been focused on this case by folks with the moxie of this researcher and yourself, Jim. The Judyth Varon matter can no longer be covered up and the truth is now coming out. Stay tuned for where it leads but I'll predict that if this string gets pulled much more it will lead to development and funding of the HIV weapon (operation naomi), swine flu, triple helix self healing super soldier, and much more.

One of the biggest concerns now in intel is the "blowback" from the internet. It was started by darpa as the world's biggest intel gathering operation and it has served that function well with the advent of sophisticated computers and the hybrid "promis" software derivatives (echelon, estein3, barracuda, etc.). But there have been some unintended consequences such as all the information being shared via the internet and its power to assist researchers. Right now there are detailed discussion going on how to deal with this. Internet censorship may be coming soon because it is now allowing too many dots to be connected. One wonders if the long haired hippy type darpa researchers that originated the internet technology set it up as a way to later destroy the military-defense-compex/shadow government controlled system they were working for. Will the Americans stand for blatant censorship of the internet? Or will the "mr. bigs" of the shadow government decide to institute another gladio style, self inflicted "inside job" terrorist attack as some experts have predicted? Are we just one more such attack away from the invoking of martial law as one top retired General suggested?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just trying to get clear here.

So we are supposed to believe Judyth or tend to because she may have some super duper secret information, and folks are attacking her story because of this? So when someone poses an objection, or has done research and has found something to the contrary, that this can be dispelled,not by evidence, but by suggested evidence, which may be enough because of the secret stuff?

Oh, and another question:

Ed Haslam's report of the use of a double and his confusion as to who was the real Judyth suggests very high level intel involvement and a sophisticated interception ops.

How come we can't say the same thing about Harvey and Lee?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just trying to get clear here.

So we are supposed to believe Judyth or tend to because she may have some super duper secret information, and folks are attacking her story because of this? So when someone poses an objection, or has done research and has found something to the contrary, that this can be dispelled,not by evidence, but by suggested evidence, which may be enough because of the secret stuff?

Oh, and another question:

Ed Haslam's report of the use of a double and his confusion as to who was the real Judyth suggests very high level intel involvement and a sophisticated interception ops.

How come we can't say the same thing about Harvey and Lee?

I have transferred this from another thread. It is nmore appropriate here.

Jim:

There is no way to prove or disprove what Judyth told Debra Conway. What is clear is Judyth's e-mail to Reitzes in 2000 in which Judyth notes that 0swald is uncircumcised. Unless you are contending that this e-mail has been altered it is very damning evidence against Judyth. have found these two posts by the late Rich DellaRossa to be very telling:

> Rich,

> Where did you get the idea that Nigel Turner expressed regret at

> making "The Love Affair"?

> Martin

From Nigel Turner. Up till then the most ridiculous offering from him was

The Corsican Connection. He outdid himself with an hour of judyth. Just

put it down to comic relief.

Rich

Judyth has demonstrated an ability to insert herself in books she reads.

She has also done so with Priscilla McMillan's "Marina & Lee."

We were waiting for her to read John Steinbeck's "The Grapes of Wrath" and

read how she moved from Oklahoma to California to become a fruit picker.

Rich

The sad aspect is that I have become persuaded that Judyth sincerely believes her story. I had a professor who was an FBI agent who worked on the Alger Hiss case. He told us that Alger Hiss began to tell a story so often that he could no longer distinquish between his fantasies and reality. I wanted to believe Judyth. Her story does not threaten me in any way. As I mentioned before I found the monkey virus story to be so interesting because in 2001 and 2002 (when TMWKK was filmed) I almost died from a cancer in which it has been demonstrated that a large portion of people with the cancer have evidence of a monkey virus. It is one of the few cancers that is on the increase. I respect Haslam's work from that aspect. Judyth's story would have been important.

Despite friendships I have to evaluate the evidence. There have been so many good questions and points posted here from Jack, Barb, Glenn, Stephen, Pat, Michael, and many others. Those questions remain void of answers. None of my questions were answered and Judyth's refusal to have the writing examined was very telling. I believe that she likely forged that writing. I have always promised myself that though I value the friendships I have made, the only thing that mattered to me was truth. After 31 years of following this case I can only present the evidence I have discovered. People can choose to accept or reject it. Barb has not been convinced by my evidence. She may one day be or not be. It doesn't bother me. Her questions and points about JVB have been exceptional but also ignored or ridiculed.

I have to weigh evidence objectively. It is not only what I have been trained to do it is something I must do. I believe Judyth worked with Oswald. Beyond that there is no convincing evidence that she ever even knew him. However,there is someone who knew Oswald, who knew about him and can humanize him. Myself and many others have talked with Marina for a long time. She has a story to tell. Judyth does not.

I woud have to suspend logic and reason to believe Judyth. Listen to your podcasts. Judyth cannot even keep her own stories straight. She talks about 65 poiund monkeys even after she dismissed that idea here. Look at Ferrie's apartment. Can anyone truly believe that three people could comfortably fit in that kitchen yet do all of those experiements? Do you really believe that the CIA would choose David Ferrie, LHO, and a high school graduate to be responsible forsuch a momentous task?

I think Judyth wants to believe her fantasy. It would give her life the meaning she thinks it deserves. She wants it to be a best selling book and made into a movie. There are those who want to believe her so much that they suspend their own logic and reason to encourage her. I have stated that "History is the myth that people choose to believe." Believe what you want to believe but ultimately the story of JVB is simply a myth. I am sorry that it has created such division. Ultimately, whatever is believed, each person has the right to form their own opinions, without being demeaned or ridiculed. The poll here may give a snapshot of those beliefs. JVB has simply become a real life Walter Mitty. I think this thread has made her position worse. It would have been a great story had it not lacked credibility, substance, or the ring of truth. I wish Judyth the absolute best in her life. May she find comfort and peace in whatever she pursues.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Stephen, my replies are in CAPS:
Do we agree that JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald?

If not, explain Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

First, we don't know much about Anna Lewis. Is this the Anna Lewis who was married to David Lewis? Under what circumstances was the interview taped? Did anybody discuss evidenciary matters with her prior to the interview? Why has Anna Lewis not been interviewed in any other venue (testimony, TMWKK, etc.)?

THE VIDEO INTERVIEW LETS US LEARN MORE ABOUT ANNA LEWIS, WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE LATE DAVID LEWIS. IT WAS TAPED IN 2003 AND BROUGHT TO THE INTERNET BY WIM DANKBAAR. ACCORDING TO DANKBAAR IN A 2007 POST http://jfkmurdersolved.com/phpBB3/viewtopi...bff5af704433b39 DEBRA CONWAY INTERVIEWED LEWIS.

I DO NOT KNOW IF ANYONE DISCUSSED EVIDENTIARY MATTERS WITH LEWIS FIRST. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD QUESTION FOR ANY WITNESS. ANNA LEWIS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAS NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED IN ANOTHER VENUE. SHE DID NOT TELL GARRISON THE TRUTH ABOUT KNOWING JVB. SHE SAID DAVID HAD TOLD HER TO KEEP HER MOUTH SHUT.

Second, what are we to make of that fact that David Lewis had a great deal of contact with NODA Jim Garrison's probe in its first few months, but described his alleged contacts with Oswald in way that did not include double-dating with Oswald and Baker? What are we to make of Garrison himself dropping Lewis as a witness after apparently falsely reporting that he was shot at by exile Carlos Quiroga?

I DO NOT KNOW WHY DAVID LEWIS DID NOT MENTION THE DOUBLE-DATING OR HIS STATEMENTS ABOUT QUIROGA. HE DOES NOT APPEAR ON THIS TAPE.

Third, it is not unheard of for peripheral witnesses to be influenced by the comments of other claimed witnesses. I have seen a transcript of Baker's interview with Edwin Lea McGehee, wherein she tells him right off the top (of the transcript, at least) that she was the woman in the car near his barbershop in 1963, and makes a few other statements I consider inappropriate for a formal interview. This causes me to have less than full confidence in the Lewis interview.

YOU MENTION JVB'S STATEMENTS AS A WAY TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN THE LEWIS INTERVIEW. I AM NOT SURE WHY YOU SAY THIS.

Dean:

Thanks for helping to turn the emotional level of this topic down a bit! Let me just give my own impressions. (I haven't yet mastered the art of quoting posts section-by-section.)

Point 1: My questions were somewhat rhetorical. I would need to be satisfied that this was the real ex-wife of David Lewis, that she was lucid and capable of an accurate statement, and that she was not influenced in any way in her memories. To the best of my recollection, she was originally "found" by, and the interview arranged by, Baker (or with her help), and Baker was present for the interview. (See below) Also, I seem to remember that there was some reluctance on either Lewis's or Turner's part to use her interview in TMWKK.

Point 2: David Lewis gave Garrison's staff an accounting of his contacts with Oswald; as I recall, he indicated that he encountered Oswald only two or three times; this did not include his wife or double dating. So his account varies from his wife's account.

Point 3: As I noted, I have seen one interview in which Baker was involved during which she made leading statements to the interviewee**. Since Baker was also involved in the Lewis interview, I would hope that Baker's exuberance did not influence Lewis's statements.

I am willing to accept the interview with reservations. I don't think it stands on its own as conclusive evidence; I would like to see corroborative evidence. This is just my opinion, but based on years of solid research.

**In the McGehee interview I mentioned, the transcript shows McGehee (one of the "Clinton/Jackson witnesses" who thought he had seen a woman in a car associated with Oswald) carefully answering questions, while Baker makes statements such as "Well, I have to tell you - that was me," "I've got this all documented," "I've got all the proof," as well as other leading comments. I would hope this was not done in the case of Anna Lewis, before or during the interview.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Stephen, my replies are in CAPS:
Do we agree that JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald?

If not, explain Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

First, we don't know much about Anna Lewis. Is this the Anna Lewis who was married to David Lewis? Under what circumstances was the interview taped? Did anybody discuss evidenciary matters with her prior to the interview? Why has Anna Lewis not been interviewed in any other venue (testimony, TMWKK, etc.)?

THE VIDEO INTERVIEW LETS US LEARN MORE ABOUT ANNA LEWIS, WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE LATE DAVID LEWIS. IT WAS TAPED IN 2003 AND BROUGHT TO THE INTERNET BY WIM DANKBAAR. ACCORDING TO DANKBAAR IN A 2007 POST http://jfkmurdersolved.com/phpBB3/viewtopi...bff5af704433b39 DEBRA CONWAY INTERVIEWED LEWIS.

I DO NOT KNOW IF ANYONE DISCUSSED EVIDENTIARY MATTERS WITH LEWIS FIRST. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD QUESTION FOR ANY WITNESS. ANNA LEWIS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAS NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED IN ANOTHER VENUE. SHE DID NOT TELL GARRISON THE TRUTH ABOUT KNOWING JVB. SHE SAID DAVID HAD TOLD HER TO KEEP HER MOUTH SHUT.

Second, what are we to make of that fact that David Lewis had a great deal of contact with NODA Jim Garrison's probe in its first few months, but described his alleged contacts with Oswald in way that did not include double-dating with Oswald and Baker? What are we to make of Garrison himself dropping Lewis as a witness after apparently falsely reporting that he was shot at by exile Carlos Quiroga?

I DO NOT KNOW WHY DAVID LEWIS DID NOT MENTION THE DOUBLE-DATING OR HIS STATEMENTS ABOUT QUIROGA. HE DOES NOT APPEAR ON THIS TAPE.

Third, it is not unheard of for peripheral witnesses to be influenced by the comments of other claimed witnesses. I have seen a transcript of Baker's interview with Edwin Lea McGehee, wherein she tells him right off the top (of the transcript, at least) that she was the woman in the car near his barbershop in 1963, and makes a few other statements I consider inappropriate for a formal interview. This causes me to have less than full confidence in the Lewis interview.

YOU MENTION JVB'S STATEMENTS AS A WAY TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN THE LEWIS INTERVIEW. I AM NOT SURE WHY YOU SAY THIS.

Dean:

Thanks for helping to turn the emotional level of this topic down a bit! Let me just give my own impressions. (I haven't yet mastered the art of quoting posts section-by-section.)

Point 1: My questions were somewhat rhetorical. I would need to be satisfied that this was the real ex-wife of David Lewis, that she was lucid and capable of an accurate statement, and that she was not influenced in any way in her memories. To the best of my recollection, she was originally "found" by, and the interview arranged by, Baker (or with her help), and Baker was present for the interview. (See below) Also, I seem to remember that there was some reluctance on either Lewis's or Turner's part to use her interview in TMWKK.

Point 2: David Lewis gave Garrison's staff an accounting of his contacts with Oswald; as I recall, he indicated that he encountered Oswald only two or three times; this did not include his wife or double dating. So his account varies from his wife's account.

Point 3: As I noted, I have seen one interview in which Baker was involved during which she made leading statements to the interviewee**. Since Baker was also involved in the Lewis interview, I would hope that Baker's exuberance did not influence Lewis's statements.

I am willing to accept the interview with reservations. I don't think it stands on its own as conclusive evidence; I would like to see corroborative evidence. This is just my opinion, but based on years of solid research.

**In the McGehee interview I mentioned, the transcript shows McGehee (one of the "Clinton/Jackson witnesses" who thought he had seen a woman in a car associated with Oswald) carefully answering questions, while Baker makes statements such as "Well, I have to tell you - that was me," "I've got this all documented," "I've got all the proof," as well as other leading comments. I would hope this was not done in the case of Anna Lewis, before or during the interview.

Thanks, Stephen. This type of cross-examination of evidence may help bridge the rift between the two groups. I would agree her statements should be checked to determine if anyone influenced what she said and she should be asked about whether she knows why her husband did not mention the double-dating.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say Oswald was smarter than those who allowed their pictures to be taken. He had more to lose than just his marriage.

Dean, I also think you're forgetting one of the golden rules of running any agency that operates on secrecy. Collect dirt. On everyone. The dirtier the better. Collect it on your friends, your family, your enemies.

J.E.H. wrote the book on it.

So, I can't help but wonder that if the "love affair" did happen, there would be something more than what is currently available. Which I must say, stories aside, is so little that it basically amounts to nothing.

And a final point. According to the story, as presented, Oswald was going to be losing his marriage anyway. He was going to marry JVB wasn't he? So what did he have to lose by having his picture taken with her if he was going to throw it all away anyway? Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

I have maintained an open mind throughout this incredibly strange and hostile thread and now must proclaim that the whole thing doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny because the evidence is simply not there to support it.

As far as suggesting to Jack that "an absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence." This is straight out of the Leo Strauss school of thinking that was adopted by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz in the the 1970's. Look where that type of thinking led...

Lee

Lee,

What makes the most sense to me is that someone doing informant work would not deliberately allow others to collect dirt on them. Also, from what I have read of LHO, he did not seem careless or carefree. If you have other information, please share it.

My "absence" comment simply reflects a solid principle: that just because no one reports a record on something, that does not mean that something did not exist.

Consider LHO and the accusation he was on the 6th floor: the dubious claims of Brennan notwithstanding, no one claimed to have seen LHO on the 6th floor near the time of the shooting. This does not prove he wasn't there. One could look to the bogus Warren Commssion "simulation" of someone going from the 6th to the 2nd floor as evidence, or sightings of LHO on a lower floor around the time of the shooting, etc. for evidence he was not at the 6th.

Thanks,

Dean

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, Lee. I got your point.

Which one? I made two Dean.

I'll concede to you the absence of a photo. But I'll raise you a love letter (unsigned).

Ha ha ha! I'll see your love letter unsigned and raise you a thread!

Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE ON QUESTIONS I ASKED OF CRITICS OF JVB ON MAY 10

Here are some questions, many of which I asked without reply on the main thread, of Judyth Vary Baker's (JVB) critics:

Do we agree that JVB went to New Orleans during the time Lee Harvey Oswald is known to have been there?

If not, please explain the work time card mentioned on the main thread and shown on previously named web sites.

Update: No one seems to dispute that JVB was in New Orleans when LHO was.

Do we agree that JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald?

If not, explain Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

Update: This thread has had some discussion about Anna Lewis. Stephen Roy and I agree that it would help to know more about what, if anything, anyone encouraged Anna to say before she talked on the video. She should also clarify why she gave a different story to Garrison than her husband regarding how she knew LHO, which may or may not be a problem.

Do we agree that JVB and Lee Harvey Oswald had an affair?

If not, explain comments made by Anna Lewis on this topic on the video.

Update: See above. Knowing more about Lewis could help to determine what she knew on this topic

Do we agree that JVB worked on a lab on a project to collect cancer cells to use to kill Fidel Castro?

If not, explain a better reason for her to go to New Orleans.

Update: Consensus so far is she went to work in a science-related field

Explain the newspaper clippings shown on the thread that demonstrate her excellence as a science student.

Update: Consensus so far is that clippings help to support above

Explain her admission of participating in an experiment on a prisoner (if you only believe this one statement by her, explain why it is the only one.)

Update: No reply to this question

Do you want better evidence? Explain what kind of evidence you wanted. Tell me what "independent corroborating evidence" is and what "bona fide witnesses" are.

Update: Discussion with Jack helped to clarify his understanding of the first term. He says it is a second source with no stake in the matter (paraphrase). Further questioning made it clear that he believes pecuniary interest rules out witness; I say it should be a factor for finder-of-fact to consider

Did you disbelieve JVB from the start? Explain why you participated at all.

Update: No one has answered this question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Explain her admission of participating in an experiment on a prisoner (if you only believe this one statement by her, explain why it is the only one.)

Update: No reply to this question

Did you disbelieve JVB from the start? Explain why you participated at all.

Update: No one has answered this question.

Dean I have two possible theories on why you like to ignore me

1. You are blind

2. You dont like my answers

Its a real slap in the face when you say "No reply to this question" and "No one has answered this question" when clearly I answered those two questions on the first page right after you asked them

Why even ask for opinions on Judyth when all you do is ignore the replies?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Explain her admission of participating in an experiment on a prisoner (if you only believe this one statement by her, explain why it is the only one.)

Update: No reply to this question

Did you disbelieve JVB from the start? Explain why you participated at all.

Update: No one has answered this question.

Dean I have two possible theories on why you like to ignore me

1. You are blind

2. You dont like my answers

Its a real slap in the face when you say "No reply to this question" and "No one has answered this question" when clearly I answered those two questions on the first page right after you asked them

Why even ask for opinions on Judyth when all you do is ignore the replies?

I get the impression you want to be confrontational. When I correspond with some other people, I feel like I have more of a constructive conversation. So I appreciate their answers more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dean, I am one who owes you a reply on Anna Lewis in the other thread ... but it is so far back, I will just do it here in response to your post. I apologize for being so tardy, the thread was galloping along and I lost it in the shuffle as I was searching for a quote. My responses are in blue.

Hi Stephen, my replies are in CAPS:
Do we agree that JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald?

If not, explain Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

First, we don't know much about Anna Lewis. Is this the Anna Lewis who was married to David Lewis? Under what circumstances was the interview taped? Did anybody discuss evidenciary matters with her prior to the interview? Why has Anna Lewis not been interviewed in any other venue (testimony, TMWKK, etc.)?

THE VIDEO INTERVIEW LETS US LEARN MORE ABOUT ANNA LEWIS, WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE LATE DAVID LEWIS. IT WAS TAPED IN 2003 AND BROUGHT TO THE INTERNET BY WIM DANKBAAR. ACCORDING TO DANKBAAR IN A 2007 POST http://jfkmurdersolved.com/phpBB3/viewtopi...bff5af704433b39 DEBRA CONWAY INTERVIEWED LEWIS.

Yes, it was Debra Conway who taped this, and I believe this was done in 2000, not 2003. Others present ... I will probably miss someone ... included Martin Shackelford, Judyth Vary Baker, Joe Riehl ... and I am not sure if Howard Platzman was there or not. And I cannot find the exact quote, but Debra has commented that Anna Lewis told her something along the lines of her not remembering Judyth as the girl she remembered, that she wasn't sure/didn't think this (Judyth) was the woman she knew. Will continue looking for that quote.

I DO NOT KNOW IF ANYONE DISCUSSED EVIDENTIARY MATTERS WITH LEWIS FIRST. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD QUESTION FOR ANY WITNESS.

Judyth found and spoke to Anna Lewis previously, before this trip to NO. Even Martin Shackelford acknowledged that. I find that troubling for a couple of reasons, not the least of which being how Judyth went about interviewing McGehee ... early on, at least according to a "highlights" transcript that Judyth emailed around, saying, when he spoke about seeing a big black cadillac pull out down the street just after Oswald left his barbershop, "I suggested that perhaps others had tried to influence him about the incident, prompting a false memory, but he said no, he had not been influenced by anyone." Extremely inappropriate. And, as far as we know, there is no actual transcript of her interview with McGehee. If there is, that would be important to see.

ANNA LEWIS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAS NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED IN ANOTHER VENUE. SHE DID NOT TELL GARRISON THE TRUTH ABOUT KNOWING JVB. SHE SAID DAVID HAD TOLD HER TO KEEP HER MOUTH SHUT.

Anna Lewis, according to the old team Judyth, acknowledged that Anna Lewis refused to go on camera and repeat her story for the TMWKK "Love Affair" segment. And where did Anna Lewis get this thing about Oswald firing a warning shot? That came from Judyth's early story/draft. Just how exposed to Judyth's story was she before this interview? Poor thing looked scared to death, it was like she was going by a script .... and forgetting and getting lost some times, mouthing things to someone and getting some prompts.

Second, what are we to make of that fact that David Lewis had a great deal of contact with NODA Jim Garrison's probe in its first few months, but described his alleged contacts with Oswald in way that did not include double-dating with Oswald and Baker? What are we to make of Garrison himself dropping Lewis as a witness after apparently falsely reporting that he was shot at by exile Carlos Quiroga?

I DO NOT KNOW WHY DAVID LEWIS DID NOT MENTION THE DOUBLE-DATING OR HIS STATEMENTS ABOUT QUIROGA. HE DOES NOT APPEAR ON THIS TAPE.

Third, it is not unheard of for peripheral witnesses to be influenced by the comments of other claimed witnesses. I have seen a transcript of Baker's interview with Edwin Lea McGehee, wherein she tells him right off the top (of the transcript, at least) that she was the woman in the car near his barbershop in 1963, and makes a few other statements I consider inappropriate for a formal interview. This causes me to have less than full confidence in the Lewis interview.

YOU MENTION JVB'S STATEMENTS AS A WAY TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN THE LEWIS INTERVIEW. I AM NOT SURE WHY YOU SAY THIS.

Sounds like Stephen has a copy of the same document I do. Judyth's interview technique with McGehee was wholly inappropriate based on her partial transcript she sent around. Anna Lewis's script like telling, forgetting and getting lost, looking (and sometimes mouthing) to someone for prompts .... none of that bolsters confidence in a witness. Judyth having found and talked to this "witness" first is troubling .... and then in this taped statement said witness mentions Oswald firing a warning shot .... which is straight out of an early draft of Judyth's and rather sets off the uh-oh alarms even louder. Lewis says she met Oswald in April 1962 ... then says sometime between January and April 1962. Aside from having the year wrong, her memory doesn't seem that good on this.

I do not know Anna Lewis, and I in no way accuse her of anything or impugn her character, but there is another troubling aspect that was revealed over the course of many posts discussed on the mod group years ago. And that is an allegation that Anna Lewis was promised compensation. I understand Ms Lewis is of meager means, and sadly, caring for a severely ill/disabled child ... who is now an adult. I don't recall who first made the allegation, but it was hotly and loudly denied. Then a member of then team Judyth admitted that there was talk of trying to help her out, but that that came about only after her interview had been taped. I can't make any judgment, or even an opinion on that, other than to say that it is one more thing that feels very uncomfortable about this woman's statement overall.

And, Dean, it is a *statement* ... it is not "testimony" as you referred to it in the other thread. This was not sworn testimony ... it was a statement. And a statement can carry weight .... but this one, factoring in all the things I mentioned, and David Lewis *not* mentioning any of it to the Garrison investigation when he was interviewed, just doesn't come across to me as credible evidence.

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I get the impression you want to be confrontational. When I correspond with some other people, I feel like I have more of a constructive conversation. So I appreciate their answers more.

What gives you that impression?

How do you know a conversation with me would not be constructive? You have never had a conversation with me so how can you feel like you have had a more constructive conversation with some other people when we have never had a conversation for you to base your odd statement off of?

And the last part of your statement is very telling "So I appreciate their answers more"

Let me tell you what that means

I only appreciate answers that I want to hear

Your questions are a joke

Edited by Dean Hagerman
Link to post
Share on other sites
And, Dean, it is a *statement* ... it is not "testimony" as you referred to it in the other thread. This was not sworn testimony ... it was a statement. And a statement can carry weight .... but this one, factoring in all the things I mentioned, and David Lewis *not* mentioning any of it to the Garrison investigation when he was interviewed, just doesn't come across to me as credible evidence.

Barb :-)

[/color]

Barb,

Thank you for your comments, which I have just read. Just quickly on the word "testimony" - of course Lewis did not speak under oath. But the dictionary defines it as "evidence in support of a fact or statement" (dictionary.com).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lee,

They both likely knew that a photograph could be used to compromise them, especially Lee. For instance, what if someone suspected Lee was an informant and wanted to get information from him? They could have taken a picture (on the pretext of being a friend) and then threatened to send it to Marina.

Dean

Dean, you seem unaware that Judyth reports in her book that Thornley took a picture of her and LHO together

.... using O's Minox camera, no less, and that she then took a photo of the 2 of them.

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
And, Dean, it is a *statement* ... it is not "testimony" as you referred to it in the other thread. This was not sworn testimony ... it was a statement. And a statement can carry weight .... but this one, factoring in all the things I mentioned, and David Lewis *not* mentioning any of it to the Garrison investigation when he was interviewed, just doesn't come across to me as credible evidence.

Barb :-)

[/color]

Barb,

Thank you for your comments, which I have just read. Just quickly on the word "testimony" - of course Lewis did not speak under oath. But the dictionary defines it as "evidence in support of a fact or statement" (dictionary.com).

Actually dictionary.com lists it this way:

1. Law. the statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation, usually in court.

2. evidence in support of a fact or statement; proof

I guess it was convenient for Dean to leave out the word proof.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/testimony

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...