Review of Judyth Vary Baker Thread

[Dean Hartwell]

JVB DEBATE IN A "TRIAL" FORM

I have decided to take the comments I am getting on this thread and put it into a new form. We could assign JVB the "plaintiff" status and say that her case is that she is telling the truth about her time in New Orleans in 1963. Her specific assertions and evidence offered for each can be shown, as can "cross-examination" or counter-arguments offered by critics. This is a work in progress and, of course, is subject to my own bias as to what is relevant or debatable evidence.

(1) JVB went to New Orleans during the time Lee Harvey Oswald is known to have been there.

Evidence: the work time card mentioned on the main thread and shown on previously named web sites.

Cross-examination: None

(2) JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald.

Evidence: Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

Cross-examination: Stephen says 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. Barb states that she is trying to confirm a comment made Debra Conway as to whether Anna Lewis originally recalled JVB. Barb also claims that JVB sent around a "transcript" of an interview with one witness to another witness.

(3) JVB and Lee Harvey Oswald had an affair.

Evidence: Comments made by Anna Lewis on this topic on the same video.

Cross-examination: See above. Jack adds that he believes several agencies and other parties watched LHO very closely in New Orleans and that none of the agencies has produced any report mentioning JVB.

(4) JVB worked on a lab on a project to collect cancer cells to use to kill Fidel Castro.

Evidence: Newspaper clippings posted show her interest in work in a science-related field and her excellence as science student.

Cross-examination: See above.

Evidence rule: Independent corroborating evidence is best. Jack 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.

Where it goes next: Members are free to respond with ideas on evidence. Remember we are now only working on JVB's assertions (I will get to other possible evidence later). I need any evidence that works for or against any of these assertions (#1-#4). You do not have to prove it but you must give reason to believe what you are suggesting.

Complaints, rhetorical questions and other distractions will be ignored.

[Dean Hartwell]

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

Michael,

Because I never stated that Anna spoke in a trial or other legal forum, the definition as evidence is appropriate. As far as proof goes, look at my recent post on how I am using this thread to examine evidence. Proof is in the eye of the finder of fact, a point to which I am not at yet on this thread.

[Jack White]

A good format, except...Who is the Judge?; who is the prosecutor?; who is the defense counsel?

You are correct that pecuniary interest should be weigher rather than discounted. Perhaps

SELF-SERVING is a better term than pecuniary, since not all self-serving statements involve money.

Jack

JVB DEBATE IN A "TRIAL" FORM

I have decided to take the comments I am getting on this thread and put it into a new form. We could assign JVB the "plaintiff" status and say that her case is that she is telling the truth about her time in New Orleans in 1963. Her specific assertions and evidence offered for each can be shown, as can "cross-examination" or counter-arguments offered by critics. This is a work in progress and, of course, is subject to my own bias as to what is relevant or debatable evidence.

(1) JVB went to New Orleans during the time Lee Harvey Oswald is known to have been there.

Evidence: the work time card mentioned on the main thread and shown on previously named web sites.

Cross-examination: None

(2) JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald.

Evidence: Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

Cross-examination: Stephen says 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. Barb states that she is trying to confirm a comment made Debra Conway as to whether Anna Lewis originally recalled JVB. Barb also claims that JVB sent around a "transcript" of an interview with one witness to another witness.

(3) JVB and Lee Harvey Oswald had an affair.

Evidence: Comments made by Anna Lewis on this topic on the same video.

Cross-examination: See above. Jack adds that he believes several agencies and other parties watched LHO very closely in New Orleans and that none of the agencies has produced any report mentioning JVB.

(4) JVB worked on a lab on a project to collect cancer cells to use to kill Fidel Castro.

Evidence: Newspaper clippings posted show her interest in work in a science-related field and her excellence as science student.

Cross-examination: See above.

Evidence rule: Independent corroborating evidence is best. Jack 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.

Where it goes next: Members are free to respond with ideas on evidence. Remember we are now only working on JVB's assertions (I will get to other possible evidence later). I need any evidence that works for or against any of these assertions (#1-#4). You do not have to prove it but you must give reason to believe what you are suggesting.

Complaints, rhetorical questions and other distractions will be ignored.

[Dean Hartwell]

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).

Dean,

In this arena, dealing with witnesses and a murder case, the word "testimony" tends to carry the legal sworn definition for most people...and understandably so. This isn't a church where members of the faithful "testify" about their faith in God, or any other loose connotation of the word. I believe it is important to be careful when using the word as it applies to a witness regarding anything about this case... lest use of the word "testify" or "testimony" be misleading.

No comments on Judyth having found and spoken to Anna Lewis first? Or Anna's demeanor during her taped statement? Or Judyth's interview technique as noted both by Stephen Roy and myself?

Barb :-)

Barb,

See my post (5:50 PM today) where I summarize what you and Stephen told me. Tell me what you think of that and consider I am trying to be clear and concise.

Anna Lewis' demeanor is important, but best left to the viewer.

As for the use of the word testimony, I answered Michael on that. I can certainly agree to use "testify" et al in a legal sense from now on.

Any luck on the Conway quote?

[Dean Hartwell]

A good format, except...Who is the Judge?; who is the prosecutor?; who is the defense counsel?

You are correct that pecuniary interest should be weigher rather than discounted. Perhaps

SELF-SERVING is a better term than pecuniary, since not all self-serving statements involve money.

Jack

JVB DEBATE IN A "TRIAL" FORM

I have decided to take the comments I am getting on this thread and put it into a new form. We could assign JVB the "plaintiff" status and say that her case is that she is telling the truth about her time in New Orleans in 1963. Her specific assertions and evidence offered for each can be shown, as can "cross-examination" or counter-arguments offered by critics. This is a work in progress and, of course, is subject to my own bias as to what is relevant or debatable evidence.

(1) JVB went to New Orleans during the time Lee Harvey Oswald is known to have been there.

Evidence: the work time card mentioned on the main thread and shown on previously named web sites.

Cross-examination: None

(2) JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald.

Evidence: Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

Cross-examination: Stephen says 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. Barb states that she is trying to confirm a comment made Debra Conway as to whether Anna Lewis originally recalled JVB. Barb also claims that JVB sent around a "transcript" of an interview with one witness to another witness.

(3) JVB and Lee Harvey Oswald had an affair.

Evidence: Comments made by Anna Lewis on this topic on the same video.

Cross-examination: See above. Jack adds that he believes several agencies and other parties watched LHO very closely in New Orleans and that none of the agencies has produced any report mentioning JVB.

(4) JVB worked on a lab on a project to collect cancer cells to use to kill Fidel Castro.

Evidence: Newspaper clippings posted show her interest in work in a science-related field and her excellence as science student.

Cross-examination: See above.

Evidence rule: Independent corroborating evidence is best. Jack 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.

Where it goes next: Members are free to respond with ideas on evidence. Remember we are now only working on JVB's assertions (I will get to other possible evidence later). I need any evidence that works for or against any of these assertions (#1-#4). You do not have to prove it but you must give reason to believe what you are suggesting.

Complaints, rhetorical questions and other distractions will be ignored.

Thank you, Jack. We don't need attorneys or judges here. If people don't like the job I am doing, they can make constructive suggestions (not complaints!) that everyone will see.

[Dean Hagerman]

Complaints, rhetorical questions and other distractions will be ignored.

[Jack White]

A good format, except...Who is the Judge?; who is the prosecutor?; who is the defense counsel?

You are correct that pecuniary interest should be weigher rather than discounted. Perhaps

SELF-SERVING is a better term than pecuniary, since not all self-serving statements involve money.

Jack

JVB DEBATE IN A "TRIAL" FORM

I have decided to take the comments I am getting on this thread and put it into a new form. We could assign JVB the "plaintiff" status and say that her case is that she is telling the truth about her time in New Orleans in 1963. Her specific assertions and evidence offered for each can be shown, as can "cross-examination" or counter-arguments offered by critics. This is a work in progress and, of course, is subject to my own bias as to what is relevant or debatable evidence.

(1) JVB went to New Orleans during the time Lee Harvey Oswald is known to have been there.

Evidence: the work time card mentioned on the main thread and shown on previously named web sites.

Cross-examination: None

(2) JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald.

Evidence: Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

Cross-examination: Stephen says 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. Barb states that she is trying to confirm a comment made Debra Conway as to whether Anna Lewis originally recalled JVB. Barb also claims that JVB sent around a "transcript" of an interview with one witness to another witness.

(3) JVB and Lee Harvey Oswald had an affair.

Evidence: Comments made by Anna Lewis on this topic on the same video.

Cross-examination: See above. Jack adds that he believes several agencies and other parties watched LHO very closely in New Orleans and that none of the agencies has produced any report mentioning JVB.

(4) JVB worked on a lab on a project to collect cancer cells to use to kill Fidel Castro.

Evidence: Newspaper clippings posted show her interest in work in a science-related field and her excellence as science student.

Cross-examination: See above.

Evidence rule: Independent corroborating evidence is best. Jack 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.

Where it goes next: Members are free to respond with ideas on evidence. Remember we are now only working on JVB's assertions (I will get to other possible evidence later). I need any evidence that works for or against any of these assertions (#1-#4). You do not have to prove it but you must give reason to believe what you are suggesting.

Complaints, rhetorical questions and other distractions will be ignored.

Thank you, Jack. We don't need attorneys or judges here. If people don't like the job I am doing, they can make constructive suggestions (not complaints!) that everyone will see.

Then I take it you, as judge, will not allow questions from doubters.

For instance JVB claims she was one of the women in this photo. Then she said she was not.

Then she said she was there, but not in the photo. I think some here would like to cross-examine

her about this. Overruled?

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

Then I take it you, as judge, will not allow questions from doubters.

You hit the nail on the head Jack

Dean has already stated he will ignore my questions and answers

How can anybody reading this thread think for one second that Dean is being fair and open?

This thread is worthless because Dean wants to pick and choose the answers that will fit his view on Judyth, he will not accept answers that do not fit his view

Please I ask the members who are reading this thread to go back and read Deans reply to me

[Dean Hartwell]

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 :-)

Barb,

To which book do you refer? If it is a source in dispute (if there is doubt over whether it is a valid source for whatever reason), I would be happy to make another evidence/cross-examination to discuss that.

[Dean Hartwell]

A good format, except...Who is the Judge?; who is the prosecutor?; who is the defense counsel?

You are correct that pecuniary interest should be weigher rather than discounted. Perhaps

SELF-SERVING is a better term than pecuniary, since not all self-serving statements involve money.

Jack

JVB DEBATE IN A "TRIAL" FORM

I have decided to take the comments I am getting on this thread and put it into a new form. We could assign JVB the "plaintiff" status and say that her case is that she is telling the truth about her time in New Orleans in 1963. Her specific assertions and evidence offered for each can be shown, as can "cross-examination" or counter-arguments offered by critics. This is a work in progress and, of course, is subject to my own bias as to what is relevant or debatable evidence.

(1) JVB went to New Orleans during the time Lee Harvey Oswald is known to have been there.

Evidence: the work time card mentioned on the main thread and shown on previously named web sites.

Cross-examination: None

(2) JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald.

Evidence: Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

Cross-examination: Stephen says 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. Barb states that she is trying to confirm a comment made Debra Conway as to whether Anna Lewis originally recalled JVB. Barb also claims that JVB sent around a "transcript" of an interview with one witness to another witness.

(3) JVB and Lee Harvey Oswald had an affair.

Evidence: Comments made by Anna Lewis on this topic on the same video.

Cross-examination: See above. Jack adds that he believes several agencies and other parties watched LHO very closely in New Orleans and that none of the agencies has produced any report mentioning JVB.

(4) JVB worked on a lab on a project to collect cancer cells to use to kill Fidel Castro.

Evidence: Newspaper clippings posted show her interest in work in a science-related field and her excellence as science student.

Cross-examination: See above.

Evidence rule: Independent corroborating evidence is best. Jack 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.

Where it goes next: Members are free to respond with ideas on evidence. Remember we are now only working on JVB's assertions (I will get to other possible evidence later). I need any evidence that works for or against any of these assertions (#1-#4). You do not have to prove it but you must give reason to believe what you are suggesting.

Complaints, rhetorical questions and other distractions will be ignored.

Thank you, Jack. We don't need attorneys or judges here. If people don't like the job I am doing, they can make constructive suggestions (not complaints!) that everyone will see.

Then I take it you, as judge, will not allow questions from doubters.

For instance JVB claims she was one of the women in this photo. Then she said she was not.

Then she said she was there, but not in the photo. I think some here would like to cross-examine

her about this. Overruled?

Jack

Jack,

There are no judges. I have already allowed evidence from doubters under "cross-examination." Serious questions, like yours, are welcome. Please tell me where JVB made her claim(s). I need a source. An independent source.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Dean Hartwell

[Stephen Roy]

Just an FYI: This could easily get lost in a morass of detail. There is a LOT of stuff about Baker out there, some of it from her.

[Dean Hartwell]

Just an FYI: This could easily get lost in a morass of detail. There is a LOT of stuff about Baker out there, some of it from her.

Good points, Stephen. I will employ my skills at conciseness. The key will be evidence that relates to the four main assertions.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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 :-)

Barb,

To which book do you refer? If it is a source in dispute (if there is doubt over whether it is a valid source for whatever reason), I would be happy to make another evidence/cross-examination to discuss that.

I refer to the only book she has thus far published, pg 171, volume 1: LHO The True Story ... That Judyth now calls it "unauthorized" due to a contract dispute, does not negate everything *she* herself presented in it ... and she herself encouraged people, like Haslam, for example, to read it.

Judyth is the source of this story.

Barb :-)

[Dean Hartwell]

JVB EVIDENCE AND CROSS-EXAMINATION

I have decided to take the comments I am getting on this thread and put it into a new form. We could assign JVB the "plaintiff" status and say that her case is that she is telling the truth about her time in New Orleans in 1963. Her specific assertions and evidence offered for each can be shown, as can "cross-examination" or counter-arguments offered by critics. This is a work in progress and, of course, is subject to my own bias as to what is relevant or debatable evidence.

(1) JVB went to New Orleans during the time Lee Harvey Oswald is known to have been there.

Evidence: the work time card mentioned on the main thread and shown on previously named web sites.

Cross-examination: None

(2) JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald.

Evidence: Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

Cross-examination: Stephen says 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. Barb states that she is trying to confirm a comment made Debra Conway as to whether Anna Lewis originally recalled JVB. Barb also claims that JVB sent around a "transcript" of an interview with one witness to another witness.

(3) JVB and Lee Harvey Oswald had an affair.

Evidence: Comments made by Anna Lewis on this topic on the same video.

Cross-examination: See above. Jack adds that he believes several agencies and other parties watched LHO very closely in New Orleans and that none of the agencies has produced any report mentioning JVB.

(4) JVB worked on a lab on a project to collect cancer cells to use to kill Fidel Castro.

Evidence: Newspaper clippings posted show her interest in work in a science-related field and her excellence as science student.

Cross-examination: See above.

Sources in dispute: LHO: The True Story...

JVB has said that it is unauthorized due to a contract dispute.

Cross-examination: Barb states that the status does not negate everything in it.

Specific assertion: Barb asserts that on page 171 JVB says that Kerry Thornley took a picture of her and LHO together.

Further discussion could turn up picture or refute JVB statement or clarify what part(s) of book are not reliable for reason of contract dispute, etc. This ties in to JVB assertions #2 and #3.

Evidence rule: Independent corroborating evidence is best. Jack says it is a second source with no stake in the matter (paraphrase). Further questioning made it clear that he believes self-serving interest rules out a witness; I say it should be a factor for finder-of-fact (you) to consider.

Where it goes next: All members are free to respond with ideas on evidence. Remember we are now only working on JVB's assertions (I will get to other possible evidence later). I need any evidence that works for or against any of these assertions (#1-#4). You do not have to prove it but you must give reason to believe what you are suggesting.

[Jack White]

A good format, except...Who is the Judge?; who is the prosecutor?; who is the defense counsel?

You are correct that pecuniary interest should be weigher rather than discounted. Perhaps

SELF-SERVING is a better term than pecuniary, since not all self-serving statements involve money.

Jack

JVB DEBATE IN A "TRIAL" FORM

I have decided to take the comments I am getting on this thread and put it into a new form. We could assign JVB the "plaintiff" status and say that her case is that she is telling the truth about her time in New Orleans in 1963. Her specific assertions and evidence offered for each can be shown, as can "cross-examination" or counter-arguments offered by critics. This is a work in progress and, of course, is subject to my own bias as to what is relevant or debatable evidence.

(1) JVB went to New Orleans during the time Lee Harvey Oswald is known to have been there.

Evidence: the work time card mentioned on the main thread and shown on previously named web sites.

Cross-examination: None

(2) JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald.

Evidence: Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

Cross-examination: Stephen says 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. Barb states that she is trying to confirm a comment made Debra Conway as to whether Anna Lewis originally recalled JVB. Barb also claims that JVB sent around a "transcript" of an interview with one witness to another witness.

(3) JVB and Lee Harvey Oswald had an affair.

Evidence: Comments made by Anna Lewis on this topic on the same video.

Cross-examination: See above. Jack adds that he believes several agencies and other parties watched LHO very closely in New Orleans and that none of the agencies has produced any report mentioning JVB.

(4) JVB worked on a lab on a project to collect cancer cells to use to kill Fidel Castro.

Evidence: Newspaper clippings posted show her interest in work in a science-related field and her excellence as science student.

Cross-examination: See above.

Evidence rule: Independent corroborating evidence is best. Jack 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.

Where it goes next: Members are free to respond with ideas on evidence. Remember we are now only working on JVB's assertions (I will get to other possible evidence later). I need any evidence that works for or against any of these assertions (#1-#4). You do not have to prove it but you must give reason to believe what you are suggesting.

Complaints, rhetorical questions and other distractions will be ignored.

Thank you, Jack. We don't need attorneys or judges here. If people don't like the job I am doing, they can make constructive suggestions (not complaints!) that everyone will see.

Then I take it you, as judge, will not allow questions from doubters.

For instance JVB claims she was one of the women in this photo. Then she said she was not.

Then she said she was there, but not in the photo. I think some here would like to cross-examine

her about this. Overruled?

Jack

Jack,

There are no judges. I have already allowed evidence from doubters under "cross-examination." Serious questions, like yours, are welcome. Please tell me where JVB made her claim(s). I need a source. An independent source.

Her claims are in this thread. You find them.