Review of Judyth Vary Baker Thread

[Michael Hogan]

I guess you're not one of the "general public."

Surely the Mafia Kingfish had ways of keeping his name off the books.

Haslam gives no indication of quoting Baker. He states these things as if they were established facts.

Maybe the general public would believe that Haslam actually did some research, especially since he

chose to make these claims in his footnotes.

Quoting Haslam quoting Baker is PROOF OF NOTHING! By proof I mean public records of such

businesses.

To open a business, one must file papers with the state and/or county (parish) stating the name of the

business and the owner and/or stockholders. I am sure this is a universal US law. This is known,

at least where I reside, as the DBA permit. DBA means DOING BUSINESS AS. When I opened my

own graphic arts business after having previously worked for employers, I was required to do two things.

I had to go to the courthouse and fill out papers and pay a fee to open my business. I was given

a certificate which I was to post at my workplace stating that the business was JACK WHITE DBA

JACK WHITE GRAPHIC ARTS. Then when we found it was advantageous to form a corporation

(for tax and other purposes), we had to make application to the Texas Secretary of State to become

a corporation. So JACK WHITE DBA JACK WHITE GRAPHIC ARTS became WHITE, PELOUBET AND WHITE,

INCORPORATED, DBA VJS COMPANIES.

I say all of this to denote that RECORDS EXIST of ANY COMPANY. JVB saying Marcello had clubs and

restaurants is meaningless. Proof would consist of records of such businesses at the parish courthouse

or the Louisiana Secretary of State office.

The latter is DOCUMENTED PROOF. The former is hearsay.

Jack

There is no evidence that Carlos Marcello "owned restaurants and lounges". According to Mary Ferrell

he owned a large (Chrysler?) auto dealership with several branches. Mary and her husband Buck were

acquainted with Marcello.

In the footnotes to Chapter 13 of Dr Mary's Monkey, Ed Haslam states:

"Lee Oswald's family had been Mafia-connected since he was a child. Lee attended parties at Marcello's house,

and was remembered from those days by people that Judyth met. Lee also worked as an errand boy, running between

Marcello's clubs and restaurants." (DMM, page 307)

Jack,

This is actually one of the best "documented" books for the general public that I have ever read. It

breaks my heart to think where we might have gone on this thread if you had had a copy of it at hand.

You may now be starting to see why I kept encouraging you to read it. It is an excellent, very thorough,

meticulous and very detailed report of Ed Haslam's investigation. Perhaps this will give you an inkling of

why I have suggested in the past that you simply didn't know what you were talking about. You didn't.

Jim

[Dean Hartwell]

To all who wish to continue this thread along the lines of evidence and cross-examination of JVB's story:

1. This is a “work in progress” (see post #51) where I ask people to make constructive comments as part of a dialogue.

2. I will disregard comments that are not constructive (such as personal attacks). I said specifically in post #51 that I would ignore “complaints, rhetorical questions and other distractions.”

3. The updates give everyone a chance to see for themselves whether I have quoted or paraphrased them accurately. Waiting a long period of time to correct things (like over 60 posts) gives me an impression what I said was alright.

4. Independent corroboration is best (#51). But I have put uncorroborated statements on the grounds that everyone can see and make comments.

5. Telling me I should have acknowledged something from the other thread does no good. I made this thread to set forth Judyth’s story and INVITED rebuttal. You tell me what you want to include from somewhere else and phrase it as a rebuttal to JVB’s comments.

6. I could go on but I don’t like too many rules. This is a conversation, or better yet, a “dialogue, not a monologue.” If you can’t talk to me constructively, I’m afraid I cannot help you.

So I will only re-appear to talk to those who are willing to engage in a respectful and reasoned conversation with me about JVB’s claims.

[John Dolva]

The first comment is related to the Swedish person. I don't see the relevance.

I'm suggesting she put that bit in to bolster her case believing it is relevant. The belief it is indicates not only a misconception of the asylum process and what is and what is not relevant.

If what she says is true about this bogeyman threatening poor lil' US then she could not think for herself. Since the revolution the number of countries that go along with the US perception of Cuba diminishes. I don't think Baron Von Munchausen could come up with a more epic drama, which in the end strikes me as somewhat irrelevant anyway.

Much of the rest of the world has not gone through the brainwashing that USofA citizens have re capitalism-socialism. I can understand the antipathy. JVB comes off as an opportunist.

John,

Post #91 was my own thoughts. Also my thoughts - I do not see any credibility issue if she said she was a socialist in contemporary Sweden and that over forty years ago that she saw Castro as an imminent threat the U.S. I am the one who will remove this idea from the next update. However, your thoughts will remain on the posts.

Dean

Dean, the point is that she saw it relevant to include that in her application (linked to early in the other topic). Why, I don't know.

Her reply is a demand to see that.

It's her documentation after all. Why now ask for it and put in a note it's personal stuff when it's on a standard doc in the first place she (one would expect) is fully aware of. Surely there is something a bit odd there.

Edited May 21, 2010 by John Dolva

[Dean Hagerman]

So I will only re-appear to talk to those who are willing to engage in a respectful and reasoned conversation with me about JVB’s claims.

[Dean Hartwell]

The first comment is related to the Swedish person. I don't see the relevance.

I'm suggesting she put that bit in to bolster her case believing it is relevant. The belief it is indicates not only a misconception of the asylum process and what is and what is not relevant.

If what she says is true about this bogeyman threatening poor lil' US then she could not think for herself. Since the revolution the number of countries that go along with the US perception of Cuba diminishes. I don't think Baron Von Munchausen could come up with a more epic drama, which in the end strikes me as somewhat irrelevant anyway.

Much of the rest of the world has not gone through the brainwashing that USofA citizens have re capitalism-socialism. I can understand the antipathy. JVB comes off as an opportunist.

John,

Post #91 was my own thoughts. Also my thoughts - I do not see any credibility issue if she said she was a socialist in contemporary Sweden and that over forty years ago that she saw Castro as an imminent threat the U.S. I am the one who will remove this idea from the next update. However, your thoughts will remain on the posts.

Dean

Dean, the point is that she saw it relevant to include that in her application (linked to early in the other topic). Why, I don't know.

Her reply is a demand to see that.

It's her documentation after all. Why now ask for it and put in a note it's personal stuff when it's on a standard doc in the first place she (one would expect) is fully aware of. Surely there is something a bit odd there.

John,

Thank you for a constructive reply. I simply made my own decision to take the issue off the updates because the difference in time between her early belief and her alleged statement that she is a socialist are both too remote and unrelated to make an issue of credibility.

I understand it may seem odd. One good thing about these threads is that people can read what you have said and decide for themselves. If people think I am unreasonable to remove this issue, I may not agree with them, but reasonable minds can disagree.

Dean

[Dean Hartwell]

JVB EVIDENCE AND CROSS-EXAMINATION

UPDATED

This is a work in progress that focuses on Judyth Vary Baker's four main assertions and their cross-examination:

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

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

Cross-examination: None to date

(2) JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald.

On Direct: Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video on Google. 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.

JVB responds: Debra Conway unexpectedly asked Lewis to discuss matters on videotape and that evidentiary matters were not discussed with her prior to the taping.

Stephen says Anna 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.

JVB responds: Lewis agreed to taping on grounds it would be her only taping and that she told a representative of Garrison to leave her alone as she was about to have a baby and feared a miscarriage from stress. Husband David was willing to acknowledge contacts with Oswald but did not identify JVB as he did not know where she was.

Re-direct: JVB states the following:

Anna Lewis was not the only witness to verify that Baker and Oswald were intimate friends. William "Mac" McCullough is acknowledged to have been in New Orleans and working as a musician (and later, in other ways) for Carlos Marcello-owned restaurants and lounges. He is on audiotape as having seen Baker and Oswald together, but is consistently ignored. He decided to go on record despite warning Baker against speaking out at all because he had a heart condition.

Also ignored is the Charles Thomas family that has verified that their father/grandfather/uncle worked in clandestine matters and was engaged in activities that Baker described to them, proving she had been with Oswald and Thomas in New Orleans. Baker presented the family with irrefutable proof of having known Charles Thomas. The family lives in a private, hard-to-find location in Louisiana. Charles Thomas' granddaughter assisted Dr. John DeLane Williams in obtaining data on New Orleans for his statistical analysis of Baker and Oswald's activities.

The particulars Baker described were unique regarding Charles Thomas: his work in the 1950's as the Customs agent at the US-Canadian border in Buffalo, New York, at the time Oswald crossed the border there, his moving to Miami and working with Cubans and anti-Castro factions and with the Mafia there, his secrets of which he had been proud, the tattoos on his fingers, his German accent and silvery hair, and, of particular importance, his marriage to a Chitimacha native American Indian, and the fact that Thomas used the name "Arthur Young" in New Orleans --with which information Baker was eventually able to locate the Thomas family.

Thus, there are two living witnesses and the attestations of the Charles Thomas family supporting the fact of Baker's having known Oswald.

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

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

Cross-examination: See above, to which 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.

JVB responds: A Department of Defense agent told her that he had looked in files of LHO and JVB and had seen pictures of JVB labeled “Marina Oswald.” The agent had seen a caption in both files noting that Marina was reportedly in Texas when the picture was taken of her in New Orleans.

In addition, Baker POSED as marina Oswald successfully because Marina and Baker had the same hair color and style, eye color, height and many facial resemblances. Marina Oswald was largely sequestered in a small part of New Orleans. The only time Marina Oswald visited the French Quarter in New Orleans, Oswald stayed home--she went, instead, with Ruth Paine, without Oswald.

Baker says Oswald refused to go because someone might have asked where "Marina" was in the presence of Marina. The incident of Oswald failing to accompany Marina and Ruth Paine to the French Quarter in September is described in the anti-Oswald book Marina and Lee.

Oswald only once did not tell marina Oswald the truth about where he worked---this sole time was when he worked with Baker at Reilly’s. Instead, he told Marina that he worked at a different coffee company (Leon Israel Coffee Company)--which McMillan, who wrote Marina and lee, called a "pointless lie." It was not: Oswald did not want Marina to see Baker.

Further, after he was fired from Reilly, Oswald still "went to work" every day and Marina was unaware, for weeks, that Oswald was no longer employed, which can be verified through a letter she wrote to Ruth Paine. There are many more such events which are ignored by the 'research community' indicating Oswald's and Baker's relationship existed. Of course, the statistical analysis indicates that there was a better than 98% chance that Baker and Oswald knew each other 'well' and a 1 in a million chance that their parallel work there was not deliberately pre-planned and arranged.

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

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

Cross-examination: See above.

JVB responds: In addition, her ongoing work after high school is indicated as well (for example, an abstract exists showing she was working with deadly melanoma cancer at St. Francis College after high school.)

Former University of Florida student Dr. Kathy Santi has verified Baker's presence in pre-med courses. Baker was also documented working in a highly advanced chemical research lab in 1963, despite having no degree in chemistry and an official "D" in chemistry on her UF college record

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

On direct: JVB states the following: The book is unauthorized due to a contract dispute. She submitted corrections that were not made in the publishing of the book. Livingstone did not allow her to see his editing or final edit.

Cross-examination: Barb states the following: The book's status does not negate everything in it. On page 171 JVB says that Kerry Thornley took a picture of her and LHO together.

JVB responds: Regarding the Thornley picture, Oswald never gave the photo to Baker. The photo was made only to assuage suspicions Thornley had that Baker and Oswald were having an affair.

The statement that she was in a picture with LHO at the Trade Mart was given as speculation by JVB to Livingstone because she did not have good enough photos to make a determination. Researcher Martin Shackelford and Baker thought that she might be in the Rush film. These speculations were given to the editor, Mr. Livingstone, who published them without permission

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.

Note: Anyone who believes I have not quoted or paraphrased them accurately should contact me in a constructive manner and I will work with them to straighten it out. I also want to thank those who have contributed ideas to the direct and cross examination of Judyth' story, whether I agree with their ideas or not. This is a dialogue, not a monologue, and courtesy is key.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Dean Hartwell

[Greg Burnham]

Re-direct: JVB states the following:

Anna Lewis was not the only witness to verify that Baker and Oswald were intimate friends. William "Mac" McCullough is acknowledged to have been in New Orleans and working as a musician (and later, in other ways) for Carlos Marcello-owned restaurants and lounges. He is on audiotape as having seen Baker and Oswald together, but is consistently ignored. He decided to go on record despite warning Baker against speaking out at all because he had a heart condition.

Burnham on Re-Cross asks:

You say that "Mac is acknowledged" to have been...etc. Question: Who has acknowledged that "Mac" worked as a musician for Marcello? What does "is acknowledged to have been in New Orleans, etc." --mean?? I might be behind here, but is the audio tape available in which he says he saw them together? I'm confused, he warned Baker that she should not speak out because he had a heart condition?

Also ignored is the Charles Thomas family that has verified that their father/grandfather/uncle worked in clandestine matters and was engaged in activities that Baker described to them, proving she had been with Oswald and Thomas in New Orleans.

This is obviously an example of "begging the question" -- PLEASE! C'mon, now. First, are the "slashes / " used above indicative of their lack of certainty as to who in their family was involved in "clandestine matters", such as, it might have been our "father OR grandfather OR uncle"? Or do they mean all of them were involved in clandestine activities? Or probably it means that this individual who workded in clandestine activities was the grandfather to some, father to others, and uncle to others--or something like that. If I assume that it is the latter, is there any reason beyond pure "faith" that I should take their word for it? How do I or we know that this family's "father, grandfather, and uncle" was involved in "secret" (clandestine) matters? Even if we established a high probability that this family is telling the truth, where's the proof...after all, it was SECRET? Without substantiation, it is fallacious to conclude that their statement constitutes PROOF that JVB was with Oswald and whoever in New Orleans. It "might" be true, but it hasn't been proved.

Baker presented the family with irrefutable proof of having known Charles Thomas. The family lives in a private, hard-to-find location in Louisiana. Charles Thomas' granddaughter assisted Dr. John DeLane Williams in obtaining data on New Orleans for his statistical analysis of Baker and Oswald's activities.

Has the "irrefutable proof" presented by Baker to the family of Thomas been made available to researchers for analysis? Is the "statistical analysis" by Dr John DeLane Williams regarding Baker and Oswald's activities [inappropriately presumed] available for researchers to scrutinize? (begging the question again!)

The particulars Baker described were unique regarding Charles Thomas: his work in the 1950's as the Customs agent at the US-Canadian border in Buffalo, New York, at the time Oswald crossed the border there, his moving to Miami and working with Cubans and anti-Castro factions and with the Mafia there, his secrets of which he had been proud, the tattoos on his fingers, his German accent and silvery hair, and, of particular importance, his marriage to a Chitimacha native American Indian, and the fact that Thomas used the name "Arthur Young" in New Orleans --with which information Baker was eventually able to locate the Thomas family.

I might just be way behind on all of this information, so please forgive me if that's the case...but--even if Thomas worked at the border crossing during that time: 1) has that been proved? 2) so what if he did? 3) I can't keep up with all of this! IOW: Am I expected to assume the veracity of every premise upon which these arguments are or will be built? Will the consequent conclusions postulated also be built upon unsupported assertions?

What I'm saying is simple: I concede that IF the "premises" are true, then the case in favor of Judyth is formidable. The problem is that THE PREMISES THEMSELVES have not been substantiated! Now, I am not stupid. I understand that even so, she may be telling the truth. However, this is a real problem as far as PERSUADING anyone else!

Thus, there are two living witnesses and the attestations of the Charles Thomas family supporting the fact of Baker's having known Oswald.

Well counselor, the burden of proof is on Judyth, as you invited. Has she met it?

Edited May 21, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Dean Hartwell]

What I'm saying is simple: I concede that IF the "premises" are true, then the case in favor of Judyth is formidable. The problem is that THE PREMISES THEMSELVES have not been substantiated! Now, I am not stupid. I understand that even so, she may be telling the truth. However, this is a real problem as far as PERSUADING anyone else!

Monk, here is what I said, in part, in a recent post:

1. This is a “work in progress” (see post #51) where I ask people to make constructive comments as part of a dialogue.

4. Independent corroboration is best (#51). But I have put uncorroborated statements on the grounds that everyone can see and make comments.

Yes, it is true I have included uncorroborated statements on this thread. And you raise a good issue to point out what you see as uncorroborated or unsubstantiated. So it is now noted.

To continue our conversation, has the evidence provided on "direct" (not rebuttal to cross) has been corroborated to your satisfaction? This would be the videotaped statements of Anna Lewis, the time card, newspaper clippings, etc.?

Dean

P.S. I am not an attorney - I have a law degree. And I have also previously said this thread has no attorneys or judges, only jurors (all of us). This thread is about an exchange of views on evidence. Evidence is not the same thing as proof. The proof is for everyone to decide for themselves. Thanks!

[Greg Burnham]

[snip] Evidence is not the same thing as proof. The proof is for everyone to decide for themselves. Thanks!

Agreed. Evidence is not the same thing as proof. And sometimes evidence is counter-indicative to the claim or claims being made, in terms of support.

However, if you believe that "evidence is not proof" then please refrain from "begging the question" in your presentation. As an example, you said [in bold my emphasis]:

"Also ignored is the Charles Thomas family that has verified that their father/grandfather/uncle worked in clandestine matters and was engaged in activities that Baker described to them, proving she had been with Oswald and Thomas in New Orleans. Baker presented the family with irrefutable proof of having known Charles Thomas."

I thought this was evidence only...not proof? It would be preferable that you not frame testimony/evidence as though they were "already facts in evidence" for the jury when they are not.

[Dean Hartwell]

[snip] Evidence is not the same thing as proof. The proof is for everyone to decide for themselves. Thanks!

Agreed. Evidence is not the same thing as proof. And sometimes evidence is counter-indicative to the claim or claims being made, in terms of support.

However, if you believe that "evidence is not proof" then please refrain from "begging the question" in your presentation. As an example, you said [in bold my emphasis]:

"Also ignored is the Charles Thomas family that has verified that their father/grandfather/uncle worked in clandestine matters and was engaged in activities that Baker described to them, proving she had been with Oswald and Thomas in New Orleans. Baker presented the family with irrefutable proof of having known Charles Thomas."

I thought this was evidence only...not proof? It would be preferable that you not frame testimony/evidence as though they were "already facts in evidence" for the jury when they are not.

Monk,

Because I wrote it after a clause that said "JVB states," I thought the context that it was her opinion was clear. But you have a point. See the new update soon.

Thanks,

Dean

Edited May 22, 2010 by Dean Hartwell

[Dean Hartwell]

JVB EVIDENCE AND CROSS-EXAMINATION

UPDATED

This is a work in progress that focuses on Judyth Vary Baker's four main assertions and their cross-examination:

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

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

Cross-examination: None to date

(2) JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald.

On Direct: Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video on Google. 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.

JVB responds: Debra Conway unexpectedly asked Lewis to discuss matters on videotape and that evidentiary matters were not discussed with her prior to the taping.

Stephen says Anna 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.

JVB responds: Lewis agreed to taping on grounds it would be her only taping and that she told a representative of Garrison to leave her alone as she was about to have a baby and feared a miscarriage from stress. Husband David was willing to acknowledge contacts with Oswald but did not identify JVB as he did not know where she was.

Re-direct: JVB states the following:

Anna Lewis was not the only witness to verify that Baker and Oswald were intimate friends. William "Mac" McCullough is acknowledged to have been in New Orleans and working as a musician (and later, in other ways) for Carlos Marcello-owned restaurants and lounges. He is on audiotape as having seen Baker and Oswald together, but is consistently ignored. He decided to go on record despite warning Baker against speaking out at all because he had a heart condition.

Also ignored is the Charles Thomas family that has asserted that their father/grandfather/uncle worked in clandestine matters and was engaged in activities that Baker described to them, evidence that she had been with Oswald and Thomas in New Orleans. Baker presented the family with evidence of having known Charles Thomas. The family lives in a private, hard-to-find location in Louisiana. Charles Thomas' granddaughter assisted Dr. John DeLane Williams in obtaining data on New Orleans for his statistical analysis of Baker and Oswald's activities.

The particulars Baker described were unique regarding Charles Thomas: his work in the 1950's as the Customs agent at the US-Canadian border in Buffalo, New York, at the time Oswald crossed the border there, his moving to Miami and working with Cubans and anti-Castro factions and with the Mafia there, his secrets of which he had been proud, the tattoos on his fingers, his German accent and silvery hair, and, of particular importance, his marriage to a Chitimacha native American Indian, and the fact that Thomas used the name "Arthur Young" in New Orleans --with which information Baker was eventually able to locate the Thomas family.

Thus, there are two living witnesses and the assertions of the Charles Thomas family supporting the fact of Baker's having known Oswald.

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

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

Cross-examination: See above, to which 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.

JVB responds: A Department of Defense agent told her that he had looked in files of LHO and JVB and had seen pictures of JVB labeled “Marina Oswald.” The agent had seen a caption in both files noting that Marina was reportedly in Texas when the picture was taken of her in New Orleans.

In addition, Baker POSED as marina Oswald successfully because Marina and Baker had the same hair color and style, eye color, height and many facial resemblances. Marina Oswald was largely sequestered in a small part of New Orleans. The only time Marina Oswald visited the French Quarter in New Orleans, Oswald stayed home--she went, instead, with Ruth Paine, without Oswald.

Baker says Oswald refused to go because someone might have asked where "Marina" was in the presence of Marina. The incident of Oswald failing to accompany Marina and Ruth Paine to the French Quarter in September is described in the anti-Oswald book Marina and Lee.

Oswald only once did not tell Marina Oswald the truth about where he worked---this sole time was when he worked with Baker at Reilly’s. Instead, he told Marina that he worked at a different coffee company (Leon Israel Coffee Company)--which McMillan, who wrote Marina and lee, called a "pointless lie." It was not: Oswald did not want Marina to see Baker.

Further, after he was fired from Reilly, Oswald still "went to work" every day and Marina was unaware, for weeks, that Oswald was no longer employed, which can be verified through a letter she wrote to Ruth Paine. There are many more such events which are ignored by the 'research community' indicating Oswald's and Baker's relationship existed. Of course, a statistical analysis indicates that there was a better than 98% chance that Baker and Oswald knew each other 'well' and a 1 in a million chance that their parallel work there was not deliberately pre-planned and arranged.

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

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

Cross-examination: See above.

JVB responds: In addition, her ongoing work after high school is indicated as well (for example, an abstract exists showing she was working with deadly melanoma cancer at St. Francis College after high school.)

Former University of Florida student Dr. Kathy Santi has verified Baker's presence in pre-med courses. Baker was also documented working in a highly advanced chemical research lab in 1963, despite having no degree in chemistry and an official "D" in chemistry on her UF college record

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

On direct: JVB states the following: The book is unauthorized due to a contract dispute. She submitted corrections that were not made in the publishing of the book. Livingstone did not allow her to see his editing or final edit.

A statement that she was in a picture with LHO at the Trade Mart was given as speculation by JVB to Livingstone because she did not have good enough photos to make a determination. Researcher Martin Shackelford and Baker thought that she might be in the Rush film. These speculations were given to the editor, Mr. Livingstone, who published them without permission.

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.

Note: Anyone who believes I have not quoted or paraphrased them accurately should contact me in a constructive manner and I will work with them to straighten it out. I also want to thank those who have contributed ideas to the direct and cross examination of Judyth' story, whether I agree with their ideas or not. This is a dialogue, not a monologue, and courtesy is key.

[Greg Burnham]

Well, I think that's an improvement. But, still--the implication "begs the question" again! Read your own post below and tell me what you really think, please. I'll even give you a clue... the key phrase is "Also ignored..." -- Point: "If there is nothing there of relevance" to begin with, then there is "nothing there of relevance to ignore" either! So, again the presentation begs the question by assuming there was something there to ignore in the first place--but that is exactly what's in question....

Also ignored is the Charles Thomas family that has asserted that their father/grandfather/uncle worked in clandestine matters and was engaged in activities that Baker described to them, evidence that she had been with Oswald and Thomas in New Orleans. Baker presented the family with evidence of having known Charles Thomas. The family lives in a private, hard-to-find location in Louisiana. Charles Thomas' granddaughter assisted Dr. John DeLane Williams in obtaining data on New Orleans for his statistical analysis of Baker and Oswald's activities.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[Dean Hartwell]

Well, I think that's an improvement. But, still--the implication "begs the question" again! Read your own post below and tell me what you really think, please. I'll even give you a clue... the key phrase is "Also ignored..." -- Point: "If there is nothing there of relevance" to begin with, then there is "nothing there of relevance to ignore" either! So, again the presentation begs the question by assuming there was something there to ignore in the first place--but that is exactly what's in question....

Also ignored is the Charles Thomas family that has asserted that their father/grandfather/uncle worked in clandestine matters and was engaged in activities that Baker described to them, evidence that she had been with Oswald and Thomas in New Orleans. Baker presented the family with evidence of having known Charles Thomas. The family lives in a private, hard-to-find location in Louisiana. Charles Thomas' granddaughter assisted Dr. John DeLane Williams in obtaining data on New Orleans for his statistical analysis of Baker and Oswald's activities.

Monk,

The "also ignored" you mention refers back to a prior paragraph in which William "Mac" McCullough is described as "consistently ignored." This is simply JVB's opinion that others have ignored witnesses she cites as evidence. It appears to state that these witnesses have been ignored by others, but it leaves open the question as to whether they provide evidence of relevance. I don't think it begs the question to which you refer.

Dean

[Greg Burnham]

Monk,

The "also ignored" you mention refers back to a prior paragraph in which William "Mac" McCullough is described as "consistently ignored." This is simply JVB's opinion that others have ignored witnesses she cites as evidence. It appears to state that these witnesses have been ignored by others, but it leaves open the question as to whether they provide evidence of relevance. I don't think it begs the question to which you refer.

Dean

Hmmm. It doesn't? Perhaps it begs a different question.

Ok, then, who the hell are these people? Does anyone even know besides Judyth? How do/can we substantiate their claims? Or, an even better question: Have their claims been substantiated yet? At this late date, it is reasonable to expect that Judyth wouldn't be surprised to find that SUBSTANTIATION is a prerequisite to acceptance. It's not like she just released her story. She's been public for more than a decade, yet there remains very little corroberation for her claims. I know, I know, she still could be telling the truth...but, THAT does not persuade.

Trust me, I believe her. Ok? I really do and always have. But, I could never go to the bank with that! And neither can she or you guys. It just will not fly as it stands.

I have remained neutral in this discussion for the most part. But now, as an advocate FOR her, I must say, this is not convincing or persuasive--even for me--and I believe her!

Edited May 22, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[John Dolva]

Dean, there is method in my madness. I suspect you spotted it early on but forgot that I was asking these questions to JVB. You have now ''primed'' the witness''. You were right about a degree of leading. Anyway, my question stands whether in any list or not.