Review of Judyth Vary Baker Thread

[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. At this point I will underline what could reasonably said to be independently corroborated evidence presented.

(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.

[Dean Hartwell]

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.

John,

I am sorry we could not agree upon keeping the question on the update. I understand you believe in its relevance. Thank you for keeping a reasonable tone.

Dean

[Dean Hagerman]

John,

I am sorry we could not agree upon keeping the question on the update. I understand you believe in its relevance. Thank you for keeping a reasonable tone.

Dean

We could not agree?

You mean You did not agree with Johns question

This thread is so one sided that I come here and get an awesome laugh everytime I read one of Deans new jokes..I mean posts

Dean if you keep this going much longer im going to have a heart attack from laughing so hard

[Dean Hartwell]

JVB EVIDENCE AND CROSS-EXAMINATION

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I have nothing further to add to it except to post an explanation of what it was designed to accomplish.

This thread spun off the main thread on JVB. I wanted to accomplish two things the other thread could not:

1) An uninterrupted showing of JVB's main points.

2) A cross-examination of those points.

I have placed evidence on this thread, both with independent corroboration and without. People can decide for themselves how to weigh the evidence.

I disallowed some evidence on the grounds I did not find it relevant. Perhaps my bias in favor of JVB influenced me, perhaps it did not.

Like other threads, people can read previous posts and review how I have done at organizing evidence here. Constructive criticism does not bother me.

Whatever the reader's thoughts are on this subject, I hope that we can agree that all stories should be subject to cross-examination.

[Doug Weldon]

JVB EVIDENCE AND CROSS-EXAMINATION

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I have nothing further to add to it except to post an explanation of what it was designed to accomplish.

This thread spun off the main thread on JVB. I wanted to accomplish two things the other thread could not:

1) An uninterrupted showing of JVB's main points.

2) A cross-examination of those points.

I have placed evidence on this thread, both with independent corroboration and without. People can decide for themselves how to weigh the evidence.

I disallowed some evidence on the grounds I did not find it relevant. Perhaps my bias in favor of JVB influenced me, perhaps it did not.

Like other threads, people can read previous posts and review how I have done at organizing evidence here. Constructive criticism does not bother me.

Whatever the reader's thoughts are on this subject, I hope that we can agree that all stories should be subject to cross-examination.

Dean:

Your effort is appreciated. I especially agree with your last statement. Judyth's story, most of all, should be subject to cross-examination. The offer was extended and she refused.

Best,

Doug Weldon

[Greg Burnham]

Dean:

Your effort is appreciated. I especially agree with your last statement. Judyth's story, most of all, should be subject to cross-examination. The offer was extended and she refused.

Best,

Doug Weldon

She did NOT refuse. She agreed with stipulations. I am quite qualified, as you conceded, to conduct such an examination. Although you are probably more qualified, she does not "trust" you. She does not trust that you will be fair. She is concerned that she will be unfairly "ambushed" by you, if I am understanding her concerns correctly. I am not convinced that her concerns are well founded, but--I am also not convinced that her stipulations are motivated to deceive.

I do not believe that she has provided adequate proof for many of her claims. However, I also do not understand how those who choose to disbelieve her, can claim that her lack of providing proof is tantamount to proof that she is lying, disingenuous, delusional, or psycho!

That is NOT rational.

Let me be clear...it is not rational for Judyth's supporters to REQUIRE that anyone accept her story else be labeled poor researchers, cognitively impaired, disingenuous, less than honest, or of nefarious intentions, etc, as that is tantamount to an ad hominem attack and is, therefore, fallacious, by definition.

It is similarly irrational for her detractors to claim that they have PROVEN a negative, in this case--namely, proven that she is a fraud. They clearly have not. The most that can be claimed is that she has not provided definitive PROOF supporting her claims. Additionally, it could be argued that she has (or her supporters have) claimed "proof exists" where, upon careful scrutiny, no such "proof" has been demonstrated. However, the lack of "proof" being offered in support of an assertion does not PROVE the assertion is false--it merely is an unsupported assertion. While the offering of multiple unsupported assertions does not enhance one's credibility, it does NOT prove prevarication. Claiming otherwise is likewise "less than credible" --

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is a fallacy that we have seen repeatedly employed in an attempt to impugn Judyth's bona fides. There are several issues in question. The first, usually includes the assumption that a previous claim she has made has been proven to be false. I am unaware of any of her claims having been definitively disproved, but even IF they were it is fallacious to conclude that same is proof that any subsequent claims have been disproved. In court, a judge may advise a jury to feel free to reject testimony from a witness that has committed perjury, but that does NOT mean that the testimony is necessarily false! Judyth has not been proved to have committed perjury, so that does not apply.

[Doug Weldon]

Dean:

Your effort is appreciated. I especially agree with your last statement. Judyth's story, most of all, should be subject to cross-examination. The offer was extended and she refused.

Best,

Doug Weldon

She did NOT refuse. She agreed with stipulations. I am quite qualified, as you conceded, to conduct such an examination. Although you are probably more qualified, she does not "trust" you. She does not trust that you will be fair. She is concerned that she will be unfairly "ambushed" by you, if I am understanding her concerns correctly. I am not convinced that her concerns are well founded, but--I am also not convinced that her stipulations are motivated to deceive.

I do not believe that she has provided adequate proof for many of her claims. However, I also do not understand how those who choose to disbelieve her, can claim that her lack of providing proof is tantamount to proof that she is lying, disingenuous, delusional, or psycho!

That is NOT rational.

Let me be clear...it is not rational for Judyth's supporters to REQUIRE that anyone accept her story else be labeled poor researchers, cognitively impaired, disingenuous, less than honest, or of nefarious intentions, etc, as that is tantamount to an ad hominem attack and is, therefore, fallacious, by definition.

It is similarly irrational for her detractors to claim that they have PROVEN a negative, in this case--namely, proven that she is a fraud. They clearly have not. The most that can be claimed is that she has not provided definitive PROOF supporting her claims. Additionally, it could be argued that she has (or her supporters have) claimed "proof exists" where, upon careful scrutiny, no such "proof" has been demonstrated. However, the lack of "proof" being offered in support of an assertion does not PROVE the assertion is false--it merely is an unsupported assertion. While the offering of multiple unsupported assertions does not enhance one's credibility, it does NOT prove prevarication. Claiming otherwise is likewise "less than credible" --

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is a fallacy that we have seen repeatedly employed in an attempt to impugn Judyth's bona fides. There are several issues in question. The first, usually includes the assumption that a previous claim she has made has been proven to be false. I am unaware of any of her claims having been definitively disproved, but even IF they were it is fallacious to conclude that same is proof that any subsequent claims have been disproved. In court, a judge may advise a jury to feel free to reject testimony from a witness that has committed perjury, but that does NOT mean that the testimony is necessarily false! Judyth has not been proved to have committed perjury, so that does not apply.

Monk:

You are unquestionably qualified to question Judyth. However, Judyth is unlikely to allow you to ask hard questions in any forum. She has indicated as much. What Judyth has essentially done is said here is my story, however, I will not answer any questions about it or subject myself to any cross-examination, an essential element of determining truth as Dean notes. In taking this tact, she technically has not proven herself to be a fraud, but she has proven NOTHING. The end result is the SAME. She has failed to establish her credibility. By stating she does not trust me or that Len Osanic slanders her, it is simply a smokescreen. We both know Len would enforce the rules, that if lines were crossed, it would be very easy to excise anything inappropriate prior to airing. What Judyth has said and done is to allow only people who totally believe her to ask her "softball" questions and fawn over her. There is a total lack of proof. I will be glad to interview any of her corroborators so I also consider them useless until they can be examined. What any objective person must conclude is that absent subjecting herself to examination her story is meaningless.

What is disconcerting is that this becomes an embarassment to anyone who believes in truth. Judyth has stated that she understood evidence and scientific method and that she would be forthcoming with proofs. Well, it appears we have come to the end of the tunnel on her story and there is no light. There exists only her own contradictory statements, implausibilities, and patent absurdities. It would be amusing except this is a person who is seeking to financially benefit from this account which has no testable proofs. There is always a "Team Judyth." She must have a magnetic power to influence certain people. It is sad. Her being such an intelligent woman makes it even more sad because she knows what she is doing.

I don't know what to think because I do suspect she may believe her stories. She may not be a fraud but she is perpetrating a fraud. It is an esoteric distinction. It is analagous to people in my career who would tell me that they were not criminals and I would tell them that may be true but that they committed a crime. I made my points. She should want someone like me to test her account in order to prove her legitimacy. However, it is an academic point. Not you, me, or anyone is ever going to be able to ask her the hard questions in any forum where she can't sit back and choose what questions to answer and how to answer them and filter them through a third party. Nobody can bluster their way through this. You, Len, and Jim agreed that my questioning her would have merit. What is Jim's response to that?

I guess I can only be amused by Judyth. Her book may be interesting historical fiction but that is all that it will be. Yes, there will be some who will believe her story but those will be people who simply want to believe it is true but will not hold her feet to the fire. She has not agreed with STIPULATIONS. She has said she would only appear on a forum where there cannot be a third party interviewer and hard questions and followup are not part of the show's format. That is stipulating to nothing. I wish her well but I have only pity for her.

Doug Weldon

Edited June 3, 2010 by Doug Weldon

[Jack White]

Well said, Doug!

Jack

Dean:

Your effort is appreciated. I especially agree with your last statement. Judyth's story, most of all, should be subject to cross-examination. The offer was extended and she refused.

Best,

Doug Weldon

She did NOT refuse. She agreed with stipulations. I am quite qualified, as you conceded, to conduct such an examination. Although you are probably more qualified, she does not "trust" you. She does not trust that you will be fair. She is concerned that she will be unfairly "ambushed" by you, if I am understanding her concerns correctly. I am not convinced that her concerns are well founded, but--I am also not convinced that her stipulations are motivated to deceive.

I do not believe that she has provided adequate proof for many of her claims. However, I also do not understand how those who choose to disbelieve her, can claim that her lack of providing proof is tantamount to proof that she is lying, disingenuous, delusional, or psycho!

That is NOT rational.

Let me be clear...it is not rational for Judyth's supporters to REQUIRE that anyone accept her story else be labeled poor researchers, cognitively impaired, disingenuous, less than honest, or of nefarious intentions, etc, as that is tantamount to an ad hominem attack and is, therefore, fallacious, by definition.

It is similarly irrational for her detractors to claim that they have PROVEN a negative, in this case--namely, proven that she is a fraud. They clearly have not. The most that can be claimed is that she has not provided definitive PROOF supporting her claims. Additionally, it could be argued that she has (or her supporters have) claimed "proof exists" where, upon careful scrutiny, no such "proof" has been demonstrated. However, the lack of "proof" being offered in support of an assertion does not PROVE the assertion is false--it merely is an unsupported assertion. While the offering of multiple unsupported assertions does not enhance one's credibility, it does NOT prove prevarication. Claiming otherwise is likewise "less than credible" --

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is a fallacy that we have seen repeatedly employed in an attempt to impugn Judyth's bona fides. There are several issues in question. The first, usually includes the assumption that a previous claim she has made has been proven to be false. I am unaware of any of her claims having been definitively disproved, but even IF they were it is fallacious to conclude that same is proof that any subsequent claims have been disproved. In court, a judge may advise a jury to feel free to reject testimony from a witness that has committed perjury, but that does NOT mean that the testimony is necessarily false! Judyth has not been proved to have committed perjury, so that does not apply.

Monk:

You are unquestionably qualified to question Judyth. However, Judyth is unlikely to allow you to ask hard questions in any forum. She has indicated as much. What Judyth has essentially done is said here is my story, however, I will not answer any questions about it or subject myself to any cross-examination, an essential element of determining truth as Dean notes. In taking this tact, she technically has not proven herself to be a fraud, but she has proven NOTHING. The end result is the SAME. She has failed to establish her credibility. By stating she does not trust me or that Len Osanic slanders her, it is simply a smokescreen. We both know Len would enforce the rules, that if lines were crossed, it would be very easy to excise anything inappropriate prior to airing. What Judyth has said and done is to allow only people who totally believe her to ask her "softball" questions and fawn over her. There is a total lack of proof. I will be glad to interview any of her corroborators so I also consider them useless until they can be examined. What any objective person must conclude is that absent subjecting herself to examination her story is meaningless.

What is disconcerting is that this becomes an embarassment to anyone who believes in truth. Judyth has stated that she understood evidence and scientific method and that she would be forthcoming with proofs. Well, it appears we have come to the end of the tunnel on her story and there is no light. There exists only her own contradictory statements, implausibilities, and patent absurdities. It would be amusing except this is a person who is seeking to financially benefit from this account which has no testable proofs. There is always a "Team Judyth." She must have a magnetic power to influence certain people. It is sad. Her being such an intelligent woman makes it even more sad because she knows what she is doing.

I don't know what to think because I do suspect she may believe her stories. She may not be a fraud but she is perpetuating a fraud. It is an esoteric distinction. It is analagous to people in my career who would tell me that they were not criminals and I would tell them that may be true but that they committed a crime. I made my points. She should want someone like me to test her account in order to prove her legitimacy. However, it is an academic point. Not you, me, or anyone is ever going to be able to ask her the hard questions in any forum where she can't sit back and choose what questions to answer and how to answer them and filter them through a third party. Nobody can bluster their way through this. You, Len, and Jim agreed that my questioning her would have merit. What is Jim's response to that?

I guess I can only be amused by Judyth. Her book may be interesting historical fiction but that is all that it will be. Yes, there will be some who will believe her story but those will be people who simply want to believe it is true but will not hold her feet to the fire. She has not agreed with STIPULATIONS. She has said she would only appear on a forum where there cannot be a third party interviewer and hard questions and followup are not part of the show's format. That is stipulating to nothing. I wish her well but I have only pity for her.

Doug Weldon

[Greg Burnham]

Doug Weldon said:

"She may not be a fraud but she is perpetrating a fraud. It is an esoteric distinction."

I agree in principle, if re-phrased without the absoluteness:

"The fact that she may not be a fraud still is no guarantee that she is not perpetrating a fraud..."

[Doug Weldon]

Dean:

Your effort is appreciated. I especially agree with your last statement. Judyth's story, most of all, should be subject to cross-examination. The offer was extended and she refused.

Best,

Doug Weldon

She did NOT refuse. She agreed with stipulations. I am quite qualified, as you conceded, to conduct such an examination. Although you are probably more qualified, she does not "trust" you. She does not trust that you will be fair. She is concerned that she will be unfairly "ambushed" by you, if I am understanding her concerns correctly. I am not convinced that her concerns are well founded, but--I am also not convinced that her stipulations are motivated to deceive.

I do not believe that she has provided adequate proof for many of her claims. However, I also do not understand how those who choose to disbelieve her, can claim that her lack of providing proof is tantamount to proof that she is lying, disingenuous, delusional, or psycho!

That is NOT rational.

Let me be clear...it is not rational for Judyth's supporters to REQUIRE that anyone accept her story else be labeled poor researchers, cognitively impaired, disingenuous, less than honest, or of nefarious intentions, etc, as that is tantamount to an ad hominem attack and is, therefore, fallacious, by definition.

It is similarly irrational for her detractors to claim that they have PROVEN a negative, in this case--namely, proven that she is a fraud. They clearly have not. The most that can be claimed is that she has not provided definitive PROOF supporting her claims. Additionally, it could be argued that she has (or her supporters have) claimed "proof exists" where, upon careful scrutiny, no such "proof" has been demonstrated. However, the lack of "proof" being offered in support of an assertion does not PROVE the assertion is false--it merely is an unsupported assertion. While the offering of multiple unsupported assertions does not enhance one's credibility, it does NOT prove prevarication. Claiming otherwise is likewise "less than credible" --

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is a fallacy that we have seen repeatedly employed in an attempt to impugn Judyth's bona fides. There are several issues in question. The first, usually includes the assumption that a previous claim she has made has been proven to be false. I am unaware of any of her claims having been definitively disproved, but even IF they were it is fallacious to conclude that same is proof that any subsequent claims have been disproved. In court, a judge may advise a jury to feel free to reject testimony from a witness that has committed perjury, but that does NOT mean that the testimony is necessarily false! Judyth has not been proved to have committed perjury, so that does not apply.

Monk:

You are unquestionably qualified to question Judyth. However, Judyth is unlikely to allow you to ask hard questions in any forum. She has indicated as much. What Judyth has essentially done is said here is my story, however, I will not answer any questions about it or subject myself to any cross-examination, an essential element of determining truth as Dean notes. In taking this tact, she technically has not proven herself to be a fraud, but she has proven NOTHING. The end result is the SAME. She has failed to establish her credibility. By stating she does not trust me or that Len Osanic slanders her, it is simply a smokescreen. We both know Len would enforce the rules, that if lines were crossed, it would be very easy to excise anything inappropriate prior to airing. What Judyth has said and done is to allow only people who totally believe her to ask her "softball" questions and fawn over her. There is a total lack of proof. I will be glad to interview any of her corroborators so I also consider them useless until they can be examined. What any objective person must conclude is that absent subjecting herself to examination her story is meaningless.

What is disconcerting is that this becomes an embarassment to anyone who believes in truth. Judyth has stated that she understood evidence and scientific method and that she would be forthcoming with proofs. Well, it appears we have come to the end of the tunnel on her story and there is no light. There exists only her own contradictory statements, implausibilities, and patent absurdities. It would be amusing except this is a person who is seeking to financially benefit from this account which has no testable proofs. There is always a "Team Judyth." She must have a magnetic power to influence certain people. It is sad. Her being such an intelligent woman makes it even more sad because she knows what she is doing.

I don't know what to think because I do suspect she may believe her stories. She may not be a fraud but she is perpetrating a fraud. It is an esoteric distinction. It is analagous to people in my career who would tell me that they were not criminals and I would tell them that may be true but that they committed a crime. I made my points. She should want someone like me to test her account in order to prove her legitimacy. However, it is an academic point. Not you, me, or anyone is ever going to be able to ask her the hard questions in any forum where she can't sit back and choose what questions to answer and how to answer them and filter them through a third party. Nobody can bluster their way through this. You, Len, and Jim agreed that my questioning her would have merit. What is Jim's response to that?

I guess I can only be amused by Judyth. Her book may be interesting historical fiction but that is all that it will be. Yes, there will be some who will believe her story but those will be people who simply want to believe it is true but will not hold her feet to the fire. She has not agreed with STIPULATIONS. She has said she would only appear on a forum where there cannot be a third party interviewer and hard questions and followup are not part of the show's format. That is stipulating to nothing. I wish her well but I have only pity for her.

Doug Weldon

These two statements are attributed to Judyth:

Within weeks or days of the reunion this matter will come to light before the public. My book (will be called “JUDYTH AND LEE”) will deal with these events, and of my love affair with Lee. (Name Deleted*) and can verify my history. I suggest you order his book from Amazon.com. We expect movie and television productions, etc. I am sorry I cannot attend the reunion, and felt an explanation was in order. If any attendees remember my science research project, etc., please give them my email address. I think now you know why the email address is so named.

WHEN ONE HAS BEEN TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST, AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN AND REVIEWED AND READ MANY PAPERS, GENERALLY THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF THEY MAKE A STATEMENT, THERE HAD BETTER BE BACK-UP. SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAY NOT REALIZE THIS RESPONSIBILITY. I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR BACK-UP FOR MY STATEMENTS SERIOUSLY. MU (sic) HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MEANS THAT I AM PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE OF PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 2, 2002

Doug Weldon

[Doug Weldon]

Dean:

Your effort is appreciated. I especially agree with your last statement. Judyth's story, most of all, should be subject to cross-examination. The offer was extended and she refused.

Best,

Doug Weldon

She did NOT refuse. She agreed with stipulations. I am quite qualified, as you conceded, to conduct such an examination. Although you are probably more qualified, she does not "trust" you. She does not trust that you will be fair. She is concerned that she will be unfairly "ambushed" by you, if I am understanding her concerns correctly. I am not convinced that her concerns are well founded, but--I am also not convinced that her stipulations are motivated to deceive.

I do not believe that she has provided adequate proof for many of her claims. However, I also do not understand how those who choose to disbelieve her, can claim that her lack of providing proof is tantamount to proof that she is lying, disingenuous, delusional, or psycho!

That is NOT rational.

Let me be clear...it is not rational for Judyth's supporters to REQUIRE that anyone accept her story else be labeled poor researchers, cognitively impaired, disingenuous, less than honest, or of nefarious intentions, etc, as that is tantamount to an ad hominem attack and is, therefore, fallacious, by definition.

It is similarly irrational for her detractors to claim that they have PROVEN a negative, in this case--namely, proven that she is a fraud. They clearly have not. The most that can be claimed is that she has not provided definitive PROOF supporting her claims. Additionally, it could be argued that she has (or her supporters have) claimed "proof exists" where, upon careful scrutiny, no such "proof" has been demonstrated. However, the lack of "proof" being offered in support of an assertion does not PROVE the assertion is false--it merely is an unsupported assertion. While the offering of multiple unsupported assertions does not enhance one's credibility, it does NOT prove prevarication. Claiming otherwise is likewise "less than credible" --

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is a fallacy that we have seen repeatedly employed in an attempt to impugn Judyth's bona fides. There are several issues in question. The first, usually includes the assumption that a previous claim she has made has been proven to be false. I am unaware of any of her claims having been definitively disproved, but even IF they were it is fallacious to conclude that same is proof that any subsequent claims have been disproved. In court, a judge may advise a jury to feel free to reject testimony from a witness that has committed perjury, but that does NOT mean that the testimony is necessarily false! Judyth has not been proved to have committed perjury, so that does not apply.

Monk:

You are unquestionably qualified to question Judyth. However, Judyth is unlikely to allow you to ask hard questions in any forum. She has indicated as much. What Judyth has essentially done is said here is my story, however, I will not answer any questions about it or subject myself to any cross-examination, an essential element of determining truth as Dean notes. In taking this tact, she technically has not proven herself to be a fraud, but she has proven NOTHING. The end result is the SAME. She has failed to establish her credibility. By stating she does not trust me or that Len Osanic slanders her, it is simply a smokescreen. We both know Len would enforce the rules, that if lines were crossed, it would be very easy to excise anything inappropriate prior to airing. What Judyth has said and done is to allow only people who totally believe her to ask her "softball" questions and fawn over her. There is a total lack of proof. I will be glad to interview any of her corroborators so I also consider them useless until they can be examined. What any objective person must conclude is that absent subjecting herself to examination her story is meaningless.

What is disconcerting is that this becomes an embarassment to anyone who believes in truth. Judyth has stated that she understood evidence and scientific method and that she would be forthcoming with proofs. Well, it appears we have come to the end of the tunnel on her story and there is no light. There exists only her own contradictory statements, implausibilities, and patent absurdities. It would be amusing except this is a person who is seeking to financially benefit from this account which has no testable proofs. There is always a "Team Judyth." She must have a magnetic power to influence certain people. It is sad. Her being such an intelligent woman makes it even more sad because she knows what she is doing.

I don't know what to think because I do suspect she may believe her stories. She may not be a fraud but she is perpetrating a fraud. It is an esoteric distinction. It is analagous to people in my career who would tell me that they were not criminals and I would tell them that may be true but that they committed a crime. I made my points. She should want someone like me to test her account in order to prove her legitimacy. However, it is an academic point. Not you, me, or anyone is ever going to be able to ask her the hard questions in any forum where she can't sit back and choose what questions to answer and how to answer them and filter them through a third party. Nobody can bluster their way through this. You, Len, and Jim agreed that my questioning her would have merit. What is Jim's response to that?

I guess I can only be amused by Judyth. Her book may be interesting historical fiction but that is all that it will be. Yes, there will be some who will believe her story but those will be people who simply want to believe it is true but will not hold her feet to the fire. She has not agreed with STIPULATIONS. She has said she would only appear on a forum where there cannot be a third party interviewer and hard questions and followup are not part of the show's format. That is stipulating to nothing. I wish her well but I have only pity for her.

Doug Weldon

These two statements are attributed to Judyth:

Within weeks or days of the reunion this matter will come to light before the public. My book (will be called “JUDYTH AND LEE”) will deal with these events, and of my love affair with Lee. (Name Deleted*) and can verify my history. I suggest you order his book from Amazon.com. We expect movie and television productions, etc. I am sorry I cannot attend the reunion, and felt an explanation was in order. If any attendees remember my science research project, etc., please give them my email address. I think now you know why the email address is so named.

WHEN ONE HAS BEEN TRAINED AS A SCIENTIST, AND THEY HAVE WRITTEN AND REVIEWED AND READ MANY PAPERS, GENERALLY THEY ARE AWARE THAT IF THEY MAKE A STATEMENT, THERE HAD BETTER BE BACK-UP. SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MAY NOT REALIZE THIS RESPONSIBILITY. I TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR BACK-UP FOR MY STATEMENTS SERIOUSLY. MU (sic) HAVING BEEN TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD MEANS THAT I AM PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE ISSUE OF PROOF AND DOCUMENTATION." Judyth Vary Baker, JFKresearch.com post, November 2, 2002

Doug Weldon

Judyth also claims to have a masters degree, in of all things, CREATIVE WRITING.

Doug Weldon