Anythign new?

[Bill Byas]

I have posted some quewstions about Judyth Baker (much to discomfrt of certain Dutch poeple) becuase I thought she was the newest develpmewnt in JFK subject. But perhapd she is 'old news'

Are there any new 'break through'?

Bill

[Pamela Brown]

h

[...]

But perhapd she is 'old news'

Are there any new 'break through'?

Bill, from my standpoint there has not yet been a sufficiently open forum for Judyth's statements and for that reason there have as been as many misrepresentations of what she said as there are leads to new info. I became seriously committed to researching Judyth's statements this year, after watching TLS/TMWKK and emailing with Judyth on occasion. The more I know the more interested I am becoming. I have promised Judyth and those who supporter simply to keep and open mind, and they have been very generous in sharing information and some documentation with me. I encourage everyone else to keep an open mind to Judyth's statements, at least until her book comes out and everyone will have sufficient information to decide for themselves whether to find her credible or not.

What I believe -- and hope -- is new is the fact that the anti-Judyth campaign that began even before Judyth was known to all but some elite in the research community -- is being defined. For the last 4 years some very strange and mysterious things have been happening, and unseen forces seemed to have a hand in sandbagging projects that she was involved in -- most significantly 60 Minutes and even TLS. Hopefully at least everyone who wishes will be able to orient themselves to the timeline of events and who was involved.

So far, we have defined the fact that David Lifton, who wrote BE, interviewed Judyth by phone. It was supposed to have been confidential and a win-win thing. David, however, used the conversation to try to discredit Judyth. We have identified Carol Hewett as the 'woman lawyer' who played a part in the fact that Judyth's 60 minutes segment was dropped. There are other incidents and other people involved. I believe, as interesting as Judyth's statements are -- this story of betrayal is almost as interesting, and speaks to the seriousness with which the research community has taken Judyth's statements.

[Pat Speer]

At this point, I doubt there will be a breakthrough per se, where someone comes forward with a credible story that explains exactly what happened. What I think needs to be done is some intelligent and non knee-jerk analysis of what is already known. To that effect, I believe Larry Hancock's book is a major breathrough, in that he's taken a number of stories perpetuated by cuban exiles and matched them up with various FBI reports to show that the stories are most likely based on fact.

It's time to stop staring at photos looking for a midget in the gutter and begin to intelligently analyze what is already established. I am working on something myself, whereby I analyze the Dealey Plaza evidence as a whole, as opposed to picking and choosing testimony that supports my theory. I urge others to do the same. Along the road of my private investigation, I uncovered many small pieces of the puzzle. Whether they truly qualify as new is tough to say, as there have been so many books and articles written on the assassination that it's impossible to have read them all. Nevertheless, I believe there are fresh perspectives to be had.

As for Judyth, at this point I'm withholding judgement on the whole of her story. Although it seems pretty clear she worked with Oswald and most likely knew him, there is too much in her story that is self-serving for me to swalllow it whole. That said, however, the anger with which some respond to her story and the absolute glee some derive from trying to debunk her is un-nerving, and is likely to scare anyone else who knew Oswald from coming forward.

Edited September 6, 2004 by Pat Speer

[Wim Dankbaar]

"As for Judyth, at this point I'm withholding judgement on the whole of her story. Although it seems pretty clear she worked with Oswald and most likely knew him, there is too much in her story that is self-serving for me to swalllow it whole. That said, however, the anger with which some respond to her story and the absolute glee some derive from trying to debunk her is un-nerving, and is likely to scare anyone else who knew Oswald from coming forward."

Intelligent and constructive comments. However, I would be curious to the ingredients of the story that you consider to be 'self-serving for me to swalllow it whole'. Could you elaborate on that?

Wim

[Pat Speer]

Intelligent and constructive comments. However, I would be curious to the ingredients of the story that you consider to be 'self-serving for me to swalllow it whole'. Could you elaborate on that?

Wim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While my knowledge of Judyth is admittedly limited and quite likely to change and expand based upon contact with people like yourself (or even herself), it is my impression based upon her TV appearance and from her statements that she views her contact with Oswald as sort of a "last hurrah." My impression is that she sees herself as a lost prodigy, derailed by marriage and fear from reaching her true destiny as a celebrated cancer researcher. I can relate very much to this, as I was once on the whiz-kid track myself. As a consequence, it makes perfect sense to me that she could gradually embellish her contact with Lee into a distortion making sense of her personal tragedy. I believe she knew him, but I have doubts as to the extent that she knew him.

I have fought very hard to keep myself from turning an incident where I was a whistle-blower in a mini-Enron type-scandal into a self-aggrandizing tale of martyrdom. Forty years from now who knows what I'll say.

[Wim Dankbaar]

Pat,

If she feels derailed by anything, it is 1) by getting entangled in a super secret, covert CIA project, 2) by her love Lee Oswald getting killed, 2) having to keep her mouth shut for 36 years 4) opening up after 36 years (last one has probably the most weight)

Wim

Edited September 6, 2004 by Wim Dankbaar