Lee and Me

[Shepard G. Montgomery]

I received (edit) 'Me and Lee' (edit) last week and I'm very impressed with this book. I'm about halfway through the book and am interested to see what others think of this work.

I truly feel that this is the book that will exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald beyond question, and will fundamentally restructure the way informed Americans view the assassination. It complements and builds on Ed Haslam's Dr. Mary's Monkey, so perfectly, giving the reader a very clear grasp of the events in New Orleans and beyond.

It is easily the most important book I have read on the assassination.

No question, this book's impact will be broad and far-reaching.

What do other readers of this book think?

Edited October 23, 2010 by Shepard G. Montgomery

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The title of the book, of course, is actually ME & LEE. But otherwise Shepard has it right!

As it happens, I have been privileged to know Judyth Vary Baker for several years now. I

have interviewed her at least fifteen times on YouTube and featured her in blogs (which

are archived at JamesFetzerNews and jamesfetzer.blogspot.com). I also initiated a thread

about her on The Education Forum, which had thousands of posts and became the longest

thread in the history of the forum. I am convinced that she is "the real deal", which is

also the name of my radio show, which is archived at radiofetzer.blogspot.com. But all

fifteen can be found at http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesFetzerNews .

I have done extensive research on the death of JFK, including editing ASSASSINATION

SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER HOAX (2003).

My recent publications on JFK include "JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies

that Didn't", "The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco" with Jim Marrs, and "RFK: Outing the CIA

at the Ambassador", which has just appeared. (Just google "John F. Kennedy: History,

Memory, Legacy", and download Chapter 30, "Revisiting Dealey Plaza: What Happened to

JFK?" for an overview.) I am familiar with the twists and turns of assassination research

and of the extent of the effort to keep Judyth's story from the American public, which

have even forced her to live in exile.

In my opinion, there are three major reasons for these attempts to silence her. The first

is that she humanizes the alleged assassin, which makes it vastly more difficult for the

government to continue with its charade that he was "a lone, demented gunman". The

second is that it exposes methods and techniques employed by the agency to keep its

covert activities in the background and away from public scrutiny. The third is that she

exposes research to develop a bio-weapon to murder Fidel Castro and make it appear to

have been due to "natural causes" under the direction of Alton Ochsner, M.D., Dr. Mary

Sherman, David Ferrie, Lee Oswald, and herself. Lee was working for the very agencies

that would ultimately frame him.

This is a gripping and absolutely compelling story told with emotional intensity and

stunning candor. We already knew that the weapon he was alleged to have used cannot have

fired the bullets that killed JFK. We also knew that he was actually on the 2nd floor in the

lunchroom at the time of the shooting. We also know that he admired JFK and bore him no

malice. Which means the man who was fingered by the Warren Commission for murdering

JFK had neither the means, the motive, or the opportunity to have killed him. Now we know

what was happening during the crucial months that Lee was in New Orleans prior to 22

November 1963 through this book, which brings the character and personality of the man

who would be cast as "the patsy" to life.

This book ranks among the very best ever written on the assassination, including BLOODY

TREASON by Noel Twyman, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE by James Douglass, INSIDE

THE ARRB by Douglas Horne, and LBJ: THE MASTERMIND BEHIND JFK'S ASSASSINATION

by Phillip Nelson, most of whom I have also interviewed (Horne several times) on "The Real

Deal". (See, for example, http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16509 ) ME & LEE belongs in this

illustrious collection. Judyth Vary Baker has demonstrated her courage, integrity, and

dedication to the truth and has made a major contribution to understanding the plot to

kill our 35th president and has earned our admiration.

[Dean Hartwell]

Me and Lee tells us a story of a man we have all heard about. But we finally get to meet him.

Judyth Vary Baker recalls her relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald from the time they met in New Orleans in the spring of 1963 until their last phone conversation just two days before events in Dallas identified him to the public.

She introduces him as a "good man" and a "patriot." He helped her get a job, he revealed his secret life as a government agent concerned about protecting President Kennedy and consoled her over the turmoil in her life - a bad marriage, a new city to live in and an unknown future.

This refreshing, new look at Oswald will challenge preconceptions many people have had about him. Many will be willing to at least give her story a chance. And that is all that Baker asks for, as she states in the books final line, "I leave my testimony in your hands."

Those who wish to dismiss what she says will have to contend with several factors, among them: Baker's candor, her depth of detail and verification of much of the story.

Judyth Baker never claims to be a saint. She admits to having an affair with Oswald during a time in which both were married to other people. And she acknowledges she spent time with questionable company, including New Orleans mafia boss Carlos Marcello, on a questionable top-secret project designed to develop cancer cells to be used to poison Fidel Castro.

Even though she was only twenty years old during this time, she makes no excuses and allows herself to be seen in a less-than-sympathetic light at times. Her writing thus shows sincerity about herself.

Baker also gives details of her relationship with Oswald. She recounts phone conversations, places the two went and people they met. Her questioning of Oswald about his actions during this time provide a strong picture of what many have suspected all along: he served as an agent during the Cold War, pretending to be a Communist at times so as to provide cover for other activities.

And she provides in her Appendix many details that confirm her story, such as a portion of a tourist visa for Oswald to visit Mexico, her recounting of an interview with Anna Lewis as a person who knew her and Oswald and her conversations with people such as David Ferrie to provide a conclusion for such questions as why Ruby, a friend of Oswald's, would kill him.

The story of Me and Lee is for anyone who wants to learn more about one of the most misunderstood people in our nation's history. It is a story of a flawed man written by a flawed woman who has dealt with the passage of time in recounting it. Their imperfections do not harm the reading of the story: they make it all the more likely to be true.

[Dean Hagerman]

I truly feel that this is the book that will exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald beyond question, and will fundamentally restructure the way informed Americans view the assassination.

And just how is a supposed love affair going to exonerate LHO and make us view the assassination in a new light?

I dont believe Judyth for a second, but how is Lee cheating on his wife and Judyth cheating on her husband going to do anything to further assassination research?

I will answer that myself, it wont do anything

[Ron Ecker]

Does the book include her and Lee talking about Cancun? (Sorry if this was already covered in the "longest thread in the history of the forum," which for some reason I didn't read in its entirety.)

[Michael Hogan]

Does the book include her and Lee talking about Cancun? (Sorry if this was already covered in the "longest thread in the history of the forum," which for some reason I didn't read in its entirety.)

I've read the book twice quickly, like one would read a novel; I saw no mention of Cancun. Chichen-Itza, the ruins, a fine hotel, and a nearby village were mentioned. Judyth tells the reader that nothing was set in stone.

Later, when things began going awry, the love-struck couple amended their Mexico plans and decided to go and spend a year in the Caymans.

I did learn this: George DeMohrenschildt's walking trip through Mexico and Central America "fueled Lee's desire to follow in his footsteps." Maybe that was also in her first book, but I don't remember it.

[Steve Duffy]

Is there any firm proof that the Lee in Mexico city was anything but an impostor?

No one at the consulates recognized him afterward, if I'm not mistaken. Certainly not Duran, whom he is supposed to have bedded, according to the book.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

It's very embarrassing to read posts about a book from students who have never read it. Their grade is "F".

Edited October 22, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Kathleen Collins]

She introduces [Oswald] as a "good man" and a "patriot." He helped her get a job, he revealed his secret life as a government agent concerned about protecting President Kennedy and consoled her over the turmoil in her life - a bad marriage, a new city to live in and an unknown future.

How could Oswald protect the President when according to Jim Fetzer he was on the second floor? He didn't know the motorcade was passing by? Why would you stay indoors instead of looking at the President and Jackie? Was he waiting for a phone call?

Kathy C

[Glenn Viklund]

I wouldn't worry too much about those who haven't read the book. It's far worse and deeply embarrassing that there still, among those who have read it, are pompuos scholars who can't tell it's a fantasy written by a fantasist.

That's really troublesome.

[Steve Duffy]

I have read it, but still would like some thoughtful debate, without the flaming. Or is that going to be impossible?

Passions do run high here. Lets pretend there are some relative newcomers to this story,(I've stayed away from the previous debate)who are asking genuine questions. Like myself.

[Glenn Viklund]

I have read it, but still would like some thoughtful debate, without the flaming. Or is that going to be impossible?

Passions do run high here. Lets pretend there are some relative newcomers to this story,(I've stayed away from the previous debate)who are asking genuine questions. Like myself.

Mr Duffy,

If you have read her book, I think it's a good idea to consider this.

This version is the "last" one, judging by history there will be several more to come. Last time around she at first vigorously promoted her first version of the book, only to later disavow it. The number of changes since her story was first told, are countless. Countless, as it would be no exaggeration to suggest that hundreds, if not several hundred details or parts of the story have been either changed, removed or added.

These changes have not been done as a result JVB starting to remember things clearer. They are the result of numerous occasions where various facts by others, many of them being some of the most experienced JFK-researchers, have been pointed out as incorrect, false or simply not verifable. This process has been an ongoing event for more than a decade.

During this time JVB has been going after each and every critic with a blow torch, doing her very best to character assassinate any non-believer. Moreover, by now it's impossible to count how many of her formerly closest supporters, that in the end abandoned her.

Meanwhile, none of the evidence that she repeatedly over the years promised to come up with, has ever been produced. For some strange reason, this evidence was either stolen, eaten up by dogs or the subject of some other catastrophic event.

There is, as has been the case all along, one document that says, yes, she was employed by the Reilly Coffee Company on the same day as Oswald. The rest is speculation, research or fiction.

Does any of the above ring a bell somewhere?

Anyone who wants to take a balanced approach to her story need to take these facts into account. I did, the unavoidable conclusion is that this woman is in complete lack of credibility. None.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Steve,

Your questions are very appropriate. Ultimately, you want to ask how what Judyth has to say fits in with everything else we know about the assassination. Does her "hypothesis" about events in New Orleans "hang together" with everything else we know? The book is loaded with photos, records, clippings, and other substantiating evidence. If Judyth is not the person she claims to be, then who, for example, was observed by Mary Morgan while Lee Oswald was visiting her father near Clinton (as we know from page 482)? And why would Anna Lewis be willing to do a video interview in which she affirmed having spent time with her husband David in the company of Judyth and Lee? Why would Kathy Santi, a former classmate in whom she had confided her plans, who is now herself a doctor, have expressed surprise that Judyth had not pursued the medical career they had talked about shortly before she left for Louisiana? How are we to explain her detailed knowledge of New Orleans, why time after time, in seeking to verify what Judyth has had to say, it was confirmed? She may not have every detail precisely right, but she has a remarkable memory. If Judyth was not covering for Lee when he worked at Reily's, then who was? Why did the initial "J", written as Judyth writes her own, appear on the records that are in official custory? Why have Jim Marrs, Wim Dankbaar, Dean Hartwell, and many others--including Nigel Turner and "60 Minutes"--become convinced that she is "the real deal"? Ed Haslam, the author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY, has made a huge investment in time and effort to confirm her account. He even met personally with a woman who posed as "Judyth Vary Baker" but whom he came to discover was an impostor! If Judyth was not real, why in the world would anyone seek to impersonate her? I encourage you to read DR. MARY'S MONKEY -- and I have also interviewed him on "The Real Deal" (archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com ) and plan to do so again soon (next Wednesday, 27 October 2010, from 5-7 PM/CT over revereradio.net) -- and to watch the fifteen interviews I have done with her (archived at http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesFetzerNews ). What she has to say transforms our understanding of the assassination, bringing alive the character and personality of the alleged assassin. Don't be distracted by what others have to say. Study the evidence and make up your mind. Let me know if there is any assistance I can provide.

Jim

I have read it, but still would like some thoughtful debate, without the flaming. Or is that going to be impossible?

Passions do run high here. Lets pretend there are some relative newcomers to this story,(I've stayed away from the previous debate)who are asking genuine questions. Like myself.

Edited October 22, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Jack White]

I have NOT read the latest JVB book.

However, I HAVE read (nearly all of) Dr. Mary's Monkey, courtesy of the author. I find the premise that

the AIDS virus was created by a teen high school student and a disgraced homosexual airline pilot

(as a biological weapon to kill Castro) to be not only ludicrous, but scientifically inaccurate according

to articles I read in the 1980s in COVERT ACTION INFORMATION BULLETIN. This magazine traced the

creation of AIDS to Fort Detrick, Maryland, where government scientists combined bovine retroviruses

with monkey viruses seeking a eugenics biological weapon to be used against undesirable populations.

It was introduced in African villages under the guise of free WHO* malaria vaccinations. It was introduced

in "undesirable" homosexual groups in San Francisco and Manhattan. The AIDS virus has been found to

be (if my memory is correct) a recombinant DNA form of a BOVINE (cattle) virus and a RHESUS

(monkey) virus. I wonder where JVB and Ferrie kept their herd of cattle?

All of this was documented in CAIB long BEFORE anyone ever heard of JVB and her claims to have

invented AIDS in David Ferrie's apartment.

Jack

*World Health Organization

[Dean Hartwell]

Kathy,

The answers to your questions are in the book.

Dean

She introduces [Oswald] as a "good man" and a "patriot." He helped her get a job, he revealed his secret life as a government agent concerned about protecting President Kennedy and consoled her over the turmoil in her life - a bad marriage, a new city to live in and an unknown future.

How could Oswald protect the President when according to Jim Fetzer he was on the second floor? He didn't know the motorcade was passing by? Why would you stay indoors instead of looking at the President and Jackie? Was he waiting for a phone call?

Kathy C