Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Judyth wrote:

Indeed, when the kids brought home the movie JFK to see, i did not see it with them. I

couldn’t bear it, and i was afraid i’d give way to my emotions.

Only in 1998, on the 35th anniversary of the event, did i finally watch the movie,
which had a

lot of errors, of course. Still,
I was much moved by the challenge Oliver Stone made. He said that

to remain silent was to be a coward. That hit home.

When Lee said goodbye to me, it was the last time i ever heard his voice,

The screen opens with a quote attributed by Stone to Ella Wheeler Wilcox:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oKMJTh9kHM

In her recent book, Me & Lee,2010,page 552, Judyth writes:

In
December 1998, my youngest daughter married and went on her honeymoon. Finally, I was alone. The next day I rented
JFK
and sat down to watch it in earnest........
But what struck me most deeply that day was the inscription at the beginning of the film. The words were seared into my brain:

"To lie by silence when we should protest makes cowards of men."

I knew that I had been "lying by silence." If I did not speak up, then I was a coward.

The words apparently were not seared into Judyth's brain as well as she thought. The actual quote was "To sin by silence when

we should protest makes cowards out of men."

The smallest of points to be sure, but one would think that if the words were seared into Baker's brain, as she claimed, she would get them

right and realize the quote did not originate with Oliver Stone. Especially in light of the intensely life-changing, cathartic effect those words

had on JVB. Baker claims seeing those words was a watershed event in her life and in her book she italicizes and indents her misquote of

Wilcox and separates it from the rest of the text. She obviously attaches considerable import to those words. And isn't Baker purportedly

blessed with a photographic memory?

Of all people, Judyth Baker should have more reason to get those words right and realize from where they originated.

Maybe the editor, Ed Haslam, should have caught it.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 320
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Barb : ''why'' :

Objective detachnent does not come naturally to humans. I think it does 'bother' people but the sensation of 'being bothered' is simply not desirable.

Doing away wiith that which is bothersome, by rationalising it, or ignoring it, is a natural reaction.

Facing it ultimately means facing self and facing that which is of discomfort means overcoming something within self and that is contrary to habit.

Likewise, clinging to that which is desirable and lamenting its loss is a usual reaction. The lamenting being yet another 'bothersome' sensation makes the whole process a self imposed self perpetuating* bondage that is not easy to break free from.

edit typos, clarification*

Very true, and well put, John. Once someone has made a declaration, it takes a good dose of character to acknowledge error.

JFK once said, "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it."

And as Andrew Jackson said, “Any man worth his salt will stick up for what he believes right, but it takes a slightly better man to acknowledge instantly and without reservation that he is in error”

Our history deserves that we all be "slightly better" ... and not allow errors to give us a mistaken history because we are not.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judyth wrote:

Indeed, when the kids brought home the movie JFK to see, i did not see it with them. I

couldn’t bear it, and i was afraid i’d give way to my emotions.

Only in 1998, on the 35th anniversary of the event, did i finally watch the movie,
which had a

lot of errors, of course. Still,
I was much moved by the challenge Oliver Stone made. He said that

to remain silent was to be a coward. That hit home.

When Lee said goodbye to me, it was the last time i ever heard his voice,

The screen opens with a quote attributed by Stone to Ella Wheeler Wilcox:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oKMJTh9kHM

In her recent book, Me & Lee,2010,page 552, Judyth writes:

In
December 1998, my youngest daughter married and went on her honeymoon. Finally, I was alone. The next day I rented
JFK
and sat down to watch it in earnest........
But what struck me most deeply that day was the inscription at the beginning of the film. The words were seared into my brain:

"To lie by silence when we should protest makes cowards of men."

I knew that I had been "lying by silence." If I did not speak up, then I was a coward.

The words apparently were not seared into Judyth's brain as well as she thought. The actual quote was "To sin by silence when

we should protest makes cowards out of men."

The smallest of points to be sure, but one would think that if the words were seared into Baker's brain, as she claimed, she would get them

right and realize the quote did not originate with Oliver Stone. Especially in light of the intensely life-changing, cathartic effect those words

had on JVB. Baker claims seeing those words was a watershed event in her life and in her book she italicizes and indents her misquote of

Wilcox and separates it from the rest of the text. She obviously attaches considerable import to those words. And isn't Baker purportedly

blessed with a photographic memory?

Of all people, Judyth Baker should have more reason to get those words right and realize from where they originated.

Maybe the editor, Ed Haslam, should have caught it.

Good catch, Mike ... and excellent points. The devil is in the details, and when one makes a big deal over even small details, as Judyth did here, errors like these are detrimental to her case.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.ochsnerjournal.org/doi/full/10.1043/1524-5012(2007)7[140:OIL]2.0.CO;2

An article on Ochsner in Literature by Dr. Frank A. Riddick Jr. of the Ochsner Journal, excerpt dealing with Haslam thesis:

QUOTE ON:(bold mine-bj)

[........]

The explosion causes further mutation of the virus and disseminates it beyond the laboratory into the community, from which it appears a decade later as the HIV virus, initiating the AIDS pandemic. The scope of this article does not allow for detailed refutation of what this author finds to be the preposterous claims, underlying misinformation, skewed presentation, and flawed conclusions in this scenario.

[......]

QUOTE OFF

Thanks for posting the extensive excerpt, Stephen.I want to address the quoted section above, about mutations from the bio-weapon project being the genesis of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

In Dr. Mary's Monkey,pages 279-280,Haslam writes (italics Haslam's, bold mine-bj):

The Ferrie-Sherman underground medical laboratory may have started with the noble and patriotic mission of preventing an epidemic of cancer in America; but
once the work started, once the power to move cancer from animal to animal was established, once the ability to change viruses genetically was demonstrated, once the more virulent viral strains were isolated, once the means of transmission was established, once Mary Sherman died, and once Guy Banister died,
then the laboratory, the animals, and the viruses were left in the hands of David Ferrie.
He could have easily perverted the lab's resources into a biological weapon if he had wished to do so, picking the most virulent strains and delivering them to a target deep in the heart of the Caribbean.

From David Ferrie's racial perspective, Haiti was a blister in the Caribbean, breeding "niggers," and shedding them and their primitive paganism into the waters off the coast of America. Its neighbor Cuba was worse, the fortified stronghold of godless Communism poised to spring upon weak neighbors with Russian weapons of war and enslave them into brutal captivity. Worse still, Cuba was the lair of the treacherous Fidel Castro, for whom Ferrie held a personal hatred. If there was ever a case of
putting a destructive instrument into the hands of a dangerous man
, this was it.

Given his history of violent political activities and his record of mental instability, the question is disturbing:
What would David Ferrie do if he realized he held the power to change history in his hands?

There remains debate on exactly when the first human case of AIDS occurred. But genetic testing places the origin of AIDS in Africa... not Haiti. And the virus may date back far before David Ferrie or Judyth Baker allegedly met up in New Orleans the summer of 1963.

AVERT "is an international HIV and AIDS charity, based in the UK, working to avert HIV and AIDS worldwide, through education, treatment and care." They have an impressive and informative website and include a page on the origins of HIV. There are other sources that carry the same information and reports on studies. Here are a few excerpts from their page on "The origin of AIDS and HIV and the first cases of AIDS" ...all bold mine ... all quotes indented.

The oral polio vaccine (OPV) theory

Some other rather controversial theories have contended that HIV was transferred iatrogenically (i.e. via medical interventions). One particularly well-publicised idea is that polio vaccines played a role in the transfer.

In his book, The River, the journalist Edward Hooper suggests that HIV can be traced to the testing of an oral polio vaccine called Chat, given to about a million people in the Belgian Congo, Ruanda and Urundi in the late 1950s.
To be reproduced, live polio vaccine needs to be cultivated in living tissue, and Hooper's belief is that Chat was grown in kidney cells taken from local chimps infected with SIVcmz. This, he claims, would have resulted in the contamination of the vaccine with chimp SIV, and a large number of people subsequently becoming infected with HIV-1.
5

Many people have contested Hooper's theories and insist that local chimps were not infected with a strain of SIVcmz that is closely linked to HIV.
Furthermore, the oral administration of the vaccine would seem insufficient to cause infection in most people (SIV/HIV needs to get directly into the bloodstream to cause infection - the lining of the mouth and throat generally act as good barriers to the virus).
6

In February 2000 the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia (one of the original manufacturers of the Chat vaccine) announced that it had discovered in its stores a phial of polio vaccine that had been used as part of the program. The vaccine was subsequently analysed and in April 2001 it was announced that no trace had been found of either HIV or chimpanzee SIV.7 A second analysis confirmed that only macaque monkey kidney cells, which cannot be infected with SIV or HIV, were used to make Chat.
8
While this is just one phial of many, it means that the OPV theory remains unproven.

The fact that the OPV theory accounts for just one (group M) of several different groups of HIV also suggests that transferral must have happened in other ways too,
as does the fact that HIV seems to have existed in humans before the vaccine trials were ever carried out.
More about when HIV came into being can be found below.

So,the oral polio vaccine was grown in monkeys that cannot be infected by the virus .... it was an oral vaccine, thus not being a good route to cause infection ... and a vial of the vaccine that was used in the trials tested negative, twice, for any trace of the virus.More ...

The conspiracy theory

Some say that HIV is a 'conspiracy theory' or that it is 'man-made'. A recent survey carried out in the US for example, identified a significant number of African Americans who believe HIV was manufactured as part of a biological warfare programme, designed to wipe out large numbers of black and homosexual people.10 Many say this was done under the auspices of the US federal 'Special Cancer Virus Program' (SCVP), possibly with the help of the CIA. Linked in to this theory is the belief that the virus was spread (either deliberately or inadvertently) to thousands of people all over the world through the smallpox inoculation programme, or to gay men through Hepatitis B vaccine trials. While none of these theories can be definitively disproved,
the evidence given to back them up is usually based upon supposition and speculation, and ignores the clear link between SIV and HIV or the fact that the virus has been identified in people as far back as 1959.

1959.

More ...

When?

During the last few years it has become possible not only to determine whether HIV is present in a blood or plasma sample, but also to determine the particular subtype of the virus. Studying the subtype of virus of some of the earliest known instances of HIV infection can help to provide clues about the time it first appeared in humans and its subsequent evolution.

Four of the earliest known instances of HIV infection are as follows:[note: only 2 that pre-date the 1963 summer in New Orleans cited below-bj]

1. A plasma sample taken in
1959
from an adult male living in what is now the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
11

2. A lymph node sample taken in
1960
from an adult female,
also from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
12

[......]

A 1998 analysis of the plasma sample from 1959
suggested that HIV-1 was introduced into humans around the 1940s or the early 1950s.
15

In January 2000, the results of a new study16 suggested that the first case of HIV-1 infection occurred around 1931 in West Africa. This estimate (which had a 15 year margin of error) was based on a complex computer model of HIV's evolution.

More ...

So did it definitely come from Africa?

Given the evidence we have already looked at, it seems highly likely that Africa was indeed the continent where the transfer of HIV to humans first occurred
(monkeys from Asia and South America have never been found to have SIVs that could cause HIV in humans).

Marmosets, btw, are from Central and South America.

The Avert website: AVERT AIDS

Haslam is speculating in what he wrote about how Ferrie could have, perhaps, if he wanted to, unleash the remnants of the bio weapon project on Haiti ... and speculating that the remnants of the project contained a mutated virus that would cause AIDS. Haiti is one place some do argue that the AIDS virus came from (info on that theory is on the AVERT page). But,imo, it's a rather rabid and reckless speculation, but then, just what is the factual basis for his story overall. More on this and other aspects of Haslam's story will follow.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edit: italics

Edited by Barb Junkkarinen
Link to post
Share on other sites

My conclusions are based on an unusually deep knowledge of David Ferrie; I began gathering information on Ferrie many years ago for my own knowledge base. This eventually led to obtaining virtually every available document about or related to Ferrie in government collections and from other sources, and to contacts with many people who knew Ferrie.

Mr. Roy: THank you for sharing this. Based on your studies of David Ferrie, have you reached a conclusion on whether he was involved in the assassination of JFK?

Roy will say Ferrie was not involved in the assassination. Why else would it be necessry for Ferrie, in his view, not to have *known* anybody connected with it?

Whether or not Judyth knew Ferrie or Oswald or anyone else connected to the assassination, or any plot against Castro, is not a matter of anything being "necessary" .... it is a matter of evidence. And on real, actual ... and verifiable ... evidence, her story has failed at every turn. Not only does she not have evidence of her own, some situations and details she uses as part of her story have been documented to have their genesis in other documented sources.... or to be in conflict with same.

As Brian Duffy, the Washington bureau chief of US News & World Reports, who worked with CBS/60 Minutes on what they all hoped would be the story of the century, stated when the plug was pulled on her story, despite 14 months of investigation,“We don’t have any evidence. We only have

her story.”

And when it comes to our historical truth, and to whether one's story is an aid or an abomination to future research efforts to find that truth ... that's just not good enough.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2010/11/21

Link to post
Share on other sites

An excerpt from the link Doug posted:

Oswald & JFK Assassination

Date: 11-21-10

Host: George Knapp

Guests: Ed Haslam, Peter Gleick, Judyth Vary Baker, John Barbour

.....Appearing in a later segment, John Barbour, the maker of the documentary, The Garrison Tapes, talked about how attempts were made to discredit certain

witnesses like Judyth Baker. Oswald's shooter, Jack Ruby, died from cancer and according to Haslam, he said he'd been injected with the biological weapon

that Baker and Sherman developed, which reportedly killed subjects in 28 days.

From the footnotes of Chapter 13, page 307 of Dr Mary's Monkey:

Jack Ruby told Al Maddox (his Dallas Police guard) that he had been injected with cancer cells. Maddox has said that the doctor that gave Ruby injections

came from Chicago. Maddox was present at Parkland Hospital when Ruby died of an embolism caused by galloping lung cancer.

Maybe Haslam got the term galloping from Wim Dankbaar (or JVB).

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/rubycancer.jpg

There was only a month time between his getting ill and his death. That's galloping cancer.

It was injected.

Judyth explains that a test on a unwitting volunteer prisoner took 28 days for the patient to die.

Ruby knew about this cancer project. That's why he tried to convince his guards. Of course he failed.

Wim

I haven't had an opportunity to listen to the Coast to Coast program yet but I intend to. I want to hear if Haslam's present version of Ruby's death is really as described in the show's intro.

If so, Haslam's credibility would take another big hit.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Robert Morrow

An excerpt from the link Doug posted:

Oswald & JFK Assassination

Date: 11-21-10

Host: George Knapp

Guests: Ed Haslam, Peter Gleick, Judyth Vary Baker, John Barbour

.....Appearing in a later segment, John Barbour, the maker of the documentary, The Garrison Tapes, talked about how attempts were made to discredit certain

witnesses like Judyth Baker. Oswald's shooter, Jack Ruby, died from cancer and according to Haslam, he said he'd been injected with the biological weapon

that Baker and Sherman developed, which reportedly killed subjects in 28 days.

From the footnotes of Chapter 13, page 307 of Dr Mary's Monkey:

Jack Ruby told Al Maddox (his Dallas Police guard) that he had been injected with cancer cells. Maddox has said that the doctor that gave Ruby injections

came from Chicago. Maddox was present at Parkland Hospital when Ruby died of an embolism caused by galloping lung cancer.

Maybe Haslam got the term galloping from Wim Dankbaar (or JVB).

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/images/rubycancer.jpg

There was only a month time between his getting ill and his death. That's galloping cancer.

It was injected.

Judyth explains that a test on a unwitting volunteer prisoner took 28 days for the patient to die.

Ruby knew about this cancer project. That's why he tried to convince his guards. Of course he failed.

Wim

I haven't had an opportunity to listen to the Coast to Coast program yet but I intend to. I want to hear if Haslam's present version of Ruby's death is really as described in the show's intro.

If so, Haslam's credibility would take another big hit.

I believe that Judyth Vary Baker is an INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT truth teller in the JFK assassination. Her basic story is right on the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that, while it may be helpful to ask yourself all the questions posed by Michael Hogan, it would be much more helpful just to read the book first. What are the attackers so afraid of? It's as though people can't make an objective decision on their own. Read, compare and think for yourselves.

3) Jim Fetzer and Dean Hartwell, two of Judyth Baker's most ardent and constant supporters, were the first respondents on this new thread. They voiced

some of the reasons they support Judyth's story. By and large, they seem to be the same reasons given previously. I would like to hear them explain

in more detail how they believe Judyth's new book is a game changer (or mind changer for that matter) as it pertains to her alleged love affair with

Lee Oswald. I have read their Amazon reviews of Me & Lee.

Hi Michael,

The book confirmed my belief in Judyth's story so I can't say it changed my mind. I am impressed with it's internal consistency. Judyth recounts her life in a manner I would expect one who is recalling their past. She remembers people who made an impression on her, she talks of how she felt when events took place and she discusses places she went.

I especially felt confirmation of her story when I connected her recollections to other facets of the JFK tragedy. She quotes Oswald as speaking favorably of the President and as being ardently anti-Castro. She explains his route to Mexico and confirms his trip there in a way rarely described before and yet not contradictory to facts. She also explains that Oswald could drive and had a TX driver's license, which is also well supported.

Michael, like all of us, you have read or will read this book through your own prism of how you perceive Judyth's credibility. Not a problem. I am interested in your thoughts on the book.

I started this book yesterday morning. Could not put it down until it was time to go to family for Thanksgiving.

Like Dean I concur that this book confirmed my belief in Judyth's story. A major new point for me was to realize that meeting LHO was not accidental but had been planned.

I have not had the time to keep up with the massive amount of criticsm of Judyth, so would appreciate if someone could summerize some of the salient points. I am familiar with the "Cancun" issue and feel that Judyth has adequetly addressed this. That she was a cancer whiz in high school has been completely documented by press clippings. That those in NO would want someone young and untraceable like a Judyth is not at all difficult for me to understand and believe. That she would stay silent for decades makes perfect sense given the amount of witness deaths.

Her story always rang true to me and her book lays it all bare, much like Dr Mary's monkey. In fact these books should be read together.

Great job J. Thank you for your witness.

Dawn

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

Sorry Dawn, Judyth is trying to "sell" the stories of Lewis and his ex-wife. She has very few witnesses. The stories of Lewis and his ex-wife are a tough sell. This is Judyth's problem. She chose them. They are not credible, they diminish Judyth's credibility, not increase it. If she had better witnesses, it would increase her credibility. She doesn't, so she isn't credible.

I think I am reasonably open to new information, but I'm not going to give it the benefit of the doubt if the

source of it cannot even discern how to help herself. If Judyth knew she had to rely so heavily on the recollections of Anna Lewis, she should have maintained her silence.

The first two minutes, fifteen seconds of the Anna Lewis interview, linked below, rely totally on hearsay, with David Lewis as her source. I wouldn't trust David Lewis to walk my dog.

http://judythvarybaker.com/documents.htm

Documents

...Are there any witnesses who saw Judy and Lee together in New Orleans?

Click here to watch an interview with Anna Lewis, a friend who knew Judyth and Lee in New Orleans in 1963

Anna Lewis was a waitress and the wife of David Lewis who worked for Guy Banister in 1963.

Lee took Judyth, Anna and David to meet Carlos Marcello at the 500 Club, his downtown headquarters.

To see the JFK researchers that were present during the interview of Anna Lewis, click here.

http://judythbaker.blogspot.com/2010_04_01_archive.html

Several years after the Warren Commission “investigation,” the investigators working for New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison tracked down another young woman named Anna Lewis, a waitress who worked at Thompson’s Restaurant - a favorite gathering spot for the anti-Castro crowd around Lafayette Square in downtown New Orleans. At the time, Anna was married to David Lewis, who had worked for another “ex-FBI” agent Guy Banister. Today we have video testimony from Anna Lewis recorded in 2003 and made available on the internet by Dutch JFK

researcher Wim Dankbaar. In this interview, Anna clearly states that she knew Lee Oswald and that Oswald was a regular customer at Thompson’s in 1963. Further, she states that she and her husband socialized with Lee and Judyth together on a number of occasions. More importantly Anna Lewis admits that she lied to District Attorney Garrison and his investigators when they asked her about Oswald. Had Anna Lewis told Garrison the truth, Garrison could have easily tracked down Judyth. Garrison was already suspicious of Ochsner and his role in the media exposure of Oswald. If Garrison had had access to Judyth, and if Judyth told Garrison what she now tells us - that she and Lee were working on a biological weapon project under the direction of Dr. Alton Ochsner, Garrison’s investigation (and his whole life) might have turned out very differently. But she didn’t. Anna Lewis lied to Garrison because she was afraid. Meanwhile, Judyth hid silently because she was afraid. Two critical pieces of evidence were unavailable to the American people and their elected representatives (like Garrison) at the time they were pondering who killed their President. Now that we know differently, is it time to reconsider our history?

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=bks:1&q=%22Gurvich+urged+caution%E2%80%94+and+a+lie+detector+test+for+Lewis.++*%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=12222e274e2b1ccf

The Garrison case: a study in the abuse of power

Miltón E. Brener - 1969 - 278 pages - Page 74

..On January 12th, David Lewis reported to Jim Garrison that while standing by the Royal Orleans Hotel he was shot at by a Cuban in a passing auto.

The Cuban "could have been Quiroga," but there was no identity of the man or the car by Lewis.

DA assistants were sent to the scene to scour the area for the spent pellet— without success. Garrison ordered Quiroga and "anyone with him" arrested on sight.

Gurvich urged caution— and a lie detector test for Lewis. Garrison shrugged, but did not object. Following the test, Lewis was asked by the investigator why he had lied. Lewis explained that he thought the story would please the boss...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEMQxQEwBg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fviewer%3Fa%3Dv%26q%3Dcache%3A_QTDrM8lC6IJ%3Aajweberman.com%2FnoduleX30-THE%252520WARREN%252520COMMISSION%2C%252520GARRISON%252520INVESTIGATION%252520AND%252520ROCKEFELLER%252520COMMISSION.pdf%2B%2522david%2Blewis%2522%2Bhotel%2Bjim%2Bgarrison%26hl%3Den%26gl%3Dus%26pid%3Dbl%26srcid%3DADGEESjki8VFds_lA66jkvkseumZsgkuIgeaxpkKGgkD8jtbCZEC6ls8sAMIOwIP5u6ZoGqDJhwmauZD_4AKI5gO3ywcikSqiJoDj6_EEcF8fMvL7A4StAxmw31XhLWlt480nDPH1OGy%26sig%3DAHIEtbQRIHUU8B7fzvsy__hQiWImPVb9YQ&rct=j&q=%22david%20lewis%22%20hotel%20jim%20garrison&ei=itjvTIvlB8GqlAf7reW6DA&usg=AFQjCNEwY89ghprGgkV_ZhY9Yo1UCJ_rIw&sig2=nWywe0Q4Ziuf10dYZ90E4A&cad=rja

NODULE X30 THE WARREN COMMISSION THE ROCKEFELLER COMMISSION AND...

Pg. 45

The FBI (1995) withheld information on David F. Lewis. Reports of television broadcasts

of David F. Lewis were deleted. [FBI 62-109060-4527; New Orleans Times Picayune

2.67 p4] In 1968 David F. Lewis applied for a job with Avis Rent-a-Car. The interviewer

felt that Lewis was either a mental case or on narcotics. David Lewis told the interviewer

he was married in April 1962 and presently has four children but their whereabouts are

unknown. [NO FBI 89-43-5737; FBI 62-109060-4504 2.20.67 teletype re: Lewis mostly

w/h; NARA FBI 124-10249-10027]

Review of Judyth Vary Baker Thread Members Give Impressions as to Logic in Debate

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15870

Dean, I am one who owes you a reply on Anna Lewis in the other thread ... but it is so far back, I will just do it here in response to your post. I apologize for being so tardy, the thread was galloping along and I lost it in the shuffle as I was searching for a quote. My responses are in blue.

Hi Stephen, my replies are in CAPS:
Do we agree that JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald?

If not, explain Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

First, we don't know much about Anna Lewis. Is this the Anna Lewis who was married to David Lewis? Under what circumstances was the interview taped? Did anybody discuss evidenciary matters with her prior to the interview? Why has Anna Lewis not been interviewed in any other venue (testimony, TMWKK, etc.)?

THE VIDEO INTERVIEW LETS US LEARN MORE ABOUT ANNA LEWIS, WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE LATE DAVID LEWIS. IT WAS TAPED IN 2003 AND BROUGHT TO THE INTERNET BY WIM DANKBAAR. ACCORDING TO DANKBAAR IN A 2007 POST http://jfkmurdersolved.com/phpBB3/viewtopi...bff5af704433b39 DEBRA CONWAY INTERVIEWED LEWIS.

Yes, it was Debra Conway who taped this, and I believe this was done in 2000, not 2003. Others present ... I will probably miss someone ... included Martin Shackelford, Judyth Vary Baker, Joe Riehl ... and I am not sure if Howard Platzman was there or not. And I cannot find the exact quote, but Debra has commented that Anna Lewis told her something along the lines of her not remembering Judyth as the girl she remembered, that she wasn't sure/didn't think this (Judyth) was the woman she knew. Will continue looking for that quote.

I DO NOT KNOW IF ANYONE DISCUSSED EVIDENTIARY MATTERS WITH LEWIS FIRST. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD QUESTION FOR ANY WITNESS.

Judyth found and spoke to Anna Lewis previously, before this trip to NO. Even Martin Shackelford acknowledged that. I find that troubling for a couple of reasons, not the least of which being how Judyth went about interviewing McGehee ... early on, at least according to a "highlights" transcript that Judyth emailed around, saying, when he spoke about seeing a big black cadillac pull out down the street just after Oswald left his barbershop, "I suggested that perhaps others had tried to influence him about the incident, prompting a false memory, but he said no, he had not been influenced by anyone." Extremely inappropriate. And, as far as we know, there is no actual transcript of her interview with McGehee. If there is, that would be important to see.

ANNA LEWIS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAS NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED IN ANOTHER VENUE. SHE DID NOT TELL GARRISON THE TRUTH ABOUT KNOWING JVB. SHE SAID DAVID HAD TOLD HER TO KEEP HER MOUTH SHUT.

Anna Lewis, according to the old team Judyth, acknowledged that Anna Lewis refused to go on camera and repeat her story for the TMWKK "Love Affair" segment. And where did Anna Lewis get this thing about Oswald firing a warning shot? That came from Judyth's early story/draft. Just how exposed to Judyth's story was she before this interview? Poor thing looked scared to death, it was like she was going by a script .... and forgetting and getting lost some times, mouthing things to someone and getting some prompts.

Second, what are we to make of that fact that David Lewis had a great deal of contact with NODA Jim Garrison's probe in its first few months, but described his alleged contacts with Oswald in way that did not include double-dating with Oswald and Baker? What are we to make of Garrison himself dropping Lewis as a witness after apparently falsely reporting that he was shot at by exile Carlos Quiroga?

I DO NOT KNOW WHY DAVID LEWIS DID NOT MENTION THE DOUBLE-DATING OR HIS STATEMENTS ABOUT QUIROGA. HE DOES NOT APPEAR ON THIS TAPE.

Third, it is not unheard of for peripheral witnesses to be influenced by the comments of other claimed witnesses. I have seen a transcript of Baker's interview with Edwin Lea McGehee, wherein she tells him right off the top (of the transcript, at least) that she was the woman in the car near his barbershop in 1963, and makes a few other statements I consider inappropriate for a formal interview. This causes me to have less than full confidence in the Lewis interview.

YOU MENTION JVB'S STATEMENTS AS A WAY TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN THE LEWIS INTERVIEW. I AM NOT SURE WHY YOU SAY THIS.

Sounds like Stephen has a copy of the same document I do. Judyth's interview technique with McGehee was wholly inappropriate based on her partial transcript she sent around. Anna Lewis's script like telling, forgetting and getting lost, looking (and sometimes mouthing) to someone for prompts .... none of that bolsters confidence in a witness. Judyth having found and talked to this "witness" first is troubling .... and then in this taped statement said witness mentions Oswald firing a warning shot .... which is straight out of an early draft of Judyth's and rather sets off the uh-oh alarms even louder. Lewis says she met Oswald in April 1962 ... then says sometime between January and April 1962. Aside from having the year wrong, her memory doesn't seem that good on this.

I do not know Anna Lewis, and I in no way accuse her of anything or impugn her character, but there is another troubling aspect that was revealed over the course of many posts discussed on the mod group years ago. And that is an allegation that Anna Lewis was promised compensation. I understand Ms Lewis is of meager means, and sadly, caring for a severely ill/disabled child ... who is now an adult. I don't recall who first made the allegation, but it was hotly and loudly denied. Then a member of then team Judyth admitted that there was talk of trying to help her out, but that that came about only after her interview had been taped. I can't make any judgment, or even an opinion on that, other than to say that it is one more thing that feels very uncomfortable about this woman's statement overall.

And, Dean, it is a *statement* ... it is not "testimony" as you referred to it in the other thread. This was not sworn testimony ... it was a statement. And a statement can carry weight .... but this one, factoring in all the things I mentioned, and David Lewis *not* mentioning any of it to the Garrison investigation when he was interviewed, just doesn't come across to me as credible evidence.

Barb :-)

Edited by Tom Scully
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Dawn, Judyth is trying to "sell" the stories of Lewis and his ex-wife. She has very few witnesses. The stories of Lewis and his ex-wife are a tough sell. This is Judyth's problem. She chose them. They are not credible, they diminish Judyth's credibility, not increase it. If she had better witnesses, it would increase her credibility. She doesn't, so she isn't credible.

I think I am reasonably open to new information, but I'm not going to give it the benefit of the doubt if the

source of it cannot even discern how to help herself. If Judyth knew she had to rely so heavily on the recollections of Anna Lewis, she should have maintained her silence.

The first two minutes, fifteen seconds of the Anna Lewis interview, linked below, rely totally on hearsay, with David Lewis as her source. I wouldn't trust David Lewis to walk my dog.

http://judythvarybaker.com/documents.htm

Documents

...Are there any witnesses who saw Judy and Lee together in New Orleans?

Click here to watch an interview with Anna Lewis, a friend who knew Judyth and Lee in New Orleans in 1963

Anna Lewis was a waitress and the wife of David Lewis who worked for Guy Banister in 1963.

Lee took Judyth, Anna and David to meet Carlos Marcello at the 500 Club, his downtown headquarters.

To see the JFK researchers that were present during the interview of Anna Lewis, click here.

http://judythbaker.blogspot.com/2010_04_01_archive.html

Several years after the Warren Commission “investigation,” the investigators working for New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison tracked down another young woman named Anna Lewis, a waitress who worked at Thompson’s Restaurant - a favorite gathering spot for the anti-Castro crowd around Lafayette Square in downtown New Orleans. At the time, Anna was married to David Lewis, who had worked for another “ex-FBI” agent Guy Banister. Today we have video testimony from Anna Lewis recorded in 2003 and made available on the internet by Dutch JFK

researcher Wim Dankbaar. In this interview, Anna clearly states that she knew Lee Oswald and that Oswald was a regular customer at Thompson’s in 1963. Further, she states that she and her husband socialized with Lee and Judyth together on a number of occasions. More importantly Anna Lewis admits that she lied to District Attorney Garrison and his investigators when they asked her about Oswald. Had Anna Lewis told Garrison the truth, Garrison could have easily tracked down Judyth. Garrison was already suspicious of Ochsner and his role in the media exposure of Oswald. If Garrison had had access to Judyth, and if Judyth told Garrison what she now tells us - that she and Lee were working on a biological weapon project under the direction of Dr. Alton Ochsner, Garrison’s investigation (and his whole life) might have turned out very differently. But she didn’t. Anna Lewis lied to Garrison because she was afraid. Meanwhile, Judyth hid silently because she was afraid. Two critical pieces of evidence were unavailable to the American people and their elected representatives (like Garrison) at the time they were pondering who killed their President. Now that we know differently, is it time to reconsider our history?

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=bks:1&q=%22Gurvich+urged+caution%E2%80%94+and+a+lie+detector+test+for+Lewis.++*%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=12222e274e2b1ccf

The Garrison case: a study in the abuse of power

Miltón E. Brener - 1969 - 278 pages - Page 74

..On January 12th, David Lewis reported to Jim Garrison that while standing by the Royal Orleans Hotel he was shot at by a Cuban in a passing auto.

The Cuban "could have been Quiroga," but there was no identity of the man or the car by Lewis.

DA assistants were sent to the scene to scour the area for the spent pellet— without success. Garrison ordered Quiroga and "anyone with him" arrested on sight.

Gurvich urged caution— and a lie detector test for Lewis. Garrison shrugged, but did not object. Following the test, Lewis was asked by the investigator why he had lied. Lewis explained that he thought the story would please the boss...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEMQxQEwBg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fviewer%3Fa%3Dv%26q%3Dcache%3A_QTDrM8lC6IJ%3Aajweberman.com%2FnoduleX30-THE%252520WARREN%252520COMMISSION%2C%252520GARRISON%252520INVESTIGATION%252520AND%252520ROCKEFELLER%252520COMMISSION.pdf%2B%2522david%2Blewis%2522%2Bhotel%2Bjim%2Bgarrison%26hl%3Den%26gl%3Dus%26pid%3Dbl%26srcid%3DADGEESjki8VFds_lA66jkvkseumZsgkuIgeaxpkKGgkD8jtbCZEC6ls8sAMIOwIP5u6ZoGqDJhwmauZD_4AKI5gO3ywcikSqiJoDj6_EEcF8fMvL7A4StAxmw31XhLWlt480nDPH1OGy%26sig%3DAHIEtbQRIHUU8B7fzvsy__hQiWImPVb9YQ&rct=j&q=%22david%20lewis%22%20hotel%20jim%20garrison&ei=itjvTIvlB8GqlAf7reW6DA&usg=AFQjCNEwY89ghprGgkV_ZhY9Yo1UCJ_rIw&sig2=nWywe0Q4Ziuf10dYZ90E4A&cad=rja

NODULE X30 THE WARREN COMMISSION THE ROCKEFELLER COMMISSION AND...

Pg. 45

The FBI (1995) withheld information on David F. Lewis. Reports of television broadcasts

of David F. Lewis were deleted. [FBI 62-109060-4527; New Orleans Times Picayune

2.67 p4] In 1968 David F. Lewis applied for a job with Avis Rent-a-Car. The interviewer

felt that Lewis was either a mental case or on narcotics. David Lewis told the interviewer

he was married in April 1962 and presently has four children but their whereabouts are

unknown. [NO FBI 89-43-5737; FBI 62-109060-4504 2.20.67 teletype re: Lewis mostly

w/h; NARA FBI 124-10249-10027]

Review of Judyth Vary Baker Thread Members Give Impressions as to Logic in Debate

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15870

Dean, I am one who owes you a reply on Anna Lewis in the other thread ... but it is so far back, I will just do it here in response to your post. I apologize for being so tardy, the thread was galloping along and I lost it in the shuffle as I was searching for a quote. My responses are in blue.

Hi Stephen, my replies are in CAPS:
Do we agree that JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald?

If not, explain Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

First, we don't know much about Anna Lewis. Is this the Anna Lewis who was married to David Lewis? Under what circumstances was the interview taped? Did anybody discuss evidenciary matters with her prior to the interview? Why has Anna Lewis not been interviewed in any other venue (testimony, TMWKK, etc.)?

THE VIDEO INTERVIEW LETS US LEARN MORE ABOUT ANNA LEWIS, WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE LATE DAVID LEWIS. IT WAS TAPED IN 2003 AND BROUGHT TO THE INTERNET BY WIM DANKBAAR. ACCORDING TO DANKBAAR IN A 2007 POST http://jfkmurdersolved.com/phpBB3/viewtopi...bff5af704433b39 DEBRA CONWAY INTERVIEWED LEWIS.

Yes, it was Debra Conway who taped this, and I believe this was done in 2000, not 2003. Others present ... I will probably miss someone ... included Martin Shackelford, Judyth Vary Baker, Joe Riehl ... and I am not sure if Howard Platzman was there or not. And I cannot find the exact quote, but Debra has commented that Anna Lewis told her something along the lines of her not remembering Judyth as the girl she remembered, that she wasn't sure/didn't think this (Judyth) was the woman she knew. Will continue looking for that quote.

I DO NOT KNOW IF ANYONE DISCUSSED EVIDENTIARY MATTERS WITH LEWIS FIRST. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD QUESTION FOR ANY WITNESS.

Judyth found and spoke to Anna Lewis previously, before this trip to NO. Even Martin Shackelford acknowledged that. I find that troubling for a couple of reasons, not the least of which being how Judyth went about interviewing McGehee ... early on, at least according to a "highlights" transcript that Judyth emailed around, saying, when he spoke about seeing a big black cadillac pull out down the street just after Oswald left his barbershop, "I suggested that perhaps others had tried to influence him about the incident, prompting a false memory, but he said no, he had not been influenced by anyone." Extremely inappropriate. And, as far as we know, there is no actual transcript of her interview with McGehee. If there is, that would be important to see.

ANNA LEWIS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAS NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED IN ANOTHER VENUE. SHE DID NOT TELL GARRISON THE TRUTH ABOUT KNOWING JVB. SHE SAID DAVID HAD TOLD HER TO KEEP HER MOUTH SHUT.

Anna Lewis, according to the old team Judyth, acknowledged that Anna Lewis refused to go on camera and repeat her story for the TMWKK "Love Affair" segment. And where did Anna Lewis get this thing about Oswald firing a warning shot? That came from Judyth's early story/draft. Just how exposed to Judyth's story was she before this interview? Poor thing looked scared to death, it was like she was going by a script .... and forgetting and getting lost some times, mouthing things to someone and getting some prompts.

Second, what are we to make of that fact that David Lewis had a great deal of contact with NODA Jim Garrison's probe in its first few months, but described his alleged contacts with Oswald in way that did not include double-dating with Oswald and Baker? What are we to make of Garrison himself dropping Lewis as a witness after apparently falsely reporting that he was shot at by exile Carlos Quiroga?

I DO NOT KNOW WHY DAVID LEWIS DID NOT MENTION THE DOUBLE-DATING OR HIS STATEMENTS ABOUT QUIROGA. HE DOES NOT APPEAR ON THIS TAPE.

Third, it is not unheard of for peripheral witnesses to be influenced by the comments of other claimed witnesses. I have seen a transcript of Baker's interview with Edwin Lea McGehee, wherein she tells him right off the top (of the transcript, at least) that she was the woman in the car near his barbershop in 1963, and makes a few other statements I consider inappropriate for a formal interview. This causes me to have less than full confidence in the Lewis interview.

YOU MENTION JVB'S STATEMENTS AS A WAY TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN THE LEWIS INTERVIEW. I AM NOT SURE WHY YOU SAY THIS.

Sounds like Stephen has a copy of the same document I do. Judyth's interview technique with McGehee was wholly inappropriate based on her partial transcript she sent around. Anna Lewis's script like telling, forgetting and getting lost, looking (and sometimes mouthing) to someone for prompts .... none of that bolsters confidence in a witness. Judyth having found and talked to this "witness" first is troubling .... and then in this taped statement said witness mentions Oswald firing a warning shot .... which is straight out of an early draft of Judyth's and rather sets off the uh-oh alarms even louder. Lewis says she met Oswald in April 1962 ... then says sometime between January and April 1962. Aside from having the year wrong, her memory doesn't seem that good on this.

I do not know Anna Lewis, and I in no way accuse her of anything or impugn her character, but there is another troubling aspect that was revealed over the course of many posts discussed on the mod group years ago. And that is an allegation that Anna Lewis was promised compensation. I understand Ms Lewis is of meager means, and sadly, caring for a severely ill/disabled child ... who is now an adult. I don't recall who first made the allegation, but it was hotly and loudly denied. Then a member of then team Judyth admitted that there was talk of trying to help her out, but that that came about only after her interview had been taped. I can't make any judgment, or even an opinion on that, other than to say that it is one more thing that feels very uncomfortable about this woman's statement overall.

And, Dean, it is a *statement* ... it is not "testimony" as you referred to it in the other thread. This was not sworn testimony ... it was a statement. And a statement can carry weight .... but this one, factoring in all the things I mentioned, and David Lewis *not* mentioning any of it to the Garrison investigation when he was interviewed, just doesn't come across to me as credible evidence.

Barb :-)

Of course Anna Lewis lied back then. People were still dropping like flies. Most would have lied. Even to Garrison.

Sorry, I have now read most of this book and I find it totally convincing. And there are many I did not find compelling like James Files, or E. Howard's "deathbed" comments,for example.

Really, given all the secrecy surrounding what both Judyth and Lee were involved in back in 1963 in NO, how many of us could prove any of it? Judyth saved a lot of documentation, her memory is incredible and her story has that ring of authenticity. As a criminal defene atty. for now more than twenty five years I have become fairly good at assessing a person's credibility and Judyth, for me, passes the test.

Dawn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Dawn, Judyth is trying to "sell" the stories of Lewis and his ex-wife. She has very few witnesses. The stories of Lewis and his ex-wife are a tough sell. This is Judyth's problem. She chose them. They are not credible, they diminish Judyth's credibility, not increase it. If she had better witnesses, it would increase her credibility. She doesn't, so she isn't credible.

I think I am reasonably open to new information, but I'm not going to give it the benefit of the doubt if the

source of it cannot even discern how to help herself. If Judyth knew she had to rely so heavily on the recollections of Anna Lewis, she should have maintained her silence.

The first two minutes, fifteen seconds of the Anna Lewis interview, linked below, rely totally on hearsay, with David Lewis as her source. I wouldn't trust David Lewis to walk my dog.

http://judythvarybaker.com/documents.htm

Documents

...Are there any witnesses who saw Judy and Lee together in New Orleans?

Click here to watch an interview with Anna Lewis, a friend who knew Judyth and Lee in New Orleans in 1963

Anna Lewis was a waitress and the wife of David Lewis who worked for Guy Banister in 1963.

Lee took Judyth, Anna and David to meet Carlos Marcello at the 500 Club, his downtown headquarters.

To see the JFK researchers that were present during the interview of Anna Lewis, click here.

http://judythbaker.blogspot.com/2010_04_01_archive.html

Several years after the Warren Commission “investigation,” the investigators working for New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison tracked down another young woman named Anna Lewis, a waitress who worked at Thompson’s Restaurant - a favorite gathering spot for the anti-Castro crowd around Lafayette Square in downtown New Orleans. At the time, Anna was married to David Lewis, who had worked for another “ex-FBI” agent Guy Banister. Today we have video testimony from Anna Lewis recorded in 2003 and made available on the internet by Dutch JFK

researcher Wim Dankbaar. In this interview, Anna clearly states that she knew Lee Oswald and that Oswald was a regular customer at Thompson’s in 1963. Further, she states that she and her husband socialized with Lee and Judyth together on a number of occasions. More importantly Anna Lewis admits that she lied to District Attorney Garrison and his investigators when they asked her about Oswald. Had Anna Lewis told Garrison the truth, Garrison could have easily tracked down Judyth. Garrison was already suspicious of Ochsner and his role in the media exposure of Oswald. If Garrison had had access to Judyth, and if Judyth told Garrison what she now tells us - that she and Lee were working on a biological weapon project under the direction of Dr. Alton Ochsner, Garrison’s investigation (and his whole life) might have turned out very differently. But she didn’t. Anna Lewis lied to Garrison because she was afraid. Meanwhile, Judyth hid silently because she was afraid. Two critical pieces of evidence were unavailable to the American people and their elected representatives (like Garrison) at the time they were pondering who killed their President. Now that we know differently, is it time to reconsider our history?

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=bks:1&q=%22Gurvich+urged+caution%E2%80%94+and+a+lie+detector+test+for+Lewis.++*%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&psj=1&fp=12222e274e2b1ccf

The Garrison case: a study in the abuse of power

Miltón E. Brener - 1969 - 278 pages - Page 74

..On January 12th, David Lewis reported to Jim Garrison that while standing by the Royal Orleans Hotel he was shot at by a Cuban in a passing auto.

The Cuban "could have been Quiroga," but there was no identity of the man or the car by Lewis.

DA assistants were sent to the scene to scour the area for the spent pellet— without success. Garrison ordered Quiroga and "anyone with him" arrested on sight.

Gurvich urged caution— and a lie detector test for Lewis. Garrison shrugged, but did not object. Following the test, Lewis was asked by the investigator why he had lied. Lewis explained that he thought the story would please the boss...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEMQxQEwBg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fviewer%3Fa%3Dv%26q%3Dcache%3A_QTDrM8lC6IJ%3Aajweberman.com%2FnoduleX30-THE%252520WARREN%252520COMMISSION%2C%252520GARRISON%252520INVESTIGATION%252520AND%252520ROCKEFELLER%252520COMMISSION.pdf%2B%2522david%2Blewis%2522%2Bhotel%2Bjim%2Bgarrison%26hl%3Den%26gl%3Dus%26pid%3Dbl%26srcid%3DADGEESjki8VFds_lA66jkvkseumZsgkuIgeaxpkKGgkD8jtbCZEC6ls8sAMIOwIP5u6ZoGqDJhwmauZD_4AKI5gO3ywcikSqiJoDj6_EEcF8fMvL7A4StAxmw31XhLWlt480nDPH1OGy%26sig%3DAHIEtbQRIHUU8B7fzvsy__hQiWImPVb9YQ&rct=j&q=%22david%20lewis%22%20hotel%20jim%20garrison&ei=itjvTIvlB8GqlAf7reW6DA&usg=AFQjCNEwY89ghprGgkV_ZhY9Yo1UCJ_rIw&sig2=nWywe0Q4Ziuf10dYZ90E4A&cad=rja

NODULE X30 THE WARREN COMMISSION THE ROCKEFELLER COMMISSION AND...

Pg. 45

The FBI (1995) withheld information on David F. Lewis. Reports of television broadcasts

of David F. Lewis were deleted. [FBI 62-109060-4527; New Orleans Times Picayune

2.67 p4] In 1968 David F. Lewis applied for a job with Avis Rent-a-Car. The interviewer

felt that Lewis was either a mental case or on narcotics. David Lewis told the interviewer

he was married in April 1962 and presently has four children but their whereabouts are

unknown. [NO FBI 89-43-5737; FBI 62-109060-4504 2.20.67 teletype re: Lewis mostly

w/h; NARA FBI 124-10249-10027]

Review of Judyth Vary Baker Thread Members Give Impressions as to Logic in Debate

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15870

Dean, I am one who owes you a reply on Anna Lewis in the other thread ... but it is so far back, I will just do it here in response to your post. I apologize for being so tardy, the thread was galloping along and I lost it in the shuffle as I was searching for a quote. My responses are in blue.

Hi Stephen, my replies are in CAPS:
Do we agree that JVB met Lee Harvey Oswald?

If not, explain Anna Lewis' statements on a previously mentioned video. She states that she and her husband David double-dated with JVB and Lee.

First, we don't know much about Anna Lewis. Is this the Anna Lewis who was married to David Lewis? Under what circumstances was the interview taped? Did anybody discuss evidenciary matters with her prior to the interview? Why has Anna Lewis not been interviewed in any other venue (testimony, TMWKK, etc.)?

THE VIDEO INTERVIEW LETS US LEARN MORE ABOUT ANNA LEWIS, WHO WAS MARRIED TO THE LATE DAVID LEWIS. IT WAS TAPED IN 2003 AND BROUGHT TO THE INTERNET BY WIM DANKBAAR. ACCORDING TO DANKBAAR IN A 2007 POST http://jfkmurdersolved.com/phpBB3/viewtopi...bff5af704433b39 DEBRA CONWAY INTERVIEWED LEWIS.

Yes, it was Debra Conway who taped this, and I believe this was done in 2000, not 2003. Others present ... I will probably miss someone ... included Martin Shackelford, Judyth Vary Baker, Joe Riehl ... and I am not sure if Howard Platzman was there or not. And I cannot find the exact quote, but Debra has commented that Anna Lewis told her something along the lines of her not remembering Judyth as the girl she remembered, that she wasn't sure/didn't think this (Judyth) was the woman she knew. Will continue looking for that quote.

I DO NOT KNOW IF ANYONE DISCUSSED EVIDENTIARY MATTERS WITH LEWIS FIRST. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD QUESTION FOR ANY WITNESS.

Judyth found and spoke to Anna Lewis previously, before this trip to NO. Even Martin Shackelford acknowledged that. I find that troubling for a couple of reasons, not the least of which being how Judyth went about interviewing McGehee ... early on, at least according to a "highlights" transcript that Judyth emailed around, saying, when he spoke about seeing a big black cadillac pull out down the street just after Oswald left his barbershop, "I suggested that perhaps others had tried to influence him about the incident, prompting a false memory, but he said no, he had not been influenced by anyone." Extremely inappropriate. And, as far as we know, there is no actual transcript of her interview with McGehee. If there is, that would be important to see.

ANNA LEWIS, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HAS NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED IN ANOTHER VENUE. SHE DID NOT TELL GARRISON THE TRUTH ABOUT KNOWING JVB. SHE SAID DAVID HAD TOLD HER TO KEEP HER MOUTH SHUT.

Anna Lewis, according to the old team Judyth, acknowledged that Anna Lewis refused to go on camera and repeat her story for the TMWKK "Love Affair" segment. And where did Anna Lewis get this thing about Oswald firing a warning shot? That came from Judyth's early story/draft. Just how exposed to Judyth's story was she before this interview? Poor thing looked scared to death, it was like she was going by a script .... and forgetting and getting lost some times, mouthing things to someone and getting some prompts.

Second, what are we to make of that fact that David Lewis had a great deal of contact with NODA Jim Garrison's probe in its first few months, but described his alleged contacts with Oswald in way that did not include double-dating with Oswald and Baker? What are we to make of Garrison himself dropping Lewis as a witness after apparently falsely reporting that he was shot at by exile Carlos Quiroga?

I DO NOT KNOW WHY DAVID LEWIS DID NOT MENTION THE DOUBLE-DATING OR HIS STATEMENTS ABOUT QUIROGA. HE DOES NOT APPEAR ON THIS TAPE.

Third, it is not unheard of for peripheral witnesses to be influenced by the comments of other claimed witnesses. I have seen a transcript of Baker's interview with Edwin Lea McGehee, wherein she tells him right off the top (of the transcript, at least) that she was the woman in the car near his barbershop in 1963, and makes a few other statements I consider inappropriate for a formal interview. This causes me to have less than full confidence in the Lewis interview.

YOU MENTION JVB'S STATEMENTS AS A WAY TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU DO NOT HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN THE LEWIS INTERVIEW. I AM NOT SURE WHY YOU SAY THIS.

Sounds like Stephen has a copy of the same document I do. Judyth's interview technique with McGehee was wholly inappropriate based on her partial transcript she sent around. Anna Lewis's script like telling, forgetting and getting lost, looking (and sometimes mouthing) to someone for prompts .... none of that bolsters confidence in a witness. Judyth having found and talked to this "witness" first is troubling .... and then in this taped statement said witness mentions Oswald firing a warning shot .... which is straight out of an early draft of Judyth's and rather sets off the uh-oh alarms even louder. Lewis says she met Oswald in April 1962 ... then says sometime between January and April 1962. Aside from having the year wrong, her memory doesn't seem that good on this.

I do not know Anna Lewis, and I in no way accuse her of anything or impugn her character, but there is another troubling aspect that was revealed over the course of many posts discussed on the mod group years ago. And that is an allegation that Anna Lewis was promised compensation. I understand Ms Lewis is of meager means, and sadly, caring for a severely ill/disabled child ... who is now an adult. I don't recall who first made the allegation, but it was hotly and loudly denied. Then a member of then team Judyth admitted that there was talk of trying to help her out, but that that came about only after her interview had been taped. I can't make any judgment, or even an opinion on that, other than to say that it is one more thing that feels very uncomfortable about this woman's statement overall.

And, Dean, it is a *statement* ... it is not "testimony" as you referred to it in the other thread. This was not sworn testimony ... it was a statement. And a statement can carry weight .... but this one, factoring in all the things I mentioned, and David Lewis *not* mentioning any of it to the Garrison investigation when he was interviewed, just doesn't come across to me as credible evidence.

Barb :-)

Of course Anna Lewis lied back then. People were still dropping like flies. Most would have lied. Even to Garrison.

Sorry, I have now read most of this book and I find it totally convincing. And there are many I did not find compelling like James Files, or E. Howard's "deathbed" comments,for example.

Really, given all the secrecy surrounding what both Judyth and Lee were involved in back in 1963 in NO, how many of us could prove any of it? Judyth saved a lot of documentation, her memory is incredible and her story has that ring of authenticity. As a criminal defene atty. for now more than twenty five years I have become fairly good at assessing a person's credibility and Judyth, for me, passes the test.

Dawn

Dawn:

I am totally puzzled. As a defense Attorney how can you evaluate a case with only hearing half of the evidence? Does it not bother you that JVB refuses to be questioned by myself or Greg Burnham? Isn't cross examination the most ueseful tool to determine the veracity of a witness? Does it not bother you that there are inconsistencies in nearly any statement Judyth has ever made? Does it not bother you that Judyth claims to have physical evidence,i.e., Oswald's handwriting on a book but refuses to allow an expert to examine that handwriting? Does it not bother you that Judyth has deeply researched the assassination but even then makes errors about Oswald? Are you aware that Judyth has identified herself in pictures of Oswald handling out handbills in New Orleans and even claims to have the dress from that photo but those photos have been positively identified as other people? Do you know that she claimed one person in the photo was her and when that person was identified she claimed it to be the other? Do you really honestly believe a high school student who was probably dissecting worms and frogs was one of the top researchers in the world on cancer along with those scientists and physicians who had been studying at the highest level for years? It goes on and on. Do you really believe any trier of fact could reach a verdict without her being questioned, without credible corroboration, and by thcn claiming that she has physical evidence but refusing to submit it for examination? Would you really place your legal reputation on the line based on such absence and inconsistency of evidence? If so, I am truly amazed and disappointed that a member of the bar would be willing to do this. I believe a start would be to establish whether Judyth ever even met Oswald. I do not believe that any credible evidence exists to establish even that fact. As a criminal defense attorney, you , of anyone, have to appreciate the necessity for skepticism in evaluating any client's story. How many of your clients have told you that they are guilty. My experience is that it is very few. I find it incredulous that you would not demand that those inconsistencies be resolved before you could even begin to evaluate the evidence and the veracity of JVB. I would welcome the opportunity to question Judyth and my offer remains open. You and I both know it is an offer she will never accept.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Edited by Doug Weldon
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Doug, I am with Dawn. You have never given Judyth the time of day. This is the only case in which I have disagreed with you, but my disagreement is profound. It would be easy to obtain "positive identifications" for women in those photographs, but that does not prove they are not "false positives". You seem to me to massively underestimate what she has had to endure because of her willingness to finally step forward and speak out. And what about that earlier "Judyth Vary Baker" Ed Haslam met in New Orleans, a city in which he grew up and knows like the back of her hand? I am concerned from some of your remarks that you may not have read the book yet. I hope that I am wrong, but I can't wait to hear how you are going to "explain away" the other "Judyth Vary Baker". If the real one were not important as a witness to covert activities, why in the world would the agency be impersonating her? I think you have missed the boat. As much as I like most of your work, especially on the limousine, you are far, far off the mark about Judyth. A lot of people spoke up and are no longer among the living. She would have joined them but for going underground and remaining silent until she saw "JFK". I find her completely credible, extremely candid, and entirely admirable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An excerpt of Jim's recent comments to Doug Weldon:

.....And what about that earlier "Judyth Vary Baker" Ed Haslam met in New Orleans, a city in which he grew up and knows like the back of her hand? I am concerned from some of your remarks that you may not have read the book yet. I hope that I am wrong, but I can't wait to hear how you are going to "explain away" the other "Judyth Vary Baker". If the real one were not important as a witness to covert activities, why in the world would the agency be impersonating her? I think you have missed the boat.

The agency? This is what Haslam told Jim Marrs about the 1972 party: "I am at a loss to even guess the motives behind this thing or who was behind it.

I could maybe guess but I would be speculating."

Ed Haslam has established a long track record of declining to answer questions about Judyth Baker. That has been well-documented on this forum.

This is a part of one of my posts from back in May:

In the prologue of Dr Mary's Monkey Ed Haslam writes:

You will find this book as much of a personal odyssey as a journalistic work. But that's what happens

when you investigate a murder only to discover an epidemic. Either way the destination is the same.

I will tell you why I am deeply suspicious of certain activities that occurred in New Orleans in the 1960's

and why you should be too. We will begin with what I personally saw and heard over the years. To that

we add years of research.
Then we get questions. Fair and honorable questions. Questions which

deserve answers. Questions which have their own purpose, their own energy, even their own dignity. (italics added)

Questions which will eventually help us coax this Orwellian monster out of its swamp of secrecy.

Ed Haslam seems to imply that Dr Mary's Monkey raises more questions than it answers. With regard

to the two chapters that deal with Judyth Vary Baker, that certainly seems to be the case to me.

Haslam leaves it to the readers' imagination as to whom will answer these questions.....

Question:

Why has Haslam made no effort to find the people (including his girl friend at the time) that attended the other JVB's party in 1972?

They could have corroborated his story to 60 Minutes, or to readers of Dr Mary's Monkey.

It is both frustrating and irritating to me that neither Jim nor Ed Haslam want to address any of these rather simple questions.

The question above is a fair one that should occur to anyone reading Haslam's account of meeting another JVB.

It is puzzling that Haslam has never mentioned trying to find his ex-girlfriend or any of her fellow graduate students.

One or more of them could have corroborated his story for Sixty Minutes and given them a great reason to air the JVB story.

In Jim's most recent interview with Ed Haslam he finally asked the question I had been asking since May. Jim "asked" the

question in a very leading way after noting that 28 years had gone by from the time of the party until the 60 Minute inquiry.

Jim's comment was more of a statement than it was a question:

Jim Fetzer:

So it must not have seemed very likely that you could go back and find anyone who had been there at the party when you met

the original Judyth Vary Baker - the fake - and who could confirm that she'd had the party and you'd met her.

Believe it or not, this was Haslam's response:

Oh, I'm sure the tents were folded up and everything had disappeared the next day. This was a professional setup.

Haslam then abruptly changes the subject to the house where the party was held and how the city records of ownership in 1972

are mysteriously blank. Not relevant to trying to find his ex-girlfriend. He wants the listener to believe that confirms that

the whole thing was some sort of an intel op.

That's it? This is how Haslam explains his lack of effort in trying to find his ex-girlfriend and her fellow students?

Does he think they were part of some intel operation? Haslam acts as if he never even contemplated looking

for others that attended the party.

I wish everyone with an interest in Haslam and his story would listen to Jim's recent "Real Deal" interview with him,

particularly the last segment which begins at about the two hour mark. Haslam comes across as completely dismissive of

anyone that questions his story. He recounts everything that Judyth Baker writes in her book as if it were a stone cold fact

and that anyone who doesn't see it that way doesn't have an open mind.

Despite Haslam's remarks about "fair and honorable questions. Questions that deserve answers," his failure to address basic

and primary questions about his book does not speak convincingly to the fantastic story he is trying to get people to believe.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawn:

I am totally puzzled. As a defense Attorney how can you evaluate a case with only hearing half of the evidence? Does it not bother you that JVB refuses to be questioned by myself or Greg Burnham? Isn't cross examination the most ueseful tool to determine the veracity of a witness? Does it not bother you that there are inconsistencies in nearly any statement Judyth has ever made? Does it not bother you that Judyth claims to have physical evidence,i.e., Oswald's handwriting on a book but refuses to allow an expert to examine that handwriting? Does it not bother you that Judyth has deeply researched the assassination but even then makes errors about Oswald? Are you aware that Judyth has identified herself in pictures of Oswald handling out handbills in New Orleans and even claims to have the dress from that photo but those photos have been positively identified as other people? Do you know that she claimed one person in the photo was her and when that person was identified she claimed it to be the other? Do you really honestly believe a high school student who was probably dissecting worms and frogs was one of the top researchers in the world on cancer along with those scientists and physicians who had been studying at the highest level for years? It goes on and on. Do you really believe any trier of fact could reach a verdict without her being questioned, without credible corroboration, and by thcn claiming that she has physical evidence but refusing to submit it for examination? Would you really place your legal reputation on the line based on such absence and inconsistency of evidence? If so, I am truly amazed and disappointed that a member of the bar would be willing to do this. I believe a start would be to establish whether Judyth ever even met Oswald. I do not believe that any credible evidence exists to establish even that fact. As a criminal defense attorney, you , of anyone, have to appreciate the necessity for skepticism in evaluating any client's story. How many of your clients have told you that they are guilty. My experience is that it is very few. I find it incredulous that you would not demand that those inconsistencies be resolved before you could even begin to evaluate the evidence and the veracity of JVB. I would welcome the opportunity to question Judyth and my offer remains open. You and I both know it is an offer she will never accept.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Doug: I am not staking my legal reputation on anything. I have said now since 2004 that I believe Judyth. We used to email frequestnly and she always my questions. We were corresponding first when whe could not get her video that Deb Conway had taken with Anna Lewis. Now why would a researcher refuse to part with a witnesses' proof?

I know that Judyth has answered so many questions for so many over these years. The various allegations you make are not known to me. And I did not just decide based on your so called "half the evidence". I have read much information critical to her on these pages. Most of it was nit picking. She HAS corroboration but for some no matter how much evidence she presents it won't be enough. Given how secret the entire "project" was it is amazing to me that she has any evidence.

How could I possible know that she would never accept your offer to ask her questions? You make a amazing amount of assumptions that I cannot address as I don't know anything about their truh or falsity. If I were Judyth I would be tired of being attacked and certainly avoid answering questions by someone with an agenda. She has done much of that already.

I would like to see LHO's handwriting tested.

Best

Dawn

Edited by Dawn Meredith
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...