Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

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).

"Galloping cancer" has long been used by Judyth. In decade old DEADLY ALLIANCE, for example, an early outline written by Judyth with Howard Platzman, it is noted:

Jack Ruby died of “a galloping cancer” in 1967.
When he visited Ferrie’s apartment

in the summer of 1963, Judyth showed him the lab and told him about the cancer

cell injections -- including where on the body the injections should be administered.

DEADLY ALLIANCE

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.

Agreed. Have you had a chance to listen to it yet?

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 320
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Well, Mr Fetzer.

You are ignoring the issues once again raised by Doug Weldon. As Weldon points out, again and again and again, JVBs story does not match. The story is inconsistent and changed over and over again. Barb's issues raised are likewise unanswered and very telling, as far as lack of answers.

You avoíd these issues. You also avoid the issues raised by Michael Hogan.

Combined, those questions would certainly make the case, one by one, that JVB is notorious. No, not notorious the way you support her case, but notorious for not being able to substantiate one ioda of the ever changed story. It bothers me that someone like you might have had influence of students reasoning. The way you handle "evidence" and "facts" is so far from any consensus that further discussions are obscolete.

JVB has continously over the past decade been avoiding all relevant questions about her errors.

And yet you, Dawn, Dean and a few others are acting as if any of all of this does not matter? Does not have an impact on her credibility?

Ridiculous, is what comes to mind.

Another little issue. In the "exile" thread I asked who paid JVBs trip whe she left Sweden. Her answer was "I did, of course".

So, once again - is this true? She is notorious, I agree. But ask her again about this this and we will perhaps sort out why she is notorious, and who did the paying here.

Her story of her "asylum" has since long changed and maybe she could end up telling the truth at some point.

Does any of this matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Roy posted an article on Haslam's thesis by Frank A. Riddick, of the Ochsner Journal, in post #129 ... and in post #130, he posted a letter to the editor of GAMBIT written by Alton Ochsner's son, Dr. John Ochsner. Mike Hogan followed up with a link to, and an excerpt from, the GAMBIT article that prompted John Ochsner's response, in post #132. All three posts appear on page 9 of this thread. I followed up with post #140, page 10, on the the genesis of AIDS ... and how far back its existence has been documented, as well as whether or not there is any indication it infected the polio vaccine.

Here is an additional article that addresses Haslam's work and theory. It is an article titled, Dr. Mary's monkeythat appeared in the July 2007 edition of New Orleans Magazine, written by Bronson Lutz, M.D. It notes: "Physician and columnist Dr. Brobson [sic] Lutz examines a book that alleges a 1960s medical conspiracy with global implications."

Haslam review by Bronson Lutz, M.D. in NO Magazine July 2007

All bold mine.

Lutz writes that Ochsner was,

"...an early proponent of the link between smoking and lung cancer. He was a chest surgeon interested in all cancers and was elected national president of the American Cancer Society. He was also known for his ultraconservative politics, except when lobbying for federal funds to expand his hospital."

On Sherman,

Early in her career, Sherman published several papers pertaining to viral research beginning in the 1940s. After medical school, she finished a residency in orthopedics – a tough row to hoe for a female physician in those days. In ‘52, Ochsner recruited Sherman to New Orleans. He offered her a partnership at Ochsner Foundation Hospital, her own cancer laboratory and a faculty position at Tulane.

From 1952 until her death in ‘64, Sherman ....... was on the staff of several local hospitals but really thrived in her research laboratory, working with bone and soft tissue cancers. She published several research papers and served on expert committees dealing with bone pathology and cancers.

Lutz notes that he had been called a couple of times over the years since Sherman's death by Don Keith,a writer and editor of New Orleans Magazine. Lutz says Keith was,"the first to smell a conspiracy with a cover-up" in Sherman's demise, and that Keith was obsessed with it and had written about it several times.

Lutz writes that,

Former aide to Professor Longhair and advertising executive-turned-author Edward “Ed” T. Haslam has expanded on Keith’s earlier work
....... Haslam has woven Sherman’s murder into a conspiracy tale involving a clandestine mouse laboratory operated by David Ferrie on Louisiana Parkway; a heavily guarded linear accelerator located Uptown; monkeys from Tulane Medical School; a young high school science fair winner and Lee Harvey Oswald’s secret lover; and a plot to kill Fidel Castro with cancer causing monkey cells orchestrated by a right wing marriage between Carlos Marcello and Alton Ochsner, Sr. – the stealth viruses were then dumped in Haiti where they simmered for almost two decades before erupting into a worldwide epidemic of various cancers and AIDS.

Lutz continues writing about Sherman's autopsy, performed by Dr. Monroe Samuels, and noting that Keith, like Haslam in DMM, was fascinated by her burn injuries, "The only remaining portion of Sherman’s right arm was a piece of her upper arm bone. The rest of the extremity was burned to a crisp."

I called Dr.Samuels, who remembers the autopsy and discounts an offsite thermal injury. “She had severe right-sided burns with exposure of her liver. There was no soot in her lungs meaning that she was dead before any fire. I have seen similar thermal burns in autopsies of bodies found on burning beds,” Samuels says.

More from Lutz:

The book contains several factual errors unrelated to the conspiracy plot
, ranging from a minor misnaming of a New Orleans housing development to major scientific glitches.
Haslam gets a D in medical history and an F in virology.

In setting the stage for Tulane as an institution with a long history in tropical disease research and “capable and willing to conduct clandestine governmental work” Haslam writes: “It was Tulane that proved malaria was spread by mosquitoes.”
Tulane’s roots in tropical medicine run deep and discoveries especially in parasitology defined Tulane as a major player in tropical diseases. However, a French army doctor and a British physician in the late 1800s discovered malarial parasites in blood and described its life cycle involving infected mosquitoes biting humans.
Both received separate Nobel prizes; this work was not done at Tulane.

A frozen human blood specimen collected in 1959 has tested positive for HIV
and
it’s implausible that radiated monkey viruses in the ‘60s independently mutated into this same virus. Ionizing radiation can indeed cause genetic mutations but Haslam’s theory has a major flaw. Radiation can no more turn one virus into another virus than it can turn an apple tree into a fig tree. It just doesn’t happen that way.

Lutz asks a good question:
"How did Haslam name his book Dr. Mary’s Monkey? Not once did he document her association with a live monkey or with monkey research."

"Mysteries abound on many levels." Lutz goes on to say, and then provides a list of instances where Haslam claims he was told things at different times by different people while growing up ...

...like being at a Lake Pontchartrain dock with his father as a youth, seeing a sailor with a monkey, and his father telling him that monkeys carry “weird viruses that we don’t yet understand.”

...like his New Orleans Academy history teacher in 1963 or 1964 warning students "that the polio vaccine contained monkey viruses that would spread through the blood supply causing a new generation of diseases."

...like the high school class where Nicky Chetta allegedly told the class many things about Ferrie, after Ferrie's death, including info about a secret lab and monkeys being injected with monkey viruses, etc.

...like Haslam's former girlfriend, Barbara of the party story, having lived in Ferrie's mouse-keeping apartment (the extra apartment Haslam posits across the street from where Ferrie actually lived) while they were dating .... where she got quite cheap rent because of the lingering smell, and that she baked bread to cover it up.

...like having been told by a Latin American graduate student at a 1979 Tulane graduate seminar that Ochsner ("El Padrino")was working on a virus to get Castro.

And more.

Lutz wraps up by dispelling the notion that AIDS could have resulted from a secret lab in New Orleans in 1963 ... or from any polio vaccine, noting that,
"The polio immunization theory fell by the wayside a couple of years ago. Scientists found old batches of the implicated vaccine in a laboratory freezer. It tested negative for DNA to all known monkey viruses and strains of HIV."
And ends the article saying,
"Recent work by virologists, evolutionary biologists and molecular geneticists genetically traced the HIV virus infecting humans to wild chimpanzees living in a Cameroon jungle. There may be no cure or vaccine to protect against AIDS but the mystery of its origins has been solved."

Haslam's story evolves from him allegedly having been told, warned and otherwise informed about monkey viruses, infected polio vaccines and the like from the time he was a child ... add some undocumented occurrences while in college ... and years later he speculates all the way to conclusions that tie this all together and marry it to the unsolved murder of Dr. Mary Sherman; he concludes she was killed,or fatally injured,at least,by a secret particle accelerator while doing secret work with secret monkey viruses, that after her death, just could have been unleashed in the Caribbean by David Ferrie ... thereby disseminating AIDS out to the world. But the foundation of Haslam's thesis falls with AIDS being documented to have existed long before Ferrie, Vary and Dr. Mary could have been colluding on anything in Ferrie's kitchen the summer of 1963, and unused vials of the polio vaccine have tested negative for the AIDS virus.

Physicians who knew and worked with Dr. Mary Sherman poo-poo the very idea that she was working on any monkey project at all ... and state there was no linear particle accelerator where Haslam has concluded there was one. Just what foundation does Haslam really have for *that* part of his story, the alleged particle accelerator ... and for it, accidental or not, being the cause of burn damage to Mary Sherman's body and the reason for an elaborate cover up in her death? Why would Sherman, who had "a partnership at Ochsner Foundation Hospital, her own cancer laboratory and a faculty position at Tulane" ... have to work in secrecy with a rag tag team of part time amateurs in a kitchen laboratory or be involved with any secret particle accelerator. Does the particle accelerator portion of Haslam's thesis stand up any better than his take on the polio vaccine and HIV/AIDS?

Bests,

Barb :-)
Link to post
Share on other sites

This bears repeating, so I am repeating it!

Steve Roy posted an article on Haslam's thesis by Frank A. Riddick, of the Ochsner Journal, in post #129 ... and in post #130, he posted a letter to the editor of GAMBIT written by Alton Ochsner's son, Dr. John Ochsner. Mike Hogan followed up with a link to, and an excerpt from, the GAMBIT article that prompted John Ochsner's response, in post #132. All three posts appear on page 9 of this thread. I followed up with post #140, page 10, on the the genesis of AIDS ... and how far back its existence has been documented, as well as whether or not there is any indication it infected the polio vaccine.

Here is an additional article that addresses Haslam's work and theory. It is an article titled, Dr. Mary's monkeythat appeared in the July 2007 edition of New Orleans Magazine, written by Bronson Lutz, M.D. It notes: "Physician and columnist Dr. Brobson [sic] Lutz examines a book that alleges a 1960s medical conspiracy with global implications."

Haslam review by Bronson Lutz, M.D. in NO Magazine July 2007

All bold mine.

Lutz writes that Ochsner was,

"...an early proponent of the link between smoking and lung cancer. He was a chest surgeon interested in all cancers and was elected national president of the American Cancer Society. He was also known for his ultraconservative politics, except when lobbying for federal funds to expand his hospital."

On Sherman,

Early in her career, Sherman published several papers pertaining to viral research beginning in the 1940s. After medical school, she finished a residency in orthopedics – a tough row to hoe for a female physician in those days. In ‘52, Ochsner recruited Sherman to New Orleans. He offered her a partnership at Ochsner Foundation Hospital, her own cancer laboratory and a faculty position at Tulane.

From 1952 until her death in ‘64, Sherman ....... was on the staff of several local hospitals but really thrived in her research laboratory, working with bone and soft tissue cancers. She published several research papers and served on expert committees dealing with bone pathology and cancers.

Lutz notes that he had been called a couple of times over the years since Sherman's death by Don Keith,a writer and editor of New Orleans Magazine. Lutz says Keith was,"the first to smell a conspiracy with a cover-up" in Sherman's demise, and that Keith was obsessed with it and had written about it several times.

Lutz writes that,

Former aide to Professor Longhair and advertising executive-turned-author Edward “Ed” T. Haslam has expanded on Keith’s earlier work
....... Haslam has woven Sherman’s murder into a conspiracy tale involving a clandestine mouse laboratory operated by David Ferrie on Louisiana Parkway; a heavily guarded linear accelerator located Uptown; monkeys from Tulane Medical School; a young high school science fair winner and Lee Harvey Oswald’s secret lover; and a plot to kill Fidel Castro with cancer causing monkey cells orchestrated by a right wing marriage between Carlos Marcello and Alton Ochsner, Sr. – the stealth viruses were then dumped in Haiti where they simmered for almost two decades before erupting into a worldwide epidemic of various cancers and AIDS.

Lutz continues writing about Sherman's autopsy, performed by Dr. Monroe Samuels, and noting that Keith, like Haslam in DMM, was fascinated by her burn injuries, "The only remaining portion of Sherman’s right arm was a piece of her upper arm bone. The rest of the extremity was burned to a crisp."

I called Dr.Samuels, who remembers the autopsy and discounts an offsite thermal injury. “She had severe right-sided burns with exposure of her liver. There was no soot in her lungs meaning that she was dead before any fire. I have seen similar thermal burns in autopsies of bodies found on burning beds,” Samuels says.

More from Lutz:

The book contains several factual errors unrelated to the conspiracy plot
, ranging from a minor misnaming of a New Orleans housing development to major scientific glitches.
Haslam gets a D in medical history and an F in virology.

In setting the stage for Tulane as an institution with a long history in tropical disease research and “capable and willing to conduct clandestine governmental work” Haslam writes: “It was Tulane that proved malaria was spread by mosquitoes.”
Tulane’s roots in tropical medicine run deep and discoveries especially in parasitology defined Tulane as a major player in tropical diseases. However, a French army doctor and a British physician in the late 1800s discovered malarial parasites in blood and described its life cycle involving infected mosquitoes biting humans.
Both received separate Nobel prizes; this work was not done at Tulane.

A frozen human blood specimen collected in 1959 has tested positive for HIV
and
it’s implausible that radiated monkey viruses in the ‘60s independently mutated into this same virus. Ionizing radiation can indeed cause genetic mutations but Haslam’s theory has a major flaw. Radiation can no more turn one virus into another virus than it can turn an apple tree into a fig tree. It just doesn’t happen that way.

Lutz asks a good question:
"How did Haslam name his book Dr. Mary’s Monkey? Not once did he document her association with a live monkey or with monkey research."

"Mysteries abound on many levels." Lutz goes on to say, and then provides a list of instances where Haslam claims he was told things at different times by different people while growing up ...

...like being at a Lake Pontchartrain dock with his father as a youth, seeing a sailor with a monkey, and his father telling him that monkeys carry “weird viruses that we don’t yet understand.”

...like his New Orleans Academy history teacher in 1963 or 1964 warning students "that the polio vaccine contained monkey viruses that would spread through the blood supply causing a new generation of diseases."

...like the high school class where Nicky Chetta allegedly told the class many things about Ferrie, after Ferrie's death, including info about a secret lab and monkeys being injected with monkey viruses, etc.

...like Haslam's former girlfriend, Barbara of the party story, having lived in Ferrie's mouse-keeping apartment (the extra apartment Haslam posits across the street from where Ferrie actually lived) while they were dating .... where she got quite cheap rent because of the lingering smell, and that she baked bread to cover it up.

...like having been told by a Latin American graduate student at a 1979 Tulane graduate seminar that Ochsner ("El Padrino")was working on a virus to get Castro.

And more.

Lutz wraps up by dispelling the notion that AIDS could have resulted from a secret lab in New Orleans in 1963 ... or from any polio vaccine, noting that,
"The polio immunization theory fell by the wayside a couple of years ago. Scientists found old batches of the implicated vaccine in a laboratory freezer. It tested negative for DNA to all known monkey viruses and strains of HIV."
And ends the article saying,
"Recent work by virologists, evolutionary biologists and molecular geneticists genetically traced the HIV virus infecting humans to wild chimpanzees living in a Cameroon jungle. There may be no cure or vaccine to protect against AIDS but the mystery of its origins has been solved."

Haslam's story evolves from him allegedly having been told, warned and otherwise informed about monkey viruses, infected polio vaccines and the like from the time he was a child ... add some undocumented occurrences while in college ... and years later he speculates all the way to conclusions that tie this all together and marry it to the unsolved murder of Dr. Mary Sherman; he concludes she was killed,or fatally injured,at least,by a secret particle accelerator while doing secret work with secret monkey viruses, that after her death, just could have been unleashed in the Caribbean by David Ferrie ... thereby disseminating AIDS out to the world. But the foundation of Haslam's thesis falls with AIDS being documented to have existed long before Ferrie, Vary and Dr. Mary could have been colluding on anything in Ferrie's kitchen the summer of 1963, and unused vials of the polio vaccine have tested negative for the AIDS virus.

Physicians who knew and worked with Dr. Mary Sherman poo-poo the very idea that she was working on any monkey project at all ... and state there was no linear particle accelerator where Haslam has concluded there was one. Just what foundation does Haslam really have for *that* part of his story, the alleged particle accelerator ... and for it, accidental or not, being the cause of burn damage to Mary Sherman's body and the reason for an elaborate cover up in her death? Why would Sherman, who had "a partnership at Ochsner Foundation Hospital, her own cancer laboratory and a faculty position at Tulane" ... have to work in secrecy with a rag tag team of part time amateurs in a kitchen laboratory or be involved with any secret particle accelerator. Does the particle accelerator portion of Haslam's thesis stand up any better than his take on the polio vaccine and HIV/AIDS?

Bests,

Barb :-)

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

Dawn:

I wrote a very long reply which disappeared after I previewed it. This will be much more succinct. I agree with you about the video with Anna Lewis but I believe that is now a moot point. I would welcome the opportunity to question Anna Lewis. I have to ask you, in that same light, why will Judyth not produce her proof, the Oswald writing or the tape she claimed to have on this forum which would uphold her version of the Mary Ferrell incident? How can you draw a conclusion in the absence of any such evidence? She could easily make a copy of the tape for you or Fetzer and submit the writing to expert analysis. How can you form an opinion in the absence of such.

What is nit-picking? Even the most legitimate questions raised such as Judyth's claim for asylum where she now resides has not had a reasoned reply other than character assassination of the person raising the question who raises prooof to the contrary. I have found a pattern in those who have become strong supporters of Judyth and perhaps your case is the exception. I have found it common that Judyth finds people who are known as prominent researchers and/or often post on forums. She then initiates contact with them, usually via e-mail, rather than them contacting her. She appears to have a remarkale ability to acquire their support for her and they become very committed to her. When she posts, as she did here, she does so through a third party, rather than directly which she is obviously able to do so. It gives her deniability.

I have attached the picture in New Orleans. Judyth claimed to be the woman in the striped dress and when that person was discovered to have been positively identified she claimed to be the apparently pregnant woman with the explanation that she sometimes became bloated. She also claimed to still have the dress from then. Which dress is it and where is it? It is another example of a claim made by her with no substantiation.

I have no agenda. Despite what Fetzer says I have no vendetta against Judyth. I, like many here,have followed her postings for many years, and have seen one inconsistency after another, statements which have been provably false, and her story change again and again. Is this what you call being attacked or nit-picking? In the past couple of weeks I have discovered where her extensive research of Oswald has allowed her to take something that would allow her to weave herself into a story. An example is her surprising claim that she and Oswald were going to write a science fiction book together. At first, I was taken aback and wondered where she would have got that from, but I was able to discover what anyone would be able to do if they extensively researched Oswald. Dawn, do you really believe that a teenager had the education and skills to be on par with the top scientists and physicians in the world to fight some of the most complicated diseases of that time and today's time and pair her with the reknown "Dr." David Ferrie? Appparently, they spared no expense in equipping them with a state of the art laboratory. If I questioned Judyth I would do professionally and with respect. I know Greg Burnham would do the same. Fetzer supported the idea of her being questioned until Judyth rejected it. Should she only be subject to "softall" questions by those who support her? If the truth is on your side what should it matter who questions you?

Judyth has made the claims. It is she who claims to be in possession of the physical evidence that would support those claims. Don't you agree that the burden of proof should be on her? If she is truthful I sincerely believe she would be one of the most valuable witnesses ever in the history of the case. Ironically, if she is fabricating her involvement she is doing the opposite of what she claims to seek. By doing such, she diminishes Oswald, casts dispersion upon the entire research community who believes that the true story of 1963 has not been told by the government bodies,and distorts whathappened that day in 1963. I absolutely have no bad feelings towards Judyth but I cannot ignore the evidence that has been presented or ignore the evidence she refuses to produce. I do believe it is possible that even if this is fabricated, that she may believe it. People have the right to believe whatever they want, either because of or despite the evidence. I am simply surprised that a criminal defense attorney would reach a verdict until so many more questions are answered. If Judyth was accused of telling the truth, do you really believe that you would have enough evidence to convict her? Even many of her ardent supporters have disappeared. Where are Howard Platzman or Martin Shackelford now? Perhaps embarassed? They appear to have been easily replaced by a new crop of supporters who have not followed her over the past 10 years. Read Barb's latest post. How do you respond to that or the hundreds of questions that were raised in prior posts? Good luck.

My best,

Doug

The picture is in the next posting. I am computer-challenged. I do not believe there is credible evidence that Judyth ever met Oswald.

Edited by Doug Weldon
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

Dawn:

I wrote a very long reply which disappeared after I previewed it. This will be much more succinct. I agree with you about the video with Anna Lewis but I believe that is now a moot point. I would welcome the opportunity to question Anna Lewis. I have to ask you, in that same light, why will Judyth not produce her proof, the Oswald writing or the tape she claimed to have on this forum which would uphold her version of the Mary Ferrell incident? How can you draw a conclusion in the absence of any such evidence? She could easily make a copy of the tape for you or Fetzer and submit the writing to expert analysis. How can you form an opinion in the absence of such.

What is nit-picking? Even the most legitimate questions raised such as Judyth's claim for asylum where she now resides has not had a reasoned reply other than character assassination of the person raising the question who raises prooof to the contrary. I have found a pattern in those who have become strong supporters of Judyth and perhaps your case is the exception. I have found it common that Judyth finds people who are known as prominent researchers and/or often post on forums. She then initiates contact with them, usually via e-mail, rather than them contacting her. She appears to have a remarkale ability to acquire their support for her and they become very committed to her. When she posts, as she did here, she does so through a third party, rather than directly which she is obviously able to do so. It gives her deniability.

I have attached the picture in New Orleans. Judyth claimed to be the woman in the striped dress and when that person was discovered to have been positively identified she claimed to be the apparently pregnant woman with the explanation that she sometimes became bloated. She also claimed to still have the dress from then. Which dress is it and where is it? It is another example of a claim made by her with no substantiation.

I have no agenda. Despite what Fetzer says I have no vendetta against Judyth. I, like many here,have followed her postings for many years, and have seen one inconsistency after another, statements which have been provably false, and her story change again and again. Is this what you call being attacked or nit-picking? In the past couple of weeks I have discovered where her extensive research of Oswald has allowed her to take something that would allow her to weave herself into a story. An example is her surprising claim that she and Oswald were going to write a science fiction book together. At first, I was taken aback and wondered where she would have got that from, but I was able to discover what anyone would be able to do if they extensively researched Oswald. Dawn, do you really believe that a teenager had the education and skills to be on par with the top scientists and physicians in the world to fight some of the most complicated diseases of that time and today's time and pair her with the reknown "Dr." David Ferrie? Appparently, they spared no expense in equipping them with a state of the art laboratory. If I questioned Judyth I would do professionally and with respect. I know Greg Burnham would do the same. Fetzer supported the idea of her being questioned until Judyth rejected it. Should she only be subject to "softall" questions by those who support her? If the truth is on your side what should it matter who questions you?

Judyth has made the claims. It is she who claims to be in possession of the physical evidence that would support those claims. Don't you agree that the burden of proof should be on her? If she is truthful I sincerely believe she would be one of the most valuable witnesses ever in the history of the case. Ironically, if she is fabricating her involvement she is doing the opposite of what she claims to seek. By doing such, she diminishes Oswald, casts dispersion upon the entire research community who believes that the true story of 1963 has not been told by the government bodies,and distorts whathappened that day in 1963. I absolutely have no bad feelings towards Judyth but I cannot ignore the evidence that has been presented or ignore the evidence she refuses to produce. I do believe it is possible that even if this is fabricated, that she may believe it. People have the right to believe whatever they want, either because of or despite the evidence. I am simply surprised that a criminal defense attorney would reach a verdict until so many more questions are answered. If Judyth was accused of telling the truth, do you really believe that you would have enough evidence to convict her? Even many of her ardent supporters have disappeared. Where are Howard Platzman or Martin Shackelford now? Perhaps embarassed? They appear to have been easily replaced by a new crop of supporters who have not followed her over the past 10 years. Read Barb's latest post. How do you respond to that or the hundreds of questions that were raised in prior posts? Good luck.

My best,

Doug

post-6294-099656700 1291273488_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have attached the picture in New Orleans. Judyth claimed to be the woman in the striped dress and when that person was discovered to have been positively identified she claimed to be the apparently pregnant woman with the explanation that she sometimes became bloated. She also claimed to still have the dress from then. Which dress is it and where is it? It is another example of a claim made by her with no substantiation.

Exactly correct, Doug.

All bold mine.

Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance," alternate draft provided to Robert Vernon, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004:
"Judyth is 90% certain that Warren Commission exhibit Pizzo 453-B, a photo of the scene, includes her standing near Lee. The picture is blurry, but there is a resemblance between the girl in the photo and contemporaneous photos of Judyth. The dress pattern in the picture matches close-up photos of a dress Judyth wore in other photos in her possession.

Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, October 9, 2004: "No, not standing next to Lee, but in the same general area as Lee - iF [sic] that person is me. The face is too blurry to be certain. The pavement sloped upward there, as I have proven with other photos, but I cannot prove this woman is me. Though have never been 100% certain the woman was me, I remember talking to the two girls shown in the footage under consideration. In any case, Lee simply happens to be nearby, and there is little, if any, interaction with the woman, beyond a smile in her direction as he approaches with flyers. I do not remember being filmed, but was warned that filming was taking place, and to leave at once, a warning which Lee gave to me.

Quotations from a compilation by Dave Reitzes, at his website, links to actual posts and documents are there.

Reitzes website on Judyth

In her new book, Me & Lee, the telling has changed. She now says this of this incident:

Lee arrived at Dr. Mary's apartment about 10:00 A.M.
I wanted to be there with him, but he was afraid I would be photographed and identified.
So I decided to dress up as a Cuban girl to change my appearance. First, I put in my specially tinted contact lenses that made my eyes brown. Then I put on too much make-up and curled my hair like Latinas did back then. I put on a festive looking sundress and black high heel shoes to complete the cha-cha look.
Lee was amused by my efforts, and thought I could be a good "extra" in the scene to attract attention, but he wanted me to disappear when the TV camera arrived so I would not get captured on film.

Everything worked according to plan. Lee and two paid helpers handed out leaflets. I engaged several Cuban girls in conversation to attract a crowd, discussing America's poor treatment of Cuba.
The television crew arrived on cue and I disappeared, heading to Thompson's Restaurant to wait for Lee.

This was all the subject of much debate on and off with the claim of being a certain girl in the photo changing to being the other girl, Judyth noting she remembered carrying a big black purse. That either one was her became more vague after it was shown in documents that the girls had been identified.

A couple other things about this incident were discussed. One was Judyth claiming, and she wrote it this way in her first book, that Oswald and the men helping him pass out leaflets were all dressed in "white shirts, nice slacks and thin ties." But a film of the incident taken by WWL-tv showed one of the men wearing bermuda shorts. Seems to me someone posted a link to a clip of that at the time, but I cannot currently find it online ... perhaps someone here knows where it can be found.

The other thing involved the film taken by WWL and the film shot that day by WDSU. Judyth went on about the big television cameras and what all went on with them getting all set up to film the event. Johann Rush, the actual WDSU cameraman who shot the film that day showed up on the newsgroup and posted that there was no huge setup ... that the cameras both he and the fellow from the other station used that day were small, hand held cameras.

And in her first book, she did not meet Oswald at Dr. Mary's apartment that morning ... she met up with him on Canal Street.

Judyth has made the claims. It is she who claims to be in possession of the physical evidence that would support those claims. Don't you agree that the burden of proof should be on her? If she is truthful I sincerely believe she would be one of the most valuable witnesses ever in the history of the case. Ironically, if she is fabricating her involvement she is doing the opposite of what she claims to seek. By doing such, she diminishes Oswald, casts dispersion upon the entire research community who believes that the true story of 1963 has not been told by the government bodies,and distorts what happened that day in 1963. I absolutely have no bad feelings towards Judyth but I cannot ignore the evidence that has been presented or ignore the evidence she refuses to produce. I do believe it is possible that even if this is fabricated, that she may believe it.

I wholeheartedly agree, Doug. Unless her story is absolute and accurate truth, the already muddy waters of this case are made even muddier, and worse, researchers are sent off down false trails. That is just not okay when it comes to uncovering the truth about the assassination of our president ... and for having an accurate history. Like any witness, Judyth's claims must be checked out. It's nothing personal against Judyth. It's normal, necessary ... and expected ... procedure.

Excellent posts, Doug.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve Roy posted an article on Haslam's thesis by Frank A. Riddick, of the Ochsner Journal, in post #129 ... and in post #130, he posted a letter to the editor of GAMBIT written by Alton Ochsner's son, Dr. John Ochsner. Mike Hogan followed up with a link to, and an excerpt from, the GAMBIT article that prompted John Ochsner's response, in post #132. All three posts appear on page 9 of this thread. I followed up with post #140, page 10, on the the genesis of AIDS ... and how far back its existence has been documented, as well as whether or not there is any indication it infected the polio vaccine.

Here is an additional article that addresses Haslam's work and theory. It is an article titled, Dr. Mary's monkeythat appeared in the July 2007 edition of New Orleans Magazine, written by Bronson Lutz, M.D. It notes: "Physician and columnist Dr. Brobson [sic] Lutz examines a book that alleges a 1960s medical conspiracy with global implications."

Haslam review by Bronson Lutz, M.D. in NO Magazine July 2007

All bold mine.

Lutz writes that Ochsner was,

"...an early proponent of the link between smoking and lung cancer. He was a chest surgeon interested in all cancers and was elected national president of the American Cancer Society. He was also known for his ultraconservative politics, except when lobbying for federal funds to expand his hospital."

On Sherman,

Early in her career, Sherman published several papers pertaining to viral research beginning in the 1940s. After medical school, she finished a residency in orthopedics – a tough row to hoe for a female physician in those days. In ‘52, Ochsner recruited Sherman to New Orleans. He offered her a partnership at Ochsner Foundation Hospital, her own cancer laboratory and a faculty position at Tulane.

From 1952 until her death in ‘64, Sherman ....... was on the staff of several local hospitals but really thrived in her research laboratory, working with bone and soft tissue cancers. She published several research papers and served on expert committees dealing with bone pathology and cancers.

Lutz notes that he had been called a couple of times over the years since Sherman's death by Don Keith,a writer and editor of New Orleans Magazine. Lutz says Keith was,"the first to smell a conspiracy with a cover-up" in Sherman's demise, and that Keith was obsessed with it and had written about it several times.

Lutz writes that,

Former aide to Professor Longhair and advertising executive-turned-author Edward “Ed” T. Haslam has expanded on Keith’s earlier work
....... Haslam has woven Sherman’s murder into a conspiracy tale involving a clandestine mouse laboratory operated by David Ferrie on Louisiana Parkway; a heavily guarded linear accelerator located Uptown; monkeys from Tulane Medical School; a young high school science fair winner and Lee Harvey Oswald’s secret lover; and a plot to kill Fidel Castro with cancer causing monkey cells orchestrated by a right wing marriage between Carlos Marcello and Alton Ochsner, Sr. – the stealth viruses were then dumped in Haiti where they simmered for almost two decades before erupting into a worldwide epidemic of various cancers and AIDS.

Lutz continues writing about Sherman's autopsy, performed by Dr. Monroe Samuels, and noting that Keith, like Haslam in DMM, was fascinated by her burn injuries, "The only remaining portion of Sherman’s right arm was a piece of her upper arm bone. The rest of the extremity was burned to a crisp."

I called Dr.Samuels, who remembers the autopsy and discounts an offsite thermal injury. “She had severe right-sided burns with exposure of her liver. There was no soot in her lungs meaning that she was dead before any fire. I have seen similar thermal burns in autopsies of bodies found on burning beds,” Samuels says.

More from Lutz:

The book contains several factual errors unrelated to the conspiracy plot
, ranging from a minor misnaming of a New Orleans housing development to major scientific glitches.
Haslam gets a D in medical history and an F in virology.

In setting the stage for Tulane as an institution with a long history in tropical disease research and “capable and willing to conduct clandestine governmental work” Haslam writes: “It was Tulane that proved malaria was spread by mosquitoes.”
Tulane’s roots in tropical medicine run deep and discoveries especially in parasitology defined Tulane as a major player in tropical diseases. However, a French army doctor and a British physician in the late 1800s discovered malarial parasites in blood and described its life cycle involving infected mosquitoes biting humans.
Both received separate Nobel prizes; this work was not done at Tulane.

A frozen human blood specimen collected in 1959 has tested positive for HIV
and
it’s implausible that radiated monkey viruses in the ‘60s independently mutated into this same virus. Ionizing radiation can indeed cause genetic mutations but Haslam’s theory has a major flaw. Radiation can no more turn one virus into another virus than it can turn an apple tree into a fig tree. It just doesn’t happen that way.

Lutz asks a good question:
"How did Haslam name his book Dr. Mary’s Monkey? Not once did he document her association with a live monkey or with monkey research."

"Mysteries abound on many levels." Lutz goes on to say, and then provides a list of instances where Haslam claims he was told things at different times by different people while growing up ...

...like being at a Lake Pontchartrain dock with his father as a youth, seeing a sailor with a monkey, and his father telling him that monkeys carry “weird viruses that we don’t yet understand.”

...like his New Orleans Academy history teacher in 1963 or 1964 warning students "that the polio vaccine contained monkey viruses that would spread through the blood supply causing a new generation of diseases."

...like the high school class where Nicky Chetta allegedly told the class many things about Ferrie, after Ferrie's death, including info about a secret lab and monkeys being injected with monkey viruses, etc.

...like Haslam's former girlfriend, Barbara of the party story, having lived in Ferrie's mouse-keeping apartment (the extra apartment Haslam posits across the street from where Ferrie actually lived) while they were dating .... where she got quite cheap rent because of the lingering smell, and that she baked bread to cover it up.

...like having been told by a Latin American graduate student at a 1979 Tulane graduate seminar that Ochsner ("El Padrino")was working on a virus to get Castro.

And more.

Lutz wraps up by dispelling the notion that AIDS could have resulted from a secret lab in New Orleans in 1963 ... or from any polio vaccine, noting that,
"The polio immunization theory fell by the wayside a couple of years ago. Scientists found old batches of the implicated vaccine in a laboratory freezer. It tested negative for DNA to all known monkey viruses and strains of HIV."
And ends the article saying,
"Recent work by virologists, evolutionary biologists and molecular geneticists genetically traced the HIV virus infecting humans to wild chimpanzees living in a Cameroon jungle. There may be no cure or vaccine to protect against AIDS but the mystery of its origins has been solved."

Haslam's story evolves from him allegedly having been told, warned and otherwise informed about monkey viruses, infected polio vaccines and the like from the time he was a child ... add some undocumented occurrences while in college ... and years later he speculates all the way to conclusions that tie this all together and marry it to the unsolved murder of Dr. Mary Sherman; he concludes she was killed,or fatally injured,at least,by a secret particle accelerator while doing secret work with secret monkey viruses, that after her death, just could have been unleashed in the Caribbean by David Ferrie ... thereby disseminating AIDS out to the world. But the foundation of Haslam's thesis falls with AIDS being documented to have existed long before Ferrie, Vary and Dr. Mary could have been colluding on anything in Ferrie's kitchen the summer of 1963, and unused vials of the polio vaccine have tested negative for the AIDS virus.

Physicians who knew and worked with Dr. Mary Sherman poo-poo the very idea that she was working on any monkey project at all ... and state there was no linear particle accelerator where Haslam has concluded there was one. Just what foundation does Haslam really have for *that* part of his story, the alleged particle accelerator ... and for it, accidental or not, being the cause of burn damage to Mary Sherman's body and the reason for an elaborate cover up in her death? Why would Sherman, who had "a partnership at Ochsner Foundation Hospital, her own cancer laboratory and a faculty position at Tulane" ... have to work in secrecy with a rag tag team of part time amateurs in a kitchen laboratory or be involved with any secret particle accelerator. Does the particle accelerator portion of Haslam's thesis stand up any better than his take on the polio vaccine and HIV/AIDS?

Bests,

Barb :-)

Very nice Barb!
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have attached the picture in New Orleans. Judyth claimed to be the woman in the striped dress and when that person was discovered to have been positively identified she claimed to be the apparently pregnant woman with the explanation that she sometimes became bloated. She also claimed to still have the dress from then. Which dress is it and where is it? It is another example of a claim made by her with no substantiation.

Exactly correct, Doug.

All bold mine.

Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance," alternate draft provided to Robert Vernon, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004:
"Judyth is 90% certain that Warren Commission exhibit Pizzo 453-B, a photo of the scene, includes her standing near Lee. The picture is blurry, but there is a resemblance between the girl in the photo and contemporaneous photos of Judyth. The dress pattern in the picture matches close-up photos of a dress Judyth wore in other photos in her possession.

Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, October 9, 2004: "No, not standing next to Lee, but in the same general area as Lee - iF [sic] that person is me. The face is too blurry to be certain. The pavement sloped upward there, as I have proven with other photos, but I cannot prove this woman is me. Though have never been 100% certain the woman was me, I remember talking to the two girls shown in the footage under consideration. In any case, Lee simply happens to be nearby, and there is little, if any, interaction with the woman, beyond a smile in her direction as he approaches with flyers. I do not remember being filmed, but was warned that filming was taking place, and to leave at once, a warning which Lee gave to me.

Quotations from a compilation by Dave Reitzes, at his website, links to actual posts and documents are there.

Reitzes website on Judyth

In her new book, Me & Lee, the telling has changed. She now says this of this incident:

Lee arrived at Dr. Mary's apartment about 10:00 A.M.
I wanted to be there with him, but he was afraid I would be photographed and identified.
So I decided to dress up as a Cuban girl to change my appearance. First, I put in my specially tinted contact lenses that made my eyes brown. Then I put on too much make-up and curled my hair like Latinas did back then. I put on a festive looking sundress and black high heel shoes to complete the cha-cha look.
Lee was amused by my efforts, and thought I could be a good "extra" in the scene to attract attention, but he wanted me to disappear when the TV camera arrived so I would not get captured on film.

Everything worked according to plan. Lee and two paid helpers handed out leaflets. I engaged several Cuban girls in conversation to attract a crowd, discussing America's poor treatment of Cuba.
The television crew arrived on cue and I disappeared, heading to Thompson's Restaurant to wait for Lee.

This was all the subject of much debate on and off with the claim of being a certain girl in the photo changing to being the other girl, Judyth noting she remembered carrying a big black purse. That either one was her became more vague after it was shown in documents that the girls had been identified.

A couple other things about this incident were discussed. One was Judyth claiming, and she wrote it this way in her first book, that Oswald and the men helping him pass out leaflets were all dressed in "white shirts, nice slacks and thin ties." But a film of the incident taken by WWL-tv showed one of the men wearing bermuda shorts. Seems to me someone posted a link to a clip of that at the time, but I cannot currently find it online ... perhaps someone here knows where it can be found.

The other thing involved the film taken by WWL and the film shot that day by WDSU. Judyth went on about the big television cameras and what all went on with them getting all set up to film the event. Johann Rush, the actual WDSU cameraman who shot the film that day showed up on the newsgroup and posted that there was no huge setup ... that the cameras both he and the fellow from the other station used that day were small, hand held cameras.

And in her first book, she did not meet Oswald at Dr. Mary's apartment that morning ... she met up with him on Canal Street.

Judyth has made the claims. It is she who claims to be in possession of the physical evidence that would support those claims. Don't you agree that the burden of proof should be on her? If she is truthful I sincerely believe she would be one of the most valuable witnesses ever in the history of the case. Ironically, if she is fabricating her involvement she is doing the opposite of what she claims to seek. By doing such, she diminishes Oswald, casts dispersion upon the entire research community who believes that the true story of 1963 has not been told by the government bodies,and distorts what happened that day in 1963. I absolutely have no bad feelings towards Judyth but I cannot ignore the evidence that has been presented or ignore the evidence she refuses to produce. I do believe it is possible that even if this is fabricated, that she may believe it.

I wholeheartedly agree, Doug. Unless her story is absolute and accurate truth, the already muddy waters of this case are made even muddier, and worse, researchers are sent off down false trails. That is just not okay when it comes to uncovering the truth about the assassination of our president ... and for having an accurate history. Like any witness, Judyth's claims must be checked out. It's nothing personal against Judyth. It's normal, necessary ... and expected ... procedure.

Excellent posts, Doug.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Doug:

You do raise many goood points. The pic is very interesting. I wonder why she would say it is her. But you cannot tell who it is.

I had my first doubts about her when the Harvey and Lee thread was going on. But now I have gone back and looked at some of the NO period in Armstrong's book and it seems to back Judyth even more. As for why she refuses to do certain things I cannot speak for her.

I know she totally discounts Armstrong w/o having read his most imprssive work. I hope that Dr. Fetzer sees fit to get her a copy of Harvey and Lee. It was Harvey she met and it is clear that he never shared this with her. (That they were two). I have considered that she has made it all up. In fact when I saw The Love Affair that raised many doubts for me. I will go back and see that again. Am in court all day today...so will get back to this later.

Have you read her book? Haslams? Comments.

Thanks,

Dawn

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do raise many goood points. The pic is very interesting. I wonder why she would say it is her. But you cannot tell who it is.

The lady with the big black purse was identified at the time of the Warren Commission investigation. Her name is Clemenica Almeida and she was employed in the International Trade Mart. She was first identified by another witness whom the SS showed the photo to ... and then spoken to herself either by the FBI or SS.

If I recall correctly, she, or someone, identified two other women who were there with her as well. Weisberg covers this in his book, Oswald in New Orleans. Here is a link to a document Harold included in his Appendix, now on the Ferrell site. Last paragraph.

black purse lady document

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do raise many goood points. The pic is very interesting. I wonder why she would say it is her. But you cannot tell who it is.

The lady with the big black purse was identified at the time of the Warren Commission investigation. Her name is Clemenica Almeida and she was employed in the International Trade Mart. She was first identified by another witness whom the SS showed the photo to ... and then spoken to herself either by the FBI or SS.

If I recall correctly, she, or someone, identified two other women who were there with her as well. Weisberg covers this in his book, Oswald in New Orleans. Here is a link to a document Harold included in his Appendix, now on the Ferrell site. Last paragraph.

black purse lady document

Barb :-)

With Harrys knowledge; to post;

Judyth; A Heads up.... Permission was not asked for nor granted,from Harry, why not...??.

Hi BerniceAs JVB has spread my face with some confessedly incorrect statements on her recently discovered blog, I wish to verify the significance re; flowers...http://judythbaker.blogspot.com/

placed on Oswald's grave from 24 November 1965 and continued forseveral years. {It is not possible to access her blog}.The purpose of the flowers was simply to support specific four to eightline poems,intended to provoke authorities into cracking open the Archivedoor.At some point I read that the then president Johnson furiously ordered his people to find who the guilty party was.The Los Angeles bureau office, tried 'every method to discourage' thoseannual deliveries.Just wanted this known. Until later... Harry aka Hj

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawn:

The picture is in the next posting. I am computer-challenged. I do not believe there is credible evidence that Judyth ever met Oswald.

With all due respect, that comes across as an equivalent to Gary Mack's infamous statement, "I have not seen any hard evidence of conspiracy."

Edited by Pamela Brown
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Robert Morrow

I have attached the picture in New Orleans. Judyth claimed to be the woman in the striped dress and when that person was discovered to have been positively identified she claimed to be the apparently pregnant woman with the explanation that she sometimes became bloated. She also claimed to still have the dress from then. Which dress is it and where is it? It is another example of a claim made by her with no substantiation.

Exactly correct, Doug.

All bold mine.

Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, "Deadly Alliance," alternate draft provided to Robert Vernon, posted by Vernon at alt.assassination.jfk, August 30, 2004:
"Judyth is 90% certain that Warren Commission exhibit Pizzo 453-B, a photo of the scene, includes her standing near Lee. The picture is blurry, but there is a resemblance between the girl in the photo and contemporaneous photos of Judyth. The dress pattern in the picture matches close-up photos of a dress Judyth wore in other photos in her possession.

Judyth Vary Baker, Internet forum post, October 9, 2004: "No, not standing next to Lee, but in the same general area as Lee - iF [sic] that person is me. The face is too blurry to be certain. The pavement sloped upward there, as I have proven with other photos, but I cannot prove this woman is me. Though have never been 100% certain the woman was me, I remember talking to the two girls shown in the footage under consideration. In any case, Lee simply happens to be nearby, and there is little, if any, interaction with the woman, beyond a smile in her direction as he approaches with flyers. I do not remember being filmed, but was warned that filming was taking place, and to leave at once, a warning which Lee gave to me.

Quotations from a compilation by Dave Reitzes, at his website, links to actual posts and documents are there.

Reitzes website on Judyth

In her new book, Me & Lee, the telling has changed. She now says this of this incident:

Lee arrived at Dr. Mary's apartment about 10:00 A.M.
I wanted to be there with him, but he was afraid I would be photographed and identified.
So I decided to dress up as a Cuban girl to change my appearance. First, I put in my specially tinted contact lenses that made my eyes brown. Then I put on too much make-up and curled my hair like Latinas did back then. I put on a festive looking sundress and black high heel shoes to complete the cha-cha look.
Lee was amused by my efforts, and thought I could be a good "extra" in the scene to attract attention, but he wanted me to disappear when the TV camera arrived so I would not get captured on film.

Everything worked according to plan. Lee and two paid helpers handed out leaflets. I engaged several Cuban girls in conversation to attract a crowd, discussing America's poor treatment of Cuba.
The television crew arrived on cue and I disappeared, heading to Thompson's Restaurant to wait for Lee.

This was all the subject of much debate on and off with the claim of being a certain girl in the photo changing to being the other girl, Judyth noting she remembered carrying a big black purse. That either one was her became more vague after it was shown in documents that the girls had been identified.

A couple other things about this incident were discussed. One was Judyth claiming, and she wrote it this way in her first book, that Oswald and the men helping him pass out leaflets were all dressed in "white shirts, nice slacks and thin ties." But a film of the incident taken by WWL-tv showed one of the men wearing bermuda shorts. Seems to me someone posted a link to a clip of that at the time, but I cannot currently find it online ... perhaps someone here knows where it can be found.

The other thing involved the film taken by WWL and the film shot that day by WDSU. Judyth went on about the big television cameras and what all went on with them getting all set up to film the event. Johann Rush, the actual WDSU cameraman who shot the film that day showed up on the newsgroup and posted that there was no huge setup ... that the cameras both he and the fellow from the other station used that day were small, hand held cameras.

And in her first book, she did not meet Oswald at Dr. Mary's apartment that morning ... she met up with him on Canal Street.

Judyth has made the claims. It is she who claims to be in possession of the physical evidence that would support those claims. Don't you agree that the burden of proof should be on her? If she is truthful I sincerely believe she would be one of the most valuable witnesses ever in the history of the case. Ironically, if she is fabricating her involvement she is doing the opposite of what she claims to seek. By doing such, she diminishes Oswald, casts dispersion upon the entire research community who believes that the true story of 1963 has not been told by the government bodies,and distorts what happened that day in 1963. I absolutely have no bad feelings towards Judyth but I cannot ignore the evidence that has been presented or ignore the evidence she refuses to produce. I do believe it is possible that even if this is fabricated, that she may believe it.

I wholeheartedly agree, Doug. Unless her story is absolute and accurate truth, the already muddy waters of this case are made even muddier, and worse, researchers are sent off down false trails. That is just not okay when it comes to uncovering the truth about the assassination of our president ... and for having an accurate history. Like any witness, Judyth's claims must be checked out. It's nothing personal against Judyth. It's normal, necessary ... and expected ... procedure.

Excellent posts, Doug.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Doug:

You do raise many goood points. The pic is very interesting. I wonder why she would say it is her. But you cannot tell who it is.

I had my first doubts about her when the Harvey and Lee thread was going on. But now I have gone back and looked at some of the NO period in Armstrong's book and it seems to back Judyth even more. As for why she refuses to do certain things I cannot speak for her.

I know she totally discounts Armstrong w/o having read his most imprssive work. I hope that Dr. Fetzer sees fit to get her a copy of Harvey and Lee. It was Harvey she met and it is clear that he never shared this with her. (That they were two). I have considered that she has made it all up. In fact when I saw The Love Affair that raised many doubts for me. I will go back and see that again. Am in court all day today...so will get back to this later.

Have you read her book? Haslams? Comments.

Thanks,

Dawn

In my opinion, John Armstrong's theory about 2 Oswalds is COMPLETE AND TOTAL BUNK. Totally NOT buying it. Secondly, I believe Judyth Vary Baker when she says she was Lee Harvey Oswald's lover and mistress in New Orleans. Baker is a key witness to truth in the JFK assassination.

Having said that, it does not mean one should blindly believe everything Judyth says. Or anyone else for that matter. It also does not mean I don't respect John Armstrong's work in other areas of the research on the 1963 Coup d'Etat. Armstrong believes Allen Dulles was involved in the JFK assassation; I believe that was the case as well, not JUST the cover up when he was on the Allen Dulles Commission.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawn:

The picture is in the next posting. I am computer-challenged. I do not believe there is credible evidence that Judyth ever met Oswald.

With all due respect, that comes across as an equivalent to Gary Mack's infamous statement, "I have not seen any hard evidence of conspiracy."

It looks like a very straightforward statement to me, Pamela, saying that he does not believe there is credible evidence that Judyth ever met Oswald. Well, by golly, that is exactly what he said! It doesn't have anything to do with someone else's assessment about any other part of the case,so I am a bit confused by your comment. :-)

Since you are a known Judyth believer, this would be a perfect opportunity for you to share with all of us just what "credible evidence" exists that she did personally know Oswald.

We know they worked at Reily at the same time in the summer of 1963, even starting work on the same day. She worked in the office, he greased machines. Other than a common nodding knowledge of one another, like many of the 100-ish employees at Reily could very likely have had with one another, what "credible evidence" have you seen that Judyth and Oswald actually knew one another?

I will be very interested in your response, and look forward to what specific credible evidence you will present, because thus far, I have never seen any credible evidence of them having known one another at all.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawn:

The picture is in the next posting. I am computer-challenged. I do not believe there is credible evidence that Judyth ever met Oswald.

With all due respect, that comes across as an equivalent to Gary Mack's infamous statement, "I have not seen any hard evidence of conspiracy."

It looks like a very straightforward statement to me, Pamela, saying that he does not believe there is credible evidence that Judyth ever met Oswald. Well, by golly, that is exactly what he said! It doesn't have anything to do with someone else's assessment about any other part of the case,so I am a bit confused by your comment. :-)

Since you are a known Judyth believer, this would be a perfect opportunity for you to share with all of us just what "credible evidence" exists that she did personally know Oswald.

We know they worked at Reily at the same time in the summer of 1963, even starting work on the same day. She worked in the office, he greased machines. Other than a common nodding knowledge of one another, like many of the 100-ish employees at Reily could very likely have had with one another, what "credible evidence" have you seen that Judyth and Oswald actually knew one another?

I will be very interested in your response, and look forward to what specific credible evidence you will present, because thus far, I have never seen any credible evidence of them having known one another at all.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

I've learned a lot about the decade old debate about Judyth Baker's story from reading Barb's posts here and on the

Exile thread started by Jim Fetzer. Barb almost invariably provides links and/or documentation for her posts, making it easy

to see the source for what she is discussing. Most people interested in making up their own minds appreciate this approach to

research. Barb has had to listen to some people accuse her of attacking Judyth or nitpicking. They find this preferable to actually

discussing what Barb has written. That's my impression.

Judyth Baker has no bigger supporter than Ed Haslam. In Dr Mary's Monkey (page 291), Haslam asks "did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in

New Orleans in 1963?" Haslam offers only two items to support such a contention: Baker's W-2 from Reily and the 2003 video recording of Anna Lewis.

These are the "two critical pieces of evidence" that Haslam uses to wonder if it is time "to reconsider our history" of the Kennedy murder.

That's it. That's Haslam's evidence that Baker and Oswald knew each other. The rest of his faith is based on his belief in her "as a person."

Barb has written that the devil is often in the details and I agree with that. But often there are large questions, which Baker and her supporters

almost never address. I find this 2005 comment by James Richards worth considering:

One thing about Judyth's story I have never been able to figure out. If she was indeed working on some cancer inducing virus which was

to be used to kill Castro, then there is no way she would have been told who the victim was going to be. She would have worked with no

information as to the weapon's ultimate use. This type of activity is definitely conducted on a 'need to know'. That's just the way it is.

There is a seemingly endless list of improbabilities and implausibilies like this that help explain why JVB has so many doubters.

If there was credible evidence linking Baker and Oswald, why did Douglass and Horne choose not to mention it in their recent books?

There were scores of journalists and investigative reporters in New Orleans in the 60's and 70's that had their ears

very close to the ground. There have been many researchers that have written extensively about Oswald in New Orleans.

None of them have ever found any credible evidence of an association between Baker and Oswald, to my knowledge.

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...