Lee and Me

[Glenn Viklund]

name='Robert Morrow' date='08 December 2010 - 06:26 AM' timestamp='1291782382' post='214153']

"TOGETHER"? At the same time is more accurate. They worked in different areas in a large company. Would the CIA recruit

a 19-year-old for a sensitive assignment and pair her with an undercover operative involved in penetrating Castro groups?

Why?

Jack

Absolutely. They were both young and in New Orleans. Judyth Vary Baker was under the wings of a big time player Dr. Ochsner. When a big time intelligence player is your mentor things just seem to happen your way. Or not your way if you offend them as Judyth did when she rebelled against putting cancer in the inmates of LA prisons.

Just because LHO might have been run by James Angleton or David Atlee Phillips does not mean that Judyth was being run by anyone or treated the same way as LHO. Judyth was the golden girl cancer researcher until Ochsner's wings and she and LHO probably got hooked up because they were in proximity, not because of some grand CIA scheme or master plan.

I think that Judyth Vary Baker is an incredibly important witness to truth in the JFK assassintion. Not that one should believe EVERYTHING she says ... but that is true of anyone.

Robert,

This is a fascinating approach to JVBs story. If I'm interpreting you correctly you do believe some parts of what she's telling while at the same time you also believe that there are various issues where she's not truthful?

I'd be most interested to hear how you might distinguish that which is believable from that which is not?

FYI

I've been following the Baker story for more than a decade. First from 'some distance', and then later when the asylum issue first came up in 2008, more closely. Having done this a clearly visible pattern in JVBs behavior is quite easily detected:

(Let's use the word 'errors' for the sake of not breaking forum rules..)

1. When caught with an obvious error, always have an explanation:

-That's not what I said.

-That's not what I meant.

-That's not what I intended.

2. Change the story so that the obvious error is gone (by one or more of these options):

-Change details

-Add new details

-Remove sensible details [or outright errors] all together.

-Strongly deny you were ever in error about anything.

3. Change the overall story to fit new details.

4. If invited to explain your story in further detail by anyone who's not patently a supporter; avoid, stall or plainly refuse to do so. On the other hand, do this as often as possible with those who are true believers.

5. Character assassinate opposition. In order to achieve this anything is allowed. Repeat as necessary, wherever necessary.

6. Target those you possibly can win over, at all cost. Be as slick and humble as it takes when going about it. (Darn Jack; I've tried everything with that stubborn guy and he still doesn't buy my story...)

7. When referring to any of the above onwards, do it in such a way that your opposition is perceived as malicious and evil, only out to get you. While at the same time you portray yourself as a truthseeking, sacrificing god-loving altruist with the only intention to "tell the truth". Repeat as necessary, wherever necessary.

8. When loyal support abandons you, find new support to represent you. Target those who are regarded as "heavy hitters" among JFK-researchers. Never discuss directly with opposition yourself.

Robert,

The above steps have not occurred once or twice - or even dozens of times. Most of them have occurred several hundred times over the past decade.

This is why I find it most fascinating to see that she still manages to sell her story - anywhere.

Edited December 8, 2010 by Glenn Viklund

[Michael Hogan]

From flagpole.com

Lee Harvey Oswald’s Last Lover?

by Donald E. Wilkes, Jr

December 8th, 2010

Excerpt:

Me & Lee JVB’s story again made the news in September 2010, when her Me & Lee: How I Came to Know, Love and Lose Lee Harvey Oswald,

was published. This 600-page autobiographical book, a must-read, is plentifully interspersed with photographs of persons, places and documents.

Although JVB’s claims may possibly involve hoax, fraud or mental derangement, or may be part of a disinformation campaign designed to confuse

assassination researchers, on the whole Me & Lee is a believable book. Based on what we now know of long-concealed CIA crimes, conspiracies

and depravities, JVB’s story has the ring of truth. To date, however, the story has not been proved to be either true or false.

The fiercest critics of JVB’s story are the usual suspects—the Warren Report’s diehard true believers, the people who never learn. Having read

their slashing attacks on JVB, and having read JVB’s responses, I deem those attacks to be petty, factually inaccurate or suspiciously shrill

in tone. I agree, therefore, with the reviewer who writes: “Judyth Baker seems to be a credible character in this story.”

Full story: http://flagpole.com/Weekly/Features/LeeHarveyOswaldsLastLover-8Dec10

(Donald E. Wilkes, Jr. is a Professor in the University of Georgia School of Law. He writes a piece for Flagpole on the

assassination of President John F. Kennedy every year near the November 22 anniversary of that nation-shattering event.)

[Jack White]

Wonderful analysis!

Jack

name='Robert Morrow' date='08 December 2010 - 06:26 AM' timestamp='1291782382' post='214153']

"TOGETHER"? At the same time is more accurate. They worked in different areas in a large company. Would the CIA recruit

a 19-year-old for a sensitive assignment and pair her with an undercover operative involved in penetrating Castro groups?

Why?

Jack

Absolutely. They were both young and in New Orleans. Judyth Vary Baker was under the wings of a big time player Dr. Ochsner. When a big time intelligence player is your mentor things just seem to happen your way. Or not your way if you offend them as Judyth did when she rebelled against putting cancer in the inmates of LA prisons.

Just because LHO might have been run by James Angleton or David Atlee Phillips does not mean that Judyth was being run by anyone or treated the same way as LHO. Judyth was the golden girl cancer researcher until Ochsner's wings and she and LHO probably got hooked up because they were in proximity, not because of some grand CIA scheme or master plan.

I think that Judyth Vary Baker is an incredibly important witness to truth in the JFK assassintion. Not that one should believe EVERYTHING she says ... but that is true of anyone.

Robert,

This is a fascinating approach to JVBs story. If I'm interpreting you correctly you do believe some parts of what she's telling while at the same time you also believe that there are various issues where she's not truthful?

I'd be most interested to hear how you might distinguish that which is believable from that which is not?

FYI

I've been following the Baker story for more than a decade. First from 'some distance', and then later when the asylum issue first came up in 2008, more closely. Having done this a clearly visible pattern in JVBs behavior is quite easily detected:

(Let's use the word 'errors' for the sake of not breaking forum rules..)

1. When caught with an obvious error, always have an explanation:

-That's not what I said.

-That's not what I meant.

-That's not what I intended.

2. Change the story so that the obvious error is gone (by one or more of these options):

-Change details

-Add new details

-Remove sensible details [or outright errors] all together.

-Strongly deny you were ever in error about anything.

3. Change the overall story to fit new details.

4. If invited to explain your story in further detail by anyone who's not patently a supporter; avoid, stall or plainly refuse to do so. On the other hand, do this as often as possible with those who are true believers.

5. Character assassinate opposition. In order to achieve this anything is allowed. Repeat as necessary, wherever necessary.

6. Target those you possibly can win over, at all cost. Be as slick and humble as it takes when going about it. (Darn Jack; I've tried everything with that stubborn guy and he still doesn't buy my story...)

7. When referring to any of the above onwards, do it in such a way that your opposition is perceived as malicious and evil, only out to get you. While at the same time you portray yourself as a truthseeking, sacrificing god-loving altruist with the only intention to "tell the truth". Repeat as necessary, wherever necessary.

8. When loyal support abandons you, find new support to represent you. Target those who are regarded as "heavy hitters" among JFK-researchers. Never discuss directly with opposition yourself.

Robert,

The above steps have not occurred once or twice - or even dozens of times. Most of them have occurred several hundred times over the past decade.

This is why I find it most fascinating to see that she still manages to sell her story - anywhere.

[Jack White]

The fiercest critics of JVB’s story are the usual suspects—the Warren Report’s diehard true believers

Huh? Me?

LOL.

Jack

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Robert,

This is a fascinating approach to JVBs story. If I'm interpreting you correctly you do believe some parts of what she's telling while at the same time you also believe that there are various issues where she's not truthful?

I'd be most interested to hear how you might distinguish that which is believable from that which is not?

FYI

I've been following the Baker story for more than a decade. First from 'some distance', and then later when the asylum issue first came up in 2008, more closely. Having done this a clearly visible pattern in JVBs behavior is quite easily detected:

(Let's use the word 'errors' for the sake of not breaking forum rules..)

1. When caught with an obvious error, always have an explanation:

-That's not what I said.

-That's not what I meant.

-That's not what I intended.

2. Change the story so that the obvious error is gone (by one or more of these options):

-Change details

-Add new details

-Remove sensible details [or outright errors] all together.

-Strongly deny you were ever in error about anything.

3. Change the overall story to fit new details.

4. If invited to explain your story in further detail by anyone who's not patently a supporter; avoid, stall or plainly refuse to do so. On the other hand, do this as often as possible with those who are true believers.

5. Character assassinate opposition. In order to achieve this anything is allowed. Repeat as necessary, wherever necessary.

6. Target those you possibly can win over, at all cost. Be as slick and humble as it takes when going about it. (Darn Jack; I've tried everything with that stubborn guy and he still doesn't buy my story...)

7. When referring to any of the above onwards, do it in such a way that your opposition is perceived as malicious and evil, only out to get you. While at the same time you portray yourself as a truthseeking, sacrificing god-loving altruist with the only intention to "tell the truth". Repeat as necessary, wherever necessary.

8. When loyal support abandons you, find new support to represent you. Target those who are regarded as "heavy hitters" among JFK-researchers. Never discuss directly with opposition yourself.

Robert,

The above steps have not occurred once or twice - or even dozens of times. Most of them have occurred several hundred times over the past decade.

This is why I find it most fascinating to see that she still manages to sell her story - anywhere.

Glenn, as usual ... razor sharp, right on target,

insightful... and what any of us who have been paying

attention over the last several years have seen and/or

experienced ourselves.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

The fiercest critics of JVB’s story are the usual suspects—the Warren Report’s diehard true believers

Huh? Me?

LOL.

Jack

I hear ya, Jack. The author obviously hasn't been reading and paying

attention as much as he thinks he has!

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Doug: She has proof that they worked together. What about Anna Lewis? Anna did not even like Judyth so why would she lie?

Have you read Ed Haslam's book? Judyth's? I do not think it is fair to pass judgement on someone withouth reading the person's book first. In fact you and I are in agreement on Armstrong's work on another thread.

Dawn

Hi Dawn,

Judyth has the same proof as about a hundred other former Reily employees ... they all worked at Reily at the same time as Oswald. But some actually did work "together" with Oswald. He was a greaser, she was in the office, to say they worked together is really a stretch. There is no actual evidence I have ever seen that shows Judyth and Oswald knew one another at all ... beyond the possibility of a typical nod and smile around the company that many people share in the workplace.

Since you have followed Judyth's story for a number of years, I would expect you are aware of some of the controversy about Anna Lewis as a witness to Judyth and Oswald dating ... in fact, Anna and her husband, having been the couple that went on double dates with them. Beyond any motivations Anna Lewis might have for anything and other issues that have been raised about her statements, there is the issue of Anna Lewis being another late witness.

The double dating story was not a late comer, but Annas Lewis and her husband in the role came after Judyth had named a different couple as being who double dated with her and Oswald.

Researcher Robert Harris was in touch with Judyth very early on and had several lengthy phone conversations with her. He is the one, as I noted in another post, who asked Judyth if she didn't have a love letter with Oswald's handwriting on it. Judyth answered "no" ... but then later, the marginal writings that she claims are Oswald's emerged onto the scene. As you know, she has declined to have that writing examined by a professional.

Robert Harris says Judyth told him that she and Oswald double dated with an old high school friend of hers and that girl's fiance. He became suspicious when Judyth could not provide names. According to Harris, this conversation happened at least a couple of months before the end of 1999. A great deal of gnashing of teeth and accusations against Harris went on in the newsgroups occasionally, with the girl becoming someone named Anita ... and not being a high school friend of Judyth's, but being a Reily co-worker who was engaged to marry her high school sweetheart. In DEADLY ALLIANCE,the outline written by Judyth with Howard Platzman, which came out after that(there was more than one version), Anna Lewis and her husband were now the double daters.

Here is an excerpt from one of Harris's posts,June 21, 2001:

Several years ago, Judyth and I spoke for several hours on the phone,

during which time I asked her repeatedly to try to come up with people

who could corroborate her supposed affair with Oswald.

She claimed that she and Lee went out with another young couple several

times and that the girl was a high school friend of hers, whose wedding

announcement appeared in the newspaper that year.

But she could not remember these people's names. If this girl's wedding

announcement did appear, it shouldn't be that hard to look it up. Why

can't Judyth tell us who these people are?

This post/thread from alt.conspiracy.jfk can be found here:

Harris post no anna lewis

On October 3, 2003, in yet another newsgroup thread that included this topic, Judyth herself posted:

Harris claims I was seeking an old schoolmate who double-dated with

Lee and me---apparently not realizing my schoolmates were in FLORIDA

and I was speaking to him from LOUISIANA, seeking a 1963 reily girl

who was marrying her high school sweetheart. I attempted for almost

three years to correct him concerning Anita........

.........=====I CALLED HER ANNA. I HAVE EMAILKS IN 199 TO YOU MENTIONING ANNA

AND ANITA. I DID NOT USE THE LAST NAME LEWIS BECAUSE SO MANY YEARS HAD

PASSED. QUIBBLING!=====J===

The thread:

Judyth posts 2003 thread

At this point, it looks like she was alleging that in addition to Anita, she had also spoken to Harris about an Anna without saying her last name. So, were she and LHO supposed to have double dated with TWO different couples? Harris denies this flatly, saying Judyth never mentioned Anna Lewis to him.

You comment on reading Judyth's and Haslam's "book" ... singular. They have each written two books that are part of the discussion and overall picture of their stories. In addition, Judyth has countless blogs and web pages and forum and newsgroup posts. Unless one is well versed in Judyth's story over the years, they really can't grasp the problems people who have followed it, or have researched it, have with her story overall. Because it has changed, some parts have changed more than once. And in her new book, things pointed out as contrary to known facts previously, have been corrected, massaged a different direction or left out. The new book is also written a lot tighter and with fewer details.

Fairness, it seems to me, is to not pass judgment without thoroughly knowing the story, all versions, and contrasting that with documented conflicts that have been found and pointed out by several people.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Pamela Brown]

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

Dawn,

To the WC defenders, Judyth *cannot* have known Lee. That is too dangerous a possibility. So all the stops are pulled out to try and deny that was even a possibility.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

To the WC defenders, Judyth *cannot* have known Lee. That is too dangerous a possibility. So all the stops are pulled out to try and deny that was even a possibility.

Ahhh, there it is again .... that ultimate polarizing and aspersion casting label, "WC defender." Are you questioning the character and motives of anyone who does not support Judyth, Pamela? Sure sounds that way.

I can't help but wonder why it is that those who seem to wave that flag, do so in lieu of ever actually discussing any of the evidence or issues brought up about Judyth's story. Can it really be news to anyone that people such as myself, Jack White, Dean Hagerman and Doug Weldon .... to name just a very few ... are decidedly not "WC defenders"?

[Steve Duffy]

I've not, in any real way, seen many WC Defenders give that much time to Judyth's story.

What I have seen, is some proper research put forth on this thread regarding the validity of her claims, and as it must stand now, on her finished book.

There has been many statements made, and I'm not really seeing spiteful vitriol against Judyth, just intelligent arguments for the shortcomings of her work.

That's healthy, surely?

Edited December 9, 2010 by Steve Duffy

[Jack White]

I've not, in any real way, see many WC Defenders give any real time to Judyth's story.

What I have seen, is some proper research put forth on this thread regarding the validity of her claims, and as it must stand now, on her finished book.

There has been many statements made, and I'm not really seeing spiteful vitriol against Judyth, just intelligent arguments for the shortcomings of her work.

That's healthy, surely?

McAdams is the only one I can think of.

Jack

[Glenn Viklund]

Barb and Jack,

Thanks for your comments..

//Glenn

[Barb Junkkarinen]

I've not, in any real way, seen many WC Defenders give that much time to Judyth's story.

What I have seen, is some proper research put forth on this thread regarding the validity of her claims, and as it must stand now, on her finished book.

There has been many statements made, and I'm not really seeing spiteful vitriol against Judyth, just intelligent arguments for the shortcomings of her work.

That's healthy, surely?

Hi Steve,

Yes, surely. How can research be research without fact checking, vetting and evaluating

how any witness, or other evidence, stacks up.

And I think your observations are right on from what I have seen ... "WC defenders" mostly just sit back and watch and laugh. Clearly Judyth has been subjected to her share of vitriol and unkind remarks ... and she has uttered her share as well. There are few saints in this arena. Many other alleged witnesses, known witnesses .... and researchers too ... have been subjected to some pretty nasty stuff by those who see things differently. In my opinion,and in my experience, the vitriol in threads about Judyth's story, is often as not from Judyth supporters, as many posts show. I like your word ... "healthy" ... we should all strive for healthy research and discussion, and on many subjects, it is not difficult to achieve. On point robust discussion is healthy for research and the only way we can really move forward on any subject.

Bests to you,

Barb :-)

[Jack White]

I posted this yesterday on another forum:

Originally Posted by Brian Anderson

Hi Jack

How did JVB escape John Armstrong's research dragnet? Or does JVB fall into the category where Armstrong could not get enough backup to include her story in his book? Any thoughts?

Brian

That is easy. Absolutely NO DOCUMENTATION exists that

the FBI, Secret Service, CIA, Naval Intelligence, Garrison,

Warren Commission, House Committee, Church Committee

or hundreds of JFK Researchers ever noticed ANY of the

events described by JVB, even though all of these named

groups either were controlling, watching, studying or otherwise

at all times figuring LHO's every move in New Orleans.

Now you tell me how JVB managed to be so invisible to all of

the above that NO DOCUMENTATION EXISTS!

John relied on DOCUMENTATION or personal interviews and

research for his book. Not a single document refers to Baker.

Now you tell me whether she belongs in H&L.

Jack

[Michael Hogan]

I've not, in any real way, seen many WC Defenders give that much time to Judyth's story.

What I have seen, is some proper research put forth on this thread regarding the validity of her claims, and as it must stand now, on her finished book.

There has been many statements made, and I'm not really seeing spiteful vitriol against Judyth, just intelligent arguments for the shortcomings of her work.

That's healthy, surely?

Hi Steve,

Yes, surely. How can research be research without fact checking, vetting and evaluating how any witness, or other evidence, stacks up....

Bests to you,

Barb :-)

And after ten years of fact checking, vetting and evaluation many people have come to the conclusion that Judyth Baker

has concocted her story. She has written two books and there is a seemingly endless supply of information promulgated

by her and her supporters on the internet. Ed Haslam, one of her most ardent supporters, has consistently avoided and

deflected questions about her story. He often urged people to wait for her new book, as if it was going to provide new

revelations. Deep down, Haslam must realize that there is an underwhelming amount of evidence that indicates that Judyth

Baker and Lee Oswald were lovers. His continual refusal to answer meaningful questions about his conclusions and speculations

really speaks volumes, as far as I'm concerned. And I don't think I'm alone in drawing conclusions from his approach.

And I think your observations are right on from what I have seen ... "WC defenders" mostly just sit back and watch and laugh. Clearly Judyth has been subjected to her share of vitriol and unkind remarks ... and she has uttered her share as well. There are few saints in this arena. Many other alleged witnesses, known witnesses .... and researchers too ... have been subjected to some pretty nasty stuff by those who see things differently. In my opinion,and in my experience, the vitriol in threads about Judyth's story, is often as not from Judyth supporters, as many posts show. I like your word ... "healthy" ... we should all strive for healthy research and discussion, and on many subjects, it is not difficult to achieve. On point robust discussion is healthy for research and the only way we can really move forward on any subject.

If one reaches the conclusion that Judyth Baker's story never happened the way she claims it did, it is only natural to feel resentment for what

she has done. So many people have invested so much blood, sweat and tears researching President Kennedy's murder and what role Lee

Oswald played. Baker and her supporters have seemingly always refused to understand this irritation at what many people honestly believe

is an affront to both history and the truth.

These researchers have seen more than enough healthy debate and robust discussion. At some point in time they had enough

information to make up their minds. And at some point in time they have decided that it is not incumbent on them to continue

to give Baker their unconditional respect, or continue to keep an "open mind" about an issue that has already been decided.

At some point in time, for them the benefit of doubt for Baker's story became unsupportable.

If Judyth Baker's claims are not true, in the eyes of many her story is a repugnant one.