Haslam-Baker Dr. Mary's Monkey

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Haslam breathlessly notes that the victim's right arm was largely burned away, bone and all, and that some of the clothing piled on the abdomen was badly burned, while some was not burned. Noting a criminologist's statement that some of the clothing would have to reach 500 degrees before igniting, the author surmises that, because some of the clothing was unburned, the temperature never reached 500 degrees. He asks a cremator: What temperature would bone have to reach to be largely burned away? The cremator indicates a temperature of 1600-2000 degrees. Haslam surmises that the crime (2000d) does not match the crime scene (500d). He then states as facts that the damage to the body did not occur at the crime scene, and that she was burned earlier, somewhere else, and moved to the scene. What could have caused such burns? A linear particle accelerator, he theorizes.

In my view, this is filled with holes. The degree figures given are professional estimates. The temperature at fire scenes can vary widely, even within feet or inches. There is also the longevity factor, the smoldering factor. Considering this and other factors, I don't think one can leap to the conclusion that the injuries were not inflicted at the crime scene. And the leap to the linear particle accelerator is preposterous, based on NO evidence at all.

I posted information on a particle accelerator of the time being an extremely unlikely source of the damage to her body a few months ago in the Lee and Me thread .... quoting Arthur Snyder, PhD, a physicist at SLAC, the linear accelerator at Standford, liberally. Also on the burn she suffered, is this, from an article in New Orleans Magazine, July 2007 by Bronson Lutz, M.D.:

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."

The entire article can be found here:

http://www.myneworleans.com/New-Orleans-Magazine/July-2007/Dr-Marys-monkey/

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited April 17, 2011 by Barb Junkkarinen
Change out link for one that works!

[Michael Hogan]

Speaking of which, Russo covered up one of Ed's most powerful discoveries which showed why these guys could not be trusted: When the secret war against the Contras began in the eighties, Martens and Butler joined up forces for local rightwing talk radio in support of it. Ed did some PR for them and discovered that Butler had boxes of Guy Banister's files in his office. Interesting to speculate how he got them and if he shipped them to California when he learned Garrison was on his and Ochsner's trail in 1968.

Powerful discoveries? As is so often the case, the reader of Dr Mary's Monkey is forced to take Haslam's word for the unlikeliest of events.

In Chapter 7 of Dr Mary's Monkey, Ed Haslam relates the story of how he met Butler and saw the files. The whole account has a distinctly fictive feel to it.

One day, in the summer of 1982, (Funny how many details, places, dates, and names Haslam remembers. Not this time. He doesn't even remember the month.)

his boss at the Fitzgerald agency sends Haslam to the Maison Blanche building on Canal street for an "important courtesy call" with some very

"busy people." Haslam's boss does not even give him a name to contact. You or I would ask for a name, but Haslam didn't.

He meets these two men, one noticeably older than the other. The older man introduces himself as Bill Fegerson. Haslam immediately decides that that is not the man's real name. The younger man that initially greeted Haslam and made such pleasant small talk gave no name at all. Haslam later got him to say he was Ed. No last name. Within minutes of meeting, the younger man begins to tell Haslam about the "mysterious" file cabinets. Keep in mind that Haslam had alread ascertained that the older man "was in control of the others."

"There were six file cabinets, all black, each unit chest high. He apologized for the condition of the files, saying that they were very old and were very disorganized, but he was confident that they had "important information" in them. He started to tell me who the files had belonged to when the older man exploded, cutting him off in mid-sentence in a fit of exasperation. It was starting to get strange. The older man waved him over to the corner of the room.

There they argued in tense, hushed tones about whether it was "all right to tell me" who the files belonged to. It was an awkward moment, to say the least.

I tried to ignore them and act disinterested. I was uncomfortable with their whispering and did not care to be made part of the family secrets of what was obviously a right-wing propaganda mill. The older man did not want to tell me. The younger man did. The younger man suddenly broke off their discussion and said, "If he is going to work with us, he's going to find out anyway."

He marched back to the file cabinets and said to me, Did you know Guy Banister....?"

The reader is told these two mysterious men, within ten minutes of meeting Haslam, decide to show him the jewels. Unexplained is how the younger man is able to overrule the older man whom Haslam had determined was in control.

They then proceed to show Haslam the files. Haslam becomes fearful and melodramatic:

"The feel of fear crashed over me....I knew I'd better be careful about what I said and did. I stood frozen, staring at the files. My mind raced. I pretended to read some of the articles as I tried to sort out my situation. All I could think about was Jim Garrison. I knew he believed to his core that he had discovered the conspirators in the assassination of President Kennedy. And that he figured Banister was the pivotal man in that group.

Who were these people? And how did they get Banister's files......? Should I contact Garrison about these files?"

The older man then takes Haslam to another room and introduces him to a pair of unnamed doctors that were financial backers of the radio station.

"My warning light had been flashing for some time. Now, my danger buzzers were going off....

Or, to put it bluntly, both of these men knew the mysteriously murdered Mary Sherman personally. And they were experts in the medical uses of radiation, with access to x-ray machines and radioactive materials. And they were in possession of files belonging to Guy Banister, David Ferrie's employer and a suspect in the assassination of the President of the United States. And no one, except my boss, knew where I was! I pondered my situation and told myself, 'Keep smiling, act relaxed, and don't mention Mary Sherman.

It worked. Fifteen minutes later, I found myself returning to Fitzgerald where I reported to my boss. I was very brief and said only that I did not think 'the radio station was a business opportunity worth pursuing.' He concurred and dropped the subject.

For the next ten years, I pondered the curious incident from time to time, but did nothing about it."

(bold added)

For the next ten years Haslam did nothing? Haslam was a self-proclaimed "Garrison expert." When Haslam's father was on his deathbed, they had an

ominous conversation about Mary Sherman. And Haslam tells his readers that he kept this explosive encounter with these mysterious men and their Banister files to himself. Didn't even ask his employer who those men at the Maison Blanche were until ten years later. Haslam wastes not a word in explaining to his readers why he kept this information to himself for ten years. Why the hell didn't he contact Jim Garrison?

Fast forward ten years. In order to get more information on David Ferrie, Haslam reads Garrison's On the Trail of The Assassins. Again, a pattern.

Garrison's book had been published four years ago and Haslam hadn't read it previously! He tries to contact Garrison, but Garrison's publisher tells him he is in a coma

The publisher, after hearing Haslam had seen Banister's files passed the story to our Jim DiEugenio who sent Haslam a copy of Destiny Betrayed.

Then, according to Haslam, Jim "brought Gus Russo into the loop."* Russo was working on a documentary for PBS' Frontline. Haslam met Russo in NOLA

and they spent the first day driving around, looking at iconic locations. Perry Russo was their cab driver. The second day, lo and behold, Haslam and Russo visit Ed Butler. Despite Russo's probing, Haslam could not be sure it was the same man he had met ten years earlier. Later, Haslam calls his old boss at Fitzgerald and asks "if Ed Butler was the man he had sent me to see ten years before." Only after his ex-boss answers in the affirmative does Haslam decide that it really was Ed Butler who showed him the Banister files a decade earlier. No wonder Russo had reservations about Haslam's story.

Haslam never did find out who the older man at Inca was.

So let me ask what evidence supports Haslam's claim that he saw Banister's files, in the presence of Ed Butler, and with Butler not wanting him to see them?

Haslam assumes that the reader should just believe he saw Banister's files, endured a tense and incredible event, and then waited ten years to do something about it.

Even if one were to give Haslam the benefit of the doubt, the list of implausible occurrences and the lack of any explanation at all from Haslam about the vagaries in his account must give pause.

Just add this one to the list of other stories Haslam tells that fly in the face of common sense: The linear particle accelerator, the 1972 party with another Judyth Vary Baker, Ferrie's lab being formerly in his girlfriend's apartment, Haslam's failure to use the FOIA, his varying accounts of when he talked to Judyth Baker for the first time, and on and on and on. The common thread of all these is that the reader is forced to rely on Haslam for things that cannot be verified by any other sources.

In all the interviews I have seen Haslam give, he was lobbed nothing but softballs. His interviewers showed no desire other than to allow Haslam to repeat his story on his terms. Over the years he has gotten his story down pat. He has offered what by now are lame reasons for not discussing it here.

In terms of Banister's files, it was Haslam that did nothing for ten years. I'm no fan of Russo, but how was he able to cover up Haslam's "discovery?"

*I believe this was before Jim found out some things that made him change his mind about Gus Russo.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[Pamela Brown]

What exactly is the origin of the Creation myth here - that Ferrie kept lab mice and bragged of cancer experiments? If it's Garrison's book, I'd like to check it out again and read the original reference.

Where was Garrison's office in the Mary Sherman murder investigation?

As I recall, maybe wrongly, Mary Sherman's death was never ruled a murder...maybe even an accident.

Does anyone know? I think it is Haslam who has turned her death into a murder.

Jack

How else do you explain a burned and mutilated body lying on a perfectly normal bed?

The mattress was on fire in a smoke-filled room when firefighters arrived and dragged it and pitched it to the parking lot. There were old-fashioned bed springs scattered on the floor. There was a pile of extremely charred clothing on the victim's abdomen, apparently used as kindling to start the fire. The body was not mutilated in the narrow sense, although she was certainly brutally attacked: 8 stab wounds, including defensive wounds to the arms and fingers and a fatal stab wound to the heart. The wound to the labia appears to be more from an errant stab motion rather than a deliberate attempt at mutilation. Her death was officially classified as a homicide from the beginning. There were a lot of detectives following a lot of leads.

So where does Haslam get that she was killed by an "accelerator" and her body moved, etc. etc? This would seem to rival

some of Baker's fantasies.

Jack

Haslam breathlessly notes that the victim's right arm was largely burned away, bone and all, and that some of the clothing piled on the abdomen was badly burned, while some was not burned. Noting a criminologist's statement that some of the clothing would have to reach 500 degrees before igniting, the author surmises that, because some of the clothing was unburned, the temperature never reached 500 degrees. He asks a cremator: What temperature would bone have to reach to be largely burned away? The cremator indicates a temperature of 1600-2000 degrees. Haslam surmises that the crime (2000d) does not match the crime scene (500d). He then states as facts that the damage to the body did not occur at the crime scene, and that she was burned earlier, somewhere else, and moved to the scene. What could have caused such burns? A linear particle accelerator, he theorizes.

In my view, this is filled with holes. The degree figures given are professional estimates. The temperature at fire scenes can vary widely, even within feet or inches. There is also the longevity factor, the smoldering factor. Considering this and other factors, I don't think one can leap to the conclusion that the injuries were not inflicted at the crime scene. And the leap to the linear particle accelerator is preposterous, based on NO evidence at all.

Haslam evidently does not know of the documented cases of SPONTANEOUS HUMAN COMBUSTION. Google it.

Jack

Do you think that's what happened to Dr. Sherman? Had that been the case, would there have been anything left?

[Jack White]

What exactly is the origin of the Creation myth here - that Ferrie kept lab mice and bragged of cancer experiments? If it's Garrison's book, I'd like to check it out again and read the original reference.

Where was Garrison's office in the Mary Sherman murder investigation?

As I recall, maybe wrongly, Mary Sherman's death was never ruled a murder...maybe even an accident.

Does anyone know? I think it is Haslam who has turned her death into a murder.

Jack

How else do you explain a burned and mutilated body lying on a perfectly normal bed?

The mattress was on fire in a smoke-filled room when firefighters arrived and dragged it and pitched it to the parking lot. There were old-fashioned bed springs scattered on the floor. There was a pile of extremely charred clothing on the victim's abdomen, apparently used as kindling to start the fire. The body was not mutilated in the narrow sense, although she was certainly brutally attacked: 8 stab wounds, including defensive wounds to the arms and fingers and a fatal stab wound to the heart. The wound to the labia appears to be more from an errant stab motion rather than a deliberate attempt at mutilation. Her death was officially classified as a homicide from the beginning. There were a lot of detectives following a lot of leads.

So where does Haslam get that she was killed by an "accelerator" and her body moved, etc. etc? This would seem to rival

some of Baker's fantasies.

Jack

Haslam breathlessly notes that the victim's right arm was largely burned away, bone and all, and that some of the clothing piled on the abdomen was badly burned, while some was not burned. Noting a criminologist's statement that some of the clothing would have to reach 500 degrees before igniting, the author surmises that, because some of the clothing was unburned, the temperature never reached 500 degrees. He asks a cremator: What temperature would bone have to reach to be largely burned away? The cremator indicates a temperature of 1600-2000 degrees. Haslam surmises that the crime (2000d) does not match the crime scene (500d). He then states as facts that the damage to the body did not occur at the crime scene, and that she was burned earlier, somewhere else, and moved to the scene. What could have caused such burns? A linear particle accelerator, he theorizes.

In my view, this is filled with holes. The degree figures given are professional estimates. The temperature at fire scenes can vary widely, even within feet or inches. There is also the longevity factor, the smoldering factor. Considering this and other factors, I don't think one can leap to the conclusion that the injuries were not inflicted at the crime scene. And the leap to the linear particle accelerator is preposterous, based on NO evidence at all.

Haslam evidently does not know of the documented cases of SPONTANEOUS HUMAN COMBUSTION. Google it.

Jack

Do you think that's what happened to Dr. Sherman? Had that been the case, would there have been anything left?

I did not say I thought that happened. I was simply countering a statement made. Look up SPONTANEOUS HUMAN COMBUSTION.

There are many documented cases. In many of them, various extremities are left untouched while the rest has burned away.

It is similar to a burning candle, with the body like a candle's wax.

If there were indeed documented stab wounds, I think that would rule out SHC. But I am no expert.

I do doubt the particle accelerator theory, which bizarrely requires transporting a badly burned body and faking an attack.

Jack

[Pamela Brown]

What exactly is the origin of the Creation myth here - that Ferrie kept lab mice and bragged of cancer experiments? If it's Garrison's book, I'd like to check it out again and read the original reference.

Where was Garrison's office in the Mary Sherman murder investigation?

As I recall, maybe wrongly, Mary Sherman's death was never ruled a murder...maybe even an accident.

Does anyone know? I think it is Haslam who has turned her death into a murder.

Jack

How else do you explain a burned and mutilated body lying on a perfectly normal bed?

The mattress was on fire in a smoke-filled room when firefighters arrived and dragged it and pitched it to the parking lot. There were old-fashioned bed springs scattered on the floor. There was a pile of extremely charred clothing on the victim's abdomen, apparently used as kindling to start the fire. The body was not mutilated in the narrow sense, although she was certainly brutally attacked: 8 stab wounds, including defensive wounds to the arms and fingers and a fatal stab wound to the heart. The wound to the labia appears to be more from an errant stab motion rather than a deliberate attempt at mutilation. Her death was officially classified as a homicide from the beginning. There were a lot of detectives following a lot of leads.

So where does Haslam get that she was killed by an "accelerator" and her body moved, etc. etc? This would seem to rival

some of Baker's fantasies.

Jack

Haslam breathlessly notes that the victim's right arm was largely burned away, bone and all, and that some of the clothing piled on the abdomen was badly burned, while some was not burned. Noting a criminologist's statement that some of the clothing would have to reach 500 degrees before igniting, the author surmises that, because some of the clothing was unburned, the temperature never reached 500 degrees. He asks a cremator: What temperature would bone have to reach to be largely burned away? The cremator indicates a temperature of 1600-2000 degrees. Haslam surmises that the crime (2000d) does not match the crime scene (500d). He then states as facts that the damage to the body did not occur at the crime scene, and that she was burned earlier, somewhere else, and moved to the scene. What could have caused such burns? A linear particle accelerator, he theorizes.

In my view, this is filled with holes. The degree figures given are professional estimates. The temperature at fire scenes can vary widely, even within feet or inches. There is also the longevity factor, the smoldering factor. Considering this and other factors, I don't think one can leap to the conclusion that the injuries were not inflicted at the crime scene. And the leap to the linear particle accelerator is preposterous, based on NO evidence at all.

Agreed that Haslam has not really demonstrated his theory that the damage to Dr. Sherman's body was caused by a linear particle accelerator. His statements seem to fall into the category of speculation. So, preposterous, maybe. Unproven, definitely.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

I posted information on a particle accelerator of the time being an extremely unlikely source of the damage to her body a few months ago in the Lee and Me thread .... quoting Arthur Snyder, PhD, a physicist at SLAC, the linear accelerator at Standford, liberally. Also on the burn she suffered, is this, from an article in New Orleans Magazine, July 2007 by Bronson Lutz, M.D.:

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."

The entire article can be found here:

http://www.myneworleans.com/New-Orleans-Magazine/July-2007/Dr-Marys-monkey/

Bests,

Barb :-)

It came to my attention that the link I had posted no longer worked. I have edited the link in the above post to a link that does work. Sorry about that!

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Speaking of which, Russo covered up one of Ed's most powerful discoveries which showed why these guys could not be trusted: When the secret war against the Contras began in the eighties, Martens and Butler joined up forces for local rightwing talk radio in support of it. Ed did some PR for them and discovered that Butler had boxes of Guy Banister's files in his office. Interesting to speculate how he got them and if he shipped them to California when he learned Garrison was on his and Ochsner's trail in 1968.

Powerful discoveries? As is so often the case, the reader of Dr Mary's Monkey is forced to take Haslam's word for the unlikeliest of events.

In Chapter 7 of Dr Mary's Monkey, Ed Haslam relates the story of how he met Butler and saw the files. The whole account has a distinctly fictive feel to it.

One day, in the summer of 1982, (Funny how many details, places, dates, and names Haslam remembers. Not this time. He doesn't even remember the month.)

his boss at the Fitzgerald agency sends Haslam to the Maison Blanche building on Canal street for an "important courtesy call" with some very

"busy people." Haslam's boss does not even give him a name to contact. You or I would ask for a name, but Haslam didn't.

He meets these two men, one noticeably older than the other. The older man introduces himself as Bill Fegerson. Haslam immediately decides that that is not the man's real name. The younger man that initially greeted Haslam and made such pleasant small talk gave no name at all. Haslam later got him to say he was Ed. No last name. Within minutes of meeting, the younger man begins to tell Haslam about the "mysterious" file cabinets. Keep in mind that Haslam had alread ascertained that the older man "was in control of the others."

"There were six file cabinets, all black, each unit chest high. He apologized for the condition of the files, saying that they were very old and were very disorganized, but he was confident that they had "important information" in them. He started to tell me who the files had belonged to when the older man exploded, cutting him off in mid-sentence in a fit of exasperation. It was starting to get strange. The older man waved him over to the corner of the room.

There they argued in tense, hushed tones about whether it was "all right to tell me" who the files belonged to. It was an awkward moment, to say the least.

I tried to ignore them and act disinterested. I was uncomfortable with their whispering and did not care to be made part of the family secrets of what was obviously a right-wing propaganda mill. The older man did not want to tell me. The younger man did. The younger man suddenly broke off their discussion and said, "If he is going to work with us, he's going to find out anyway."

He marched back to the file cabinets and said to me, Did you know Guy Banister....?"

The reader is told these two mysterious men, within ten minutes of meeting Haslam, decide to show him the jewels. Unexplained is how the younger man is able to overrule the older man whom Haslam had determined was in control.

They then proceed to show Haslam the files. Haslam becomes fearful and melodramatic:

"The feel of fear crashed over me....I knew I'd better be careful about what I said and did. I stood frozen, staring at the files. My mind raced. I pretended to read some of the articles as I tried to sort out my situation. All I could think about was Jim Garrison. I knew he believed to his core that he had discovered the conspirators in the assassination of President Kennedy. And that he figured Banister was the pivotal man in that group.

Who were these people? And how did they get Banister's files......? Should I contact Garrison about these files?"

The older man then takes Haslam to another room and introduces him to a pair of unnamed doctors that were financial backers of the radio station.

"My warning light had been flashing for some time. Now, my danger buzzers were going off....

Or, to put it bluntly, both of these men knew the mysteriously murdered Mary Sherman personally. And they were experts in the medical uses of radiation, with access to x-ray machines and radioactive materials. And they were in possession of files belonging to Guy Banister, David Ferrie's employer and a suspect in the assassination of the President of the United States. And no one, except my boss, knew where I was! I pondered my situation and told myself, 'Keep smiling, act relaxed, and don't mention Mary Sherman.

It worked. Fifteen minutes later, I found myself returning to Fitzgerald where I reported to my boss. I was very brief and said only that I did not think 'the radio station was a business opportunity worth pursuing.' He concurred and dropped the subject.

For the next ten years, I pondered the curious incident from time to time, but did nothing about it."

(bold added)

For the next ten years Haslam did nothing? Haslam was a self-proclaimed "Garrison expert." When Haslam's father was on his deathbed, they had an

ominous conversation about Mary Sherman. And Haslam tells his readers that he kept this explosive encounter with these mysterious men and their Banister files to himself. Didn't even ask his employer who those men at the Maison Blanche were until ten years later. Haslam wastes not a word in explaining to his readers why he kept this information to himself for ten years. Why the hell didn't he contact Jim Garrison?

Fast forward ten years. In order to get more information on David Ferrie, Haslam reads Garrison's On the Trail of The Assassins. Again, a pattern.

Garrison's book had been published four years ago and Haslam hadn't read it previously! He tries to contact Garrison, but Garrison's publisher tells him he is in a coma

The publisher, after hearing Haslam had seen Banister's files passed the story to our Jim DiEugenio who sent Haslam a copy of Destiny Betrayed.

Then, according to Haslam, Jim "brought Gus Russo into the loop."* Russo was working on a documentary for PBS' Frontline. Haslam met Russo in NOLA

and they spent the first day driving around, looking at iconic locations. Perry Russo was their cab driver. The second day, lo and behold, Haslam and Russo visit Ed Butler. Despite Russo's probing, Haslam could not be sure it was the same man he had met ten years earlier. Later, Haslam calls his old boss at Fitzgerald and asks "if Ed Butler was the man he had sent me to see ten years before." Only after his ex-boss answers in the affirmative does Haslam decide that it really was Ed Butler who showed him the Banister files a decade earlier. No wonder Russo had reservations about Haslam's story.

Haslam never did find out who the older man at Inca was.

So let me ask what evidence supports Haslam's claim that he saw Banister's files, in the presence of Ed Butler, and with Butler not wanting him to see them?

Haslam assumes that the reader should just believe he saw Banister's files, endured a tense and incredible event, and then waited ten years to do something about it.

Even if one were to give Haslam the benefit of the doubt, the list of implausible occurrences and the lack of any explanation at all from Haslam about the vagaries in his account must give pause.

Just add this one to the list of other stories Haslam tells that fly in the face of common sense: The linear particle accelerator, the 1972 party with another Judyth Vary Baker, Ferrie's lab being formerly in his girlfriend's apartment, Haslam's failure to use the FOIA, his varying accounts of when he talked to Judyth Baker for the first time, and on and on and on. The common thread of all these is that the reader is forced to rely on Haslam for things that cannot be verified by any other sources.

In all the interviews I have seen Haslam give, he was lobbed nothing but softballs. His interviewers showed no desire other than to allow Haslam to repeat his story on his terms. Over the years he has gotten his story down pat. He has offered what by now are lame reasons for not discussing it here.

In terms of Banister's files, it was Haslam that did nothing for ten years. I'm no fan of Russo, but how was he able to cover up Haslam's "discovery?"

*I believe this was before Jim found out some things that made him change his mind about Gus Russo.

An outstanding post, Mike. "Haslam decides" seems to be a recurrent theme in his claims. Jim attributes "powerful discoveries" to him. But just what is there to support any of Haslam's claims? From what I understand, Haslam is an engaging, personable and intelligent man ... and that certainly comes across in interviews I have heard. But as you noted, what is missing in interviews are hardball questions, anything that gets down to the nitty gritty and supplies any verifiable information. And while he writes well, what he writes raises more and more questions but does not supply any answers either. Is this another example, like so much of Judyth's tale, where the claimant's self-verification is all there is?

Again, well done.

Barb :-)

[David Andrews]

And while he writes well, what he writes raises more and more questions but does not supply any answers either. Is this another example, like so much of Judyth's tale, where the claimant's self-verification is all there is?

Well, in which camp we can also lodge Madeleine Duncan Brown and Barr McClellan, unfortunately.

[Pamela Brown]

Haslam assumes that the reader should just believe he saw Banister's files, endured a tense and incredible event, and then waited ten years to do something about it.

Even if one were to give Haslam the benefit of the doubt, the list of implausible occurrences and the lack of any explanation at all from Haslam about the vagaries in his account must give pause.

Just add this one to the list of other stories Haslam tells that fly in the face of common sense: The linear particle accelerator, the 1972 party with another Judyth Vary Baker, Ferrie's lab being formerly in his girlfriend's apartment, Haslam's failure to use the FOIA, his varying accounts of when he talked to Judyth Baker for the first time, and on and on and on. The common thread of all these is that the reader is forced to rely on Haslam for things that cannot be verified by any other sources.

In all the interviews I have seen Haslam give, he was lobbed nothing but softballs. His interviewers showed no desire other than to allow Haslam to repeat his story on his terms. Over the years he has gotten his story down pat. He has offered what by now are lame reasons for not discussing it here.

In terms of Banister's files, it was Haslam that did nothing for ten years. I'm no fan of Russo, but how was he able to cover up Haslam's "discovery?"

*I believe this was before Jim found out some things that made him change his mind about Gus Russo.

Your post clearly defines a major issue with Haslam's research, in that he can use unnamed sources and then draw speculative conclusions from them. His style of writing is persuasive, yet when we take a step back to assess what he is saying objectively, there is not much other than his say-so to go on.

In addition, you are pointing out one of the major issues in the Haslam-Judyth connection; namely, just when did they first meet? To whatever extent there are varying stories on this timetable, we are left with a series of unanswered questions; especially when it turns out that their statements seem to dovetail.

On the other hand, the topic of NOLA was verboten to the WCR, so there is a history of our being distracted elsewhere. As a result, there is not a lot of definition as to what was going on there in 1963-4. Just the same, it makes sense to remain cautious about entering into anyone's parallel universe just because they may seem to have information about this important place and time.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Pamela Brown

[Stephen Roy]

A Recent Review of Haslam's Dr. Mary's Monkey, by an academic criminologist:

http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Book_Review_Sutton_Dr_Mary's_Monkey.pdf

Excerpts:

"Academic journals do not ordinarily review non-academic books. In reviewing what

is essentially the shaky foundations for a number of conspiracy theories, I have found

it necessary to draw not only upon my own personal critique of Dr Mary’s Monkey

but also the conclusions of other writers who seek to view its contents from a rational

and objective viewpoint...

But Haslam’s is not a

scholarly academic book. So why, you might ask, should the IJC review it at all?

On 11 December 2010, Edward Haslam wrote and asked me whether or not the IJC

would be interested in reviewing his book. Having read the title I was intrigued to

know why the author of such a book would want his work examined by critical

criminologists. Furthermore, I wondered whether there were lessons to be had for

both the academic community and the wider public in undertaking such an unusual

exercise.

I decided to review it because, at the very least, I think that those who teach

criminology need to point their undergraduate students in the direction of published

scholarly work that shows them exactly how to identify pseudo scholarship, which

they might otherwise believe to be true...

Haslam’s claims in Dr Mary’s Monkey hinge on there ever having been an

association of any kind between Ferrie and Dr Mary Sherman...

I think that Dr Mary’s Monkey provides a valuable bad data source for scholars of

pseudo-scholarship. The book reveals how a lone author stringing together intangible

and often highly personal anecdotal information, often of unverified accuracy,

constructs the foundations for a dubious conspiracy theory.

Dr Mary’s Monkey is essential reading for anyone interested in how intelligent and

seemingly respectable authors embrace evidence that supports their aims, while

paying far less attention to that which does not...

Dr Mary’s Monkey does contribute to valuable knowledge by way of its author’s own

unique place in the huge market for spurious unanswered questions, conspiracy,

counterknowledge, and voodoo history. There is important criminological knowledge

to be gained by studying how Haslam weaves a compelling account for the credulous

consumer of spurious information, which can be used to construct their own

conspiracy theory. Such knowledge about the marketing of, and market for, pseudo

scholarship is essential if we are to learn more and teach others how to know the

difference between good scholarship and pseudo scholarship.

Criminology should provide its students and the wider public with effective and

practicable ways to identify the difference between real and pseudo scholarship and

between real conspiracies such as Watergate and, what is in my opinion, the sort of

time-stealing, selective bias, monkey business that comprises the bulk of Dr Mary’s

Monkey..."

Edited April 18, 2011 by Stephen Roy

[Stephen Roy]

Haslam's sources:

http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/135153.pdf

[Michael Hogan]

A Recent Review of Haslam's Dr. Mary's Monkey, by an academic criminologist:

http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Book_Review_Sutton_Dr_Mary's_Monkey.pdf

Stephen,

Thanks for posting Dr. Mike Sutton's review of Doctor Mary's Monkey. I think that his conclusions about the scholarship (or lack of it) in Haslam's book are exactly right. I totally agree with the excerpts of his review that you posted.

But frankly, they are nowhere near as persuasive as observations made by you, Barb, John Simkin and a few others. In fact, I think Sutton got some of his ideas from reading a very short thread on the Education Forum. But Sutton's snipe at "the experts" on this forum gives an indication of where he is coming from.

I have some real issues with the methodology of his review. Although this doesn't affect his conclusions, he calls Ferrie James Ferrie and misspells Mary Sherman's name once. (Sharman). Not a big deal, but sloppy.

The bulk of Sutton's review, for reasons which he gives, does not deal with Haslam's book but rather with authors and instances that tend to disparage conspiracy believers in general.

I don't have the time right now to go into all my criticisms of Sutton's review. Here is how he describes the difference between a scholar and a pseudo scholar:

"On any given topic, those who seek objectively to weigh relevant data and pay as much, if not more, attention to anything that challenges their pet hypothesis we call scholars. Those who peculiarly fail to collect, or deliberately by-pass, the relevant data that would spoil a pet hypothesis or link-pattern, we call pseudo scholars."

The problem is that Sutton was less than objective, went into his review of DMM with a pre-determined mindset, and wrote a review that was full of

irrelevant references and information. He admits it.

"Yes I admit it - I suspected from the outset that I was signing up to review a tin-foil conspiracy theory. But, of course I wasn't sure. The problem for me, as reviewer, was to work out how on Earth I was going to review it without spending years doggedly checking the convoluted details of Haslam's craft. Unlike the author, I had no intention of becoming a 'conspiracy researcher.' The solution, I decided, was to read it alongside a guide to understanding how to identify and make sense of pseudoscholarship. In the end, I examined Haslam’s book in light of several other works that seek to teach us how to know what isn’t so."

Sutton would not have to "spend years doggedly checking the convoluted details of Haslam's craft." It's not even clear from his review if he really took the time to read Dr Mary's Monkey. In otherwords, rather than actually acquaint himself with any facts, he preferred to rely on the works of Cook, Aaronovitch, and Gilovitch. These books have been discussed on the Education Forum and have been shown, in many cases, to be less than scholarly.

Sutton writes:

"In December 2010 Edward Haslam wrote to ask me whether I was interested in reviewing his book entitled: ‘Dr Mary’s Monkey’ for the Internet Journal of Criminology . You can read the review in the book reviews secton of that journal.

Having read the full title - Dr Mary’s Monkey: How the unsolved murder of a doctor, a secret laboratory in New Orleans and cancer-causing monkey viruses are linked to Lee Harvey Oswald, the JFK assassination and emerging global epidemics - I conducted a little research of my own on what others had written about his book.

In light of what appeared to be its general readership of conspiracy consumers I was intrigued to know why the author would want his work examined by critical criminologists."

It is odd that Haslam approached Sutton, asking him if he was interested in reviewing DMM. Although Sutton claims to be intrigued as to why Haslam would do this, he gives no indication of even asking Haslam why, which is just as odd.

Also, it is important to note that while Sutton's review appeared in an online criminology journal, such reviews are not subject to any type of peer review. Again, I agree with Sutton's assessment of Haslam's book, I just disagree with the road he took to get there.

Stephen, I think you and Barb Junkkarinen have been much more scholarly in your approach to Haslam's work than Sutton was. I think both of you have been

far more effective and accurate in critiquing Haslam's findings than Mike Sutton was.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Michael Hogan

[Stephen Roy]

Michael:

I found the Sutton article while searching for reviews of Dr. Mary's Monkey and, while I felt qualms about his tone, I decided to link it without comment due to some telling observations about that book. A criminologist would generally hold to a higher standard than I see in that book.

That having been said, Sutton's preset orientation points to one of the difficulties in our field, a rational consensus on which research is significant and, more important, a self-criticism of over-reaching research - the kind of research which causes us all to be painted by the same brush in certain academic circles. We've all seen examples of the kind of writings which make us cringe, and this feeds into this preset orientation.

One of the problems - on "both" sides - is what I call the threshold effect: Becoming so profoundly convinced of one view or another that critical analysis and objectivity take a back seat to the piling-on of (sometimes cherry-picked) evidence. And as I said, this affects both CTs and LNs. Sutton certainly seems to suffer it. On our side, it is becoming so enamored of a theory that we dismiss contrary evidence and criticism as somehow advancing a nefarious agenda. On the other side, it is dismissing contrary evidence and criticism as nut-case stuff. That's one reason I think we need to try harder, to strive for a higher level of research, documentation and plausibility. That's my main issue with Haslam's work (which, incidentally, pre-dates the Baker story): Despite what some over-the-threshold people see as copious documentation, as vindication of their own suspicions about Ferrie, etc., the documentation is virtually non-existent for the book's fundamental claims: that Ferrie knew Sherman; that they operated an underground medical lab in Ferrie's apartment; that it was a secret government project; and that Baker was a part of it. (Nearly as troubling is the circular corroboration: Baker supports Haslam, Haslam supports Baker!)

So I take some of Sutton's observations as useful, but I, too, could do without his smarmy over-the-threshold putdowns of serious research.

[John Simkin]

Michael:

I found the Sutton article while searching for reviews of Dr. Mary's Monkey and, while I felt qualms about his tone, I decided to link it without comment due to some telling observations about that book. A criminologist would generally hold to a higher standard than I see in that book.

That having been said, Sutton's preset orientation points to one of the difficulties in our field, a rational consensus on which research is significant and, more important, a self-criticism of over-reaching research - the kind of research which causes us all to be painted by the same brush in certain academic circles. We've all seen examples of the kind of writings which make us cringe, and this feeds into this preset orientation.

One of the problems - on "both" sides - is what I call the threshold effect: Becoming so profoundly convinced of one view or another that critical analysis and objectivity take a back seat to the piling-on of (sometimes cherry-picked) evidence. And as I said, this affects both CTs and LNs. Sutton certainly seems to suffer it. On our side, it is becoming so enamored of a theory that we dismiss contrary evidence and criticism as somehow advancing a nefarious agenda. On the other side, it is dismissing contrary evidence and criticism as nut-case stuff. That's one reason I think we need to try harder, to strive for a higher level of research, documentation and plausibility. That's my main issue with Haslam's work (which, incidentally, pre-dates the Baker story): Despite what some over-the-threshold people see as copious documentation, as vindication of their own suspicions about Ferrie, etc., the documentation is virtually non-existent for the book's fundamental claims: that Ferrie knew Sherman; that they operated an underground medical lab in Ferrie's apartment; that it was a secret government project; and that Baker was a part of it. (Nearly as troubling is the circular corroboration: Baker supports Haslam, Haslam supports Baker!)

So I take some of Sutton's observations as useful, but I, too, could do without his smarmy over-the-threshold putdowns of serious research.

Sutton quotes this thread as an example of how Ed Haslam was unwilling to answer his critics.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10653

If you have not done so it might be worth taking a look at this thread.

[Stephen Roy]

Yes, I checked that link to our own Forum. His reluctance to discuss in that thread reminded me that (as he himself acknowledges somewhere) I politely tried to raise a few points earlier, by phone and by email, but to no avail.

Then, in the gargantuan Fetzer thread on Baker, I again raised a few points, but Ed answered back through Fetzer with put-downs:

"The little of his commentary

that I read over the years indicates to me that he mis-read or

mis-interpreted what I had to say. Frankly, I don't know if he is capable

of learning anything new, and I don't care what he says (or said) about

DR. MARY'S MONKEY. He is basically a self-appointed fringe pundit, and I

am not interested in doing a point-by-point debate with him to raise his

stature. I consider him part of the Layton Martens dis-information crowd.

Whether he is intentionally dis-informing, or whether he is simply

mis-guided, matters not to me. I prefer to ignore him, and ask that you

help me to that end. If ignored, I think he will fade into the background,

where he belongs."

How can one hold a reasoned discussion in the face of such obstinacy?

Quick edit to add: Yes, I am, as yet "unpublished" on this topic, as far as a book goes. But it is in progress, I've discussed it here and elsewhere, I've appeared at conferences and I've assisted other writers and TV producers. The same argument could be made regarding Ed himself, before his book was published. Has he forgotten so soon? Are we lesser beings by not having a small piece of real estate at Barnes and Noble?

Edited April 19, 2011 by Stephen Roy