Jump to content
The Education Forum

Coming to a Library Near You...(or in this case, me)...JVB's latest tour....:-0


Recommended Posts

Pamela, I was referring to Ed Haslam and the first two editions of Mary's Monkey, I got each of them as they became available. I'm sure you are familiar with them. Certainly in his first writing on the subject he was totally focused on possible consequences of the polio vaccine, ultimately on immune deficiency diseases and on the a covert effort to deal with those issues. That was all there was to it, the only linke was Ferrie's purported personal interest in cancer research. There was nothing in those scenarios that included Judyth nor mention of either her or an unnamed character that would resemble the way she eventually came to present herself. At least that's the way I recall it at this distance in time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pamela, I was referring to Ed Haslam and the first two editions of Mary's Monkey, I got each of them as they became available. I'm sure you are familiar with them. Certainly in his first writing on the subject he was totally focused on possible consequences of the polio vaccine, ultimately on immune deficiency diseases and on the a covert effort to deal with those issues. That was all there was to it, the only linke was Ferrie's purported personal interest in cancer research. There was nothing in those scenarios that included Judyth nor mention of either her or an unnamed character that would resemble the way she eventually came to present herself. At least that's the way I recall it at this distance in time.

Yes, thanks Larry. I do agree. I have a copy of the Fifth printing, but have borrowed the first printing, and have a request for an inter-library loan to do that again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I have been given a heads-up that Judyth's movie of "Me and Lee" is apparently moving forward, I would like to take the opportunity to ask anyone who might be interested in focusing on an area of Judyth's "research" to email me, so that we can move forward as a team and not overlap efforts. My goal is not simply to 'discredit' Judyth, but to explain her in such a way that those currently under her spell might be able to see what they are a part of. And, of course, I hope to end the tide of naive Judyth newbies whom she can vampirize and then spit out as she has so many in the past....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've added a section to the first draft of my Finding Judyth article (at http://findingjudyth.blogspot.com/2014/10/finding-judyth-article-work-in-progress.html) explaining why I decided to take this plunge...

My Unique Credentials

I have had the fortunate, or in this case, perhaps, unfortunate privilege of dealing with someone who was truly wicked and sick in my personal life. As this was a family member, I had no choice in the matter but to just try to survive as best I could. In the process of trying to do so I made a number of valuable discoveries about dealing with what seems to be hopeless and endless ugliness. In the chance that, worst-case-scenario, this was what Judyth represented (even though many had already called her a fraud perpetrating a hoax, I wanted to determine what was going on for myself and also give her a level field just in case she was, as she claimed, telling the truth and was being severely and inappropriately maligned) I felt I was eminently equipped, not only to hope for the best, but to prepare for the worst. What I did not take into account when I made the decision to get involved with her, was the complete and utter, total longterm effect that this choice would have over my life, including my reputation as a JFK limo researcher. Had I in any way been able to assess this anomaly, I would have done things differently. But. at the time, I figured that if there was anyone in the JFK research community who could, in effect, throw themselves onto the pyre and survive to tell others the truth about the experience, it would be me. In hindsight, I can see that was pure hubris. At the time, I thought it was noble. I decided I would, in essence, make myself bait, and just wait and see what happened. The only thing I realized for certain at the start was that, if she was, in fact, a fraud perpetrating a hoax on the research community, the only way to treat her would be with the utmost respect and professionally. Someone comfortable living at that vicious level would use the slightest indication of disrespectful treatment as a podium to cry 'injustice'. I quickly was told of her terrible and hurtful experience with a researcher who had illegally taped an interview with her, a prof who had put a pilfered copy of her manuscript up on their website, and another who was supposed to have had videotapes they refused to relinquish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is excellent research from Carmine Savastano :

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,11547.0.html

"The Ghosts of Speculations Past

(An inspection of Judyth V. Baker's assertions concerning the Kennedy Assassination)

Official and public commentaries have attempted to fill many evidentiary gaps in the Kennedy assassination. Yet these attempts were not all based on rigorous inquiry and evidence. Perhaps a few sought a place in history, to profit, and generated their biased view of events via their own speculative presumptions. The worst of these possible are those attempting to create ideas of whole cloth with a veneer of actual evidence in attempts to gain credibility.

Some of these people are content to make grand claims with little evidence perpetually. When our ideas are represented as evidence without verified proof, they fail to be compelling. Additionally, they create myths that plague reliable inquiry. All official and independent public statements are subject to reasonable skepticism.

The weakest defense offered is that reasoned criticism is a personal attack. Unless someone purposefully uses erroneous information and targets personal attributes without evidence, reasonable criticism is not a personal attack. If assertions cannot stand upon verifiable evidence, they deserve criticism. Just as substantial evidence deserves support.

In the matter of Judyth V. Baker, quite a few spectacular claims have been offered. Yet do they enjoy the support of substantial evidence? Is the alleged story of Oswald's secret mistress credible? Do her statements emerge from proven information or from Baker's claims? While Baker has supporters, they as well do not offer evidence to support Baker, but faith in her allegations. Faith can be important, but what we invest our faith in is doubly so.

Perhaps the words of Baker herself may be instructive. "Lee had told me that he was being set up to get trapped and killed, because he had penetrated an assassination ring, in the hope of saving Kennedy, by means of his association with David Ferrie and anti-Kennedy former FBI officer Guy Banister, and others." i. In just this extended claim are significant problems. She claims to have known all these people yet she never spoke out. She waited until many associated with her claims are dead and unable for comment.

We must assess the probability of Baker knowing Oswald. They did work at the same business for a period. Baker offers time cards and business documents, yet none of this supports her grand claims regarding Oswald. ii. Working closely together and working at the same business is not substantial; many others too worked with Oswald. Baker claims three witnesses who support her views, a former bouncer with asserted deep criminal connections, a friend, and her sister. Yet none of them has filed legal statements that are subject to perjury laws. She claims to have met Oswald's alleged CIA handler, but gives only a physical description available to anyone who does research on him. iii.

Now begins a consistent method of Baker's alleging personal credit for the research provided by other people without supporting evidence. Baker asserts author Joan Mellon never credited her for information used in a book. Baker supporter James Fetzer claims, "This lack of giving credit has occurred several times with (nameless) researchers". iv. Yet Baker has offered no conclusive evidence for public review. Fetzer offers just her word as proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Baker states "Lee became a successful double agent working secretly against Castro for the CIA, with ties to the FBI, even while posing as pro-Castro. He had successfully worked for the US inside the Soviet Union, and was soon worked as a spy inside Cuba. But he also had numerous jobs to do for the CIA and FBI here in the United States and I was aware of many of them, having posed as his wife in New Orleans, and for some time had also served to help cover his activities while he and I worked at a small coffee company in New Orleans. " v.

If Oswald had prior knowledge he would be trapped and killed, why did he not expose the assassination ring? In my view, intelligent Conspirators feasibly would not kill his entire family and mistress as Baker suggests due to the great public and media attention it would draw. vi. Oswald being a feasible government employee is not a recent concept. Oswald was asserted to have been a government agent by repeated authors, films, and media outlets a decade prior to Baker's assertions. None of this information supports she even knew Oswald. All are speculations without substantial evidence.

Why does not a single eyewitness that is not a Baker supporter or relative confirm any of her ideas? If someone is active in various intelligence programs, why not immediately document them privately and gather supporting proof for their existence? There is no fixed timeline and she offers no relevant documents to verify these multiple accounts. This method is similar to portions of the President's (Warren) Commission in my view.

Baker claims to know David Ferrie, no substantial evidence is offered. David Ferrie never mentions Judyth Baker in official investigations. If he were aware of her, would he not implicate her as well to provide himself a legal bargaining chip? Why would David Ferrie who had no interest in women, care about the supposed teenage mistress of an underling?

Officials seeking to portray Oswald as guilty feasibly would have paraded such domestic strife to damage his credibility. Baker's unverified ideas could have aided their case and discredited those contending official claims. Yet there is no conclusive link to Oswald. Having faith in Baker's view alone does not prove anything but a decided lack of inquiry. No living person has, nor likely will be the key to the Kennedy Assassination. Yet that does not dissuade many from seeking to claim such a place.

Baker states Oswald was a "courier and lab tech" vii. in her claimed cancer project. Oswald had no professional scientific training, nor undertook documented courier activities. According to Marina Oswald, her husband did not go out for more than a few hours daily in New Orleans. How could he have time for these countless activities and without the training necessary to undertake them all? When did they find time for the enduring romance proposed?

Fetzer states, Baker possesses an American Express receipt that he assert is "linked in such a way as to show it was illogical for Baker to have purchased it for any other reason than to give Oswald an untraceable $30". viii. However, Oswald received loans from his uncle Dutz Morret in New Orleans who did associate with minions of Carlos Marcello. Oswald did not require Judyth Baker to fund untraceable activities if he was an intelligence asset. Intelligence programs have untraceable budgets far exceeding the financial means of Baker.

Oswald could have obtained a largely untraceable weapon yet he did not, so why is the thirty dollars so important to conceal? Many inconsistent and unreasonable methods accompany Baker's ideas in my view. No identifying evidence supports this claim, similar to repeated others. It only proves a financial transaction occurred.
Baker claims a green glass she has possessed since 1963 was a gift from Oswald. Yet it was not until 1980 this claim is "known to many", the claim and the glass prove nothing besides her possession of a glass. ix. Baker has not supported these ideas regarding Oswald with verifiable evidence. Anyone living in New Orleans in the period Baker did could possess all these irrelevant documents and items.

Fetzer opines that President's (Warren) Commission testimony supports Baker, yet none is cited. Fetzer concludes Oswald's time keeping at work is irregular, and alleges inconsistent business practices regarding Oswald. This according to Fetzer and Baker is substantial evidence. Yet this only proves Oswald was late and the manager was possibly incompetent. Neither claim supports Baker's extraordinary assertions.

Baker persuades Fetzer of a three-year plot that Baker and Oswald allegedly undertook based on her claims, and little else. Baker's "report" about Lee Harvey Oswald is the source of each allegation. Yet anyone with access to similar documents and a minimum of evidence could generate a feasibly possible report. No such report proves any personal association with Oswald without utilizing consistent evidence. The proven "collusion" x. suggested is but speculative association.

Fetzer claims Baker knew the Mafia boss of New Orleans Carlos Marcello. xi. This uncorroborated claim is not fully verified, most involved are dead, to prove this requires a great deal more. Not satisfied with merely "knowing" Marcello, Baker claims he paid for a hotel room for her and Oswald. No corroboration occurs. If Marcello were connected to a plot, he would not meet and pay for the expenses of a patsy and his girlfriend. xii. He would likely stay as far away from any person directly involved to not incriminate himself.

Marcello possessed massive criminal holdings and is fighting the United States Justice Department prior to 1963. He feasibly had countless important matters dominating his attention. Touring the city with Baker and Oswald and portraying a nefarious cupid is highly improbable. Baker also claims to have met and known proven assassin Jack Ruby and Garrison suspect Clay Shaw. Ruby, Marcello, Shaw, Oswald, and Ferrie never mention Baker; none of them ever corroborated her ideas. No definitive evidence places her with any of these men; no official documents offered verify she ever participated in intelligence operations. Operations Baker improbably asserts began while she was still in high school. xiii.

Her "Oswald" love notes allegedly have no identifying marks to denote the sender. Some might claim this was to maintain secrecy, yet where is the actual evidence? Torn notes prove nothing if they cannot be verified. Time cards and streetcar receipts prove nothing about Oswald. xiv. If Oswald indeed was part of a secret assignment why tell Baker? If he cared so much for her why use her for operations that risked her life as well?

The repeated inconsistency of her contentions and lack of proof render them untenable in my view.All Baker's claims seem highly improbable. They are possible, of course nearly anything unproven could be. Consider Baker's allegations of being the target of a large Internet conspiracy. Ponder how many people are necessary in the improbable asserted plot to stifle Judyth Baker.

"Over 300,000 references using my name, by this time, were on the Internet. I had also published poetry, was a professional artist, had published short stories and writings, and had participated in news groups...One important (yet nameless) website "crashed" and "lost" hundreds of posts and supporting statements. When it was restored, all the posts but mine had been saved..." She claims a second "newsgroup collected about a hundred of my posts suddenly erased them all. A (nameless) webmaster of some very large (unidentified) websites that attacked me personally on the Internet was also the moderator of an important newsgroup...In 2008, this (nameless) moderator erased 250,000 newsgroup references to my name..." xv. All these claims are unsubstantiated without proof. They resemble a significant deficiency of method requiring incredible belief without evidence.

Baker asserts for years she "... had been harassed, threatened, robbed, burglarized, hit on the head" Regarding this Baker additionally stated, "when I opened the trunk of my car with groceries...the trunk was slammed down on my head. I was knocked unconscious. No, they didn't take the car, just my purse...but I had to the hospital for a concussion." xvi. Despite the unfortunate occurrence, it is not related to the Kennedy case; anyone can be assaulted and robbed for common reasons.

Baker states eminent danger surrounds her, she alleges someone "...had my car's brake lines severed" xvii. Baker asserts she "received death threats and assassination attempts...crazy people persecute her and opens (sic) her mail...Baker claims she can not (sic) get a job in their home country because of what she is known for." xviii. The last claim is wholly improbable. Millions of Americans likely have no idea who Judyth Baker is, most not involved in research have no reason to know of her. xix.

She asserts being "...forced twice overseas for my safety...Due to death threats, in 2007 I had to leave my teaching position in Hungary...I entered the EU political asylum program..." xx. However, that is not accurate. Baker submitted an application for asylum and appealed the initial refusal. Sweden denied her a place in the asylum program. xxi. Swedish officials found no reliable evidence to grant her the status. She may now claim it was obtained in another country, yet no evidence of such claims is offered presently.

She never was granted asylum in Sweden based on the allegations offered and subsequently left. xxii. "Send me anywhere except the Unite States, appeals Judyth Baker."xxiii. Now she has returned to her asserted last choice location. I suppose other interests allow her to overcome her prior fears. Additionally Baker offers six different methods of donation because according the former blog "Judyth lives in exile w/medical bills, heating bills, etc!"

Baker purports "a white van that I had complained to friends had been following me for months. It came full speed as I sat at a red light only blocks from my house. I sustained a concussion...the car was dripping gas and could have turned into a fireball." Just as Judyth Baker could have known Oswald, what might be is not consequential. She states the driver of the white van gave "false information" to authorities. The van according to Baker "had no known owner. He vanished."

On a subsequent occasion, Baker offers, "As I drove, a black van pulled out and began following me. I went some five or six miles trying to evade it, but finally, the van forced another car against me just as we were going under a cement-walled underpass. I could have been killed, but a wall of water from the rain pushed up between me and the car that was forced against mine, which saved me from crashing into the cement wall there." xxiv. Should we accept this asserted film style encounter?

Suppose we accept this second unidentified van was attempting to kill Baker for her "knowledge". Just this once we forgo reasonable consideration of any verifiable corroborating witnesses. Baker then states "The car received little damage..." which based on the harrowing tale is improbable. How could little damage feasibly occur if it striking another car that was being pushed by the aggressive black van? Yet let us build these improbable ideas upon the sand offered. Now enter a lifesaving wall of water and truly look at what Baker proposes.

"For my protection I dress in a burka and live in Turkey. You could make a movie out of all that's happened." xxv. Another of her allegations is while teaching in Hungary "I was suddenly told to quit: Hungarian agents warned me to leave the country but not to return to America." xxvi. "My phone lines were tapped in Europe...I finally obtained safe haven in the Middle East and Europe..." Baker travels extensively "through the actions of friends and my children...I am free to go anywhere I choose..." xxvii. Yet what definitive evidence has Baker provided for all the good will and generosity offered?

Her contending narrative does not aid her arguments. She is poor but well traveled and free to go anywhere. She fled America due to purported death threats, yet has returned now to the place she repeatedly begged not be sent to. Why has she returned if this plot is still active? Is promotion of a book worth your life? Inconsistent methods and actions sincerely damage these claims.

None of these alleged trials and tribulations proves anything regarding Lee Harvey Oswald or any other infamous people mentioned. The question becomes how a number of nefarious forces could eliminate targets of greater importance with superior security, but not Judyth Baker. She also claims repeated concussions and being unconscious during some allegations yet maintains that her memory of events is superior to those with substantial evidence.

None of these statements is based upon anything but what Baker and her supporters prior offered. Why do so many claims appear without necessary information to corroborate them? The stories vary from incarnation to incarnation, as do her ever-growing list of alleged nefarious attacks. Baker claims often-unnamed perpetrators launched an Internet crusade against her. All dubiously attributed to a conspiracy too large that hounds Baker alone.

Perhaps Baker herself within her biography offers the most damaging admission. "I began writing The Oswald Connection, a mishmash of memories thrown together without regard to my painfully written and highly accurate letters. If any publisher showed interest in this incomplete story, which omitted some key names and activities. I'd then bring out the full 600 pages I'd written and ask for protection from lawsuits." xxviii. Thus, Baker put forward an unreliable version of her assertions to generate publicity and publisher interest. Any misinformation that emerged from this is her responsibility.

These incomplete and vague statements could allow her to fill in the many improbabilities once a financial deal was secured. She was not concerned with accuracy or evidence but generating interest. These are her prior words. Baker's methods and admissions render her current story untenable.

Some may claim that Baker's belief in these latest ideas with their support is enough, and those people are wrong. The random items cobbled together over the decades to prove her assertions are not substantial evidence. She has no legal statements, photographs to offer, nor significant evidence to consider. No prominent witness in the case ever mentions her at the time; no conclusive evidence proves Baker even knew Oswald personally beyond a short employment period.

Baker now claims on her blog "THE DEBATE IS OVER", xxix. again she is incorrect. The true debate requires substantial evidence and legal support, and she has never met the standards of such an undertaking in my view. The uninformed shall embrace Baker's ideas similar to other improbable claims. Yet the burden of proof is upon her, she must prove her claims with more than mere words and random items. If someone will not regard the majority of evidence to rely on extraordinary claims, they are not engaging in research but creative writing.

Sincerely,

C. A. A. Savastano

i Judyth Vary Baker and Dr. James Fetzer, Biography, October 11, 2014, judythbaker.blogpot. com

ii. James Fetzer, 14 Reasons to believe in Judyth Vary Baker, March 1, 2010, jamesfetzer.blogspot.com

iii. Ibid

iv. Ibid

v. JVB and J. Fetzer, Biography, Oct. 11, 2014

vi. Ibid

vii. Ibid

viii. James Fetzer, 14 Reasons to believe in J.V.B.

ix. Ibid

x. Ibid

xi. Ibid

xii. Doug MacCash, Lee Harvey Oswald's purported mistress's tour draws conspiracy devotees, The Times-Picayune, October 21, 2013, nola.com

xiii. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, Deadly Alliance, Outline of the Conspiracy, Judyth is Recruited: To April of 1963

xiv. Ibid

xv. James Fetzer, Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile, February 25, 2010, jamesfetzer.blogspot.com

xvi. Ibid

xvii. Ibid

xviii. Maria Svensson, November 22, 2007, I Was Oswald's girlfriend, DT, dt.se

xix. Ibid

xx. Fetzer, JVB: Living in Exile, jamesfetzer.blogspot.com

xxi. M. Svenson, I was Oswald's girlfriend

xxii. Ibid

xxiii. Ibid

xxiv. Fetzer, JVB: Living in Exile, jamesfetzer.blogspot.com

xxv. Ibid

xxvi. JVB and JF, Biography

xxvii: Ibid

xxviii: Ibid

xix: Ibid, Homepage
"

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is excellent research from Carmine Savastano :

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,11547.0.html

"The Ghosts of Speculations Past

(An inspection of Judyth V. Baker's assertions concerning the Kennedy Assassination)

Official and public commentaries have attempted to fill many evidentiary gaps in the Kennedy assassination. Yet these attempts were not all based on rigorous inquiry and evidence. Perhaps a few sought a place in history, to profit, and generated their biased view of events via their own speculative presumptions. The worst of these possible are those attempting to create ideas of whole cloth with a veneer of actual evidence in attempts to gain credibility.

Some of these people are content to make grand claims with little evidence perpetually. When our ideas are represented as evidence without verified proof, they fail to be compelling. Additionally, they create myths that plague reliable inquiry. All official and independent public statements are subject to reasonable skepticism.

The weakest defense offered is that reasoned criticism is a personal attack. Unless someone purposefully uses erroneous information and targets personal attributes without evidence, reasonable criticism is not a personal attack. If assertions cannot stand upon verifiable evidence, they deserve criticism. Just as substantial evidence deserves support.

In the matter of Judyth V. Baker, quite a few spectacular claims have been offered. Yet do they enjoy the support of substantial evidence? Is the alleged story of Oswald's secret mistress credible? Do her statements emerge from proven information or from Baker's claims? While Baker has supporters, they as well do not offer evidence to support Baker, but faith in her allegations. Faith can be important, but what we invest our faith in is doubly so.

Perhaps the words of Baker herself may be instructive. "Lee had told me that he was being set up to get trapped and killed, because he had penetrated an assassination ring, in the hope of saving Kennedy, by means of his association with David Ferrie and anti-Kennedy former FBI officer Guy Banister, and others." i. In just this extended claim are significant problems. She claims to have known all these people yet she never spoke out. She waited until many associated with her claims are dead and unable for comment.

We must assess the probability of Baker knowing Oswald. They did work at the same business for a period. Baker offers time cards and business documents, yet none of this supports her grand claims regarding Oswald. ii. Working closely together and working at the same business is not substantial; many others too worked with Oswald. Baker claims three witnesses who support her views, a former bouncer with asserted deep criminal connections, a friend, and her sister. Yet none of them has filed legal statements that are subject to perjury laws. She claims to have met Oswald's alleged CIA handler, but gives only a physical description available to anyone who does research on him. iii.

Now begins a consistent method of Baker's alleging personal credit for the research provided by other people without supporting evidence. Baker asserts author Joan Mellon never credited her for information used in a book. Baker supporter James Fetzer claims, "This lack of giving credit has occurred several times with (nameless) researchers". iv. Yet Baker has offered no conclusive evidence for public review. Fetzer offers just her word as proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Baker states "Lee became a successful double agent working secretly against Castro for the CIA, with ties to the FBI, even while posing as pro-Castro. He had successfully worked for the US inside the Soviet Union, and was soon worked as a spy inside Cuba. But he also had numerous jobs to do for the CIA and FBI here in the United States and I was aware of many of them, having posed as his wife in New Orleans, and for some time had also served to help cover his activities while he and I worked at a small coffee company in New Orleans. " v.

If Oswald had prior knowledge he would be trapped and killed, why did he not expose the assassination ring? In my view, intelligent Conspirators feasibly would not kill his entire family and mistress as Baker suggests due to the great public and media attention it would draw. vi. Oswald being a feasible government employee is not a recent concept. Oswald was asserted to have been a government agent by repeated authors, films, and media outlets a decade prior to Baker's assertions. None of this information supports she even knew Oswald. All are speculations without substantial evidence.

Why does not a single eyewitness that is not a Baker supporter or relative confirm any of her ideas? If someone is active in various intelligence programs, why not immediately document them privately and gather supporting proof for their existence? There is no fixed timeline and she offers no relevant documents to verify these multiple accounts. This method is similar to portions of the President's (Warren) Commission in my view.

Baker claims to know David Ferrie, no substantial evidence is offered. David Ferrie never mentions Judyth Baker in official investigations. If he were aware of her, would he not implicate her as well to provide himself a legal bargaining chip? Why would David Ferrie who had no interest in women, care about the supposed teenage mistress of an underling?

Officials seeking to portray Oswald as guilty feasibly would have paraded such domestic strife to damage his credibility. Baker's unverified ideas could have aided their case and discredited those contending official claims. Yet there is no conclusive link to Oswald. Having faith in Baker's view alone does not prove anything but a decided lack of inquiry. No living person has, nor likely will be the key to the Kennedy Assassination. Yet that does not dissuade many from seeking to claim such a place.

Baker states Oswald was a "courier and lab tech" vii. in her claimed cancer project. Oswald had no professional scientific training, nor undertook documented courier activities. According to Marina Oswald, her husband did not go out for more than a few hours daily in New Orleans. How could he have time for these countless activities and without the training necessary to undertake them all? When did they find time for the enduring romance proposed?

Fetzer states, Baker possesses an American Express receipt that he assert is "linked in such a way as to show it was illogical for Baker to have purchased it for any other reason than to give Oswald an untraceable $30". viii. However, Oswald received loans from his uncle Dutz Morret in New Orleans who did associate with minions of Carlos Marcello. Oswald did not require Judyth Baker to fund untraceable activities if he was an intelligence asset. Intelligence programs have untraceable budgets far exceeding the financial means of Baker.

Oswald could have obtained a largely untraceable weapon yet he did not, so why is the thirty dollars so important to conceal? Many inconsistent and unreasonable methods accompany Baker's ideas in my view. No identifying evidence supports this claim, similar to repeated others. It only proves a financial transaction occurred.

Baker claims a green glass she has possessed since 1963 was a gift from Oswald. Yet it was not until 1980 this claim is "known to many", the claim and the glass prove nothing besides her possession of a glass. ix. Baker has not supported these ideas regarding Oswald with verifiable evidence. Anyone living in New Orleans in the period Baker did could possess all these irrelevant documents and items.

Fetzer opines that President's (Warren) Commission testimony supports Baker, yet none is cited. Fetzer concludes Oswald's time keeping at work is irregular, and alleges inconsistent business practices regarding Oswald. This according to Fetzer and Baker is substantial evidence. Yet this only proves Oswald was late and the manager was possibly incompetent. Neither claim supports Baker's extraordinary assertions.

Baker persuades Fetzer of a three-year plot that Baker and Oswald allegedly undertook based on her claims, and little else. Baker's "report" about Lee Harvey Oswald is the source of each allegation. Yet anyone with access to similar documents and a minimum of evidence could generate a feasibly possible report. No such report proves any personal association with Oswald without utilizing consistent evidence. The proven "collusion" x. suggested is but speculative association.

Fetzer claims Baker knew the Mafia boss of New Orleans Carlos Marcello. xi. This uncorroborated claim is not fully verified, most involved are dead, to prove this requires a great deal more. Not satisfied with merely "knowing" Marcello, Baker claims he paid for a hotel room for her and Oswald. No corroboration occurs. If Marcello were connected to a plot, he would not meet and pay for the expenses of a patsy and his girlfriend. xii. He would likely stay as far away from any person directly involved to not incriminate himself.

Marcello possessed massive criminal holdings and is fighting the United States Justice Department prior to 1963. He feasibly had countless important matters dominating his attention. Touring the city with Baker and Oswald and portraying a nefarious cupid is highly improbable. Baker also claims to have met and known proven assassin Jack Ruby and Garrison suspect Clay Shaw. Ruby, Marcello, Shaw, Oswald, and Ferrie never mention Baker; none of them ever corroborated her ideas. No definitive evidence places her with any of these men; no official documents offered verify she ever participated in intelligence operations. Operations Baker improbably asserts began while she was still in high school. xiii.

Her "Oswald" love notes allegedly have no identifying marks to denote the sender. Some might claim this was to maintain secrecy, yet where is the actual evidence? Torn notes prove nothing if they cannot be verified. Time cards and streetcar receipts prove nothing about Oswald. xiv. If Oswald indeed was part of a secret assignment why tell Baker? If he cared so much for her why use her for operations that risked her life as well?

The repeated inconsistency of her contentions and lack of proof render them untenable in my view.All Baker's claims seem highly improbable. They are possible, of course nearly anything unproven could be. Consider Baker's allegations of being the target of a large Internet conspiracy. Ponder how many people are necessary in the improbable asserted plot to stifle Judyth Baker.

"Over 300,000 references using my name, by this time, were on the Internet. I had also published poetry, was a professional artist, had published short stories and writings, and had participated in news groups...One important (yet nameless) website "crashed" and "lost" hundreds of posts and supporting statements. When it was restored, all the posts but mine had been saved..." She claims a second "newsgroup collected about a hundred of my posts suddenly erased them all. A (nameless) webmaster of some very large (unidentified) websites that attacked me personally on the Internet was also the moderator of an important newsgroup...In 2008, this (nameless) moderator erased 250,000 newsgroup references to my name..." xv. All these claims are unsubstantiated without proof. They resemble a significant deficiency of method requiring incredible belief without evidence.

Baker asserts for years she "... had been harassed, threatened, robbed, burglarized, hit on the head" Regarding this Baker additionally stated, "when I opened the trunk of my car with groceries...the trunk was slammed down on my head. I was knocked unconscious. No, they didn't take the car, just my purse...but I had to the hospital for a concussion." xvi. Despite the unfortunate occurrence, it is not related to the Kennedy case; anyone can be assaulted and robbed for common reasons.

Baker states eminent danger surrounds her, she alleges someone "...had my car's brake lines severed" xvii. Baker asserts she "received death threats and assassination attempts...crazy people persecute her and opens (sic) her mail...Baker claims she can not (sic) get a job in their home country because of what she is known for." xviii. The last claim is wholly improbable. Millions of Americans likely have no idea who Judyth Baker is, most not involved in research have no reason to know of her. xix.

She asserts being "...forced twice overseas for my safety...Due to death threats, in 2007 I had to leave my teaching position in Hungary...I entered the EU political asylum program..." xx. However, that is not accurate. Baker submitted an application for asylum and appealed the initial refusal. Sweden denied her a place in the asylum program. xxi. Swedish officials found no reliable evidence to grant her the status. She may now claim it was obtained in another country, yet no evidence of such claims is offered presently.

She never was granted asylum in Sweden based on the allegations offered and subsequently left. xxii. "Send me anywhere except the Unite States, appeals Judyth Baker."xxiii. Now she has returned to her asserted last choice location. I suppose other interests allow her to overcome her prior fears. Additionally Baker offers six different methods of donation because according the former blog "Judyth lives in exile w/medical bills, heating bills, etc!"

Baker purports "a white van that I had complained to friends had been following me for months. It came full speed as I sat at a red light only blocks from my house. I sustained a concussion...the car was dripping gas and could have turned into a fireball." Just as Judyth Baker could have known Oswald, what might be is not consequential. She states the driver of the white van gave "false information" to authorities. The van according to Baker "had no known owner. He vanished."

On a subsequent occasion, Baker offers, "As I drove, a black van pulled out and began following me. I went some five or six miles trying to evade it, but finally, the van forced another car against me just as we were going under a cement-walled underpass. I could have been killed, but a wall of water from the rain pushed up between me and the car that was forced against mine, which saved me from crashing into the cement wall there." xxiv. Should we accept this asserted film style encounter?

Suppose we accept this second unidentified van was attempting to kill Baker for her "knowledge". Just this once we forgo reasonable consideration of any verifiable corroborating witnesses. Baker then states "The car received little damage..." which based on the harrowing tale is improbable. How could little damage feasibly occur if it striking another car that was being pushed by the aggressive black van? Yet let us build these improbable ideas upon the sand offered. Now enter a lifesaving wall of water and truly look at what Baker proposes.

"For my protection I dress in a burka and live in Turkey. You could make a movie out of all that's happened." xxv. Another of her allegations is while teaching in Hungary "I was suddenly told to quit: Hungarian agents warned me to leave the country but not to return to America." xxvi. "My phone lines were tapped in Europe...I finally obtained safe haven in the Middle East and Europe..." Baker travels extensively "through the actions of friends and my children...I am free to go anywhere I choose..." xxvii. Yet what definitive evidence has Baker provided for all the good will and generosity offered?

Her contending narrative does not aid her arguments. She is poor but well traveled and free to go anywhere. She fled America due to purported death threats, yet has returned now to the place she repeatedly begged not be sent to. Why has she returned if this plot is still active? Is promotion of a book worth your life? Inconsistent methods and actions sincerely damage these claims.

None of these alleged trials and tribulations proves anything regarding Lee Harvey Oswald or any other infamous people mentioned. The question becomes how a number of nefarious forces could eliminate targets of greater importance with superior security, but not Judyth Baker. She also claims repeated concussions and being unconscious during some allegations yet maintains that her memory of events is superior to those with substantial evidence.

None of these statements is based upon anything but what Baker and her supporters prior offered. Why do so many claims appear without necessary information to corroborate them? The stories vary from incarnation to incarnation, as do her ever-growing list of alleged nefarious attacks. Baker claims often-unnamed perpetrators launched an Internet crusade against her. All dubiously attributed to a conspiracy too large that hounds Baker alone.

Perhaps Baker herself within her biography offers the most damaging admission. "I began writing The Oswald Connection, a mishmash of memories thrown together without regard to my painfully written and highly accurate letters. If any publisher showed interest in this incomplete story, which omitted some key names and activities. I'd then bring out the full 600 pages I'd written and ask for protection from lawsuits." xxviii. Thus, Baker put forward an unreliable version of her assertions to generate publicity and publisher interest. Any misinformation that emerged from this is her responsibility.

These incomplete and vague statements could allow her to fill in the many improbabilities once a financial deal was secured. She was not concerned with accuracy or evidence but generating interest. These are her prior words. Baker's methods and admissions render her current story untenable.

Some may claim that Baker's belief in these latest ideas with their support is enough, and those people are wrong. The random items cobbled together over the decades to prove her assertions are not substantial evidence. She has no legal statements, photographs to offer, nor significant evidence to consider. No prominent witness in the case ever mentions her at the time; no conclusive evidence proves Baker even knew Oswald personally beyond a short employment period.

Baker now claims on her blog "THE DEBATE IS OVER", xxix. again she is incorrect. The true debate requires substantial evidence and legal support, and she has never met the standards of such an undertaking in my view. The uninformed shall embrace Baker's ideas similar to other improbable claims. Yet the burden of proof is upon her, she must prove her claims with more than mere words and random items. If someone will not regard the majority of evidence to rely on extraordinary claims, they are not engaging in research but creative writing.

Sincerely,

C. A. A. Savastano

i Judyth Vary Baker and Dr. James Fetzer, Biography, October 11, 2014, judythbaker.blogpot. com

ii. James Fetzer, 14 Reasons to believe in Judyth Vary Baker, March 1, 2010, jamesfetzer.blogspot.com

iii. Ibid

iv. Ibid

v. JVB and J. Fetzer, Biography, Oct. 11, 2014

vi. Ibid

vii. Ibid

viii. James Fetzer, 14 Reasons to believe in J.V.B.

ix. Ibid

x. Ibid

xi. Ibid

xii. Doug MacCash, Lee Harvey Oswald's purported mistress's tour draws conspiracy devotees, The Times-Picayune, October 21, 2013, nola.com

xiii. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Platzman, Ph.D, Deadly Alliance, Outline of the Conspiracy, Judyth is Recruited: To April of 1963

xiv. Ibid

xv. James Fetzer, Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile, February 25, 2010, jamesfetzer.blogspot.com

xvi. Ibid

xvii. Ibid

xviii. Maria Svensson, November 22, 2007, I Was Oswald's girlfriend, DT, dt.se

xix. Ibid

xx. Fetzer, JVB: Living in Exile, jamesfetzer.blogspot.com

xxi. M. Svenson, I was Oswald's girlfriend

xxii. Ibid

xxiii. Ibid

xxiv. Fetzer, JVB: Living in Exile, jamesfetzer.blogspot.com

xxv. Ibid

xxvi. JVB and JF, Biography

xxvii: Ibid

xxviii: Ibid

xix: Ibid, Homepage"

While I have strong doubts about much of Baker's story, some of the arguments raised in this article are weak sauce, IMO. Asking "Why didn't she tell the cops?" or "Why didn't Ferrie ever mention her?" are needless distractions from the bigger issue raised in the article: that her story lacks corroboration, and her claims of victimization seem spurious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is excellent research from Carmine Savastano :

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,11547.0.html

"The Ghosts of Speculations Past

(An inspection of Judyth V. Baker's assertions concerning the Kennedy Assassination)

Thanks, Kathy. I am delighted to see that Carmine has chosen to get involved in this battle. Lots to think about...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Speer said, "While I have strong doubts about much of Baker's story, some of the arguments raised in this article are weak sauce, IMO. Asking "Why didn't she tell the cops?" or "Why didn't Ferrie ever mention her?" are needless distractions from the bigger issue raised in the article: that her story lacks corroboration, and her claims of victimization seem spurious."

Good points. Another strawman is "Cancun", imo. Judyth and Lee never went there, so what form it existed in in 1963 (even though it did exist) is not relevant because there is no way to evaluate something that did not happen.

On the other hand, I am concerned that Judyth did not come forward to speak to Jim Garrison, if she was, as she said, so much in love with Lee that she would do 'anything' to 'exonerate' him. I asked her why she did not on more than one occasion and never got a straight answer. I also wondered why she did not come forward at the time of the ARRB as Dr. Adele Edison did. Dr. Edison took a big risk imo because what she was talking about was very murky and far out. It is my thinking now that Judyth realized that her 'evidence' would not stand up to such scrutiny, and so persisted in creating a dramatic project instead, while going behind the scenes and trying to destroy anyone who had actual evidence that could destroy her fairytale, such as Mary F, Debra C, and David L....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Pamela, she was given as many know 9 months on the Delarossa Forum to prove all, including all her documented evidence, she failed miserably,even after presenting such repeatedly and at the end of that time, her time was up, so to speak, her ramblings were no longer, needed, wanted nor accepted...In retrospect it appears too bad that McAdams deleted all of her over 4, 000 posts on the alts, those told imo the real story from her first I believe it was around Sept 98 or so .posting ..........as you went through you saw how the story evolved, also in comparing at one time Haslam's posting of how he found the piece of paper with mention of a Judith on a note that somehow evolved after 5 years of sitting on that shelf, others may recall his early posting.., that also was deleted on the alts eventually....Dixie Dea and I along with many others followed her diatribes as you mention and were also included in her black book of names as she once called it, which meant you were on the very outs with her, I believe that list was very long a one time, and the book filled.as did new copies.......the why she felt the need to be so important has been an important question for many years now, we Dixie and I never gave up on her postings and stayed up to date as well as we could be, but in the end, we simply felt sorry for her , but did not believe...as we had read the 4,000 postings on the alts, when they existed........newbies as Pamela states and others as well have stated, do not be fooled....do your own research .thank you..good luck....Bernice..

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Pamela, she was given as many know 9 months on the Delarossa Forum to prove all, including all her documented evidence, she failed miserably,even after presenting such repeatedly and at the end of that time, her time was up, so to speak, her ramblings were no longer, needed, wanted nor accepted...In retrospect it appears too bad that McAdams deleted all of her over 4, 000 posts on the alts, those told imo the real story from her first I believe it was around Sept 98 or so .posting ..........as you went through you saw how the story evolved, also in comparing at one time Hassam's posting of how he found the piece of paper with mention of a Judith on a note that somehow evolved after 5 years of sitting on that shelf, others may recall his early posting.., that also was deleted on the alts eventually....Dixie Dea and I along with many others followed her diatribes as you mention and were also included in her black book of names as she once called it, which meant you were on the very outs with her, I believe that list was very long a one time, and the book filled.as did new copies.......the why she felt the need to be so important has been an important question for many years now, we Dixie and I never gave up on her postings and stayed up to date as well as we could be, but in the end, we simply felt sorry for her , but did not believe...as we had read the 4,000 postings on the alts, when they existed........newbies as Pamela states and others as well have stated, do not be fooled....do your own research .thank you..good luck....Bernice..

Thanks, Bernice, for the support. It is my thinking now (it took a long time to evolve) that Judyth deliberately went after everyone who had actual evidence and documentation, for that would destroy her. If she could not bewitch and seduce the researcher, such as she seemed to do with Martin S, one of the finest researchers we have until she crossed his path, she would attack them. So everyone in that 'black book of names' can rest assured that they have something that represents a real threat to Judyth.

I used to feel sorry for her too, until it finally (duh!) began to dawn on me that bad things sometimes happen to bad people because of the way they have treated others. Judyth had so many 'calamaties' happen to her during the seven years I worked with her that I was indeed sucked into being overly sympathetic to her cause. In addition, she is, as you probably realize, quite the diva, so every issue was magnified and described in detail, along with the attending emotional upheaval. I felt I was on an emotional rollercoaster most of the time I was getting emails from her. But I do not think any longer that it is appropriate to have any sympathy for her, for her tactics are vicious. She is a bully, and she is ruthless. We have only to look to her horrible treatment of Marina in her book and in other discussions to see just how dark her inner life is. Marina could well sue both Judyth and her publisher for libel imo regarding the claims that Marina, while pregnant, no less, was having an affair with Kerry Thornley, when documentation shows he was nowhere near NOLA. Gov. Jesse just won a big libel case in Minnesota, so such a lawsuit would not be impossible. In the meantime, Marina has done nothing, and has said not one word about Judyth. She has remained above all this mess. That speaks volumes to me about the difference in character between the two of them. It is Marina who is the 'real deal' -- not Judyth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your welcome, Pamela, the lowest form of admiration is feeling sorry for someone....who it is known to deserve the old What Goes Around Comes Around, Treatment, you only reap what you sow, and in Judyths case , as with all others, the worm turned and she has felt and has and is trying to deal with her past diatribes of distortion...

Agreed, Marina's attitude and stalwartness in dealing with Judyth's printed as well as posted distortions to the truth have been exemplary........She has remained the The Real Deal...imo...thanks, carry on carrying on...b

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pam ,

I was re-listening to the interview here: http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2014/10/history-to-be-unchained-bombshell-new-jfk-assassination-info-revealed-2466092.html

Judyth says that she would call the TSBD, and ask to speak to the JAnitor. This was supposed to be a code to Lee that it was she that called (the JA was supposed to represent to Lee that it was Judyth Ann who called). Lee would then call her back.

This might be a dumb question,but if this were true, how would Lee know that she called in the first place? He wasn't operating the switchboard, was he? Why would the operator give a janitor message to Lee?

And Bernice, nice to see you posting again here!!!!!!!! :)

Kathy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pam ,

I was re-listening to the interview here: http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2014/10/history-to-be-unchained-bombshell-new-jfk-assassination-info-revealed-2466092.html

Judyth says that she would call the TSBD, and ask to speak to the JAnitor. This was supposed to be a code to Lee that it was she that called (the JA was supposed to represent to Lee that it was Judyth Ann who called). Lee would then call her back.

This might be a dumb question,but if this were true, how would Lee know that she called in the first place? He wasn't operating the switchboard, was he? Why would the operator give a janitor message to Lee?

And Bernice, nice to see you posting again here!!!!!!!! :)

Kathy

Well, of course, Kathy, the switchboard must have been in on the plot! Of course, we don't know exactly who on the switchboard, as no name is given. Wait! It could have been everyone on the switchboard! Or only one who worked extra hours just because they knew a call from Judyth would be coming in...:-0

This seems to me to be a good example of Judyth's use of dramatic license, where she tries to take a situation and push it to its most romantic or conspiratorial limit possible. At the same time, this does point to an area of research about the TSBD that apparently nobody else has yet touched on. Was there a switchboard? If so, how many operators were there, and what were their hours? Did someone take calls overnight?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pamela, I've forwarded the question to Jerry Dealey who probably knows the most about the TSBD including its phone system. I can tell you that some of the individual businesses inside the building had their own small key systems where a secretary could forward calls to extension phones or individuals could use those extensions to call out. I suspect the same was true for the TSBD, if somebody has quick access to a 1963 directory or cross directory you can check the number of lines going to that address and who they are listed for....I'm betting there was only one listed number for the TSBD. Plus there is the other fact that as a business the TSBD was actually located in two buildings and the school book depository location was relatively new. Not sure exactly what offices were in which building. It would be interesting to see what the phone directory really lists in that regard.

I'll let everyone know if Jerry provides any information but my guess is that the TSBD also used a key system, classic operator switchboards with patch panels were pretty uncommon other than in telephone exchanges. If so the system was on a Secretary's desk who would have answered for the company and no doubt asked why somebody was calling the janitor. I can't fathom how Oswald would have heard about the call? Besides, why call him at work. His apartment building had a shared phone. And anyone who was cautious enough to use multiple mailboxes would probably be up to telling her to call a payphone at a given time or better yet call her from a pay phone to keep in touch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pamela, I've forwarded the question to Jerry Dealey who probably knows the most about the TSBD including its phone system. I can tell you that some of the individual businesses inside the building had their own small key systems where a secretary could forward calls to extension phones or individuals could use those extensions to call out. I suspect the same was true for the TSBD, if somebody has quick access to a 1963 directory or cross directory you can check the number of lines going to that address and who they are listed for....I'm betting there was only one listed number for the TSBD. Plus there is the other fact that as a business the TSBD was actually located in two buildings and the school book depository location was relatively new. Not sure exactly what offices were in which building. It would be interesting to see what the phone directory really lists in that regard.

I'll let everyone know if Jerry provides any information but my guess is that the TSBD also used a key system, classic operator switchboards with patch panels were pretty uncommon other than in telephone exchanges. If so the system was on a Secretary's desk who would have answered for the company and no doubt asked why somebody was calling the janitor. I can't fathom how Oswald would have heard about the call? Besides, why call him at work. His apartment building had a shared phone. And anyone who was cautious enough to use multiple mailboxes would probably be up to telling her to call a payphone at a given time or better yet call her from a pay phone to keep in touch.

Larry,

Geneva Hine provided a limited glimpse of the phone setup for the TSBD in her WC testimony:

Mr. BALL. Did you have to change your desk over to another desk?

Miss HINE. Yes, sir; to the middle desk on the front row.

Mr. BALL. Was there a switchboard?

Miss HINE. No, sir; we have a telephone with three incoming lines, then we have the warehouse line and we have an intercom system.

Mr. BALL. You don't have a switchboard?

Miss HINE. Not now; we did in the other building.

Mr. BALL. Were you alone then at this time?

Miss HINE. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Did you stay at your desk?

Miss HINE. Yes, sir: I was alone until the lights all went out and the phones became dead because the motorcade was coming near us and no one was calling so I got up and thought I could see it from the east window in our office.

This sounds similar to the phone system scenario you describe in your post. Hopefully Jerry Dealey can add something to that.

Regarding the "Janitor" issue ... Eddie Piper gave his title as Janitor in his first day affidavit and in his WC testimony (the only employee to do so). If someone had phoned the TSBD and asked for the Janitor, wouldn't Eddie Piper be the person who was paged on the intercom?

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...