Jump to content
The Education Forum

Judyth Vary Baker to be on Coasttocoastam tomorrow night

Douglas Caddy

Recommended Posts

Any evidence that he raised mice for cancer research?

Banister is far more interesting to me than Ferrie. Clearly you have done some first hand digging. I was sold originally on the possible Ferrie involvement with Oswald, but find the evidence flimsy. when he died suddenly before having to testify at the Shaw trial, and on the same day as Arcacha Smith (do I recall that correctly?), it seemed very suspicious. I suppose it was, but I am not sure what to be suspicious of. Perhaps a dead Ferrie was better than one under oath precisely because we are left wondering what he knew and what he did. What was the deal about the library card? I never quite got that. Another false lead?

On a related subject, I was very intrigued by Peter Levenda's work regarding wandering Bishops. He also drew links between wandering bishop Fred Crisman, Banister, and early UFO reports from 1947. I came away from Levenda's books thinking that the wandering bishops were performing intelligence operations. I also never believed that Banister was an out of control racist maverick unconnected to official intelligence. Something was going on in New Orleans in summer of 1963 that involved Oswald, the FBI, the CIA, possibly ONI. But - not Judith Vary Baker.

Mice: During the Garrison 1967 probe, one of his investigators recalled an incident in 1957, six years before the assassination and several homes earlier, when Ferrie had mice in cages and claimed he was searching for a cure for cancer. People who met him later do not recall mice in his last apartment.

Death: Ferrie died in February 1967, two years before the Shaw trial, but right after Garrison's probe became public. It is worth noting that he had been complaining of medical problems for about a year before his death.

Same day: The man who died on the same day was Eladio del Valle. The only link of Ferrie to del Valle was an article in the National Enquirer which made claims which seem to be contradicted. The other fellow you mention was Sergio Arcacha Smith. He was the New Orleans delegate of the CIA-created FRD and was pretty close to Ferrie from April to about September, 1961.

Library card: A bit complicated, but it all appears to track back to a misunderstanding on the part of Jack S. Martin, a friend (and later enemy) of Ferrie. It does not appear that any such card was found on Oswald, but Ferrie was rattled by the allegation.

Odd churches: Upon close research, there doesn't seem to be any special significance to the odd churches. Jack Martin used Ferrie in an investigation of "ordination mills," but Ferrie later found that one f those groups was actually a gay-friendly church, and he became involved with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks for that. Did you ever read Levenda's work on the wandering bishops and the churches that ordained them? He had first hand knowledge of the subject, having worked in such a church in the Bronx as a teenager. He says lots of robes, no congregation, correspondence between Bishop Propheta and Hoover which he saw personally, though I believe it was a few years after JFK. 5 such bishops worked with Banister, or at least hung around him, including Martin, Ferrie, Crisman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I have just sent this email to Bonnie Faulkner at Guns and Butter in Berkeley, who has been running an interview with Judyth Baker:


I sincerely suggest that everyone who is in the least uncomfortable with Judyth's revision of JFK assassination history do the same.

Hello Bonnie,

I was involved with Judyth Baker for seven years. My experience was not a pleasant one. I became convinced that, not only was she not telling the truth, she was deliberately and savagely attempting to destroy Marina Oswald, Lee's wife. I have heard from a colleague that you are broadcasting an interview with her, and sincerely suggest that you look at her statements and manner of presentation objectively.
I have written a blog about my experiences with Judyth at findingjudyth.blogspot.com
Please do not let Judyth's parallel universe version of JFK assassination history to move forward unchallenged. People need to know all of the information available in order to decide for themselves what to think.
Pamela Brown
Edited by Pamela Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Pamela. I corresponded with Ms. Faulkner about this, and when I told her that most serious researchers don't consider Baker's claims valid, she responded by saying she was unaware of that, and asked me which researchers I was referring to. She then mentioned others that she has had on her show, including Jim Marrs and James Fetzer. I responded by asking her if she was aware that Fetzer claims the Mossad was responsible for the Sandy Hook school shooting. I suggested she read the Judyth Vary Baker threads on this forum. I haven't heard from her since. In fairness, she at least has had some JfK researchers on her show, something Pacifica has not done much of over the years. Don Jeffries points out in his book that the Rockefellers have been major supporters of the Pacifica Foundation. I can't vouch for that info, but Pacifica's lack of interest in JFK and other news usually referred to as 'conspiracies' is self evident. She has also to her credit interviewed Peter Dale Scott on air.

I appreciate that Pamela has written to Ms. Faulkner. Maybe Ms. Faulkner is a high minded interested individual who would he open to pursuing the current state of research further. After all, her Baker segment is advertised in part as being about Oswald in Mexico City, and we sure know some real experts on that subject.

I hope a few of you will join Pamela and me and write to Bonnie Faulkner.

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a truly interesting thread to read with a number of the comments showing deep research into Judyth's claims. I found Patrick Block's cogent comment (#40) to be a particularly sophisticated argument as to why she should not be written off completely as a purveyor of falsehoods. One thing is certain: Judyth is extremely active and is constant presence for good or for bad in the JFK assassination controversy, sort of a one-woman band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Douglass et al - I wrote to KPFA reporter Bonnie Faulkner because she was a rare case of someone with a radio show on Pacifica willing to broach political conspiracy. I don't specifically have a problem with Ms. Baker being on air per se, though I do think she is delusional. What bugged me is that in decades of listening off and on to my local Pacifica affiliate KPFA I have rarely heard the JFK assassination mentioned, much less discussed seriously. If a reporter is going to have Ms. Baker on and specifically talk about Oswald in Mexico City, I would hope that the reporter would do some homework, and consider having some true experts on that subject on the air. I also was curious how Baker got invited on the show, and still don't know the answer to that question. It seemed mostly like a promotion for Baker's books, website, perhaps upcoming movie.

Am I mistaken when I suggest to Faulkner that most serious researchers don't take Baker's claims seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul: Two of Judyth's books, "David Ferrie" and "Me and Lee", are on Amazon's top 20 JFK conspiracy books as is "Dr. Mary's Monkey", which is aligned with Judyth's claims. Actually these three books are in the top 7 sellers. They are published by TrineDay, which has a good relationship with Los Angeles Pacifica radio station KPFA. When "Watergate Exposed" was published by TrineDay, I appeared several times on KPFA to talk about the book and Watergate.

If you and I were in charge of finding persons to interview on KPFA, we might invite Judyth as her books sell well and she presents controversial viewpoints. In the past I have listened to KPFA programs and many dealt with controversial subjects. This engenders a larger listening audience and is part of the presenting a market place of ideas with the listener making the final determination what to believe or not.

France at the present time is caught up with the idea of preserving "freedom of speech" in light of recent events there. Judyth has a right to "freedom of speech" here even though much of the JFK assassination community reject her claims.


Edited by Douglas Caddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a hypothetical:

A man who coincidentally worked at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall at the same time as Oswald reads Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" and becomes convinced that Oswald killed JFK alone, and that he was a genuine leftist.

To strengthen his argument, he begins claiming that he knew Oswald personally and that Oswald and he engaged in numerous activities with left-wing organizations. He claims to know from his own knowledge that Oswald was a secret CP member and that he was in touch with agents of Soviet and Cuban intelligence.

A number of well-regarded researchers find significant problems with his story: He appears nowhere in the record and no witness ever knew him. All of the evidence he presents to support his story is either irrelevant or things that can be faked but not disproven. There are dozens of near-conclusive and lesser contradictions, but no single unequivocal impeachment. Some of these problems illustrate how the man is picking up hints from researchers like us on the internet, from books and films, and recycling them as if from his own knowledge. Worse, the man manages to make any legitimate criticisms of his story seem like a KGB plot to silence him.

Despite this rejection by the critical community, the man persists, publishes three books, goes on book tours, recruits newbies from social media sites, and ultimately begins organizing conferences on his own featuring marginal presenters. His untrue claims start leaking into the verified evidence stream and come up most often in Internet searches.

How would/could/should the critical community deal with such a case? Let it go unchallenged as freedom of speech, a false equivalency with genuine evidence, forever confusing scholars of the future? Or to try to find some way to contest it or blunt its impact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard Charnin wrote on Facebook today regarding Amazon's ranking of JFK Conspiracy books:

These are average book rankings since Nov.1, 2014:

1 JFK and the Unspeakable
2 The Man Who Killed JFK
3 David Ferrie
4 Dr. Mary's Monkey
5 Crossfire
6 Reclaiming Science: The JFK Conspiracy
7 Me and Lee
8 They Killed our President
9 Nixon's Secrets
10 LBJ: The Mastermind
11 JFK Assassination Rehearsal
12 Hit List H
13 A Cruel and Shocking Act
14 LBJ: Mastermind to Colossus
15 Killing JFK: Histiory of Deceit
16 Not in Your Lifetime
17 On the Trail of the Assassins
18 JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate JFK
19 Mary's Mosaic
20 Survivors Guilt
21 Oswald and the CIA
22 Best Evidence
23 Reclaiming Parkland
24 Kill Zone
25 The Last Investigation
26 Into the Nightmare
27 The Men on the 6th floor
28 Destiny Betrayed
29 Last Word
30 Dead Witnesses
31 Inside the ARRB
32 Echo from Dealey Plaza
33 Girl on the Stairs
34 Farewell to Justice
35 Accessories After the Fact
36 Who's Who in JFK Assassination
37 Enemy of the Truth
38 Rush to Judgment
39 Nightmare in Dallas
40 Treason, Treachery and Deceit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not free speech that I have a problem with. I can see Stephen Roy's analogy. The problem I have is with Pacifica, which I am sorry to say is among the 'left' media that has paid little attention to 'conspiracies'. So when a reporter with a weekly program chooses to interview Ms. Baker, and claims she is not aware that most serious researchers dismiss most or all of Baker's claims, it's up to us that have studied this for decades to enlighten her, and ask that she pursue this more closely by having credible detractors on her program. Free speech is a fine principle, but we live in a world where 'truth' is malleable, and subject to sometimes hidden forces. We know better, but have little or no PR, no way to break through the media logjam. This is just a small opening, and in my opinion we should at least try to counter her claims. Baker sets herself up as an expert, and she is fair game.

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I received an email from Bonnie Faulkner which I will publish when I have her permission. Here is my reply to her;

Hi Bonnie,
Thank you for your prompt reply. May I have your permission to publish it on the newsgroups and at my blog?

With all due respect, I don't think I said anything about by blog specifically 'proving' that Judyth is a fraud. It is a record of my experiences with her over seven years, during which I put my own reputation on the line and lost access to opportunities such as tv programs and challenged my relationships within the JFK research community in order to ask that the public give her an open forum for discussion, because she does have objective documentation to Lee Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. You can google my many posts on alt.assassination.jfk for corroboration of that. I do think that Judyth's treatment of me gives credence to the possibility that she is not what she claims -- otherwise, why throw someone to the wolves who has done everything possible to treat you fairly?

Also, you can see from statements in Me and Lee and posts at my blog that her treatment of Marina is very unprofessional and has been very harmful for not only Marina but her daughters, whom Judyth has contacted. It is my opinion that Marina could sue Judyth for libel due to the defamation of her in her book. Why would someone who sincerely loved Lee have to discredit his widow?

I would hope my blog would give readers an opportunity to see Judyth from a different viewpoint, and then have more information in terms of deciding for themselves what to think.

Judyth's story consists of two parts -- the love story with Lee and the bioweapon plot.

The love story is not impossible. They did work together at Reilly Coffee. However, even Judyth does not claim they met there. There is no documentation of anyone seeing them together there. In addition, there are no photos, no postcards, no love notes, no love letters. There is, in fact, no objective documentation that they even had a personal relationship. Judyth contaminated her own witness, Anna Lewis, by refusing to allow her researchers to speak with Anna first. Nobody knows how much of what Anna said was tainted. 60 Minutes saw through Judyth after giving her a psych eval. She is that good. And Judyth brags that she is smarter than everyone. Those who simply *believe* her without researching the 15 years of controversy she has caused on the newsgroups are proof of her claim.

The second part of Judyth's story is the bioweapon plot. Ed Haslam, who conveniently happens to be from Judyth's home town of Bradenton, FL,wrote "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" in the mid-90's. He created an alternate universe of possibilities, of 'what-if's?' Judyth walked right into it and tried to make it real. She never told anyone about the bioweapon plot prior to Haslam's book coming out. I find that highly suspicious. Nor did she come forward until after that book was published.

In addition, Judyth declined to come forward with her evidence during the Clay Shaw trial. I cannot imagine a more willing ear than that of Jim Garrison to anything that would 'exonerate' Lee. Nor did she come forward during the ARRB. She waited until after the movie JFK had come out and then came forward, not with witness testimony and verifiable evidence, but with a dramatic narrative which she claimed was 'real' and 'evidence' which she twisted and cherrypicked to create a Judyth-centric version of the assassintion.

It does not matter to me as much what you think of Judyth as that you are able to perceive that there are two sides to these stories, and that the real story may be in the conflict, not in *belief*.

Pamela Brown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Pamela. A few of the comments on this thread deal with free speech, a principle with which we all agree. The issue of what to do when someone comes forward with a story like hers reminds me of the historical revisionists who would like to rewrite history by challenging the Jewish Holocaust. Sure, they have a right to say what they want, but those who know better have a duty to protect true history in the face of such a brazen onslaught. Thankfully the holocaust has been well documented, and historians, Jewish and non- Jewish, and Hollywood have done an admirable job making sure we won't forget it or succumb to the so-called research presented that seeks to show the holocaust as some kind of Jewish hoax. Other holocausts have not fared so well unfortunately, and that is a shame. These days history is rewritten right before our very eyes, and distinguishing fact from fiction has become much more difficult.

What makes Baker's story difficult in my mind is the sympathetic portrait of Oswald, something that I personally find believable. I think that he may very well have warned the FBI of threats to JFK in Chicago, and in Dallas. I can't prove it, and don't think it will ever be proven. But it does make me susceptible to Baker's portrait. However, the embellishments she comes up with are to me completely unbelievable. I hope that Faulkner allows the research community to weigh in on air, and wish that others on the forum would support this goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul Brancato said, "What makes Baker's story difficult in my mind is the sympathetic portrait of Oswald, something that I personally find believable. I think that he may very well have warned the FBI of threats to JFK in Chicago, and in Dallas. I can't prove it, and don't think it will ever be proven. But it does make me susceptible to Baker's portrait. However, the embellishments she comes up with are to me completely unbelievable. I hope that Faulkner allows the research community to weigh in on air, and wish that others on the forum would support this goal. "

I completely agree. Although I was highly skeptical of her statements by the time I became involved with Judyth (I had watched her babble away in the "Love Story" segment of the 2003 TMWKK episodes, and had been warned by people I respect, such as David Lifton, to steer clear of her) a part of me wished that she was telling the truth. From the moment I watched Lee Oswald shot before my eyes while my family and I were eating Swanson TV dinners in front of our TV set, I was determined to find proof of his innocence if it existed. I knew something was rotten in the govt version of events. When I became involved in limo research seriously in 1988 I discovered evidence that a second windshield had been installed in the limo (I later came to realize that it was present at delivery but removed three months later, long before Dallas) and went out on a limb in the early aaj newsgroup claiming that the shots could not have come from the rear or the privacy window would have been destroyed.

Ironically, as a consequence of my involvement with Judyth, I am looking at Lee Oswald from a different perspective. I am able to be far more objective, and to acknowledge that he probably did make a traitor of himself in USSR, promising them classified information in exchange for citizenship. And I do think he was involved in the Walker shooting. I still don't think he was the assassin of JFK, but if Judyth had anything to do with him, as she says, he was a rotten human being, cheating on his pregnant wife with a married woman. In truth, his situation is more complicated, but it is on the record that he did not treat Marina very well either, so I have lost all sympathy for him. I can blame that on Judyth. So, perhaps there is a silver lining to all this nonsense after all...:-0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12. Baker accuses Debra Conway of suppressing her Anna Lewis witness evidence. She has NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE to support this.

I was not involved with Judyth and her camp in 2000, which was when the trip to NOLA took place that included Debra's taping an interview of Anna Lewis. However, it seems that Debra did keep the original videotape and decline to release that to Judyth. Therefore, Judyth did not have a video of high enough quality for it to be used in the "Love Story" segment of TMWKK in 2003. When I came to realize what had happened I contacted Debra and asked her to return the original to them, despite her reservations. I do not know if that ever happened or not. I do know they had a copy.

Judyth also made an accusation that she thought Debra had frightened Anna, as Anna then refused to give any more interviews after the NOLA experience. It is my impression that Debra did not find Anna credible. The fact that it was Judyth (not Martin Shakleford or Howard Plazman, her researcher and writer) who tracked Anna down and contacted her did nothing to help Anna's credibiility, as it became quickly evident that Judyth could have coached Anna into what to say. "Oh sure, I saw Lee and Judyth at Mancuso's (restaurant where Anna worked) many times", etc etc. Judyth very much needed corroboration for the relationship between her and Lee. I was in contact with Anna at one time and just felt very sorry for her, that she was frightened and did not seem to be a dishonest person, just someone caught up in a very messy situation.

Anna Lewis was David Lewis' wife. David Lewis was questioned by Jim Garrison as part of the Clay Shaw trial and apparently told him a number of wild stories, but never mentioned anything about "Judyth and Lee." Either there was nothing to mention or David Lewis was trolling stories that could not get him into trouble and did not want to bring it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Judyth Officially 'Lost It'? :-0

Judyth has created a blog post that simply, imo, defies description:


When one starts attacking researchers and claiming that they are 'trying to destroy a witness' I think the time has come for a reboot. Whoa Nelly! It is up to the 'witness' to persuade others that he or she is what they say they are and is credible, not the other way around.

When Judyth was in Hungary, and very hungry, she sent out numerous emails to all of us in her group that said, "Come on people! I'm a witness!" In other words, she wanted money. In that case, I do believe she was in dire straits and did send her some and did not let her repay it when she offered to a year or so later. But the arrogance of the demand stuck with me. This, added to her deplorable treatment of the actual witness to Lee Oswald -- namely, Marina-- has put her in the 'dirty bum' (as my Dad used to say) category of human nature.

Edited by Pamela Brown
Link to comment
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...