Deep Politics Forum

JUDYTH OFFERS AN ADDENDUM FOR BARB ABOUT THE LIBRARY

NOTE: I don't quite understand why Barb seem to think that I did not see
that an old post of hers was included in the earlier reply from Judyth about
the library. This appears to me to be an excellent example of a rather trivial
issue, where Judyth's explanations of when Lee arrived in New Orleans was
better than Lifton's and her discussion of Lee's discharge was far superior to
Jack's and where I have yet to learn his answer to the following questions,
which are just the least bit more consequential than the library's height:

What did you do to cope with the possibility that you were actually dealing
with a counterfeit history to allow this one man, who was working for the CIA,
to return to society with an appropriate cover story based upon the false history
that you and John, alas!, appear to have mistaken for real? I have asked you
this question several times now, my friend, but you have never answered it.
Just tell me which documents you excluded because you came to realize that,
although they were real documents, their content was false? Please tell me.

JUDYTH REPLIES

I described the library as five stories high, which was my impression due to
the landings tha I, handicapped, tried to navigate. The few times I was there
either the elevator was not working, or, a librarian was stationed to go retrieve
books that had been boxed up, by means of a call number.

The library description -- that I thought it was five stories high -- should also go
far to prove that I was hardly ever there. Which was the case.

My own building (where I taught) was the English building, which had its own big
library (English literature, of course). So I had little need to go to the 'big' library..

I never said I was there often.

I brought up the library because it was nearby and I had been asked if I had
accessed information there. Did Barb assume I was tthere all the time? If so,
why would I have misreported how many floors the library had? It was under
construction. By the way, I am allergic to dust and almost gagged the first time
I went in there.

I avoided the library, but when forced to go there for some other reason, of
course I did try, in 1999, to access some information. I was not successful.,

My daughter knows I did no research in 1998 to the very end of that year,
as she lived with me. My entire family knows that as a busy single parent
with four children, working full-time, I had no 'research' time for anything
like that. We lived in Bradenton, Florida, where i was not about to ge into
such things. My children did not attend Manatee High, where i aended, to
avoid the past.

But their grandmother lived here, and i wanted 'family' nearby.

My children remember my walking out when in 1991- early 1992 my son
brought "JFK" to our house to watch. They remember because I never did
that. We always had lots of kids over for a Saturday night pizza pary and
movie, and I was the chaperone, but thist ime--the only time--I walked out.
So they remembered that vividly.

I could not bear to watch it or think of it, or to see somebody acting as Lee....

Only when my daughter went on her honeymoon right after Chrismas, 1998,
did I decide to see "JFK", and because of that film, decided to speak out.

Originally I was going to take it all to my grave.

Oliver Stone said silence is cowardice.I felt ashamed, and decided to speak out.

A professor finally told me the public library had a set of the 26 volumes, some-
time in the fall of 1999, and at that time I finally had access. I did no research
and had only read OSWALD"S TALE and MARINA AND LEE at the public library.

JVB

[quote name='Barb Junkkarinen' post='188824' date='Apr 4 2010, 10:40 PM']
Yes, Fetzer, it must all be a plot against you ....ROTFL. See post #305, that is when I first posted on this topic in this thread.

The post Judyth attributes to Martin below is MY post, in a thread I started on the moderated group on 6-12-09 .... reposted in this thread, post #305. I quoted his post within it for the Judyth quote it contains.

I am happy to stand by my documented post which addressed and accounted for the oft made claims by Judyth (and by her supporters who were in the role Fetzer is now) that the books were on an upper floor, that she had no access because the elevator was not available for a whole year and she couldn't manage the stairs, so she couldn't have done any research even if she had wanted to do so.

The reason this is an issue is because Judyth has sworn up and down that she had never read Haslam's book, nor any others (it wasn't a 26 volumes issue, per se), nor had done any research when she had first come forward... and she used the library construction and claim of no elevator service for a whole year as her "proof" of that. Silly anyway, given the internet.

This was just one of the often made claims I decided to fact check. Her claim failed as the information in my post below shows.

There was elevator service during the one year construction phase. She was not unable to access anything on an upper floor. That she got the number of floors wrong, while true, is not the main salient point here. She claimed she could not have done research even if she wanted to because there was no elevator service for an entire year. That is not true ... and documented so. People can read and decide for themselves about whether or not Judyth lied about this or not, or why, or if it impacts her veracity, etc. I merely fact checked the claim and reported what I found. And I did not "cherrypick" anything.

I have left my post, which Judyth was kind enough to include in her post, below. I titled the thread,
JUDYTH: The U of Louisiana, Lafayette Library - that post is what Judyth included below.

Barb :-)
[/quote]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT THE "INDEX" TO THE 26 VOLUMES

NOTE: This is troubling, Jack. Judyth corrected you when you criticized her about
Lee's "discharge", but you have yet to admit she was right and you were wrong.
Here is another case in which she is correcting you. I hate to say it, Jack, but it
sees to me, based upon this thread, that Judyth is better at this than Jack White.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

"The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true
index.

It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes.

There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas.

There is no Moscow. No Minsk.

There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI.

It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also
no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS menioned.

This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of
names happens to be incomplee.

For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on
several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed.

[quote name='Jack White' post='188825' date='Apr 4 2010, 10:42 PM']Jim...turn ON your comprehension. READ THE BOOK. See the Armstrong documentation for yourself
instead of incorrectly IMAGINING what the documentation is. You are COMPLETELY WRONG! If you read
the book you will see why...if you try.

And you are WRONG about the INDEX to the 26 volumes. It is in Volume XV. And EACH volume has
a Table of Contents in the front of each book. I must admit the volumes are poorly arranged and
the indexes and contents are not logically done. AND in the INDEX, citations for LEE HARVEY OSWALD
are omitted (I guess there were TOO MANY to index.).

Please read H&L. It contains answers to most of your questions. By speculating about what it says,
you are providing FALSE INFORMATION to those who have not read the book.

Jack


[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188772' date='Apr 4 2010, 03:54 PM']
JIM REPLIES TO JACK ABOUT WHETHER LEE COULD DRIVE

READ THE BOOK! READ THE BOOK! So I start reading the book and discover right away the assertion that Allan Dulles was so clever in manipulating the Warren Commission with regard to the CIA that "in its 26 volumes, the name of the CIA does not even appear in its index"! Maybe you missed the post in which I observed (1) that the 26 supporting volumes does not even have an index and that (2) that the 888-page summary report, known as THE WARREN REPORT, does have an index, where the CIA is listed at least two dozen times! That is not the kind of discovery that inspires confidence in HARVEY & LEE.

Moreover, Armstrong's methodology appears to have been to vacuum up every document he could find in the public domain. You have told me that meant the existence of these documents could not be challenged because they are all in the public domain. But when I asked what principle of selection had been used to determine which were not only (3) authentic documents but also had (4) accurate content, you remained silent. It is as though you and John were oblivious of "The Mighty Wurlitzer' being played by Frank Wisner to flood the media with stories concocted by and managed by the CIA!

Now I discover that, in relation to the question of whether or not the man Judyth knew in New Orleans could or could not drive, you offer (what you imply to be) the definitive testimony of Ruth Paine and of Marina Oswald, yet at the bottom of the post, you include a table with the names of THIRTY-TWO other witnesses who have reported that they had either seen him drive or knew he had the ability to drive. I am sure you are going to resolve this contradiction by appealing to "Harvey" and "Lee". But, frankly, Jack, this looks like a ruse to draw attention from the real "two Oswalds", Robert and Lee!

So far as I am able to discern, HARVEY & LEE begins with a blunder and was created in fashion that was methodologically unsound--at least to the extent to which no effort appears to have been expended to sort out the true documents from the false, the accurate records from the inaccurate, and the genuine photos from the fake. IF YOU WANT ME TO TAKE ANY OF THIS SERIOUSLY, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THESE QUESTIONS. How can anyone claim to be an expert on the assassination when they do not even know the difference between the 26 supporting volumes and the summary report?

Why you display such an arrogant and insulting attitude toward Judyth when this book to which you constantly refer commits such a grevious blunder from scratch is beyond me. And to continue to insist that there actually were "two Oswalds" when Judyth has already shown that some of the photos that you have taken for granted are suspect and when the documentary trail on which you rely may have been deliberately created as a false history so the man she knew could eventually return to a normal life in society simply astounds me. Judyth has her flaws, no doubt, but your position is hopelessly indefensible.

[quote name='Jack White' post='188767' date='Apr 4 2010, 04:04 PM']Marina Oswald and Ruth and Michael Paine all told the Warren Commission in no uncertain terms that Lee Harvey Oswald did not drive an automobile and did not have a driver's license. But John Armstrong has found many witnesses who said Oswald did drive, including a former employee of the Texas Department of Public Safety License Records Department who issued a signed statement to a Garrison investigator stating that she had processed Oswald's returned driver's license after he was killed. This article explores these seeming contradictions.

Marina Oswald repeatedly told the Warren Commission that her husband did not drive. For example:

Mrs. OSWALD. Never. No; this is all not true. In the first place, my husband couldn't drive, and I was never alone with him in a car. Anytime we went in a car it was with Ruth Paine, and there was never--we never went to any gun store and never had any telescopic lens mounted.

Mr. RANKIN. Did the four of you, that is, your husband, you, and your two children, ever go alone any place in Irving?

Mrs. OSWALD. In Irving the baby was only 1 month old. I never took her out anywhere.

Representative FORD. Did you ever go anytime----

Mrs. OSWALD. Just to doctor, you know.

Representative FORD. Did you ever go anytime with your husband in a car with the rifle?

Mrs. OSWALD. I was never at anytime in a car with my husband and with a rifle. Not only with the rifle, not even with a pistol. Even without anything I was never with my husband in a car under circumstances where he was driving a car. (WC V, 401)

Michael Paine also indicated several times that Lee Harvey Oswald did not drive. For example:

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see Oswald drive a car?

Mr. PAINE. No; I did not. (WC II, 413)

In her Warren Commission testimony, Ruth Paine stated that as late as the weekend before the assassination of JFK, Oswald had failed to obtain a learner's permit so that he could eventually acquire a valid Texas driver's license.

Mr. JENNER. You did talk with him on the telephone?

Mrs. PAINE. That is my recollection. I am certain that I talked with him, that he was surprised that he didn't need a car. I had to tell him that he didn't need a car to take with him to take his test.

Mr. JENNER. Take his initial test?

Mrs. PAINE. Take his test, and suggested that he go from Dallas himself to take this test. Then he called us Saturday afternoon of the 16th to say he had been and tried to get his driver's permit but that he had arrived before closing time but still to late to get in because there was a long line ahead of him, the place having been closed both the previous Saturday for election day and the following Monday, the 11th, Veterans Day. There were a lot of people who wanted to get permits and he was advised that it wouldn't pay him to wait in line. He didn't have time to be tested.

Mr. JENNER. Could you help us fix, can you recall as closely as possible the day of the week, this is the weekend of the assassination, was it not?

Mrs. PAINE. The weekend before.

Mr. JENNER. The weekend before, and this conversation you are now relating that you had with him in which he said that he had gone to the driver's license station, when did that conversation with you take place?

Mrs. PAINE. That conversation was with Marina, and she told me about it.

Mr. JENNER. When did she tell you about it?

Mrs. PAINE. He called her, it must have been Saturday afternoon, soon after he had been, he went Saturday morning and they closed at noon.

Mr. JENNER. I see. This was the weekend he did not come out to Irving?

Mrs. PAINE. This was the weekend he did not come out. (WC II, 516)[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK WHITE ABOUT TRAVELING TO NOLA

NOTE: Judyth already corrected Jack about Lee's "discharge" and his claim that
the 26 supporting volumes had an "index". Here she corrects him about how we
know that Lee traveled to New Orleans from Dallas. Judyth has already explained
it, which suggests that either Jack is not reading her posts or misunderstands them.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Jack White wrote:

In another thread, I commented that I WAS ALWAYS PUZZLED that years ago when
I first read the WR and other books, I was struck by the lack of investigation of how
and when LHO got to NOLA from Dallas. He suddenly decided to leave his pregnant
wife and go to look for work in New Orleans; why not look for work in Dallas? But
the FBI and WC did not document when, why or how this happened. So JVB FILLS
IN THIS BLANK by saying he took a bus. How does she know? She claims he told
her he took a bus...and nobody can dispute her because there is no record.

Jack

There is a record. It was already posted here a few days ago, by Judyth, regarding
the fact that Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine both tesified that Lee took a bus to New
Orleans the day after he placed his belongings in a bus station locker in Dallas. Lee's
aunt testified that he called from the bus station to have his things picked up there.
Jack White is not reading the thread or has misinterpred it.

The reasons why Lee Oswald moved to Dallas have been given to Dr. Fetzer and I
believe they have been posted. If not, they will be. It has to do with his Fair Play
for Cuba assignment and the Walker incident.

JVB

[quote name='Jack White' post='188766' date='Apr 4 2010, 03:53 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188723' date='Apr 4 2010, 04:23 AM']
JIM RESPONDS TO JACK WHITE WITH A FEW QUESTIONS OF HIS OWN

That does appear to be a lapse. But I'm not sure what to make of it, since in the
same post discussing Robert she explains that Lee received an "undesirable" and
not a "dishonorable" discharge, as you are observing here. I'll ask her about this.

I have two questions for you. In post #756, you remark, relative to the question
of Lee's driving ability, you state (categorically), "I do NOT GRANT that JVB knows
more about Lee's driving than John Armstrong". Aren't you simply assuming this?

In particular, IF JUDYTH'S STORY IS CORRECT AND SHE ACTUALLY DROVE PLACES
WITH THE MAN SHE KNEW AS "LEE", WOULD YOU THEN GRANT THAT SHE KNOWS
MORE ABOUT LEE'S DRIVING THAN JOHN ARMSTRONG? Would you admit as much?

Howard Platzman and I had an interesting conversation today. He told me that he
and Martin Shackelford subjected Judyth to multiple forms of questioning and that,
when "60 Minutes" took an interest, CBS also conducted an investigation of its own.

Martin obtained a copy of Mary Ferrell's chronology of the activities of the man she
knew as "Lee" in New Orleans, but he did not share it with her. He spent a lot of
time asking her about what Lee was doing on specific dates and she answered him.

She was very successful in matching the Ferrell chronology. Martin thought that he
had nailed her on mistakes on two occasions. But it turned out that those were days
when the Ferrell chronology was blank. So Judyth apparently was filling in the blanks.

Is there any quantity or quality of evidence such that, were it to be produced, would
be sufficient to convince you that there is the POSSIBILITY that Judyth might be "the
real deal", even if you could care less and can't imagine why it should matter at all?

[quote name='Jack White' post='188717' date='Apr 4 2010, 05:41 AM']
[[JVB: Robert should know that Lee was not discharged, but placed in the Marine
Reserves, a bit early...]]

Lee Harvey Oswald received an UNDESIRABLE DISCHARGE from the Marines.[/quote]
[/quote]


Read the book. It was HARVEY that JVB knew. Harvey could not drive. LEE (the REAL Lee)
COULD DRIVE. Armstrong documents this.

JVB might be more believable if she DIDN'T fill in all the blanks. Where there are blanks, she inserts
herself.

In another thread, I commented that I WAS ALWAYS PUZZLED that years ago when I first read
the WR and other books, I was struck by the lack of investigation of how and when LHO got to
NOLA from Dallas. He suddenly decided to leave his pregnant wife and go to look for work in
New Orleans; why not look for work in Dallas? But the FBI and WC did not document when, why
or how this happened. So JVB FILLS IN THIS BLANK by saying he took a bus. How does she know?
She claims he told her he took a bus...and nobody can dispute her because there is no record.

Jack
[/quote]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT WHETHER "HARVEY" COULD DRIVE

NOTE: This appears to be four for four for Judyth as opposed to Jack on
Lee's discharged, the index, how we know he took a bus to New Orleans
and now whether or not he could drive. Judyth appears to be right about
all four and Jack wrong, even though he would never acknowledge that.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Jack White writes:

Read the book. It was HARVEY that JVB knew. Harvey could not drive.
LEE (the REAL Lee) COULD DRIVE. Armstrong documents this.

REPLY: Lee Harvey Oswald could drive. Unless you now include the entire
Murret family as knowing "Lee" as well as "Harvey", how does Mr. Armstrong
explain these records:

April/May 1963 - Oswald drives his uncle Murret's car. (WC Vol 2, pp. 503-504)
Oswald's cousin, John Murret, let him drive his car sometime between May and
July. (WC Vol 8, p. 151)

Judyth Baker has also stated to researchers that Oswald could drive, and did so,
with her, on three occasions. One such occasion has entered the record:

The opening remarks at he Clay Shaw trial mention that occasion, saying it was
not Marina Oswald with Oswald a hat time, and that the prosecution wished they
knew who the woman was, that she would stand forth.

At that time, Judyth Baker was in bed trying to save a pregnancy, and they had
no TV or newspaper access. She did not know about this appeal.

Baker was the woman in the Kaiser-Frazer seen by Garrison witness Mary Morgan,
daughter of Reeves Morgan, a state representative and an employee at the East
Louisiana State Hospital where Oswald and Baker were headed August 31, 1963,
when they stopped at the barbershop in Jackson (Lea McGeHee also testified that
HE saw a woman in the Kaiser-Frazer automobile at that time, not sitting at the wheel).

After finishing duties at the hospital, Oswald and Baker, prior to their return to New
Orleans, stopped at the Morgan residence, just after sunset, where Mary, going outside
to stand on the poirch, saw a woman (Baker) sitting in the car Oswald had been driving
as her father spoke inside the house with Oswald inside. Mary would soon leave for college
classes.

This is on the witness record.

Baker has always stated Oswald could drive, but preferred not to because his driver's
license had been left behind in Texas. He did not tell Marina he could drive because she
would have insisted on their purchasing a car. He put off all such requests because he
was posing as a "dissatisfied worker" who could be sent to Cuba safely on such pretexts.
Car ownership and prosperity were not good ways to get disenchanted with the capitalist
system. His pro-Castro activities in New Orleans enhanced this image.

JVB

[quote name='Jack White' post='188766' date='Apr 4 2010, 03:53 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188723' date='Apr 4 2010, 04:23 AM']
JIM RESPONDS TO JACK WHITE WITH A FEW QUESTIONS OF HIS OWN

That does appear to be a lapse. But I'm not sure what to make of it, since in the
same post discussing Robert she explains that Lee received an "undesirable" and
not a "dishonorable" discharge, as you are observing here. I'll ask her about this.

I have two questions for you. In post #756, you remark, relative to the question
of Lee's driving ability, you state (categorically), "I do NOT GRANT that JVB knows
more about Lee's driving than John Armstrong". Aren't you simply assuming this?

In particular, IF JUDYTH'S STORY IS CORRECT AND SHE ACTUALLY DROVE PLACES
WITH THE MAN SHE KNEW AS "LEE", WOULD YOU THEN GRANT THAT SHE KNOWS
MORE ABOUT LEE'S DRIVING THAN JOHN ARMSTRONG? Would you admit as much?

Howard Platzman and I had an interesting conversation today. He told me that he
and Martin Shackelford subjected Judyth to multiple forms of questioning and that,
when "60 Minutes" took an interest, CBS also conducted an investigation of its own.

Martin obtained a copy of Mary Ferrell's chronology of the activities of the man she
knew as "Lee" in New Orleans, but he did not share it with her. He spent a lot of
time asking her about what Lee was doing on specific dates and she answered him.

She was very successful in matching the Ferrell chronology. Martin thought that he
had nailed her on mistakes on two occasions. But it turned out that those were days
when the Ferrell chronology was blank. So Judyth apparently was filling in the blanks.

Is there any quantity or quality of evidence such that, were it to be produced, would
be sufficient to convince you that there is the POSSIBILITY that Judyth might be "the
real deal", even if you could care less and can't imagine why it should matter at all?

[quote name='Jack White' post='188717' date='Apr 4 2010, 05:41 AM']
[[JVB: Robert should know that Lee was not discharged, but placed in the Marine
Reserves, a bit early...]]

Lee Harvey Oswald received an UNDESIRABLE DISCHARGE from the Marines.[/quote]
[/quote]


Read the book. It was HARVEY that JVB knew. Harvey could not drive. LEE (the REAL Lee) COULD DRIVE.
Armstrong documents this.

JVB might be more believable if she DIDN'T fill in all the blanks. Where there are blanks, she inserts
herself.

In another thread, I commented that I WAS ALWAYS PUZZLED that years ago when I first read
the WR and other books, I was struck by the lack of investigation of how and when LHO got to
NOLA from Dallas. He suddenly decided to leave his pregnant wife and go to look for work in
New Orleans; why not look for work in Dallas? But the FBI and WC did not document when, why
or how this happened. So JVB FILLS IN THIS BLANK by saying he took a bus. How does she know?
She claims he told her he took a bus...and nobody can dispute her because there is no record.

Jack
[/quote]

JIM REPLIES TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH" AND MUCH, MUCH MORE

I have now read pages 91-92 of HARVEY & LEE, which seem to imply that "Lee" suffered a permanent
loss of tooth. What struck me is that the alleged difference between "Lee" and "Harvey" is explainable
by the scenrio Judyth has sketched of the tooth having been restored. Are there records of either of
the alleged "Oswalds" having a false tooth? Are there adult photos of "Lee" as opposed to "Harvey",
because I have considerable reservations about the photo studies that have been discussed, where it
seems to me, apart from a few that do not belong in these sets, they may all be of the same person.

Since I am responding to your concerns and concede that my description may have been overblown,
how about reciprocating in relation to the question that Howard has raised about your having found
the abstract of a paper that Judyth had said she had presented, but which--like every other claim she
has made--has been vigorously disputed by someone on this forum or elsewhere? Would you be so
kind as to summarize the content of the paper whose abstract you discovered? That you have found
substantiation for some of her claims leads me to believe you may not be as biased as I have thought.

Reading more of HARVEY & LEE, I am getting a better sense for why Jack finds it impossible to even
talk about these things without making explicit his reference to "Lee" or to "Harvey", because John is
relentless in his usage of those names. It seems to me that Judyth's knowledge of the man she knew
in New Orleans--whom Jack and John call "Harvey"--does not depend on the refutation of the possible
existence of the other, but clearly does call into question some of the traits attributed to him, including
his place of birth, whether he could drive, and such, but not necessarily refuting their entire scenario.

It would certainly be a good idea, however, if one or the other of you were more responsive to some
of the points upon which Judyth appears to possess superior knowledge, such as Jack's false claim
that he was "undesirably discharged" (post #904), his false claim about the "index" in his attempt to
shield John from my criticism (posts #777 and #925), his false claim that we do not know how Lee
traveled to New Orleans (post #926), and his false claim about "Harvey" being unable to drive (post
#928), for example, which undermines any prospect for rational discussion of all of this (post #785).

I also believe that Judyth has raised legitimate questions about the photographic record that should not
be swept under the rug, as post #704, #830, #876, and #878, are serious contributions. I know her to
extremely gifted and knowledgeable about the man she knew in New Orleans and her arguments, such
as her eye color study in post #736, are brilliant and deserve to be acknowledged. I am deeply troubled
Robert's role in all of this has not been examined with more diligence. Posts as early as #469, #676, #679,
#689, #800, and especially #813 offer indications of the reasons for my suspicions. Perhaps David Lifton
will take pains to track Robert's role relative to his brother, which appears to me to be the key to the case.

There are obvious disadvantages to my becoming involved in this, since I have not been exposed to the
interrogations of Judyth in the past. For that very reason, however, I believe I have a contribution that
others cannot make. Sometimes a fresh look with a new pair of eyes can make a difference. I believe
that she has not been given a fair shake in the past, which I am attempting to provide here. And that I
am not immersed in the conception of "Harvey & Lee" also grants the intellectual freedom to consider a
different pair of "Oswalds", Robert and Lee, which I would like to believe may provide the stimulus for a
new look at the other brother who, in my estimation, is the ideal candidate to have impersonated Lee.

[quote name='Barb Junkkarinen' post='188873' date='Apr 5 2010, 07:44 AM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188826' date='Apr 4 2010, 11:50 PM']
So why did you bring it up again now, right after this blockbuster about Lee's missing tooth? You trade in trivia, while Judyth is making major contributions. Linda has it right: You post nothing significant because you have nothing significant to post. Your conduct here is utterly transparent.[/quote]

Oh please. There are many issues being discussed in this thread. I was responding to something Pamela said ... and used that as an example for her to tell us all how I "cherrypick" ... as I had posted it many many pages and posts ago, so it was already here.

But, I do stand in awe ... for you actually seem unaware that the debate over the "two Oswald's" .... Harvey vs Lee, the 2 schools, etc... and yes, the tooth ... is very old news! Your "blockbuster" has been discussed and discussed over the years. How can you really not already know this stuff ... and that it has been hotly debated over the years? Funny ... I even found an exchange Doug Weldon and I had on the issue in 1999 ... when someone else mentioned putting a tooth in milk so it could be put back into the socket. Ah, but it's Judyth's "blockbuster" that is the news and importance here, you'll say!

But this is not the first time Judyth has written/spoken about this ... she has on Rich's forum, on BlackOp and on the moderated group. Back as far as at least 2002.

It really astounds me that you seem to think this is some new groundbreaking news on Judyth's part ... and that you are so unaware of her story over the years. Yet you chastise others as if you are teaching them!

Her story was a little different then ... changed in midstream when a problem with her chronology was pointed out. First she had LHO telling her all about how Ferrie had slugged him and at least loosened the tooth after a CAP gathering at Ferrie's house (in her post here now she says LHO rode with Ferrie on a Harley to Ferrie's house after a CAP gathering) and then a week later it was knocked out by someone at school. She notes there was a famous photo showing it. The problem is that the photo was taken, and the school incident occurred, months before LHO attended CAP meetings and met Ferrie.

At one point she has Ferrie telling LHO about milk, at another time she has an unnamed person at school advising him to put the tooth in milk.

I did a post in 2004 that includes a chronology of it all ... something Dave Reitzes had put together of quotes and posted in 2002. Looks like most of this story was related by Judyth on the jfkResearch forum ... and Dave had those posts.

It is long, so here is the link for anyone who is interested. I could post it all here, but if this works for everyone, there is no need.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...r%3Ajunkkarinen

Kind of a wonder that Judyth wanted to delve back into this one, especially with the new change, though she did now say she may have mixed up some small details. :-)
[/quote]

JUDYTH REPLIES ABOUT "HARVEY" AND "LEE" AND THEIR RESPECTIVE HEIGHTS

NOTE: Here is another example where Judyth's argument about heights deserves to be
taken into account. Yet in none of the illustrations I have offered in my last post has
anyone acknowledged that Judyth was making good points or that she was correct!

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

We have a witness who states that Lee Oswald was much shorter, wanted to be called
"Harvey" and lived on Exchange Alley over a ballroom.

We can calculate the approximate height of Lee Oswald, using geometry, when he was
attending Beauregard at the same time that a teacher, Myra DaRouse, said Lee was in her
8th grade homeroom (the only homeroom she held). She has some strong memories of Lee.

But there are problems with her account:

Discrepancies

1) The name "Harvey":

DaRouse said that Lee wanted to be called "Harvey" -- a name Lee told JVB he actually
disliked. But Ed Voebel, whom she mentions as an 'only' friend, (though at least one
other friend is in the records) -- Voebel did not call his friend "Harvey." Voebel called
him "Lee. "

2) "...so I asked him where he lived, and he said on Exchange Alley, down near the river.
So I drove him down, and it was kind of a disgusting place. And I was very glad I didn't
live there. And he lived upstairs over a ballroom (69)."

But Lee (Jack's "Harvey") told me he lived above a pool hall.

And Voebel, I just found out, said the same:

Mr. VOEBEL: He lived over the top of the pool hall.

Mr. JENNER. ... Exchange Alley?

Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; or Exchange Place, whatever you call it.

Notice that Voeble corrects (WC) Jenner and says "Exchange Place..."

In 1963, at least, residents of "Exchange Alley" usually called it "Exchange Place." For
example, Mildred Sawyer:

WC testimony: Mrs . MILDRED SAWYER, 126 Exchange Place, New Orleans,. Louisiana
furnished the following information: ... November 27, 1963....

Would Lee have been more likely to ask the teacher to take him to "Exchange Place"
rather than to "Exchange Alley"?

The Warren Commission liked "Exchange Alley" as it denigrated the address, and it is best
known by that name to researchers today. Did the old lady hear the name "Exchange
Alley" before she was filmed? How much was said between the lady and the researcher
before she was interviewed? Contamination of witnesses is common by researchers who try
to obtain information that they want...sometimes they may ask leading questions or supply
names to 'refresh the memory.'

4) DaRouse also said she held a homeroom in the basement -- the only homeroom she ever
held -- for the 8th graders, but a record exists showing Lee Oswald was on a 3rd floor 8th
grade homeroom roster. I have seen an argument that this is a (naturally) hand-written
record, but who would change Lee Oswald's 8th grade homeroom record, as to which floor
he was on, and why?

"...John Armstrong had recently found a report card or a school record of some kind --
actually a registration card -- for Oswald in the eighth grade that listed his homeroom
as room 303, a room on the third floor. I asked her if that could be consistent with her
homeroom rollcall in the basement; could she have been assigned room 303 despite
actually using the stage in the basement? "No, 303, that's the ninth grade," she said.
"You mean the whole third floor was for the ninth grade?" "Right." Yet this registration
form at the National Archives said Oswald was in room 303 in the eighth grade."

The former teacher said the "whole third floor" was "for the ninth grade"
but the registration card showed Lee Oswald in room 303 for the 8th grade.

Oddity: This teacher said she only had ONE home room throughout her teaching at that
school...She only teaches girls in PE, but 'somehow' made friends with Lee Oswald, who
wanted to be called "Harvey." Yet she does not quite describe his residence correctly.
A record shows the 8th grade was on the third floor, not in the basement, and she
describes the boy about 8 inches shorter than he was described in New York.

She is elderly, however. Did a researcher 'refresh' her memory for her? God forbid.
Still, we have evidence that her memory of Lee H. Oswald's height is faulty:

But before we continue, a word about contaminating witnesses, whether accidentally or
purposefully:

An Example about Ferrie witnesses: I protested the contamination of Ferrie witnesses by
Stephen Roy (David Blackburst) who stated he gathered them together to talk (allowing
dissonances to be resolved-- and to be recorded ---but gahering witnesses together should
never be done by an honest researcher --...differences in tesimony vanish when they are
brought together, 'refreshing' each others' memories. When I told Mr. Roy that he had
done wrong, and that the method was reprehensible, he wroe tha he would do it again, that
it wasn;t wrong. Hence, none of the statements collected on tape or in interviews of
"Ferrie witnesses" after 1998 should be considered as pristine and untainted. Needless to
say, Mr. Roy does not like me very much. Wish I had never spoken to him about it...but it
was important to tell him that his methodology was poor.

5) The most important problem with Myra DaRouse is her statement that:

"Well, I'm about 5'3" now, but I was about 5'4" back then, and I would say he came up to
about here [indicating]. I would say he was about 4'8", 4'6", or about 4'8"."

"That small -- 4'6" or 4'8"?"

"Yeah, he was little, scrawny" (70).

"Myra DaRouse saw Harvey every day at Beauregard in 1955. Myra's description of a 4'6" or
4'8" Lee Harvey Oswald in the spring of 1954 differs considerably with his New York court
and school records -- if this is the same Lee Harvey Oswald. In his 1952-53 school records,
in the two columns marked for the seventh and eighth grades, Oswald's height is listed as 64
inches, or 5'4". He has shrunk eight inches or more since leaving New York (71)."

We should not couch comments in this kind of language. It helps prejudice the reader.
The comment should be something like: "We need to find more records about Oswald in this
time zone to see if this description is accurate."

And if we look for more records, here's what we find:

Lee and his friend Ed Voebel were in the Civil Air Patrol in 1955. We have a photo taken
during a CAP summer campout where Dave Ferrie and Lee are shown in the same photo:



Applying geometry and the rules of perspective, and taking into account that both Ferrie
and Oswald have their heads lowered -- and Ferrie is wearing a helmet that adds ~3" to his
height -- that both are standing with feet separated, which also reduces height somewhat
for each, we can calculate well enough -- because we know the size of the helmets -- and
Ferrie's height --to obtain an adequate estimate of Lee Oswald's height. Ferrie measured
at 5' 9". With the above compensations accounted for, we obtain an approximate height for
Lee Oswald between 5' 3" and 5' 4" in the CAP photo. It is doubtful that Lee Oswald grew
some eight inches in a few months.

Conclusion: The photograph has to be considered more accurate than Myra DaRouse.

[quote name='Jack White' post='188830' date='Apr 5 2010, 12:25 AM']Jim writes (which I could not locate):

...to distract attention from the blockbuster post I have just made
about the "missing tooth"

Just what is this blockbuster post about a missing tooth? It is
covered in great detail in Harvey & Lee...pages 91-92. Jim and
Judyth may be surprised to learn that it was LEE who had the
missing tooth...NOT HARVEY. (It was Harvey that JVB knew.)

So what is the JVB blockbuster? Armstrong DOCUMENTS IT
BY INTERVIEWING A CLASSMATE, Ed Voebel, who was present
during the fight between LEE and Robin Riley, who punched
Lee in the mouth. If the JVB version of the blockbuster differs
from this, it is FALSE.

Voebel told John that Riley knocked out an LHO tooth. It was on
the schoolyard of Beauregard Junior High School. That's it.

Jack[/quote]

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON LEE'S RELATIONSHIP WITH DAVID FERRIE

NOTE: I no longer understand Jack's position or, should I say, I understand it all
too well. He appears to be completely closed minded and unwilling to admit even
when Judyth has shown him to be mistaken about Lee's discharge, about the way
in which he traveled to New Orleans, about whether or not he could drive, about
the "index" to the supporting volumes, and much more. I am at a loss as to what
to say to my dear friend, since we appear to be at an impasse. I shall continue to
post information that Judyth provides for the benefit of the research community.
This is a compendium of testimony about Ferrie and Oswald from HSCA sources.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

No matter how many ways some people will try to say that Lee did not know Ferrie, I
know better. BELOW IS A LIST OF PEOPLE REPORTING OSWALD AND FERRIE WERE
CONTEMPORARIES IN THE Civil Air Patrol, which by the way was founded by Mr. Byrd,
[who was a Texas oil man], who purchased the building where the TSBD was located
not long before the assassination. (Note the citation I provide at the end of this post.)

1) Edward Voebel, stating that Lee Oswald may have attended a party at Dave
Ferrie's house during the CAP period (and I support that):

"On November 27, 1963, 5 days after President Kennedy's murder, Voebel was also
interviewed by New Orleans Police Department officers. In a report of this interview,
prepared for P.J. Trosclair, Jr., of the department, it was noted that Voebel believed
Oswald had attended the Moisant CAP meetings for "only about 1 month."
During the course of this police interview, however, Voebel also stated that while he
could not be sure, he thought that Oswald may once have attended a party
given by Ferrie during their involvement with the CAP.

According to the HSCA report (which I have broken into segments for easier reading):

Voebel stated that he believed Oswald attended a party (not sure) at the home
of David Ferrie (captain) right after the members of the CAP received their stripes?

Below are some records related to Lee's CAP registration and Ferrie's involvement, unofficially, in CAP during that time span.

2) In an FBI interview on November 27, 1963, another CAP executive was able to supply partial information regarding Oswald's involvement. Joseph Ehrlicker told FBI agents that while he was unable to find a CAP application by Oswald, he was able to locate a record indicating that "Oswald was enrolled as a CAP cadet on July 27, 1955, at which time he was given Serial No. 084965." Oswald was then enrolled in the cadet squadron at Moisant Airport. The records did not indicate when Oswald left the CAP unit. Also with regard to
David Ferrie:

"Ehrlicker was able to determine that Ferrie's first period as Squadron Commander was terminated December 31, 1954. He was working at Moisant Airport at this time. It was later found out that Ferrie subsequent to this date was working with the squadron at Moisant without official connection with the CAP. As of late 1955 he was no longer with the squadron.

From the fragmented CAP membership documentation provided by Ehrlicker, Ferrie was involved with the Moisant CAP unit (in an apparently unofficial capacity) for an uncertain period of time between December 31, 1954, and "late 1955?' The same CAP documentation indicated that Oswald had been involved in the same CAP unit in the summer of 1955, having officially enrolled on July 27, 1955. Thus, while the CAP documentation available in 1963 did not permit a conclusive determination, the records themselves lent substantial credence to the possibility that Oswald and Ferrie had been involved in the same CAP unit during the same period of time. While Ferrie stated during his November 25, 1963, FBI interview, that he had been a commander of the Lakefront Airport CAP unit, it was not until December 10, 1963, when he provided another statement to the Bureau, that he said he had also worked with the Moisant Airport CAP."

3) "In another interview with the committee on December 9, 1978, another former CAP member recalled Oswald's participation in the New Orleans unit. Collin Hamer, now an official of the New Orleans Public Library, stated that he had attended "about ten or twelve meetings" of the CAP unit during which Oswald was also present. Hamer knew both Oswald and Voebel and said that Oswald had begun attending the CAP meetings sometime around the summer of 1955. He stated that the 10 or 12 meetings that Oswald attended were held at the Eastern Airlines hangar at the Moisant Airport. He further stated that Oswald had attended the meetings for roughly 2 months, during which the unit usually met twice a week, on Friday nights and Sunday afternoons. Hamer commented that he had never been interviewed by the FBI following the assassination of President Kennedy.

According to Hamer, David Ferrie had been present during the CAP meetings that Oswald attended: "Ferrie was at all the meetings during the time Lee and I were involved in CAP. He didn't always do the teaching, but he was always there." Hamer told the committee that Oswald "was a real quiet kid" and that Ferrie "treated Oswald just like the rest of us. He was just the teacher so to speak."

Hamer further stated, "I don't know anything about whether or not Ferrie and Oswald had any contact outside of the CAP. All I know is that Oswald was in our unit for about 2 months, and Ferrie ran it during that time." Hamer further recalled that Ferrie was "a tough commander" who became irritated if the cadets "goofed around at all." Hamer also recalled calling Oswald's home on one occasion to make sure that Oswald was going to attend a CAP meeting. Hamer did not know why Oswald left the CAP unit.

Hamer also told the committee that he was aware that some CAP cadets had "hung around" at Ferrie's house and engaged in outside activities with him. He did not know if Oswald ever had such contact with Ferrie. Finally, Hammer said that he, himself, had become an adjutant of the CAP unit several years later and "weeded out a lot of the old files then," but did not recall handling any files on Oswald."

4) The committee also interviewed a former commander of the Moisant Airport CAP squadron, Mrs. Gladys Durr.

"Mrs. Durr had been interviewed by the FBI on November 25, 1963. In that interview, she advised that she had assumed command of the CAP unit in October or December 1955, which would have been several months after the CAP records indicated Oswald left. Mrs. Durr stated that she did not recall knowing Lee Oswald, but that David Ferrie had been "expelled" from the CAP squadron "at about the time" she joined it. While Mrs. Durr became commander of the squadron subsequent to the time when Oswald was a member, her recollection that Ferrie was still active in the unit until late 1955 would indicate that he probably was in fact with the unit during the period that Lee Oswald was in it."

"In her committee interview, Mrs. Durr stated that while she did not know Oswald, she could recall other cadets remembering that he attended the meetings. She further recalled that Ferrie had originally conducted CAP classes at New Orleans Lakefront Airport, but had then begun teaching at Moisant Airport where she was commander. She said Ferrie was a magnetic and intelligent man who had a strong following among the cadets. He also had a reputation for having bad moral character, and on one occasion some CAP cadets had become drunk at his home and engaged in various activities in the nude. [insertion by JVB: is it such a stretch to say Lee Oswald went to a party at Ferrie's after a meeting with oher CAP members, then went upstairs by himself to look a Ferrie's 'science room' --and that the other boys left, and that Oswald, who needed a ride home via Ferrie's motocycle, found himself alone with Ferrie, and feared Ferrie was going to sexually assault him? ) Mrs. Durr stated that such incidents were what led to Ferrie being expelled from that particular CAP unit. [JVB: note the plural 'incidents.']

5) "The committee interviewed another former commander of the New Orleans CAP, John Irion, active with the group from 1955 to 1959. Irion, a management and public relations consultant, worked closely with Ferrie during their years with the CAP. The two were personal friends for over 10 years, and Irion once testified on Ferrie's behalf during a legal proceeding against him. Irion, Ferrie, and the mayor of New Orleans were once photographed together a CAP photograph later published by the New Orleans Times Picayune... Irion recalled that Ferrie was a "dynamic" leader known for his intelligence. He recalled being introduced by Ferrie to Carlos Marcello's attorney, G. Wray Gill, on more than one occasion. Irion told the committee that he recalled Lee Oswald going through "basic training" with the CAP during the period in which he and Ferrie were with the New Orleans squadron, but he could not recall any specific personal contact between Oswald and Ferrie. He believed that contact was highly probable during that period."

6) "The committee was able to locate and interview Anthony Atzenhoffer, who had served as the platoon sergeant for the Moisant Airport CAP squadron in late 1954 and 1955. Atzenhoffer recalled helping coordinate the small CAP unit at Moisant and noted that his duties had included calling the roll at meetings and handling registration matters? Atzenhoffer recalled attending a party with Ferrie and other CAP cadets during that period; the party may have been at Ferrie's house. He also recalled that Ferrie once tried to recruit his CAP cadets in the squadron to participate in some kind of medical experiment."

7) The committee also interviewed Jerry Paradis, the former recruit instructor of the New Orleans Lakefront CAP unit. In confirming that Oswald had attended the Lakefront squadron meetings (in addition to the Moisant CAP meetings), Paradis corroborated the accounts of other Oswald colleagues in the CAP. Paradis, now a corporate attorney, told the committee that Oswald attended the Lakefront CAP meetings for several weeks or several months. During the period that he had served as recruit instructor, Paradis could recall that Oswald came to "at least 10 or 15 meetings," attending the CAP sessions "quite a few times."

In his interview with the committee on December 15, 1978, Paradis stated that he had never been contacted or interviewed by, the FBI about his past involvement in the CAP with Oswald and Ferrie. He also stated that no other investigators had ever interviewed him. Paradis told the committee that Oswald had attended numerous CAP meetings at which Ferrie had been the instructor. Ferrie "was always there" during the period in which Oswald attended the Lakefront squadron. Paradis repeated that he believed there were "at least 10 or 15 meetings" during which Oswald and Ferrie were present. He told the committee, "Oswald and Ferrie were in the unit together. I know they were there because I was there." Further, "I specifically remember Oswald. I can remember him clearly, and Ferrie was heading the unit then. I'm not saying that they may have been there together, I'm saying it is a certainty." Paradis noted that he and Ferrie were good friends and he had always respected Ferrie, even though Ferrie was somewhat "unusual." Paradis stated that he had no knowledge of any relationship between Oswald and Ferrie outside of the CAP meetings and did not recall anything unusual about their contact at the meetings.. He recalled that Ferrie was a "fairly stern, but generally likable" instructor. Paradis also stated that Ferrie and others from the Lakefront CAP unit sometimes participated in the Moisant CAP squadron meetings and that Ferrie later left the Lakefront unit to instruct at Moisant full-time. Paradis recalled that he had been surprised that he was not interviewed by the FBI following the President's assassination, stating, "I sure could have told them when Oswald and Ferrie were in the CAP. I could have given them what they wanted."

Reference for the above information, regarding the HSCA Committee:
David Stager: OSWALD, DAVID FERRIE AND THE CIVIL AIR PATROL
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 23:39:44 GMT
Organization: Master of Technology, Inc.
Lines: 610
Message-ID: <3n1j9b$9o8@nntp.crl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: crl9.crl.com
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent v0.46

JUDYTH REPLIES TO YET ANOTHER FALSE CLAIM BY JACK WHITE

NOTE: This one seems to belong on the list with Jack's other blunders about Lee's discharge,
about how we know how he traveled to New Orleans, his flawed defense of John Armstrong's
blunder about the "index", and whether or not Lee could drive. Strictly speaking, a lie is (1)
an assertion (2) that is false (3) that is asserted in the knowledge that it is false (4) with the
intention of misleading the audience. Jack may have picked it up somewhere and simply be
repeating it without having verified the claim made, but the situation here is so odd that, in
my opinion this claim properly qualifies as "a lie" and she is justified to be pissed off about it.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK:

**One of JVB's oddest claims is that she hated her family name of AVARY...so she changed
it to VARY. I consider this as weird as if I were to change my name from WHITE to HITE."

JACK HAS WRITTEN A FALSEHOOD. WHERE DID HE GET IT FROM? SOMEONE HAS SUPPLIED
THIS FALSEHOOD TO HIM WHO DOESN'T CARE WHAT HAPPENS TO JACK'S REPUTATION.

JACK NEVER OFFERS CITATIONS. BUT HE SHOULD EXPLAIN WHO GAVE HIM THIS LIE?

1) MY FAMILY NAME IS "VARY" AND IT IS ON MY BIRTH CERTIFICATES. IT IS ALSO ON MY WEBSITE.

2) I USED 'AVARY' AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE TO DISGUISE MY MAIDEN NAME
'VARY' BECAUSE OF MY PAST IN NEW ORLEANS IN THAT STATE: I DID NOT WANT ANYBODY TO BE
ALERTED THAT I HAD RETURNED TO LOUISIANA. AND I DID THAT NAME CHANGE BEFORE SPEAKING
OUT BECAUSE I WAS AFRAID, YET WANTED TO SEE IF I COULD FIND A FEW WITNESSES WHO MIGHT
REMEMBER ME.

WONDERING ABOUT WHO LIVED AND WHO DIED, WHEN I WAS OFFERED A FELLOWSHIP IN A DOCTORAL
PROGRAM THERE AND I ACCEPTED THE OFFER.

JACK SEEMS TO BE ACCESSING A SERIES OF BLATANT FALSEHOODS ABOUT ME--AND NOT CITING HIS
SOURCES. OR IS HE MAKING THIS UP ABOUT ME?

GOD FORBID.

AGAIN, Jack White wrote:

**One of JVB's oddest claims is that she hated her family name of AVARY...so she changed it to VARY.
I consider this as weird as if I were to change my name from WHITE to HITE."

And again (to review all this):

1) My family name is "Vary".

2) I never hated my family name, and it was not 'Avary.'

3) I used the name "Avary' for my first name BEFORE speaking out a U of LA at Lafayete because I
was afraid to have 'Vary' out there, due to my past with Lee Oswald, in New Orleans, which I was still
attempting to hide.

This was 1996. A the end of 1998, I saw JFK and decided to speak out, despie the consequences, and
despie the lies I knew would be spread about me.

Indeed the lies have been generated--such as this one.

Where did this lie come from, Mr. White?

JVB

[quote name='Jack White' post='188837' date='Apr 5 2010, 12:10 AM']
I often disagree with some of Barb's writings and ALLIANCES, but I MUST SAY I AM IN 100 PERCENT AGREEMENT WITH WHAT SHE WRITES BELOW. I could not have written it better.

I must say that I have studied for credibility all new witnesses who have come forward in later years. I find
most are credible. The ones NOT CREDIBLE, in my studied opinion, are James Files, Chauncey Holt, and
Judyth Baker. I admit that all three had some very MINOR association with some players in the plot, but
their tales border on the absurd and their motives are transparent. Baker is by far the strangest** of these
historical hitch-hikers.

Jack

**One of JVB's oddest claims is that she hated her family name of AVARY...so she changed it to VARY.
I consider this as weird as if I were to change my name from WHITE to HITE.

[quote name='Barb Junkkarinen' post='188835' date='Apr 4 2010, 10:58 PM']
[quote name='Linda Minor' post='188823' date='Apr 4 2010, 11:10 PM']
Count me on Judyth's side. I found more valuable information on her book than in any "research" from Barb, Jack, Dixie and Bill combined. I'm not saying they haven't contributed anything, only that I'm not aware of what it might be. Yet they have the gall to attack her. Rather than simply dispute this, please inform me what any of the named researchers has contributed to solving the answer of who killed John Kennedy and why. I would be grateful to know that answer. I don't understand why they feel so compelled to attack Judyth, especially since most have not even seen the previous botched version of her book, which I found so valuable.[/quote]

Hi Linda,

We are a research community of people with varied interests, some only get involved with their specific area of interest, some get involved on a more general across the board basis, or find themselves interested in a certain topic when something new appears to have come forward. And newly found documents, as well as newly claimed witnesses, have come forth from time to time over the years.

Some of those documents, like one posted here not long ago, had been found to be fraudulent. Any information must be evaluated carefully to verify it's validity, or how can it have any value to a search for the truth about the assassination of JFK?

The same is true of witnesses .... no matter who it is .... Brennan, Jean Hill, James Files, Judyth, Beverly Oliver, etc. ... whomever, it does not matter. If they are credible, they may have very important information that can open new avenues of research and lead to discovery. If they are not credible, they only serve to muddy the waters of an already confusing arena and set well meaning researchers off on false trails.

One way, imo, to assess the veracity of a witness, is to fact check all of those claims that can be fact checked ... not all can be. But if those that can be fact checked fail the verification process, then just how much credibility ... and reliability ... can anyone place on their claims that cannot be fact checked?

Fact checking is not a personal "attack" on a witness ... it is the necessary process by which we can evaluate new information and evidence, or assess the value some new information may or may not have, as well as if a source, like in the case of a new witness, has credibility. In my opinion, any source whose claims in general fail simple fact checking verification, are not sources that can be trusted for valid research based on their word alone and their claim to be a witness.

When one claims to be a witness, but also is known to have done a great deal of research, their opinions, discoveries, work as a researcher, are certainly as valid as anyone else's as long as it can be documented, if being claimed as fact just like all of us must do. Claims of fact that rely on "I am a witness so what I tell you is true" necessarily must lead back to the evaluation of the veracity of any of that witnesses claims ... they either check out, or they don't.

Will I attack documentable falsehoods? You bet. No matter who puts them out. We get no closer to the truth, in fact the waters
get more muddied, any other way.

We all perceive evidence in different ways, we all have different opinions ... thank you for sharing yours.

Happy Easter to you,
Barb :-)
[/quote]
[/quote]

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON JIM'S RESPONSE TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH"

NOTE: Jack writes in post #912 about the "blockbuster" post,

Just what is this blockbuster post about a missing tooth?
It is covered in great detail in Harvey & Lee...pages 91-92. Jim and
Judyth may be surprised to learn that it was LEE who had the
missing tooth...NOT HARVEY. (It was Harvey that JVB knew.)

So what is the JVB blockbuster? Armstrong DOCUMENTS IT
BY INTERVIEWING A CLASSMATE, Ed Voebel, who was present
during the fight between LEE and Robin Riley, who punched
Lee in the mouth. If the JVB version of the blockbuster differs
from this, it is FALSE.

Voebel told John that Riley knocked out an LHO tooth. It was on
the schoolyard of Beauregard Junior High School. That's it.

Jack

In post #914, he posts this graphic attributed to J. Pruitt in 2002:




JUDYTH COMMENTS:

Believe it or not, the 'blockbuster' matter is here, because one of the persons -- 'Harvey' or "Lee' -- was supposed to
have no front tooth. Yet we have no later photos showing a missing front tooth in either 'collection' so far as I am aware.

IT'S A BIG DEAL THAT LEE SAVED HIS TOOTH BECAUSE THIS SHOWS NO 'TOOTH' DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'HARVEY'
AND 'LEE' AFTER ALL...

The argument is that "Harvey" was returned to New Orleans. The photo at he school cannot be "Lee" as Armstrong
says a puny "Harvey" is going to school here. Yet the boy in the photo with the tooth out is obviously a big boy.



Here is the argument as I see it so far:

1) Armstrong says the teacher Myra D describes a small, puny boy who wants to be called "Harvey" -- but she is shaky
on other memories, such as homeroom record showing "Harvey" in a different classroom for home room, describing
"Exhchange Alley" and a "ballroom" instead of pool hall...She also mentions Voebel as "Harvey's" friend -- who always
called Lee "Lee."

So this is shaky to use as 'evidence' that "Harvey" is at Beauregard.

2) We have the photo of Lee Oswald and Dave Ferrie at camp, showing a "Harvey" who has grown a heck of a lot in a
short period of time...In fact, he is at the New York height....

3) We have the earlier photo of who is supposed to be "Harvey" showing off his lost tooth at Beauregard...But now, he is
called LEE -- because he is obviously not a shrimp?

Please tell me what is going on here. I do not have the book. Is Armstrong saying that "Harvey" returned from New York
with Marguerite, and is described as a "shrimp" by the elderly teacher, and as wanting to be called "Harvey" but somehow
in the same school we have "Lee" showing off a missing tooth?

Or is this supposed to be "Harvey" showing off a missing tooth?

I am curious to know, because the person in the photo is Lee H. Oswald, and he is not a shrimp. Can Jack explain what
we are looking at here, better, so I can understand? Because he said LEE was left behind in New York, and LEE and HARVEY
are registered at different schools...etc.

Can Jack make us a timeline?

For I have information about the school records that is quite different. It is based on information Lee gave about why they
left New york, when they left, and when thy arrived in New Orleans.

Meanwhile, this issue is important because....

LEE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXHUMED, MARINA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH ALL OF THIS, EXCEPT FOR EVERYONE
INSISTING 'HARVEY' WAS NOT LEE, THAT (HARVEY/LEE) HAD A MISSING TOOTH AND -- WORSE -- THAT THE MUMMIFICATION
PROCESS THAT HELD TOGETHER THE SKULL WOULD BE INTERPRETED TO MAKE A MORTICIAN (WHO IS NOT A DOCTOR OR A
FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST) THINK THE CRANITOMY NEVER HAPPENED AND THAT THIS MUST BE SOMEBODY ELSE'S SKULL,
BECAUSE IT DID NOT FALL APART.

THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS THAT I EXPLAINED IN AN EARLIER POST ABOUT PARTIAL MUMMIFICATION AND
CALCIFICATION THAT SEALS UP SUTURES.

I BELIEVE THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES AND THAT THE INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT.
PLEASE REREAD WHAT IMPLICATIONS ARE AT STAKE HERE.

THE HARVEY AND LEE MATTER -- WE NEED TO FIND OUT MUCH MORE ABOUT INTERVIEWS, ETC.

I AM CONCERNED THAT MYRA D WAS GUIDED TO SOME OF HER STATEMENTS, SUCH AS SAYING LEE WANTED TO BE CALLED
"HARVEY", SINCE LEE'S FRIEND, ED VOEBEL, CALLED HIM "LEE".

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE....

SOMEONE WISER THAN I AM CAN PERHAPS EXPLAIN WHY LEE WOULD HAVE ASKED HER TO CALL HIM 'HARVEY,' AS I KNOW LEE
DISLIKED HIS MIDDLE NAME.

I HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE RECORDS AT STRIPLING AND BEAUREGARD WHICH WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED YET.

I guess my analysis of the mummification process, and how calcification of the cranial suture where the bone was sawed, and
jellyfying of the scalp tissues in the partial mummification would hide the suture and also hold the top of the cranium secure with
the rest of the cranium...was not absorbed the readers...The exhumation should not have taken place if people had understood
how blood drained from the face changes the contours of the face drasically...the TERRIBLE job done by the mortician I shall not
comment further upon...But in the end, they exhumed poor Lee...

JVB

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188879' date='Apr 5 2010, 08:54 AM']
JIM REPLIES TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH" AND MUCH, MUCH MORE

I have now read pages 91-92 of HARVEY & LEE, which seem to imply that "Lee" suffered a permanent
loss of tooth. What struck me is that the alleged difference between "Lee" and "Harvey" is explainable
by the scenrio Judyth has sketched of the tooth having been restored. Are there records of either of
the alleged "Oswalds" having a false tooth? Are there adult photos of "Lee" as opposed to "Harvey",
because I have considerable reservations about the photo studies that have been discussed, where it
seems to me, apart from a few that do not belong in these sets, they may all be of the same person.

Since I am responding to your concerns and concede that my description may have been overblown,
how about reciprocating in relation to the question that Howard has raised about your having found
the abstract of a paper that Judyth had said she had presented, but which--like every other claim she
has made--has been vigorously disputed by someone on this forum or elsewhere? Would you be so
kind as to summarize the content of the paper whose abstract you discovered? That you have found
substantiation for some of her claims leads me to believe you may not be as biased as I have thought.

Reading more of HARVEY & LEE, I am getting a better sense for why Jack finds it impossible to even
talk about these things without making explicit his reference to "Lee" or to "Harvey", because John is
relentless in his usage of those names. It seems to me that Judyth's knowledge of the man she knew
in New Orleans--whom Jack and John call "Harvey"--does not depend on the refutation of the possible
existence of the other, but clearly does call into question some of the traits attributed to him, including
his place of birth, whether he could drive, and such, but not necessarily refuting their entire scenario.

It would certainly be a good idea, however, if one or the other of you were more responsive to some
of the points upon which Judyth appears to possess superior knowledge, such as Jack's false claim
that he was "undesirably discharged" (post #904), his false claim about the "index" in his attempt to
shield John from my criticism (posts #777 and #925), his false claim that we do not know how Lee
traveled to New Orleans (post #926), and his false claim about "Harvey" being unable to drive (post
#928), for example, which undermines any prospect for rational discussion of all of this (post #785).

I also believe that Judyth has raised legitimate questions about the photographic record that should not
be swept under the rug, as post #704, #830, #876, and #878, are serious contributions. I know her to
extremely gifted and knowledgeable about the man she knew in New Orleans and her arguments, such
as her eye color study in post #736, are brilliant and deserve to be acknowledged. I am deeply troubled
Robert's role in all of this has not been examined with more diligence. Posts as early as #469, #676, #679,
#689, #800, and especially #813 offer indications of the reasons for my suspicions. Perhaps David Lifton
will take pains to track Robert's role relative to his brother, which appears to me to be the key to the case.

There are obvious disadvantages to my becoming involved in this, since I have not been exposed to the
interrogations of Judyth in the past. For that very reason, however, I believe I have a contribution that
others cannot make. Sometimes a fresh look with a new pair of eyes can make a difference. I believe
that she has not been given a fair shake in the past, which I am attempting to provide here. And that I
am not immersed in the conception of "Harvey & Lee" also grants the intellectual freedom to consider a
different pair of "Oswalds", Robert and Lee, which I would like to believe may provide the stimulus for a
new look at the other brother who, in my estimation, is the ideal candidate to have impersonated Lee.

[quote name='Barb Junkkarinen' post='188873' date='Apr 5 2010, 07:44 AM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188826' date='Apr 4 2010, 11:50 PM']
So why did you bring it up again now, right after this blockbuster about Lee's missing tooth? You trade in trivia, while Judyth is making major contributions. Linda has it right: You post nothing significant because you have nothing significant to post. Your conduct here is utterly transparent.[/quote]

Oh please. There are many issues being discussed in this thread. I was responding to something Pamela said ... and used that as an example for her to tell us all how I "cherrypick" ... as I had posted it many many pages and posts ago, so it was already here.

But, I do stand in awe ... for you actually seem unaware that the debate over the "two Oswald's" .... Harvey vs Lee, the 2 schools, etc... and yes, the tooth ... is very old news! Your "blockbuster" has been discussed and discussed over the years. How can you really not already know this stuff ... and that it has been hotly debated over the years? Funny ... I even found an exchange Doug Weldon and I had on the issue in 1999 ... when someone else mentioned putting a tooth in milk so it could be put back into the socket. Ah, but it's Judyth's "blockbuster" that is the news and importance here, you'll say!

But this is not the first time Judyth has written/spoken about this ... she has on Rich's forum, on BlackOp and on the moderated group. Back as far as at least 2002.

It really astounds me that you seem to think this is some new groundbreaking news on Judyth's part ... and that you are so unaware of her story over the years. Yet you chastise others as if you are teaching them!

Her story was a little different then ... changed in midstream when a problem with her chronology was pointed out. First she had LHO telling her all about how Ferrie had slugged him and at least loosened the tooth after a CAP gathering at Ferrie's house (in her post here now she says LHO rode with Ferrie on a Harley to Ferrie's house after a CAP gathering) and then a week later it was knocked out by someone at school. She notes there was a famous photo showing it. The problem is that the photo was taken, and the school incident occurred, months before LHO attended CAP meetings and met Ferrie.

At one point she has Ferrie telling LHO about milk, at another time she has an unnamed person at school advising him to put the tooth in milk.

I did a post in 2004 that includes a chronology of it all ... something Dave Reitzes had put together of quotes and posted in 2002. Looks like most of this story was related by Judyth on the jfkResearch forum ... and Dave had those posts.

It is long, so here is the link for anyone who is interested. I could post it all here, but if this works for everyone, there is no need.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...r%3Ajunkkarinen

Kind of a wonder that Judyth wanted to delve back into this one, especially with the new change, though she did now say she may have mixed up some small details. :-)
[/quote]
[/quote]

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON A PROBLEM WITH "HARVEY & LEE" AND THEIR MISSING TEETH

NOTE: Hopefully, in the course of my posting, I have kept everything straight and Jack White
will come back to explain all this away on behalf of his and John's theory of "Harvey & Lee".
Otherwise, it would appear to be a problem with the history of Harvey and Lee's missing teeth.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

There is something peculiar going on here.....

According to Jack White's statements:

1. LEE Oswald (taller) is supposed to have stayed in New York when Marguerite brought "Harvey" (shrimp) back with her.

2. "Harvey" is enrolled at Beauregard, not Lee, where, to support this, Jack has told us that:

a ) Myra D, girls' gym teacher, stated the boy was a shrimp and asked to be called "Harvey" even though his friend,

b ) We have a record that Lee Oswald was a student there and had a homeroom on the 9th floor, but Myra D says no, her
homeroom had Lee in it, in the basement...her word against the record

c ) Armstrong asks if Oswald shrank some 6-8 inches

3. But then we are shown a photo of "LEE" (It HAS to be Lee because this is no "shrimp"-- and he has had a tooth knocked
out...It's described by Ed Voebel, by the way, who therefore HAD TO KNOW BOTH HARVEY AND LEE IF MYRA D'S FILMED
INTERVIEW IS TO BE BELIEVED.

4. But what? We have BOTH HARVEY AND LEE ENROLLED AT BEAUREGARD? What about the records brought up earlier
about other schools, showing Oswald could not be in both at once? Now we have BOTH Oswalds in the SAME school at once?

5. Then we are shown a photo of Lee -- er -- Harvey -- 'also' with a tooth out and told it is in a different location. However,
this photo on the left appears to have come from the Ferrie-Oswald camp-out photo....And when you blow that up, please
correct me if I'm wrong, but where's the missing tooth?

This is very strange, people.

Are we to believe that BOTH of these youngsters EACH lost a permanent tooth?

What about the exhumation photo that shows a rotated tooth, but no lost tooth?

We need to see satements from the book, ID's about the provenance of this photo supposedly showing HARVEY with a
DIFFERENT tooth out, and we have to ask ourselves why has nobody noticed that LEE and HARVEY are thereby attending
the same school-Beauregard.

And anyone who states that this thread is of no imporance when we are uncovering so many problems with HARVEY and
LEE simply isn't reading the thread. Those, too, who say I have not answered the questions thrown my way, have simply
not read the threads. This is not some game where people decide whether to 'believe' me or not. This is deadly serious,
and the truth will be buried unless somebody stands up and says, "Wait a minute. The truth is more important than my
feelings. The truth is more important than whether you like me or not. The truth is even more important than friendships."

The truth can mean we can get the case solved instead of saing it can never be solved.

Unless you bury the witnesses who speak the truth.

Look closely at this post, people. HOW MANY OSWALDS ATTENDED BEAUREGARD? IS IT POSSIBLE THEY BOTH LOST
A PERMANENT TOOTH? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT BOTH BOYS ARE REALLY THE SAME PERSON AND THAT SOMEBODY HAS
CREATED AN ENORMOUS BOOK BASED UPON A LOT OF INTERVIEWS AND PHOTOS, BUT WITHOUT MAKING PROPER
DISTINCTIONS, SUCH AS THAT BOTH BOYS COULD NOT BE A BEAUREGARD AT THE SAME TIME, BOTH COULD NOT
HAVE LOST PERMANENT TEETH AT THE SAME TIME. AND IT SEEMS THAT SOMEBODY IS RETOUCHING PHOTOS HERE,
BLOATING PHOTOS THERE. AND IN GENERAL, SOMEBODY HAS BEEN DUPED BY SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE.

NAYSAYERS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THIS THREAD. CALL ME NAMES LATER. BUT JUST FOR NOW, PLEASE LET US
WORK TOGETHER TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.

JVB

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188900' date='Apr 5 2010, 05:24 PM']
JUDYTH COMMENTS ON JIM'S RESPONSE TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH"

NOTE: Jack writes in post #912 about the "blockbuster" post,

Just what is this blockbuster post about a missing tooth?
It is covered in great detail in Harvey & Lee...pages 91-92. Jim and
Judyth may be surprised to learn that it was LEE who had the
missing tooth...NOT HARVEY. (It was Harvey that JVB knew.)

So what is the JVB blockbuster? Armstrong DOCUMENTS IT
BY INTERVIEWING A CLASSMATE, Ed Voebel, who was present
during the fight between LEE and Robin Riley, who punched
Lee in the mouth. If the JVB version of the blockbuster differs
from this, it is FALSE.

Voebel told John that Riley knocked out an LHO tooth. It was on
the schoolyard of Beauregard Junior High School. That's it.

Jack

In post #914, he posts this graphic attributed to J. Pruitt in 2002:




JUDYTH COMMENTS:

Believe it or not, the 'blockbuster' matter is here, because one of the persons -- 'Harvey' or "Lee' -- was supposed to
have no front tooth. Yet we have no later photos showing a missing front tooth in either 'collection' so far as I am aware.

IT'S A BIG DEAL THAT LEE SAVED HIS TOOTH BECAUSE THIS SHOWS NO 'TOOTH' DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'HARVEY'
AND 'LEE' AFTER ALL...

The argument is that "Harvey" was returned to New Orleans. The photo at he school cannot be "Lee" as Armstrong
says a puny "Harvey" is going to school here. Yet the boy in the photo with the tooth out is obviously a big boy.



Here is the argument as I see it so far:

1) Armstrong says the teacher Myra D describes a small, puny boy who wants to be called "Harvey" -- but she is shaky
on other memories, such as homeroom record showing "Harvey" in a different classroom for home room, describing
"Exhchange Alley" and a "ballroom" instead of pool hall...She also mentions Voebel as "Harvey's" friend -- who always
called Lee "Lee."

So this is shaky to use as 'evidence' that "Harvey" is at Beauregard.

2) We have the photo of Lee Oswald and Dave Ferrie at camp, showing a "Harvey" who has grown a heck of a lot in a
short period of time...In fact, he is at the New York height....

3) We have the earlier photo of who is supposed to be "Harvey" showing off his lost tooth at Beauregard...But now, he is
called LEE -- because he is obviously not a shrimp?

Please tell me what is going on here. I do not have the book. Is Armstrong saying that "Harvey" returned from New York
with Marguerite, and is described as a "shrimp" by the elderly teacher, and as wanting to be called "Harvey" but somehow
in the same school we have "Lee" showing off a missing tooth?

Or is this supposed to be "Harvey" showing off a missing tooth?

I am curious to know, because the person in the photo is Lee H. Oswald, and he is not a shrimp. Can Jack explain what
we are looking at here, better, so I can understand? Because he said LEE was left behind in New York, and LEE and HARVEY
are registered at different schools...etc.

Can Jack make us a timeline?

For I have information about the school records that is quite different. It is based on information Lee gave about why they
left New york, when they left, and when thy arrived in New Orleans.

Meanwhile, this issue is important because....

LEE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXHUMED, MARINA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH ALL OF THIS, EXCEPT FOR EVERYONE
INSISTING 'HARVEY' WAS NOT LEE, THAT (HARVEY/LEE) HAD A MISSING TOOTH AND -- WORSE -- THAT THE MUMMIFICATION
PROCESS THAT HELD TOGETHER THE SKULL WOULD BE INTERPRETED TO MAKE A MORTICIAN (WHO IS NOT A DOCTOR OR A
FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST) THINK THE CRANITOMY NEVER HAPPENED AND THAT THIS MUST BE SOMEBODY ELSE'S SKULL,
BECAUSE IT DID NOT FALL APART.

THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS THAT I EXPLAINED IN AN EARLIER POST ABOUT PARTIAL MUMMIFICATION AND
CALCIFICATION THAT SEALS UP SUTURES.

I BELIEVE THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES AND THAT THE INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT.
PLEASE REREAD WHAT IMPLICATIONS ARE AT STAKE HERE.

THE HARVEY AND LEE MATTER -- WE NEED TO FIND OUT MUCH MORE ABOUT INTERVIEWS, ETC.

I AM CONCERNED THAT MYRA D WAS GUIDED TO SOME OF HER STATEMENTS, SUCH AS SAYING LEE WANTED TO BE CALLED
"HARVEY", SINCE LEE'S FRIEND, ED VOEBEL, CALLED HIM "LEE".

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE....

SOMEONE WISER THAN I AM CAN PERHAPS EXPLAIN WHY LEE WOULD HAVE ASKED HER TO CALL HIM 'HARVEY,' AS I KNOW LEE
DISLIKED HIS MIDDLE NAME.

I HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE RECORDS AT STRIPLING AND BEAUREGARD WHICH WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED YET.

I guess my analysis of the mummification process, and how calcification of the cranial suture where the bone was sawed, and
jellyfying of the scalp tissues in the partial mummification would hide the suture and also hold the top of the cranium secure with
the rest of the cranium...was not absorbed the readers...The exhumation should not have taken place if people had understood
how blood drained from the face changes the contours of the face drasically...the TERRIBLE job done by the mortician I shall not
comment further upon...But in the end, they exhumed poor Lee...

JVB