JVB vs Scott Kaiser

[Albert Doyle]

The raw testimony tends to corroborate JVB:

Jackson

The first witness to testify was Edwin Lea McGehee, a barber from Jackson, Louisiana. He stated that on a day "in the last of August [or] the early part of September . . . along toward the evening," an "old . . . battered" car drove up to his barbershop and Lee Harvey Oswald came inside for a haircut. McGehee recalled, "There was a woman sitting on the front seat [of the car] . . . and in the back seat what I noticed was -- looked like a [baby] bassinet. . . it was an old car, it was battered, it was a dark colored car -- it might have been dark green -- but the make of it I just couldn't remember, it was an old car, real old. . . it resembled a Kaiser or a Frazer or an Old Nash."[SUP](2)[/SUP]
McGehee said he conversed with Oswald for approximately fifteen minutes about the prospect of a job at the nearby East Louisiana State Hospital. McGehee said he suggested that Oswald pay a visit to a friend of his, State Representative Reeves Morgan, who himself worked as a guard at the hospital. He also referred Oswald to his friend Henry Earl Palmer, the Registrar of Voters in nearby Clinton.[SUP](3)[/SUP]
McGehee specified that the encounter would have occurred in either late August or the first two weeks of September, adding that "I had my door open, the air-conditioning was off and it was rather cool." He noted that he and his customers frequently talked about the weather, and this was one of the reasons he could estimate the date of the incident.[SUP](4)[/SUP]
McGehee's statement is consistent with his more detailed account of June 17, 1967. One thing he stated in 1967 and would reaffirm in his 1978 interview with the HSCA is that Oswald kept staring at a picture on the wall, "a big picture of Martin Luther King at a Communist training school."[SUP](5)[/SUP]
The next witness was Reeves Morgan, who had been a member of the Louisiana
State Legislature in 1952-56 and 1960-64. He testified that Lee Oswald had visited him at his home outside Jackson for about twenty or twenty-five minutes one evening in either late August or early September 1963.[SUP](6)[/SUP]
Morgan said he'd informed Oswald that he couldn't help him get a job at the hospital ahead of his constituents, but advised him to take a Civil Service exam, and added that registering to vote nearby couldn't hurt. He testified that he remembered Oswald's name because he knew a fellow whose first name was Oswald, and he'd wondered if they might not be related.[SUP](7)[/SUP]
Morgan said he was estimating late August or early September for the meeting because of the temperature that day: it "wasn't cold weather and it wasn't hot weather, because when Oswald came to my house that evening I was burning the trash out of my fireplace and it didn't feel too bad. . . . It just felt good sitting there by it, and we both sat there and watched it burn."[SUP](8)[/SUP]
Morgan's story is consistent with his earlier statement of May 29, 1967, which also states that the visit occurred in the evening, "around dark."[SUP](9)[/SUP]
Though she was not called to testify, Morgan's daughter Mary, a student at Louisiana State University in 1967, also remembered Oswald's visit. She told the DA's office that "she did not pay much attention to the incident[,] as it was all very normal for lots of people to drop in her dad's home in order to get some help for employment." She said that "when Oswald was in the house talking with her dad, she happened to walk towards the screen door and went onto the porch and just casually noticed that there was a dark colored car parked under the tree in front of the house." It was dark outside and "she didn't really pay much attention to the car. . . . as best she can remember, it was an old car and the model was somewhere in the Fifties." She remembered "seeing a woman in the car. She did not pay much attention to the whole situation."[SUP](10)[/SUP]
Edwin Lea McGehee and Reeves Morgan's testimony placed Lee Harvey Oswald in Jackson, Louisiana, on a cool evening[SUP](11)[/SUP] in late August or early September, in an old car with a woman and, according to McGehee, a baby bassinet.[SUP](12)[/SUP]

[Scott Kaiser]

I will not be speaking at the conference.


Scott Kaiser

[Albert Doyle]

JVB's Amazon review response:

Perhaps you are unaware that there are other witnesses besides Anna Lewis. Mac McCullough is on audiotape verifying my relationship with Lee, and the Charles Thomas family knew I had details nobody had about their father whose hand I shook when Lee got his passport in 24 hours. I also have a check stub from Standard, where lee and I were first hired together before we moved together to the bigger company, and nobody in all those years ever mentioned Lee working at Standard because his first check was cut by Reily. When these issues first came out it was 1999 and internet didn't have everything. they did not have information such as that Lee called the operation to kill JFK 'the big Event' as I said in 2003 on Histoiry channel and which later E. Howard Hunt called it as well in his famous taped confession, never on internet before what I said. I led researchers to Customs imnformation never before known which has now come out. Edward T. Haslam has found massive new evidence after i gave him leads, which got him to Valdez, as well as learning that Ochsner was doing experiments out with Heath at Jackson mental hospital, which had never been on Internet. I provide new information that has also led to explaining for the first time the true occurrences out at Clinton and Jackson which are brand new. Two weeks ago, I was able to verify with witnesses present aspects of Mary Morgan's testimony about my being out at her house when lee drive me there, which of course was never on the internet. I have opened the doors to the links between Ochsner and Clay Shaw--in 1999, there was no record of their association, until I provided it. There was no record of the importance of dates such as August 30-31, but this caused Haslam to look closer and find significant facts about Mary Sherman proving her connections to the project. We unearthed documents showing Garrison intended to arrest Ochsner never published on the Internet. Never on the Internet was any evidence of Lee Oswald being able to see i Led three Lives until I showed the dates that he did watch this program, which had not been published when I first spoke out and were unknown. The connections between Mary Sherman and anti-Castro cubans, actually working with them, was first revelaed by myself and only later it got on the internet. many facts now on the internet were not present in 1999 when all these details were first written down. In fact it is I,myself, who placed a number of things on the internet which now you can find there--but they originally came from me, and now this is being thrown back in my face because they are now there. The book was written in 1999 but I did not want it published until after my death. I tried to have others write a version, which I could co-author, so i would have more support, but that didn't work. In the end, I had to bring out the original manuscript, for which I have evidence of its existence through a reporter who wrote a newspaper article back in 1999 after observing it (a huge manuscript, not what publishers first saw). This manuscript has now become two books--Me & lee, and the new book David Ferrie-mafia Pilot. My family and friends were aware of my relationship with Lee way back at the end of 1980, when 35 people found out. I saved all the artifacts I did from the past, including all the paycheck stubs and the newspaper clippings and diary notes. I'm sorry you don't believe me, but my publisher spent over two years verifying details and saw many connecting materials. Above all, Edward T. Haslam's book, Dr. Mary's Monkey, is an independent book written before Haslam ever knew about me that also pins down what I was doing and Lee's relationship to me, as he figure out how Dr. Sherman was murdered, a quest that took him decades. His book was barely known, I was able to correct him where it went wrong, and he then found a vast amount of new evidence for what we had been doing. Hopefully, you will reconsider what you have said. Thank you.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Why would anyone use Dave Reitzes as a source to 1.) Defend Clay Shaw and 2.) Prop up Judy Baker?

I mean, further, why would anyone use Reitzes as a source on anything dealing with Jim Garrison and the JFK case?

But if one is going to do so, to be consistent, then one should also link to Dave's demolition job on Baker:

http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-story.html

I would not use Reitzes myself. And when Baker and Fetzer were being shredded daily at Spartacus, I frowned on Lifton using Reitzes as a source.

The only thing I can see at work here is the old adage, the enemy of mine enemy if my friend. That is, if Reitzes somehow backs Baker, then that is cool.

The problem is, its not. And its not kosher either. Why? Because both persons have an agenda a mile wide. Reitzes' is to destroy Garrison and exonerate Clay Shaw. Baker's team--Schackleford, Platzman, Baker etc. is to find any possible opening to insert her into the Oswald story. Their trick on this incident was the older car with the bassinet story, which as I said, Garrison ended up discarding. He originally thought that the car belonged to Kerry Thornley, and the bassinet may have been June Hack's, his girlfriend at the time. But this was very early in the inquiry. Before all the strong evidence came in about the black Cadillac and Clay Shaw himself. How strong was it? How about Henry B. Clark's identification of a tall man, well dressed, , way above six feet. Clark later ID's Clay Shaw as this man. Then there was Sheriff Manchester, who asked for ID and the ID said the man's name was Clay Shaw. When he asked him where he worked, he said the ITM. It does not get any better than that does it? (Davy, pgs 104-06)

So what would Shaw be doing in an old rundown jalopy? Which everyone else ID's as a black Cadillac, like the one his friend Jeff Biddison owned? Because he wasn't driving such a vehicle.

When we get away from the Reitzes agenda, and to a much more balanced analysis, like in Bill Davy's fine book, "Let Justice be Done" we understand the whole bassinet story as a diversion and a mistake. See, McGehee never got a clear look at the car. Either when it pulled up or when it left. This is important. But he did hear a car leave and get a very, very short glimpse of it. Like Garrison, the barber came to believe that the bassinet car was completely irrelevant to the case and was associated with the laundromat down the street. He said this himself to author Bill Davy. He did hear a car leave, but it was in the other direction.

As per Van Morgan, he was the kid playing outside in the front lawn when the car drove up. He would clearly have the best look at it. The driver was a man with a shock of white hair. When the car left, Van asked his father if the governor had been there. Reeves Morgan asked why he would ask that? Van said because only the governor would come to their house in a black Cadillac. (Davy, p. 117)

So contrary to Reitzes, the raw data does not support Shaw's absence. And it does not support Baker's tall tales.

I credit Scott for doing what he did.

This will be my last post in this thread. I feel about this as Mark Lane did about the Warren Report, to debate Judy Baker demeans the people who support her as much as it does the people who disown her. Or as Carol Hewett said to me, "Jim, Judy Baker is not worth this conversation."

Good Bye.

[Scott Kaiser]

I spoke to Platzman some years ago, and although she claims they are good friends, he seemed to be sitting on the fence with her, because of some book deal that went bad. Oh, and that 60 minute thing.

[Albert Doyle]

I only pulled that from Reitzes because I assumed he got it from Garrison. It came up on Google, I don't use Reitzes as an intentional source for anything. I learned my lesson with Heymann.

So I'll assume JVB is well down the road on this stuff already so her posting that quote was with prior knowledge of all these things. It's bizarre that she would then post a confirmation of this in a recent visit with Mary Morgan.

It stands to reason that if Oswald went to Clinton/Jackson with Shaw that he would leave with him too and not switch over to some unexplained weird jalopy with JVB. Notice JVB gives no detail on how that car appears while the trip was known to be in a Cadillac. Whose car was it and where did it come from?

Looks like the wise stay away from the Fetzer/Cinque festival.

[Scott Kaiser]

Whose car was it and where did it come from?

Ghostbusters? ::

[Tracy Riddle]

Reitzes wrote some good stuff back in the 90s (which you can still find online), and then he must have fallen down, hit his head, and became a born-again lone-nutter.

[Albert Doyle]

I think DiEugenio has made a good case against Judyth Baker's credibility. I'd like to see her explain this Jackson gaffe. Where she is right now is she is sticking to her claim that she was the woman in the jalopy. She's aware of the problem because she's gone on the Amazon comments to her book claiming that she recently went to Jackson and recalled things from the time that were confirmed by Mary Morgan. But that doesn't answer the point. Her claim of being able to prove she was there through her identification of features existing at the time does not answer why Oswald switched from a black Cadillac with Ferrie and Shaw to an old jalopy with her? So JVB's answer is evasive in its form. What still hasn't been answered, and still needs to be answered, is the specific details of the who, what, why, and where of the car swap from the Cadillac to the jalopy. According to the known facts of Jackson there has to be a story behind that. So far JVB hasn't provided any.

Good job Jim. I think JVB has been busted inserting herself into a scene that the later facts proved to be impossible. This is a giant gaping hole in her credibility which begs what else did she fabricate? She's an assassination queen riding in an Oswald ghost car in the assassination parade.

Oooo, talk about busted...



.

[Scott Kaiser]

I think DiEugenio has made a good case against Judyth Baker's credibility. I'd like to see her explain this Jackson gaffe. Where she is right now is she is sticking to her claim that she was the woman in the jalopy. She's aware of the problem because she's gone on the Amazon comments to her book claiming that she recently went to Jackson and recalled things from the time that were confirmed by Mary Morgan. But that doesn't answer the point. Her claim of being able to prove she was there through her identification of features existing at the time does not answer why Oswald switched from a black Cadillac with Ferrie and Shaw to an old jalopy with her? So JVB's answer is evasive in its form. What still hasn't been answered, and still needs to be answered, is the specific details of the who, what, why, and where of the car swap from the Cadillac to the jalopy. According to the known facts of Jackson there has to be a story behind that. So far JVB hasn't provided any.

Good job Jim. I think JVB has been busted inserting herself into a scene that the later facts proved to be impossible. This is a giant gaping hole in her credibility which begs what else did she fabricate? She's an assassination queen riding in an Oswald ghost car in the assassination parade.

Oooo, talk about busted...



.

Are you prepared to buy four hours of interview, it will cost you!


https://vimeo.com/ondemand/24516