05-08-2015, 06:41 PM
Judyth Baker responded on her Facebook page:
{ "DID LEE HARVEY OSWALD GO TO MEXICO CITY?"
According to "Ralph Yates" (Amazon book review comment on Me & Lee) I'm making "excuses similar to a schoolgirl" "making up excuses as she goes along" --and he focuses on The Cuban Consulate and Silvia Duran, who worked there, saying "The problem with this is the best of Kennedy Assassination research is starting to show that Oswald never went to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City. So how could Oswald return to Baker in Texas and give her details about a place he never visited? Baker gives no answer to this." THIS IS NOT TRUE, BUT THEN, MR. YATES IS NOT COMPELLED TO TELL THE TRUTH.
First of all, ask yourself why Silvia Dura was arrested by the Mexican police and tortured to get her to admit that she slept with Lee Oswald, at the behest of the CIA. She admitted it, but later retracted it, but please remember that DURAN WAS MARRIED and had every reason to want to retract her confession. However, there had to be substance to the allegation. Lee told me that he slept with a woman associated with the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City to try to get access to a Cuban transit visa. The police and the CIA apparently believed this was possible. Anything Senora Duran said later must be taken in context that she did not want to be known as a lover of a Presidential assassin.
As for Lee being in Mexico City at all, MR. YATES DOES NOT MENTION THE RESPECTED RESEARCHER JOHN NEWMAN (FORMER CIA) WHOSE BOOKS ABOUT LEE OSWALD IN MEXICO CITY APPARENTLY ESCAPED HIS ATTENTION. Here's a quote from "OSWALD AND THE CIA":: "It appears that the CIA had advance knowledge about more than Oswald's October 1 visit to the Soviet Embassy. There is circumstantial evidence that the CIA Mexico City station might have been watching Oswald since his arrival on September 27. This evidence, according to the Lopez Report, was the Agency's decision to investigate the transcripts back to September 27, before they had learned of that date through post-assassination investigation:" NOTE THAT CIA LOOKED FOR LEE IN MEXICO CITY BY SEPT, 27--BEFORE THAT DATE HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THEM. "This Committee has not been able to determine how the CIA Headquarters knew, on 23 November 1963, that a review of the [redacted] material should begin with the production from 27 September, the day Oswald first appeared at the Soviet and Cuban Embassies".
HERE'S A BIT MORE: A "seemingly innocuous cable about Lee Harvey Oswald, was sent by CIA headquarters to Mexico City station chief Win Scott on October 10, 1963. It shows the high-level of interest in Oswald six weeks before the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22." THAT IS IMPORTANT: FOR WHY WOULD CIA SEND A CABLE TO MEXICO CITY ON OCT. 10, 1963, ABOUT LEE OSWALD, UNLESS IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR MEXICO CITY'S CIA STATION CHIEF TO KNOW ABOUT LEE OSWALD? In Me & Lee I explain that Lee was sent to Mexico City by the CIA, but the mission was called off. I report that Lee was debriefed in Dallas after his return. This delayed his visit to Marina and little June, who were staying with Ruth Paine in nearby Irving, TX. Marina's feelings were hurt upon learning that Lee was in Dallas for at least a day and a half before he contacted her, but Lee told me that his first duty was to get debriefed after going to Mexico City.
FAKE SOUVENIRS AND THE 'LOOKING FOR A JOB' LIE:
Lee had not planned to return to Dallas, but was ordered to do so. You will not find Lee's suit [which he wore for his debate in New Orleans] and nicer clothes in his listed possessions in Dallas, because he left them, he told me, in a locker in Laredo. We have records of FBI searching for lockers that might contain his things in Laredo. Marina felt that the souvenir he brought back--a bracelet--was commonly found in a five-and-dime store. Lee probably did buy it at the last minute. As for Lee looking for jobs elsewhere in the US , such as in Houston, while his double (which existed) pretended to be him in Mexico City, the absurdity of this situation is obvious to any intelligent person reading this: if Lee had got a job whole 'job hunting' how could he be framed in Mexico City. Obviously, Lee had to be in Mexico City in order to be blamed as contacting Kostikov, the USSR 'assassin" for example. If people said they saw Lee in Philadelphia or Houston, or if he began working in such a city, efforts to frame Lee in Mexico City would have been worthless and obvious. Lee was in Mexico City. (exhibit attached: it's hard to read, but date is Oct. 10, 1963, and it's all about Lee, and it has been sent to Mexico City's chief honcho. It is a propaganda piece, so that everything that is 'supposed' to make Lee look bad is now in their possession. This gave the CIA plenty of time to delete any photos of Lee entering the Consulate, and of course, a substitute of an older, heavyset male was made and labeled with Lee's name, fooling nobody. The Oct. 10, 1963 cable is a virtual kit to frame Lee Oswald. Lee apparently even attended a twist party in Mexico City, hosted by Silvia Duran's brother-in-law (or brother). False witnesses would come forth claiming Lee said he wanted to shoot JFK, or that he had been given a huge sum of money to kill JFK, and so on. They had to use somebody who had actually been in Mexico City, knowing witnesses were available to verify that. Finally, Lee's application for the Cuban transit visa shows his passport photo and signature, and it was in Silvia Duran's own hands. She can claim the man was blonde and short, but the photos show it's Lee.
attachment: OCT. 10,1963 'KIT TO FRAME OSWALD' SENT BY CIA TO MEXICO CITY CIA: }
******************************************************************************************************************
Judyth Baker begins her missive by accusing me of not being compelled to tell the truth. This is the typical paranoid type framing Ms Baker uses to condition her information in order to present herself as being the victim of unfair attackers out to persecute her.
Ms Baker, if you stayed true to the established record you would admit that the CIA got the Mexican police to jail and torture Silvia Duran because she refused to back off her story that the man calling himself Oswald at the Consulate was not the Lee Harvey Oswald shown in the newspapers after the assassination. Duran finally gave in and changed her story saying it was Lee. The story of Lee sleeping with Duran was probably CIA disinformation designed to sheep-dip Oswald as a pro-Castro-ite. Your ignoring of the original context of Ms Duran's witnessing - that is, that Duran said the man had blond curly hair and was shorter than Lee, only serves to further prove my point.
You do the same thing again with Newman. I've read 'Oswald And The CIA'. You are quoting Newman out of context. You should have posted his quote saying that the government committed fraud in the case of Oswald's trip to Mexico City. The correct context is Newman is quoting FBI and CIA reports that self-servingly speak as if Oswald was in Mexico. As I said originally, the best research is now showing Oswald never went to Mexico City. There's no evidence of him being in Mexico and the most meaningful evidence shows intel admitting Oswald was impersonated in Mexico. Mark Lane interviewed David Atlee Phillips at a California University where he said "History will show Oswald never went to Mexico". You, again, only prove my accusations against you by doing this.
You seem to fail to detect that Oswald was framed in Mexico in order to portray him as a pro-Castro-ite bomb-thrower and danger. It's pretty simple to figure out that the cables referred to Oswald in Mexico because they were trying to frame him as being there visiting Kostikov and planning to escape to his alleged sponsor Castro after the assassination. Really, you are offering easily explained rhetoric as firm proof which only furthers my accusations.
Again Ms Baker you try to cap this off by offering one of your classic mish-mashes of jumbled evidence but after trying to decipher the flurry of references I am at a loss over what you are trying to say or how it answers the point? This is classic of you. What the suit allegedly left in Laredo or the bracelet has to do with the Mexico evidence I don't know. Certainly your less than clear statement does nothing to resolve that. I see you also now admit to an Oswald double. Good, that is something you denied before and didn't believe in.
It is completely incorrect to say that since Oswald was job hunting he couldn't be framed in Mexico. I'm glad you offered that because it is a good example of what I'm talking about. There is no reason why the double you admit to in this response couldn't be on one end while Lee was on the other. In fact it is exactly because of the incautiousness of that impersonation that these conflicts are now coming out.
I'm surprised to see that while saying it would be ridiculous to try to frame Oswald that you then return to offer a whole list of evidence showing CIA framed Oswald in Mexico. Do you see, Ms Baker, how this reinforces my point about you? And this is what you offer as a refutation while accusing me of not being compelled to tell the truth??? Did it ever occur to you that while all the other things you list were frame-ups that your twist party included amongst them might also have been a frame up? I believe Newman also speculated that too. Was Lee's Cuban Consulate passport photo found after CIA tortured Duran into agreement?
Honestly Ms Baker, you are not seriously offering this mish-mash flurry of uncredible, poorly-contexted, logically-unsound references as a refutation of what I said? Sorry, but in my mind it only serves to reinforce my accusation and prove yet again another example of what I am saying. And I'm not one of your worst critics. My official position is that there may be some truth to your story. For instance I believe Anna Lewis on seeing an Oswald double (as you now admit) in New Orleans in early 1962. But I can tell you right now you are not doing very well on your Mexico claim or your defense of it here.
{ "DID LEE HARVEY OSWALD GO TO MEXICO CITY?"
According to "Ralph Yates" (Amazon book review comment on Me & Lee) I'm making "excuses similar to a schoolgirl" "making up excuses as she goes along" --and he focuses on The Cuban Consulate and Silvia Duran, who worked there, saying "The problem with this is the best of Kennedy Assassination research is starting to show that Oswald never went to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City. So how could Oswald return to Baker in Texas and give her details about a place he never visited? Baker gives no answer to this." THIS IS NOT TRUE, BUT THEN, MR. YATES IS NOT COMPELLED TO TELL THE TRUTH.
First of all, ask yourself why Silvia Dura was arrested by the Mexican police and tortured to get her to admit that she slept with Lee Oswald, at the behest of the CIA. She admitted it, but later retracted it, but please remember that DURAN WAS MARRIED and had every reason to want to retract her confession. However, there had to be substance to the allegation. Lee told me that he slept with a woman associated with the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City to try to get access to a Cuban transit visa. The police and the CIA apparently believed this was possible. Anything Senora Duran said later must be taken in context that she did not want to be known as a lover of a Presidential assassin.
As for Lee being in Mexico City at all, MR. YATES DOES NOT MENTION THE RESPECTED RESEARCHER JOHN NEWMAN (FORMER CIA) WHOSE BOOKS ABOUT LEE OSWALD IN MEXICO CITY APPARENTLY ESCAPED HIS ATTENTION. Here's a quote from "OSWALD AND THE CIA":: "It appears that the CIA had advance knowledge about more than Oswald's October 1 visit to the Soviet Embassy. There is circumstantial evidence that the CIA Mexico City station might have been watching Oswald since his arrival on September 27. This evidence, according to the Lopez Report, was the Agency's decision to investigate the transcripts back to September 27, before they had learned of that date through post-assassination investigation:" NOTE THAT CIA LOOKED FOR LEE IN MEXICO CITY BY SEPT, 27--BEFORE THAT DATE HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THEM. "This Committee has not been able to determine how the CIA Headquarters knew, on 23 November 1963, that a review of the [redacted] material should begin with the production from 27 September, the day Oswald first appeared at the Soviet and Cuban Embassies".
HERE'S A BIT MORE: A "seemingly innocuous cable about Lee Harvey Oswald, was sent by CIA headquarters to Mexico City station chief Win Scott on October 10, 1963. It shows the high-level of interest in Oswald six weeks before the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22." THAT IS IMPORTANT: FOR WHY WOULD CIA SEND A CABLE TO MEXICO CITY ON OCT. 10, 1963, ABOUT LEE OSWALD, UNLESS IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR MEXICO CITY'S CIA STATION CHIEF TO KNOW ABOUT LEE OSWALD? In Me & Lee I explain that Lee was sent to Mexico City by the CIA, but the mission was called off. I report that Lee was debriefed in Dallas after his return. This delayed his visit to Marina and little June, who were staying with Ruth Paine in nearby Irving, TX. Marina's feelings were hurt upon learning that Lee was in Dallas for at least a day and a half before he contacted her, but Lee told me that his first duty was to get debriefed after going to Mexico City.
FAKE SOUVENIRS AND THE 'LOOKING FOR A JOB' LIE:
Lee had not planned to return to Dallas, but was ordered to do so. You will not find Lee's suit [which he wore for his debate in New Orleans] and nicer clothes in his listed possessions in Dallas, because he left them, he told me, in a locker in Laredo. We have records of FBI searching for lockers that might contain his things in Laredo. Marina felt that the souvenir he brought back--a bracelet--was commonly found in a five-and-dime store. Lee probably did buy it at the last minute. As for Lee looking for jobs elsewhere in the US , such as in Houston, while his double (which existed) pretended to be him in Mexico City, the absurdity of this situation is obvious to any intelligent person reading this: if Lee had got a job whole 'job hunting' how could he be framed in Mexico City. Obviously, Lee had to be in Mexico City in order to be blamed as contacting Kostikov, the USSR 'assassin" for example. If people said they saw Lee in Philadelphia or Houston, or if he began working in such a city, efforts to frame Lee in Mexico City would have been worthless and obvious. Lee was in Mexico City. (exhibit attached: it's hard to read, but date is Oct. 10, 1963, and it's all about Lee, and it has been sent to Mexico City's chief honcho. It is a propaganda piece, so that everything that is 'supposed' to make Lee look bad is now in their possession. This gave the CIA plenty of time to delete any photos of Lee entering the Consulate, and of course, a substitute of an older, heavyset male was made and labeled with Lee's name, fooling nobody. The Oct. 10, 1963 cable is a virtual kit to frame Lee Oswald. Lee apparently even attended a twist party in Mexico City, hosted by Silvia Duran's brother-in-law (or brother). False witnesses would come forth claiming Lee said he wanted to shoot JFK, or that he had been given a huge sum of money to kill JFK, and so on. They had to use somebody who had actually been in Mexico City, knowing witnesses were available to verify that. Finally, Lee's application for the Cuban transit visa shows his passport photo and signature, and it was in Silvia Duran's own hands. She can claim the man was blonde and short, but the photos show it's Lee.
attachment: OCT. 10,1963 'KIT TO FRAME OSWALD' SENT BY CIA TO MEXICO CITY CIA: }
******************************************************************************************************************
Judyth Baker begins her missive by accusing me of not being compelled to tell the truth. This is the typical paranoid type framing Ms Baker uses to condition her information in order to present herself as being the victim of unfair attackers out to persecute her.
Ms Baker, if you stayed true to the established record you would admit that the CIA got the Mexican police to jail and torture Silvia Duran because she refused to back off her story that the man calling himself Oswald at the Consulate was not the Lee Harvey Oswald shown in the newspapers after the assassination. Duran finally gave in and changed her story saying it was Lee. The story of Lee sleeping with Duran was probably CIA disinformation designed to sheep-dip Oswald as a pro-Castro-ite. Your ignoring of the original context of Ms Duran's witnessing - that is, that Duran said the man had blond curly hair and was shorter than Lee, only serves to further prove my point.
You do the same thing again with Newman. I've read 'Oswald And The CIA'. You are quoting Newman out of context. You should have posted his quote saying that the government committed fraud in the case of Oswald's trip to Mexico City. The correct context is Newman is quoting FBI and CIA reports that self-servingly speak as if Oswald was in Mexico. As I said originally, the best research is now showing Oswald never went to Mexico City. There's no evidence of him being in Mexico and the most meaningful evidence shows intel admitting Oswald was impersonated in Mexico. Mark Lane interviewed David Atlee Phillips at a California University where he said "History will show Oswald never went to Mexico". You, again, only prove my accusations against you by doing this.
You seem to fail to detect that Oswald was framed in Mexico in order to portray him as a pro-Castro-ite bomb-thrower and danger. It's pretty simple to figure out that the cables referred to Oswald in Mexico because they were trying to frame him as being there visiting Kostikov and planning to escape to his alleged sponsor Castro after the assassination. Really, you are offering easily explained rhetoric as firm proof which only furthers my accusations.
Again Ms Baker you try to cap this off by offering one of your classic mish-mashes of jumbled evidence but after trying to decipher the flurry of references I am at a loss over what you are trying to say or how it answers the point? This is classic of you. What the suit allegedly left in Laredo or the bracelet has to do with the Mexico evidence I don't know. Certainly your less than clear statement does nothing to resolve that. I see you also now admit to an Oswald double. Good, that is something you denied before and didn't believe in.
It is completely incorrect to say that since Oswald was job hunting he couldn't be framed in Mexico. I'm glad you offered that because it is a good example of what I'm talking about. There is no reason why the double you admit to in this response couldn't be on one end while Lee was on the other. In fact it is exactly because of the incautiousness of that impersonation that these conflicts are now coming out.
I'm surprised to see that while saying it would be ridiculous to try to frame Oswald that you then return to offer a whole list of evidence showing CIA framed Oswald in Mexico. Do you see, Ms Baker, how this reinforces my point about you? And this is what you offer as a refutation while accusing me of not being compelled to tell the truth??? Did it ever occur to you that while all the other things you list were frame-ups that your twist party included amongst them might also have been a frame up? I believe Newman also speculated that too. Was Lee's Cuban Consulate passport photo found after CIA tortured Duran into agreement?
Honestly Ms Baker, you are not seriously offering this mish-mash flurry of uncredible, poorly-contexted, logically-unsound references as a refutation of what I said? Sorry, but in my mind it only serves to reinforce my accusation and prove yet again another example of what I am saying. And I'm not one of your worst critics. My official position is that there may be some truth to your story. For instance I believe Anna Lewis on seeing an Oswald double (as you now admit) in New Orleans in early 1962. But I can tell you right now you are not doing very well on your Mexico claim or your defense of it here.