15-01-2016, 06:25 PM
Baker's Reply To David Josephs
" DOES A CONTROVERSIAL WITNESS HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXIST? TO SPEAK OUT? I do not criticize "CTKA" (Citizens for Truth in the Kennedy Assassination) even though they attack me all the time, because they have put out some darned good research articles. Until NOW, that is... This time, they went too far. I am now being attacked for existing, which existence causes dissent.I'm used to their insults. But now the CTKA is telling people that because I exist, all the discussion "trivialize[s] the murder of JFK." AFTER ALL WE DO TO SHOW HOW JFK'S MURDER IS AT THE VERY ROOT OF WHY OUR COUNTRY IS IN TROUBLE TODAY.
YOU KNOW I'M SPENDING THE LAST YEARS OF MY LIFE RECKLESSLY , DEVOTED TO SHOWING WHAT THE PERPETRATORS DID TO JFK AND LEE AND DEMANDING JUSTICE.
The complaint is in a big essay against me, filled with inaccuracies and misquotes, called "POKING MORE HOLES IN JUDYTH BAKER" by "David Josephs." (if you believe this trash, you don't know me..). Have ignored them for years, but today, I'm angry. Mr.Josephs, who does a lot of research using documents and interviewing witnesses, would not descend himself to so much as ask me if the allegations he lists against me are true or not. He does good research, but in my case, it's just an attack, without even trying to contact me to get another viewpoint.
I've been speaking out since 1999, and I answer questions from any and all, as YOU well know, but no, he won't bother.
However, he will bother to collect every trivial piece of gossip and hearsay that he can, mingled with some speculations that, had he just asked, he'd get the true picture.
Instead, he's blaming me for causing dissent in the research community, when all they ever had to do was to meet me, see the evidence, hear the tapes of my witnesses, learn the truth, and join us in our growing crusade to secure justice --once and for all --for JFK and Lee Oswald.
Here's the nasty remark from the CTKA. Read it for yourself:
"In spite of it all, Baker continues to have her backers, who seem to be tireless. Eve in the face of so many problematic areas of her story. She even
appears on respectable radio programs like Pacifica's Guns and Butter. With so much good research out there today, with so many disclosures of the ARRB that have not been properly aired, this seems to us to be quite unfortunate. With so many issues around her, Baker trivializes the murder of JFK. And really, that is nothing less than a tragedy."
The essay is very long, has a lot of typos, spells Banister with two n's, and relentlessly uses old misquotes from John McAdams and his pro-Warren Commission newsgroup, who shamelessly even altered my emails, then contrasted them with what i wrote elsewhere.
Mr. Josephs also picks on my witness, Anna Lewis, because she got a date wrong about when she first met Lee. This error, after some 35 years of her silence (which also proves she was never coached) is somehow supposed to be enough to throw her out as a witness. By the way, his comment that her husband, David Lewis , was no longer working for Banister in 1963 is an outright false statement. See details in both my books (Me & Lee, and David Ferrie: Mafia Pilot) along with documents supporting.
It's just one example of the overall bias in Joseph's essay.
We need unity, not lies to keep us divided.
Here's another example of his careless mishandling of the facts, because he never read DAVID FERRIE: MAFIA PILOT, nor did he ever at any time contact me:
sing HSCA testimony by her father, years after the event, Josephs declares that Mary Morgan (now Mary Morgan Jenkins) 'never saw an old car' and also insists that there was never a woman in the old car, even though the HSCA statement was not made by Mary.
Indeed Mary Morgan Jenkins is ON RECORD IN MY BOOK 'DAVID FERRIE, MAFIA PILOT' as stating that indeed she did see the old car parked in front of her home, just as I have described it.
She also now supports my testimony of having been in that car (See pages 281-282, and especially pp. 277, 278 and 279,)n "David Ferrie"..}
The attached photo shows Mary and me together in 2014., She gave me permission to publish her support of my testimony.
Mr. Josephs the CTKA researcher doesn't know any of this because he hasn't read my books. CTKA does not mention the titles of my books, lest somebody actually might start reading them--which would change everything.
Instead, Josephs relies on secondhand information. or wrests the evidence selectively, as in the HSCA testimony by Mary organ's father, who never went outside, but said he heard a car drive up. He said Mary never saw a car, either, but that was not true. Her dad simply assumed that.
They don't mention my books, where you can learn the truth, because they don't want anybody to know about them.
Mr. Josephs relies on the HSCA's hearsay statement from Mary's father, instead, who never went outside as she did, that evening so long ago. I saw her standing there and thought she was tall enough to be a college student. When at the end of our talk, I even described a large, reddish object on the porch, to the left, this is probably what finally convinced Mary that I had indeed been sitting in that old car, because that object, she said, was a big, rusty old freezer. In the darkening hour of sunset, I couldn't quite tell what it was, but Mary immediately told me --and Kris Millegan-- what that big object was.
Then she knew I had been there.
I am a living witness being carelessly defamed by the "Citizens for [their brand only of the] Truth in the Kennedy Assassination." Let us hope they will exert more care and --someday--that Mr.Josephs will take the time to do credible research and actually meet me and do a proper investigation, just as Edward T. Haslam did. Sadly, it's rare, once a person goes public attacking a witness, to ever back down. Pride goes hand in hand with prejudice.
Go ahead and read the essay, if you wish, but let's hope you realize the degree of prejudice there, and the willingness of Mr. Josephs to distort the truth, as evidenced by the gripe that, because my testimony causes dissent, that I am TRIVIALIZING THE MURDER OF JFK.
THEY CREATE THE DISSENT. I HAVE IGNORED THEM. UNTIL THIS INSULT WAS PUBLISHED.
YOU should know, from all our Facebook pages, how hard you and I are trying to keep Kennedy's death from BEING trivialized! This really doesn't have to do with ME. it has to do with THEM, stubbornly blackening my name and re-posting old junk written to discredit me that was thrown together years ago. This they do, instead of coming to meet me (and you!),
CTKA would do well to join us in our drive to clear Lee Oswald's name, and to cooperate with us in our DEMAND for justice for our great, murdered President.
Shame on Mr. Josephs, who did not deem me worthy of taking the time to meet before pasting together pages and pages of old lies and misinformation. God bless him, he needs it. "
It's just one example of the overall bias in Joseph's essay.
This is why I have a problem with Judyth Baker. In the kaleidoscope of claims Baker makes I don't think she realizes Anna Lewis's claim is very important because it sights Oswald in New Orleans at a time when Oswald was still in Russia. This is in the same context of Landesberg's sighting of Oswald in New York at a time when he was in Russia. If you watch Anna Lewis she is very emphatic that her Oswald witnessing was in early spring of 1962. The fact Baker doesn't realize the significance of her own witness towards the Harvey & Lee theory undermines her overall credibility and draws doubt on her Me & Lee claim. Not to mention that she never gave an adequate response to all the Cuban Consulate witnesses who all said the man who they saw at the Consulate was not Oswald. Time for Baker to be less angry and more forthcoming.
" DOES A CONTROVERSIAL WITNESS HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXIST? TO SPEAK OUT? I do not criticize "CTKA" (Citizens for Truth in the Kennedy Assassination) even though they attack me all the time, because they have put out some darned good research articles. Until NOW, that is... This time, they went too far. I am now being attacked for existing, which existence causes dissent.I'm used to their insults. But now the CTKA is telling people that because I exist, all the discussion "trivialize[s] the murder of JFK." AFTER ALL WE DO TO SHOW HOW JFK'S MURDER IS AT THE VERY ROOT OF WHY OUR COUNTRY IS IN TROUBLE TODAY.
YOU KNOW I'M SPENDING THE LAST YEARS OF MY LIFE RECKLESSLY , DEVOTED TO SHOWING WHAT THE PERPETRATORS DID TO JFK AND LEE AND DEMANDING JUSTICE.
The complaint is in a big essay against me, filled with inaccuracies and misquotes, called "POKING MORE HOLES IN JUDYTH BAKER" by "David Josephs." (if you believe this trash, you don't know me..). Have ignored them for years, but today, I'm angry. Mr.Josephs, who does a lot of research using documents and interviewing witnesses, would not descend himself to so much as ask me if the allegations he lists against me are true or not. He does good research, but in my case, it's just an attack, without even trying to contact me to get another viewpoint.
I've been speaking out since 1999, and I answer questions from any and all, as YOU well know, but no, he won't bother.
However, he will bother to collect every trivial piece of gossip and hearsay that he can, mingled with some speculations that, had he just asked, he'd get the true picture.
Instead, he's blaming me for causing dissent in the research community, when all they ever had to do was to meet me, see the evidence, hear the tapes of my witnesses, learn the truth, and join us in our growing crusade to secure justice --once and for all --for JFK and Lee Oswald.
Here's the nasty remark from the CTKA. Read it for yourself:
"In spite of it all, Baker continues to have her backers, who seem to be tireless. Eve in the face of so many problematic areas of her story. She even
appears on respectable radio programs like Pacifica's Guns and Butter. With so much good research out there today, with so many disclosures of the ARRB that have not been properly aired, this seems to us to be quite unfortunate. With so many issues around her, Baker trivializes the murder of JFK. And really, that is nothing less than a tragedy."
The essay is very long, has a lot of typos, spells Banister with two n's, and relentlessly uses old misquotes from John McAdams and his pro-Warren Commission newsgroup, who shamelessly even altered my emails, then contrasted them with what i wrote elsewhere.
Mr. Josephs also picks on my witness, Anna Lewis, because she got a date wrong about when she first met Lee. This error, after some 35 years of her silence (which also proves she was never coached) is somehow supposed to be enough to throw her out as a witness. By the way, his comment that her husband, David Lewis , was no longer working for Banister in 1963 is an outright false statement. See details in both my books (Me & Lee, and David Ferrie: Mafia Pilot) along with documents supporting.
It's just one example of the overall bias in Joseph's essay.
We need unity, not lies to keep us divided.
Here's another example of his careless mishandling of the facts, because he never read DAVID FERRIE: MAFIA PILOT, nor did he ever at any time contact me:
sing HSCA testimony by her father, years after the event, Josephs declares that Mary Morgan (now Mary Morgan Jenkins) 'never saw an old car' and also insists that there was never a woman in the old car, even though the HSCA statement was not made by Mary.
Indeed Mary Morgan Jenkins is ON RECORD IN MY BOOK 'DAVID FERRIE, MAFIA PILOT' as stating that indeed she did see the old car parked in front of her home, just as I have described it.
She also now supports my testimony of having been in that car (See pages 281-282, and especially pp. 277, 278 and 279,)n "David Ferrie"..}
The attached photo shows Mary and me together in 2014., She gave me permission to publish her support of my testimony.
Mr. Josephs the CTKA researcher doesn't know any of this because he hasn't read my books. CTKA does not mention the titles of my books, lest somebody actually might start reading them--which would change everything.
Instead, Josephs relies on secondhand information. or wrests the evidence selectively, as in the HSCA testimony by Mary organ's father, who never went outside, but said he heard a car drive up. He said Mary never saw a car, either, but that was not true. Her dad simply assumed that.
They don't mention my books, where you can learn the truth, because they don't want anybody to know about them.
Mr. Josephs relies on the HSCA's hearsay statement from Mary's father, instead, who never went outside as she did, that evening so long ago. I saw her standing there and thought she was tall enough to be a college student. When at the end of our talk, I even described a large, reddish object on the porch, to the left, this is probably what finally convinced Mary that I had indeed been sitting in that old car, because that object, she said, was a big, rusty old freezer. In the darkening hour of sunset, I couldn't quite tell what it was, but Mary immediately told me --and Kris Millegan-- what that big object was.
Then she knew I had been there.
I am a living witness being carelessly defamed by the "Citizens for [their brand only of the] Truth in the Kennedy Assassination." Let us hope they will exert more care and --someday--that Mr.Josephs will take the time to do credible research and actually meet me and do a proper investigation, just as Edward T. Haslam did. Sadly, it's rare, once a person goes public attacking a witness, to ever back down. Pride goes hand in hand with prejudice.
Go ahead and read the essay, if you wish, but let's hope you realize the degree of prejudice there, and the willingness of Mr. Josephs to distort the truth, as evidenced by the gripe that, because my testimony causes dissent, that I am TRIVIALIZING THE MURDER OF JFK.
THEY CREATE THE DISSENT. I HAVE IGNORED THEM. UNTIL THIS INSULT WAS PUBLISHED.
YOU should know, from all our Facebook pages, how hard you and I are trying to keep Kennedy's death from BEING trivialized! This really doesn't have to do with ME. it has to do with THEM, stubbornly blackening my name and re-posting old junk written to discredit me that was thrown together years ago. This they do, instead of coming to meet me (and you!),
CTKA would do well to join us in our drive to clear Lee Oswald's name, and to cooperate with us in our DEMAND for justice for our great, murdered President.
Shame on Mr. Josephs, who did not deem me worthy of taking the time to meet before pasting together pages and pages of old lies and misinformation. God bless him, he needs it. "
Quote:Mr. Josephs also picks on my witness, Anna Lewis, because she got a date wrong about when she first met Lee. This error, after some 35 years of her silence (which also proves she was never coached) is somehow supposed to be enough to throw her out as a witness. By the way, his comment that her husband, David Lewis , was no longer working for Banister in 1963 is an outright false statement. See details in both my books (Me & Lee, and David Ferrie: Mafia Pilot) along with documents supporting.
It's just one example of the overall bias in Joseph's essay.
This is why I have a problem with Judyth Baker. In the kaleidoscope of claims Baker makes I don't think she realizes Anna Lewis's claim is very important because it sights Oswald in New Orleans at a time when Oswald was still in Russia. This is in the same context of Landesberg's sighting of Oswald in New York at a time when he was in Russia. If you watch Anna Lewis she is very emphatic that her Oswald witnessing was in early spring of 1962. The fact Baker doesn't realize the significance of her own witness towards the Harvey & Lee theory undermines her overall credibility and draws doubt on her Me & Lee claim. Not to mention that she never gave an adequate response to all the Cuban Consulate witnesses who all said the man who they saw at the Consulate was not Oswald. Time for Baker to be less angry and more forthcoming.