Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

Well, it's an interesting case, isn't it, because it appears to be a fake document with true content. I infer that we have discussed it enough that no one is going to mistake why it is interesting, including from the point of view of the methods that are used to mislead and deceive us. I don't see the point, under these circumstances, of removing it, when it is only part of this forum's record of this thread. I would of course discuss it in a book if it were included there, but Judyth is well aware of its character and I think the prospect of its misuse by her or any of her readers is very slight, indeed. I take it to be a fascinating example of how these things are done and recommend it in that light. It seems to me to present TRUE CONTENT about Lee and his activities, which tends to confirm what Judyth has to tell us. Why else, after all, would anyone bother to FAKE THIS DOCUMENT? As such, it is extremely instructive.

JUDYTH REPLIES TO ME ABOUT THE DOCUMENT:
I AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT, JIM. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT LEAKING A DOCUMENT THAT CONTAINS TRUE INFORMATION
-- A DOCUMENT WHICH CAN LATER BE ASSESSED TO BE FALSE -- THEN LEADS THE READER TO BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENT IS FALSE. WHATEVER IS INSERTED INTO THE DOCUMENT IS THEN CONSIDERED BOGUS.
BUT THIS METHOD ALLOWS TWO THINGS TO HAPPEN:
1) RESEARCHERS WHO BELIEVE THE DOCUMENT IS AUTHENTIC ARE THEREBY DISCREDITED WHEN ITS FALSITY IS PROVEN, THUS DIMINISHING THEIR REPUTATIONS;
2) IF THE TRUTH EVER DOES COME OUT, IT CAN BE SAID THAT A PORTION OF THE DOCUMENT WAS TRUE -- BUT SO WHAT?
MEANWHILE, ALL THE INFORMATION IS PLACED IN A 'SUSPICIOUS' CATEGORY. THIS TAKES EYES AWAY FROM CONSIDERATION OF TRUE FACTS THUS REVEALED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCREDITING THEM, AS UNWORTHY OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
FRANKLY, IT DID NO HARM TO BE POSTED SINCE, AS A DISINFO PIECE, IT ACTUALLY POINTS OUT WHAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT.
SOPHISTICATED MEANS WERE USED TO CREATE THE FAKE DOCUMENT, SHOWING US THAT THE CREATOR(S) WELL KNEW WHAT ELEMENTS TO PLACE IN THE DOCUMENT TO MAKE IT APPEAR TRUE.
BUT THE DOCUMENT WAS CLEVERLY CREATED SO THAT ALSO, UPON CLOSE INSPECTION BY PERSONS WE MUST THEN CONSIDER AS EITHER BRILLIANT BUT INNOCENT OR SPECIALLY SELECTED TO 'OUT' THE DOCUMENT AS 'FAKE', IT WOULD FAIL 'AUTHENTICITY' TESTS.
BECAUSE IT WAS STAMPED CONFIDENTIAL' WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAMPED AT LEAST 'SECRET' TO ME IS A GIVEAWAY, BUT BILL KELLY WOULD KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT THAN I WOULD....
THE STATEMENTS ABOUT THE ONI I BELIEVE ARE TRUE. LEE SAID HE WAS 'BORROWED' FROM 'ANOTHER AGENCY' TO BE USED BY THE CIA.

SO I REPEAT:

MEANWHILE, ALL THE INFORMATION IN HE DOCUMENT IS NOW PLACED IN A 'SUSPICIOUS' CATEGORY BY RESEARCHERS. THIS REMINDS ME OF A MINK COAT THAT CAN'T BE ADVERTISED AS A MINK COAT BECAUSE 50% OF IT IS MUSKRAT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S 50% MINK -- IT'S STILL A FAKE.

CALLING ALL INFORMATION WITHIN THE FAKE DOCUMENT 'FAKE' TAKES EYES AWAY FROM CONSIDERATION OF TRUE FACTS WITHIN THE FAKE DOCUMENT, POSSIBLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEADING INVESTIGATORS AWAY FROM SENSITIVE AND REAL FACTS AS UNWORTHY OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

FOR THESE REASONS, I SAY, LET IT STAY, WITH QUALIFYING STATEMENTS:

(1) WHAT IS THE PROVENANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT?
(2) WHO FIRST SAID IT WAS A FAKE?
(3) WHO WAS MOST INTERESTED, AMONG THE WC DEFENDERS, IN PROVING THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS FALSE?

ALL THREE QUESTIONS ARE GREAT CLUES IN DETERMINING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MATTER.
IT'S ALMOST AS GOOD AS A FAKE DOCUMENT AS IT IS AS AN AUTHENTIC ONE, AS IT CAN GIVE US LEADS AS TO LINKS TO DISINFO ARTISTS AND THEIR COMPATRIOTS IN THE MISCHIEF.
JUST MY HUMBLE OPINION...I DEFER TO THOSE WHO KNOW MORE...

JVB

The way I test things like this is to search the Mary Ferrell website. First I, too, noticed that this was only coded Confidential, and nothing was redacted. That was the first clue. But then I looked for words in the body that could be searched, most notable here being "De Bruey memorandum". No combination of those words appears in MF website that I could find. The only other possible combination of words to search that would not bring up hits too myriad to check was "junior Commission." It brought no hits.
I think it's probably a fake, and I would remove it, if it were up to me.