Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH COMMENTS ABOUT DAVID LIFTON:

[NOTE: As a point of logic, when there is a conflict between two reports,
they cannot both be true but they could both be false. It appears to be
the case that David Lifton has confounded the date of Oswald's arrival in
New Orleans on April 25th, when his aunt confirms that he was virtually
without appropriate clothing for interviews, and the next day, April 26th,
when Judyth and Lee met before he acquired the nicer clothing he wore
to the interview, where his appearance was described by records which
he (Lifton) appears to have misunderstood, just as he appears to have
confounded the village of Kankun with the city of Cancun, in that case,
no doubt, because they pronounced the same, one in a set of blunders.]

SEE MY COMMENTS BELOW, RE LIFTON....INSIDE HIS MESSAGE BELOW...THE
ATTACHED SHOWS WHAT CLOTHING LEE HAD WITH HIM. HIS AUNT WAS
SPECIFIC ABOUT THE FACT THAT LEE DID NOT HAVE A SUIT AND THAT SHE
DID NOT KNOW HOW HE COULD LOOK PRESENTABLE JOB HUNTING WITHOUT
ONE. THE DESCRIPTION IS IMMEDIATELY AFTER LEE HAD ARRIVED IN NEW
ORLEANS, WHICH WAS APRIL 25 -- NOT APRIL 26, AS LIFTON ERRONEOUSLY
REPORTS.



I HAVE ALREADY STATED TO THIS FORUM THAT I HAD READ NORMAN MAILER'S
DISGUSTING BOOK, AND MARINA AND LEE, WHICH ARE SKEWED ACCOUNTS,
AS MY SOLE EXPOSURE BEFORE JAN. 2000, WHEN CONWAY GAVE ME A LANCER
NEWSLETTER.

I DID NOT KNOW LANCER EVEN EXISTED UNTIL SHE TOLD ME ABOUT IT. SHE
(CONWAY) SHOULD BE HONEST ENOUGH TO ADMIT THAT IF SHE WERE ASKED.

I HAD BEEN, BY THEN, BEEN TALKING TO "60 MINUTES" INVESTIGATORS FOR A
TOTAL OF OVER ONE HUNDRED HOURS OF GRILLING, AS NONE OF YOU HAVE
EVER EXPERIENCED. AFTER LIFTON QUESTIONED ME QUITE A BIT ABOUT HOW
"60 MINUTES" WAS TREATING ME AND RATHER SCORNED HE FACT THAT I HAD
FLOWN THERE "CABIN CLASS", "60 MINUTES" NEXT FLEW ME IN TO NEW YORK
FIRST CLASS. WISH I'D TOLD THEM MORE ABOUT LIFTON, BUT I NEVER HEARD
FROM LIFTON AGAIN.

AFTER A SINGLE CONVERSATION, HE TOLD McADAMS I WAS A 'FANTASIST' AND
THAT I HAD CLAIMED I KNEW--AND LEE KNEW--LEE'S HANDLER'S REAL NAME.

AS I SHOWED EVERYONE HERE RECENTLY, LIFTON'S CLAIM WAS BASED ON HIS
JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS.

I CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE WAY HE HAD WORDED THE QUESTIONS AND HIS
CONCLUSIONS WERE ABSOLUTELY FAULTY AND MISLEADING.

I DO HOPE THAT DIALOGUE AND MY REPLY WILL BE POSTED AGAIN.

I NOTICE THAT MR. LIFTON DOES NOT BRING UP THIS OBJECTION OF HIS NOW.
HE GOES ON TO A BRAND NEW OBJECTION THAT IS JUST AS SPECIOUS.

IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO SEE A LITTLE GRACIOUSNESS AND MAYBE HIS
SAYING HE HAD BEEN WRONG. INSTEAD, HE PREFERS TO ATTACK AGAIN.

HERE ARE SOME ELEMENTARY POINTS THAT DAVID LIFTON DOES NOT UNDERSTAND:

1) LEE OSWALD ARRIVED ON APRIL 25, NOT APRIL 26--LIFTON HAS THE WRONG DATE.
THIS IS HOW HE BEGINS HIS 'INVESTIGATION.'

2) LEE'S AUNT MURRET SAW LEE'S CLOTHING SOON AFTER HE HAD MOVED TO NEW
ORLEANS. THE TIME LINE USED BY MCADAMS, ETC., SAYS LEE MOVED IN WITH HIS AUNT
AND UNCLE ON APRIL 25. THIS IS IN ERROR. IN HER TESTIMONY AND ELSEWHERE,
YOU FIND THAT LEE MOVED IN WITH THEM A FEW DAYS LATER. I GOT GRLLED ON
THAT BY "60 MINUTES" AND THEY LOOKED AND FOUND LEE HAD BEEN AT THE YMCA
FOR SEVERAL DAYS FIRST, JUST AS I SAID. LEE WAS AT THE YMCA AND I WAS AT
THE YWCA, SO THIS WAS EASY FOR ME TO REMEMBER AND HAS NOTHING AT ALL
TO DO WITH "INSERTING" MYSELF INTO THE RECORD.

THE WAY THESE PEOPLE GET YOU:

A) IF IT IS IN THE RECORD, THEN YOU INSERTED YOURSELF
B) IF IT IS NOT IN THE RECORD, YOU ARE LYING

GO AHEAD AND DESTROY THE WITNESS, AND DO NOT LET ME EVER GET A CHANCE
TO PRESENT MORE INFORMATION TO YOU, BUT BEFORE YOU PULL THE TRIGGER,
READ AGAIN LIFTON'S FAULTY ANALYSIS OF WHAT HE THOUGHT I SAID ABOUT
"KNOWING HE NAME" OF LEE'S HANDLER -- DESPITE MY STATEMENTS AT ALL TIMES
TO THE CONTRARY OF WHAT HE REPORTED.

THIS MAN SPOKE TO ME JUST ONE TIME -- 20% OF IT WAS ABOUT "60 MINUTES"
INVESTIGATION, ETC -- AND HE HAS NOT CONTACTED ME AGAIN FOR OVER A
DECADE. HE DID, HOWEVER, LINK MY NAME WITH OSAMA BIN LADEN AFTER 9/11,
WHICH CAUSED ME TO BE HOUNDED BY CRAZY CREEPS, AND MY PHONE TAPPED.

HE SAID IT WAS JUST A JOKE.
I HAD TO LIVE WIH THE RESULTS.
HE ALSO POSTED OTHER 'JOKES.'

SCROLL DOWN TO SEE MY FURTHER RESPONSE BELOW, IN LIFTON'S MATERIAL,
AS POSTED.

JVB

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO DAVID LIFTON'S POST:

David Lifton
Today, 05:11 AM
Post #647

Experienced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Joined: 24-May 06
Member No.: 4784

Jack,

When I first spoke with Judyth in March, 2000,

=="FIRST SPOKE" ? THIS WAS THE ONLY TIME LIFTON EVER 'SPOKE' WITH ME.

IT WAS A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION THAT HE ILLEGALLY TAPED, A FELONY IN
CALIFORNIA, SINCE HE DID NOT TELL ME. HE DESCRIBED THE CONVERSATION
TO JOHN McADAMS, TO WHOM HE SENT MATERIAL ABOUT ME ALL THE TIME --
AT VARYING TIME LENGTHS-- 30 MINUTES, 2 HOURS, I 1/2 HOURS -- WHICH
CLUED MARTIN SHACKELFORD WHO ALSO POSTED THERE THAT HE HAD TAPED IT.

WORSE, IT ALSO CLUED US THAT IF HE DESCRIBED IT WITH DIFFERENT LENGTHS,
DID HE HAVE HREE DIFFERENT VERSIONS? DID THAT MEAN HE COULD EDIT IT TO
SAY ALMOST ANYTHING HE LIKED, SINCE HE MENTIONED DIFFERENT DURATIONS?

HE EXHIBITED HOSTILITY AND SCORN IMMEDIATELY AND NEVER CONTACTED ME
AGAIN. WAS THIS BECAUSE HIS BIOGRAPHY DID NOT MENTION ME? I AGREED
HE COULD CALL BECAUSE I WANTED HIS BOOK TO BE THE BEST ONE POSSIBLE,
AS I WAS TOLD BY CONWAY THAT HE HAD WORKED HARD ON LEE'S BIOGRAPHY.

SHACKELFORD CONFRONTED HIM ABOUT THE ILLEGAL TAPING AND MR. LIFTON
ADMITTED IT. BY THAT TIME MR. LIFTON HAD PUT OUT A BIG STORY THAT LEE
AND I KNEW LEE'S HANDLER'S REAL NAME.

I HAVE ALREADY REFUTED THAT ON THIS FORUM.

HE JUMPED TO CONCLUSIONS BECAUSE HE HAD NO RESPECT FOR ME, BASED ON
HIS CERTAINTY FROM THE BEGINNING THAT HE COULD NOT BE WRONG.

TODAY, HE IS JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS AGAIN.

I HAVE ALWAYS AND UNDEVIATINGLY STATED THAT LEE WAS 'SO CLEAN CUT" AND
"LOOKED SO NICE" THAT I ACCEPTED HIS OFFER TO WALK ME BACK TO THE "Y."

April 24-29, 1963 (Wednesday - Monday) - Oswald's whereabouts from Wednesday
afternoon until Monday are unknown except for Friday's appearance at the New Orleans
office of the Louisiana Employment Commission. (WC Vol 8, p. 135)

WHAT MR. LIFTON FAILED TO MENTION WAS THE TIME. NOR DID HE KNOW A THING
ABOUT LEE OSWALD'S SCHEDULE THAT DAY.

MY EARLIEST WRITING MENTIONS THAT AFTER MEETING LEE...WE HAD SAID GOODBYE
AND I WENT UPSTAIRS TO MY ROOM, SHARED WITH FOUR OTHER GIRLS, AT THE 'Y':

."..I went upstairs to lie down on my ugly little bed for awhile -- and to read Robert’s
two letters again. Later that day, I took a bus to Ochsner’s Clinic and filled out application
papers for my summer internship, writing in the “Y” as housing choice. The Clinic was
practically in the middle of nowhere: the last thing I wanted was a room at Brent House,
on Ochsner’s campus, with nothing but bland, expensive hospital food to eat. I’d eaten
way too much of that. The ‘Y’ was close to good, cheap restaurants -– plus movie
theatres, universities, and libraries.

There was other entertainment, too: that night, one of my stripper friends took me to
her club to watch her act. I got to go in the back to help with her hair, her costume, and
her make-up. She was part of a three-girl dance routine most of the night. From the side
door, I also got to watch as much of her solo act as I could bear."

APPARENTLY MR. LIFTON BELIEVES THAT LEE HAD SPENT ALL DAY AT THE EMPLOYMENT
AGENCY.

THE TRUE TIMELINE:

1) I AM WORKING A ROYAL CASTLE FROM 6:00-8:00 AM AND I AM AT THE POST OFFICE
BY 8:30.

2) APPROX. 8:30-8:45 I MET LEE OSWALD, WHO WAS DRESSED NEAT AND CLEAN, NOT
IN GRUBBY CLOTHES AT ALL--

3) HE WALKED ME TO THE "Y" -- HE SAID HE WAS LIVING AT THE "Y" FOR NOW BUT LATER
WOULD BE MOVING TO HIS UNCLE'S HOUSE...HE SAID HE HAD TO BORROW A WHITE SHIRT,
SAID NOTHING ABOUT A SUIT, BECAUSE HE HAD TO GO JOB-HUNTING.

4) AT NO LATER THAN 10:00 AM, WE FINISHED TALKING AND I WENT INSIDE THE "Y" TO
GET SOME REST.

THEN I REPORT THAT I WENT TO OCHSNER'S TO FILL IN APPLICATION PAPERS. I EVEN
REPORT ON WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT.

DURING THAT SAME TIME PERIOD, LEE OSWALD HAD PLENTY OF TIME TO BORROW A SUIT,
ETC. HOW DO WE KNOW HE HAD TO BORROW ONE? I ATTACHED HIS AUNT'S TESTIMONY.

==NOTE: BY THE WAY, COMMON LOGIC TELLS YOU THAT LEE OSWALD WOULD NOT HAVE
STARTED JOB HUNTING THE SAME DAY HE ARRIVED IN NEW ORLEANS, APPEARING CRISP
AND NEAT IN A SUIT AFTER HIS LONG BUS RIDE FROM DALLAS.

I had the sense that she had carefully "studied the books" --i.e., the Warren Report, plus
Mailer, McMillan, perhaps the Ferrell chronologies, etc.--and was methodically "inserting
herself" into the record, wherever she could.

==I BELIEVE MR. LIFTON HAD THE SENSE THAT HIS BOOK WAS RUINED AND HE DECIDED I
COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE A BONA FIDE WITNESS AFTER ALL THAT TIME, SO HE DECIDED TO
DEEP-SIX ME RATHER THAN HAVE TO DELAY HIS BOOK. BUT I DID NOT GO AWAY. HE TRIED
HARD TO RUIN MY REPUTATION, AND McADAMS & CO PUBLISHED WHATEVER HE TOLD THEM.==

HE WAS WELL-ARMED WITH HIS TAPE RECORDER FOR HIS ONE AND ONLY CALL. THIS CALL
WAS MADE BEFORE MARCH, ACCORDING TO THE FACT THAT IN THE EMAIL BELOW,
I MENTION SOME TME HAS GONE BY.

ON MARCH 18, 2000, I WROTE THIS TO xxxxxxxxx: [NAME TO BE GIVEN TO DR. FETZER]

Well, all I'd like to know...I would like to know his name.

I have to be careful. You mentioned David Lifton -- He talked to me for an hour, would not
ask me any questions, and I know you respect him, but he jumped to conclusions when I
said Lee knew the real name of his handler. (Phillips, also Bender/Droller). What he did not
understand, and did not take the time to inquire about, was that we searched diligently to
find out these names. We were ale to put two and two together by the 20th -- rather late,
I would say, in the game -- as to the positions and goals of some of these people. Lifton
simply told an associate I'd made a "fatal error."

My "fatal error" was believing that he would keep the information to himself, which he did
not, and that he would ask me if something bothered him. No, I had to find out second-
hand. There are several "outrageous" elements to what I have to say, but when all the
details are known, they make sense. For example, we first learned that Phillips was
involved when he showed up at Reily's. I saw Boatner's secretary and Bill [Monaghan]
talking together about "Phillips". I just heard it once, that's all I needed. The rest we
we figured out from his meeting in Ft. Worth, and then the disaster in Mexico City.

Believe me, if you knew the time constraints on the materials Lee had couriered there,
you would understand his real desperation. It was actually Hurricane Flora that ruined
everything -- they said -- an act of God forgotten in history, unless, like Lee and me,
so many lives had not depended on Castro's medical team in place around him--instead,
they were sent all over the island, and our big chance for getting penetration of these
materials into Cuba were delayed for too long.

I am pleased that you still have enough heart left in you to respond. That gives me
some hope that at least we can be friends. I do trust you--call it a gut instinct. I
sensed your anger and frustration.

All my friends are dead except six people--fortunately, two of these are on tape, one
on film. One is significant and known, has been out of sight for years. We, the women,
some of us, you see, have survived.

Anyway, if you will tell me who this person is, and if they are not prone to judge without
hearing me out, that is essential. It takes about twelve hours to explain all the details.
It take six hours to explain enough so you don't jump to conclusions. Liftton gave me
an hour, then only wanted to know when the book was coming out. It was a real burn
for me.

I mention this, since you mentioned Lifton, who then talked to Chapman. What a mess
-- that's the main reason I'm seeking a fair hearing, to balance this. I have half a dozen
persons, some surely known to you, who have thoroughly investigated -- and seen --
the information.

I am very pleased, again, that you've had enough heart to respond. Don't give up. I
am not a half-baked fool. The only stupid thing I've done, since back then, is to trust
Mr. Lifton.

Yours,

JV

"xxxxxxxxx" wrote back to me: [Agaijn, I will supply the name to Dr. Fetzer]

Dear Judyth,

What can I say?

It wasn't so much that "it got to me." I was just tired of reading the same book over and
over again -- different titles, different authors, same dead-ends. Beating one's head
against the wall repeatedly may be less lethal than lifting it up and getting it blown off,
but it hurts nevertheless.

For what it's worth, I hope your story does get to someone who can do the appropriate
checks and give it all the attention it deserves. (Yes, I worded that carefully, as I've seen
scams before.) Would you mind if I passed your e-mails to me along to a researcher I
know (and trust) in this area? I won't do so without your permission. He hasn't written a
book himself, but I know he has been a researcher for others' books, and he is highly
regarded as an archivist in the case.

Let me know one way or another. If you say yes, I cannot guarantee he will contact you.
It's just the best I can do.

xxxxxxxxx

10:30 PM 3/18/00 -0600

==NOW I (JUDYTH) WILL CONTINUE WITH LIFTON'S STATEMENT==

Because she's very smart, and had assimilated so much data, the net result was to
project a sense of verisimilitude. Many buy into the resultant "story"; I did not.

==Again, if I'm intelligent, then I am a fraud. If I am stupid, then I could not have done
done the things that I had told him about. HE LEAVES NO ROOM FOR A REAL WITNESS.==

In that March, 2000 conversation, Judyth went through her narrative about how she
met Oswald at the post office, on day he arrived in New Orleans, which was 4/26/63.
[ERROR, Mr. Lifton] And in connection with that, Judyth told me how he was dressed
-- as an ordinary worker. Grubby work clothes, etc.

==I said he was clean-cut and looked so nice and neat that I allowed him to walk me
home. He wore a very neat, clean khaki shirt that later was damaged when he made
the training film. (We later used it and his equally worn but clean pants for a dog that
had newborn puppies).==

However, I had recently been studying the records and had assembled a New Orleans
chronology; [which was already in error beginning with day of arrival!] so I was in fact
aware of a contemporaneous New Orleans record stating how he was dressed that day.

As it turns out, on that day (April 26, 1963, the day Oswald went to the Louisiana
employment agency to seek work) the interviewer (one John Rachal, as noted in the
Warren Report) happened to make a record of how Oswald was dressed. He was in a
suit, dress shirt, and tie.

Being aware of this, I questioned Judyth carefully on this very point. Judyth insisted that
Oswald was dressed in grubby clothes and like an ordinary worker.

==Lifton did not look careflly enough into the record. i am a witness, and I know what
happened. Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt -- he did not mention a suit
-- perhaps his relaives generosly added the suit? I later saw that Lee had his old dark
suit from the USSR, but for sure, he owned no white shirt or didn't have it with his stuff.
Now, Lee leaves me in the morning and has time to see his aunt and change clothes.==

Here is a logical time line:

April 25 -- Lee arrives around 11:00 AM from Dallas, checks into the YMCA, calls his
relatives, and they invite him over. I know he ate dinner that evening with David Ferrie.
Most of he day, he spends with his aunt and uncle and cousin, talking. It's been ten years,
after all.

A cousin, I think Marilyn, talked to hm the first day he was there. She was upset because
he said he was an atheist, and she yelled at him. I remember that from talking to Lee
about his aunt and uncle. They were Catholics and I had wanted to become a nun and
religion was one of our favorite topics. So to all their chronology questions at "60 Minutes",
without access to a calendar -- and he same for Nigel Turner -- I would go through some
days for all 24 hours.

So on the 25th, I have since learned his aunt is on record noticing he has very few clothes.

Lee actually had some boxes and sea bags, etc. but no nice clothes with him for job hunting.
His aunt wants him to be nicely dressed. I assume she offered to help and told him to come
back next day, she by then would have nice shirt, etc., for Lee.

April 26 -- We meet, Lee mentons he is going to have to leave to pick up a white shirt from
his aunt's. I do not expect to see Lee H. Oswald again (but he sees me again on the 27th).
He had to dress in old clothes because that is all he had with him, according to his own aunt,
in testimony. He could not walk naked to his aunt's house.

His aunt in later testimony says, after a few days, Lee moves in with them. She describes in
detail such things as he only has one pair of shoes. She obviously loved him and cared about
him to notice such details. I only saw the USSR suit -- but Lee dressed at his aunt's place
and then he goes to the employment agency.

BUT LIFTON ONLY SEES LEE DRESSED IN OLD CLOTHES AND THEREFORE CONCLUDES THAT
I MADE IT UP! HE JUMPED TO CONCLUSIONS -- AGAIN! IN FACT, I BELIEVE WE HAVE NOW
STRENGTHENED MY STATEMENT THAT LEE OSWALD WAS WEARING OLD CLOTHES -- BUT
LIFTON THE RESEARCHER, WITH HIS YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, DID NOT CATCH THAT. NOW
I AM SUPPOSED TO HAVE DONE ALL THAT RESEARCH A DECADE AGO, WHEN MY CHILDREN
TESTIFY I NEVER, EVER DID ANY SUCH THING. YET I GET IT RIGHT AND LIFTON WRONG.

LIFTON THOUGHT IT OUT THIS WAY:

LEE OSWALD, THE SAME DAY HE ARRIVED IN TOWN WENT -- NEAT AND TIDY AFTER HIS
LONG RIDE FROM DALLAS -- DRESSED TO KILL, WItH A SUIT ON, AND GOES STRAIGHT TO
THE EMPLOYMENT AGENCY. LIFTON'S ERROR OF A WHOLE DAY TELLS ME THAT HE ISN'T
THINKING AS WELL AS HE USUALLY DOES -- HE IS FACING A REAL WITNESS HE DOES NOT
WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE -- SO HE REASONS TO HIMSELF, "NO, NO! SHE CAN'T BE REAL!
IT RUINS MY BOOK!" THE PROBLEM HE HAS -- WHICH I HAVE ALSO FACED WITH OTHER
RESEARCHERS -- IS WELL DESCRIBED BY COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY.

That, among other things, convinced me that Judyth was not credible.

==WELL, MR. LISTON, ALL YOU HAVE DONE IS CONVINCED ME THAT YOU JUMPED TO YET
ANOTHER FALSE CONCLUSION. AS A WITNESS, I AM IN A SOMEWHAT BETTER POSITION
THAN YOU ARE, BECAUSE I WAS HERE. YOU NEVER EVEN MET LEE OSWALD. HE WAS NO
SAINT, BUT HE WAS NOT THE WRETCH HE WAS MADE OUT TO BE.

From Rachal Deposition Exhibit (Volume 21, p. 283): "will relocate. . Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite."
From Rachal's Warren Commission affidavit: "I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed, with a
suit, dress shirt, and tie, on the occasion of our initial interview." (Rachel Affidavit; 11 WCH 475).

No doubt Judyth, upon learning of this "problem," will now perhaps claim that Oswald changed
his clothes from a "suit, dress shirt, and tie" at the time of his 4/26/63 interview, to the work
clothes he was wearing at the post office. But when and where would he do that?

==YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS, MR. LIFTON, BECAUSE YOU DID NOT INTERVIEW ME. IF YOU
HAD, YOU WOULD HAVE LEARNED THAT WE MET VERY EARLY ON THE 26TH. WHATEVER ELSE
TRANSPIRED, LEE'S AUNT TELLS US THAT HE HAD NO SUITABLE (GEE, A PUN!) CLOTHES. IT IS
WHOLLY LOGICAL THAT HE COULD NOT WALK NAKED FROM THE "Y"...DO NOT GO BY McADAMS'
WARPED TIMELINE THAT HAS LEE OSWALD MOVING INTO THE MURRET HOME ON THE 25TH.
HIS AUNT MENTIONS IT WAS SEVERAL DAYS LATER. THAT MEANS IT IS ENTIRELY LOGICAL THAT
LEE, SO EARLY IN THE MORNING, HAD YET TO ACQUIRE SUITABLE CLOTHING BUT DID LATER.==

I have no interest in pursuing this matter anymore--

==OF COURSE NOT. YOU ARE NOW ON RECORD AS HAVING MADE ONE TIMELINE ERROR AND
WITH FALSE ASSUMPTIONS, BECAUSE YOU N-E-V--E-R HAD AN INTEREST IN INTERVIEWING ME
EXCEPT TO DISCARD ME. IS THIS THE WAY THAT YOU WANT TO BE REMEMBERED?==

except to note that I had this experience with Judyth in March, 2000, and this issue of how
Oswald was dressed on 4/26/63 occurred in the same conversation in which Judyth talked
about how Oswald was supposedly intending to meet her in Cancun (which did not exist at the time).

[NOTE: One of the hazards of dropping into a thread with a post like this one is that the author
runs the risk of having missed important rebuttals that may have intervened in the meanwhile.
In this case, the "Cancun/Kankun" blunder, where the village of Kankun existed long before the
area was developed and came to be known as "Cancun" was addressed in post #40 on page 3.]

==MR. LIFTON, I ENDED UP WITH A DEGREE IN ANTHROPOLOGY. LEE AND I BOTH WANTED TO
VISIT ARCHEOLOGICAL RUINS AND PRIMITIVE VLLAGES NEARBY, ONE OF WHICH WAS CALLED
KANKUN AND HAD BEEN STUDIED IN THE EARLY 60'S. I POINTED OUT THAT AREA ON A MAP TO
MY AGENT. [THIS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED MANY TIMES, INCLUDING EARLIER ON THIS THREAD.]
NEAR CHICHEN-IZA WAS TO BE OUR FIRST MEETINGPLACE AFTER HE WAS ABLE TO LEAVE DALLAS.
THE ENTIRE AREA WAS CALLED KANKUN, WHICH IS THE ORIGIN OF THE NAME OF THE RESORT CITY.]

LEE SAID WE WOULD GO TO A FINE HOTEL IN THAT AREA, WHICH I WONDERED MIGHT BE A JOKE
-- HE JOKED A LOT -- AS I ENVISIONED THE PRIMITIVE VILLAGE! BUT TO MY SURPRISE, RIGHT AT
CHICHEN-ITZA IS THE MAYALAND HOTEL, WHICH HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THE 1930'S. I VISITED IT
AGAIN FOUR YEARS AGO AND TOLD THE PROPRIETORS ABOUT LEE'S PLAN. IT IS A 5-STAR HOTEL.



FOR ALMOST A DECADE WE HAVE TOLD YOU AGAIN AND AGAIN--PLATZMAN TOLD YOU, MARTIN
SHACKELFORD TOLD YOU, AND SO DID I -- THAT MY AGENT REWROTE MY BOOK TO BECOME ITS
CO-AUTHOR , HE WROTE IT AS 'CANCUN' AND WE DIDN'T THINK IT MATTERED UNTIL YOU AND
McADAMS & CO. HAD A HISSY-FIT, SAYING THAT WAS AN ANACHRONISM.

WHEN I LEARNED THAT THE SPELLING WAS NOW IMPORTANT TO MY DETRACTORS, I BROUGHT OUT
THE JOURNAL REFERENCE TO KANKUN AS A VILLAGE BY THAT NAME, TO SAY NOTHING THAT THE
WHOLE AREA IS CALLED THAT -- "KANKUN" -- BUT YOU HEARD "CANCUN" AND INSIST I DID NOT
MEAN "KANKUN".

ON THE BASIS OF THIS INFERENCE, YOUR FALSE TIMELINE ABOUT LEE'S SUIT, AND YOUR EQUALLY
FALSE ASSUMPTION THAT LEE AND I SAID WE KNEW WHO HIS HANDLER WAS, WHEN WE SAID NO
SUCH THING, YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED NOTHING EXCEPT YOUR HOSTILITY AND UNFAIRNESS.

"KANKUN, SPELLED WITH K'S, MEANS "BASKET OF SNAKES" FOR THE WHOLE AREA WAS A JUNGLE,
AND SNAKE-INFESTED. NO WONDER IT WAS HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT LEE REALLY MEANT
WE WOULD GO TO A 'FINE HOTEL' THERE.

MR. LIFTON DOES NOT MENTION THAT HE AND THE NEWSGROUP INSISTED HERE WERE NO "FINE
HOTELS" IN THAT JUNGLE. THIS WAS ONE MORE "PROOF" THAT I "HAD MADE IT UP." WHEN HE
WAS EVENTUALLY FORCED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTENCE OF MAYALAND HOTEL, HE STILL
DOES NOT ADMIT TO YOU THAT A FINE HOTEL ACTUALLY HAD EXISTED IN THAT AREA IN 1963.

HE ONLY TELLS YOU TO FOCUS ON "CANCUN" AS HE HEARD IT OVER THE PHONE. I WAS CRUCIFIED
OVER THAT ISSUE UNTIL DEB BERT AND OTHERS NOTED THAT MAYALAND WAS BUILT RIGHT THERE
AT CHICHEN-IZA, WHERE I SAID LEE AND I WOULD MEET. LOOK AT A MAP AND POINT YOUR FINGER
THERE -- THE OLD MAPS WE LOOKED AT SAID "KANKUN", THE NEW ONES SAY THE CITY "CANCUN".

==IT MAKES ME WONDER HOW MANY TIMES I MUST DISPROVE FALSE ALLEGATIONS OVER AGAIN==

So in the same conversation in which she referred to a (then) non-existent destination for their
meeting, she also had she also had Oswald's clothing wrong--at least "wrong" insofar as these
Louisiana records attest; as to what he was known to be wearing on that specific day: April 26, 1963.

DSL

==WHICH I SHALL ASSUME I HAVE NOW EXPLAINED IS BASED UPON BLUNDERS ABOUT THE DATE
ON WHICH HE ARRIVED IN NEW ORLEANS, HIS AUNT'S TESTIMONY ABOUT HIS LACK OF SUITABLE
CLOTHING, AND THE DATE ON WHICH WE MET AND HE LATER APPLIED FOR EMPLOYMENT, DRESSED
AS HE HAS BEEN DESCRIBED IN THE "LOUISIANA RECORDS" UPON WHICH MR. LIFTON DEPENDS.==

[NOTE: I will confirm with Judyth that I have presented this complex material as she has intended.]

[quote name='David Lifton' date='Mar 26 2010, 05:11 AM' post='187882']
Jack,

When I first spoke with Judyth in March, 2000, I had the sense that she had carefully "studied the books" --i.e., the Warren Report, plus Mailer, McMillan, perhaps the Ferrell chronologies, etc.--and was methodically "inserting herself" into the record, wherever she could.

Because she's very smart, and had assimilated so much data, the net result was to project a sense of verisimilitude. Many buy into the resultant "story"; I did not.

In that March, 2000 conversation, Judyth went through her narrative about how she met Oswald at the post office, on day he arrived in New Orleans, which was 4/26/63. And in connection with that, Judyth told me how he was dressed--as an ordinary worker. Grubby work clothes, etc.

However, I had recently been studying the records and had assembled a New Orleans chronology; so I was in fact aware of a contemporaneous New Orleans record stating how he was dressed that day.

As it turns out, on that day (April 26, 1963, the day Oswald went to the Louisiana employment agency to seek work) the interviewer (one John Rachal, as noted in the Warren Report) happened to make a record of how Oswald was dressed. He was in a suit, dress shirt, and tie.

Being aware of this, I questioned Judyth carefully on this very point. Judyth insisted that Oswald was dressed in grubby clothes and like an ordinary worker.

That, among other things, convinced me that Judyth was not credible.

From Rachal Deposition Exhibit (Volume 21, p. 283): "will relocate. . Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite." From Rachal's Warren Commission affidavit: "I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed, with a suit, dress shirt, and tie, on the occasion of our initial interview." (Rachel Affidavit; 11 WCH 475).

No doubt Judyth, upon learning of this "problem," will now perhaps claim that Oswald changed his clothes from a "suit, dress shirt, and tie" at the time of his 4/26/63 interview, to the work clothes he was wearing at the post office. But when and where would he do that?

I have no interest in pursuing this matter anymore--except to note that I had this experience with Judyth in March, 2000, and this issue of how Oswald was dressed on 4/26/63 occurred in the same conversation in which Judyth talked about how Oswald was supposedly intending to meet her in Cancun (which did not exist at the time). So in the same conversation in which she referred to a (then) non-existent destination for their meeting, she also had she also had Oswald's clothing wrong--at least "wrong" insofar as these Louisiana records attest;as to what he was known to be wearing on that specific day: April 26, 1963.

DSL
[/quote]