Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

Bernice, Thanks for your posts, which I greatly appreciate. Jack has made a response to my comments on the "Hunting photo" as follows:



Today, 02:55 AM
Post #709

Super Member

Group: Members
Posts: 7140
Joined: 26-April 04
Member No.: 667

The "hunting photo" is NOT my photo, but was a personal photo allegedly
taken by Robert when he took Lee hunting just before Lee "departed
for New Orleans" for his defection. I copied the photo from LEE, written
by Robert Oswald. The way a Marine handles a rifle is not necessarily
indicative of what he would do when out hunting. Not everyone behaves
according to any preconceived notion. I have no opinion on the veracity
of the photo. It may be genuine, it may be faked. But it does not resemble
the LHO of Dealey Plaza.

Jack

QUOTE (James H. Fetzer @ Mar 28 2010, 02:49 AM)
JIM COMMENTS ON THE ALLEGED "HUNTING PHOTO OF LEE"

Let me state that his "hunting photo of Lee" categorically falsifies your
theory. "Lee", of course, on your scenario, was in the Marine Corps. I
can assure you that no one who had ever served in the Marine Corps
would hold a rifle or shotgun in the manner shown here. They would
have the weapon across their arms, cradled with the end pointed up-
ward. They would never display the casual, grab-ass behavior that is
displayed by the "Lee" of your photograph, which, as I have observed
before, looks like a completely phony photo in any case. But once a
man has served in the Marine Corps and acquired a minimal degree of
competence with a rifle, they would not handle a long gun as shown.
Either the man in the photo is not your "Lee" or the photo is a phony.

Bear in mind that I supervised recruit training at the Recruit Depot in San Diego from June 1964 to June 1965, when I was moved up to Regimental Headquarters. I was a Series Commander with 15 DIs and 300 recruits under my command in taking them through the training cycle, which, at the time, was eleven weeks in duration with a week at the rifle range. I have no idea whether or not Jack has any military experience, but the training in handling a rifle is extreme and no one who had successfully completed it would ever be so careless as to hold a long gun in the fashion shown in that photo. It cannot be a photograph of any former Marine, because they would have been reprimanded on the spot and censured for such conduct.

So this photo is either not of Lee or it is a fake. Indeed, the oddest aspect about it is that it doesn't look like any actual person. Since Robert is the one who is supposed to have taken it, my suspicions about his role in all of this are growing by leaps and bounds. Can the JFK research community have been so dumb as to ignore that (a) he is the spitting image of his brother, (b) that he could effortlessly have impersonated him, and © that he has gone out of his way to implicate him in the crime, even though the proof of his innocence is manifest and abundant. I have not studied this aspect of the case before, but I am simply astonished at the apparent naivete of those who are willing to give Robert a free pass. He was deeply involved.

I am also taken aback that, after all of this research on "Harvey & Lee", it takes Judyth Baker to point out that one of the crucial photos--the "passport" photo--is distorted by the "plumper facial oval" in ways that should have been apparent to those undertaking these studies. When we have a fake "Hunting photo" and a distorted "passport photo" which have been taken to be forms of proof of the existence of "Harvey & Lee", I am completely dumbfounded. It appears to me this entire dimension of the case has to be completely rethought, because it seems to be littered with rubbish. I have the greatest respect for my dear friend, Jack, but something is not right about all this to-do about "Harvey & Lee". Something is very wrong.