31-03-2010, 06:52 PM
JIM REPLIES TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT JUDYTH VARY BAKER
David,
I appreciate your contributions to this thread. You raise serious questions that
I shall pursue and attempt to nail down. If Judyth is wrong about the date Lee
arrived in New Orleans or when they met, that would clearly adversely affect my
estimate of her credibility. As for Jack, he seems to be unable to acknowledge
his massive bias against Judyth. He has advanced many criticisms against her,
but none of them, as far as I can determine, carry any weight. And he has not
been remotely responsive to points she and I have made that, in my opinion,
raise doubts about some of the evidence advanced to support "Harvey & Lee".
A crucial point I would like to make concerns the claim by you and others that
Judyth is a "fantasist" who is attempting to insert herself into history. Why would
anyone who wanted to "insert herself into history" advance a story that had so
many implausible elements? That is highly unlikely. They would be very cautious
arranging their story in order to eliminate virtually any implausible elements to
protect their claim from refutation. Judyth has done precisely the opposite. It
seems to me that the only way she could know these things--especially those
that initially appear to be very implausible--is because she was actually there!
And, significantly, Judyth has pointed out serious problems with photos that Jack
has advanced in support of the "two Oswalds", where I am having a lot of trouble
swallowing the idea that these two guy were often living in close proximity while
leading parallel lives. The "passport" photo, for example, seems to present a more
rounded face than the original, which Judyth has explained in a post that appears
in the last few pages here. Please tell me if you believe in "Harvey & Lee" or if
you have doubts and, if you have doubts, what are they? Inquiring minds would
like to know. And are you still working on your Oswald book? Thanks very much.
Jim
P.S. Suppose that Judyth did not have a love affair with Lee in New Orleans.
In my opinion, she would still be among the leading experts on this man in
the world today. I believe that she knows more about him that anyone else
on this forum, for example, where her abilities as a researcher and student
of his life are simply astounding. The extent of her knowledge and her skill
in coping with criticism, taken as a totality, are among the most persuasive
reasons why I continue to believe that she is indeed "the real deal", and it
is going to take extremely powerful proof to convince me that I am wrong.
And one final point. I am hardly the only serious student of the death of
JFK who believes in Judyth Vary Baker. The list includes Nigel Turner, who
devoted an entire segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", to Judyth;
Ed Haslam, the author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY, who subjected her to the
most intense interrogation before coming to accept her story; Jim Marrs,
of whom some of you may have heard, who is also among those who are
on Judyth's side; and others unnamed. It seems to me that this intense
focus on me--because I am here--simply ignores the fact I am not alone.
[quote name='David Lifton' post='188327' date='Mar 31 2010, 10:50 AM']
Jim,
On the matter of when Lee arrived in New Orleans, and what he was wearing on April 26, 1963, your statements are incorrect.
Fact 1: We do not know exactly when Lee Oswald arrived in New Orleans. We only know, for sure, that he went for an interview on Friday, April 26, 1963, at which point he was dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie.
Fact 2: Lillian Murrett, Lee's aunt, testified that Lee first called on Monday, April 29, and said he was at the bus station. (And this was corroborated by her daughter Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time).
Putting fact 1 and fact 2 together, it seems clear that Lee was in New Orleans by Friday, April 26, at which time he went for the interview, dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie. (And then called his family on Monday, claiming to have just arrived).
When I spoke with Judyth, who claimed to have met Lee for the first time at the Post Office--and that date being April 26, 1963--and when I asked Judyth how Lee Oswald was dressed, she said he was in workman's clothes. She made a big point of this.
Unfortunately for Judyth, who apparently attempts to insert herself into the record, whereever she spots an opening, she was unaware--I repeate UNAWARE--at the time I spoke with her (on March 4, 2000) of the Rachal Deposition Exhibit, and the Rachal affidavit, both of which are in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission Report.. These two documents offer credible evience as to what Oswald was wearing on Friday, April 26, 1963, at the time of his job placement interview at the Louisiana Department of Labor. The Rachal Deposition Exhibit includes John Rachal's handwritten notes, recording Lee Oswlad's appearance when he appeared before him for a job placement interview: "Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite." (Rachal Deposition Exhibit--see WC Volume 21, page 283). In his 6/22/64 Warren Commission affidavit, he swears: "I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview." (WC Vol 11, p. 475).
At my request, Jack White kindly posted an exhibit I prepared depicting the relevant excerpts from these two documents.
That "initial interview" was on Friday, April 26, 1963, and--at the time I spoke with her (March 4, 2000)--Judyth apparently was unaware that the published records of the Warren Commission--in the form of these two Rachal items--offered documentary evidence as to what Oswald was wearing on that particular day.
Consequently, when I questioned her--on March 4, 2000--she glibly asserted that Lee was dressed in workman's clothes, and, as I recall, appeared somewhat grubby. Furthermore, when I asked her a second time (and perhaps even a third time) to nail down this point, she became somewhat hostile and defensive, as if to ask "Why do you want to know?"
Now, 10 years later, and because of the information I released (via Jack White, just in the last week), Judyth has had a serious "Ooops" moment. Now, she realizes that she had Oswald dressed in the wrong clothes, (and on the day of their very first meeting, no less!) And I stress this point because, after all, it is common knowledge that we usually remember what someone who means so much to us was wearing the first time we met them.
So what does Judyth do? Why, she does what she always does: she comes up with an "explanation." In this case, Judyth simply manufactures some new dialogue to her narrative, as if this is not an accurately documented history, but rather a "work in progress," a screenplay which she can change anytime she wishes. And so now she writes: "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."
Let's focus on just what is going on here: I produce evidence --from the 1963/64 record--that, on April 26, 1963, Lee was dressed in a "dress shirt, and tie" and Judyth now adds, in March, 2010, almost 47 years later, "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."
Is this plausible? Is Judyth credible? Are we supposed to take this ad hoc revision serioiusly?
But that's not the end of it, because Lee was not just wearing a dress shirt--he was wearing a suit, (and a tie). So now what can we do about those two "inconvenient truths"?
Well, I'll tell you what Judyth does: she engages in speculation as to where Lee obtained the suit. She writes:
NOW QUOTING FROM JUDYTH'S POST:
" Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt -- he did not mention a suit-- perhaps his relatives generously added the suit?" UNQUOTE
And then she adds these statements:
QUOTE
(1) " Lee leaves me in the morning and has time to see his aunt and change clothes."
(2) " Here is a logical time line: . . .April 25 [Thursday] -- Lee arrives around 11:00 AM from Dallas, checks into the YMCA, calls his
relatives, and they invite him over. . . Most of he day, he spends with his aunt and uncle and cousin, talking. It's been ten years, after all."
UNQUOTE
But here's the problem with Judyth's "logical time line," and her 2010 attempt at a reconstruction: Lee's Aunt, Lillian Murrett, testified that when she first heard from Lee (who said he was calling from the bus station) it was on "a Monday." That's right: Monday, April 29, 1963.
This testimony is also supported by the testimony of cousin Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time.
But Lee's interview in which he was so nicely dresse was on Friday, April 26.
So regardless of what day Lee may actually have arrived in New Orleans--THEY first heard from him on a Monday, and specifically, Monday, April 29, 1963, which means there is a three day "missing period" between Friday, April 26, when he showed up at the Louisiana Labor Dept office, for an interview (and was dressed in a suit, white shirt, tie, etc.) and the time he first called his relatives, said he was calling from the bus station, and claimed he had just arrived in New Orleans (which was obviously not true)..
So: Lee Oswald was obviously not telling the truth as to when he arrived, and where he had been, for clearly, he was at the Louisiana Labor Department on Friday, April 26, dressed in the white shirt, suit, and tie.
But now, back to Judyth, and her "work in progress": Whatever the explanation is for where Lee was for three days (and Judyth will no doubt be adept at coming up with something), the fact is that Oswald could not have borrowed such clothing from his relatives (to wear on Friday, April 26) if he didn't see them until Monday, April 29. Furthermore, his aunt Lillian's reaction on first seeing her nephew was that he needed better clothing and she offered to help him get better clothes. Again, no mention of having loaned him anything--no loan of a suit, tie, dress shirt, etc.
All this bears heavily on assessingt the credibility of Judyth, who we catch in the act of scampering around trying to come up with an explanation for how it was possible for Lee to be wearing a suit, dress shirt and tie, on Friday, April 26, when he had the interview with John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor. Again: If we meet someone who turns out to be important in our lives, we remember what they were wearing when we first met them. But, in her converstion with me, Judyth got it all wrong, and now she's trying to plug this "hole" in her story.
Judyth supposedly met Lee Oswald some 47 years ago, and has written about him extensively, but--apparently--it wasn't until a week ago that she became aware of this glitch in her account.
Unfortunately for Judyth, 10 years have passed since I questioned her on this point--and although I questioned her very carefully on this particular point, I did not reveal the significance of my questions, or my reaction to her answers. And so now, here we are, in March 2010, I reveal this line of questioning, and now, a decade later, Judyth comes up with new (and supposedly legitimate) information, and her entire tone has the defensive, and almost truculent quality, she exhibited when I spoke with her ten years ago: "I am a witness, and I know what happened. Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt. . ."
And we're supposed to take this person seriously?
I must ask you Jim: Is there no limit to your credulity?
At what point do you draw the line, and say, "Enough is enough!"
Judyth is a serial fabricator. She is a deluded woman, a fantast.
And rather than deal plainly and forthrightly with the situation, you are throwing your credibility out the window, and tossing great insults at a long time friend, like Jack White, because he has the common sense to see what is obvious (and so did Mary Ferrell, I might add).
DSL
3/31/10; 2:40 AM
Los Angeles, CA[/quote]
David,
I appreciate your contributions to this thread. You raise serious questions that
I shall pursue and attempt to nail down. If Judyth is wrong about the date Lee
arrived in New Orleans or when they met, that would clearly adversely affect my
estimate of her credibility. As for Jack, he seems to be unable to acknowledge
his massive bias against Judyth. He has advanced many criticisms against her,
but none of them, as far as I can determine, carry any weight. And he has not
been remotely responsive to points she and I have made that, in my opinion,
raise doubts about some of the evidence advanced to support "Harvey & Lee".
A crucial point I would like to make concerns the claim by you and others that
Judyth is a "fantasist" who is attempting to insert herself into history. Why would
anyone who wanted to "insert herself into history" advance a story that had so
many implausible elements? That is highly unlikely. They would be very cautious
arranging their story in order to eliminate virtually any implausible elements to
protect their claim from refutation. Judyth has done precisely the opposite. It
seems to me that the only way she could know these things--especially those
that initially appear to be very implausible--is because she was actually there!
And, significantly, Judyth has pointed out serious problems with photos that Jack
has advanced in support of the "two Oswalds", where I am having a lot of trouble
swallowing the idea that these two guy were often living in close proximity while
leading parallel lives. The "passport" photo, for example, seems to present a more
rounded face than the original, which Judyth has explained in a post that appears
in the last few pages here. Please tell me if you believe in "Harvey & Lee" or if
you have doubts and, if you have doubts, what are they? Inquiring minds would
like to know. And are you still working on your Oswald book? Thanks very much.
Jim
P.S. Suppose that Judyth did not have a love affair with Lee in New Orleans.
In my opinion, she would still be among the leading experts on this man in
the world today. I believe that she knows more about him that anyone else
on this forum, for example, where her abilities as a researcher and student
of his life are simply astounding. The extent of her knowledge and her skill
in coping with criticism, taken as a totality, are among the most persuasive
reasons why I continue to believe that she is indeed "the real deal", and it
is going to take extremely powerful proof to convince me that I am wrong.
And one final point. I am hardly the only serious student of the death of
JFK who believes in Judyth Vary Baker. The list includes Nigel Turner, who
devoted an entire segment of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", to Judyth;
Ed Haslam, the author of DR. MARY'S MONKEY, who subjected her to the
most intense interrogation before coming to accept her story; Jim Marrs,
of whom some of you may have heard, who is also among those who are
on Judyth's side; and others unnamed. It seems to me that this intense
focus on me--because I am here--simply ignores the fact I am not alone.
[quote name='David Lifton' post='188327' date='Mar 31 2010, 10:50 AM']
Jim,
On the matter of when Lee arrived in New Orleans, and what he was wearing on April 26, 1963, your statements are incorrect.
Fact 1: We do not know exactly when Lee Oswald arrived in New Orleans. We only know, for sure, that he went for an interview on Friday, April 26, 1963, at which point he was dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie.
Fact 2: Lillian Murrett, Lee's aunt, testified that Lee first called on Monday, April 29, and said he was at the bus station. (And this was corroborated by her daughter Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time).
Putting fact 1 and fact 2 together, it seems clear that Lee was in New Orleans by Friday, April 26, at which time he went for the interview, dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie. (And then called his family on Monday, claiming to have just arrived).
When I spoke with Judyth, who claimed to have met Lee for the first time at the Post Office--and that date being April 26, 1963--and when I asked Judyth how Lee Oswald was dressed, she said he was in workman's clothes. She made a big point of this.
Unfortunately for Judyth, who apparently attempts to insert herself into the record, whereever she spots an opening, she was unaware--I repeate UNAWARE--at the time I spoke with her (on March 4, 2000) of the Rachal Deposition Exhibit, and the Rachal affidavit, both of which are in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission Report.. These two documents offer credible evience as to what Oswald was wearing on Friday, April 26, 1963, at the time of his job placement interview at the Louisiana Department of Labor. The Rachal Deposition Exhibit includes John Rachal's handwritten notes, recording Lee Oswlad's appearance when he appeared before him for a job placement interview: "Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite." (Rachal Deposition Exhibit--see WC Volume 21, page 283). In his 6/22/64 Warren Commission affidavit, he swears: "I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview." (WC Vol 11, p. 475).
At my request, Jack White kindly posted an exhibit I prepared depicting the relevant excerpts from these two documents.
That "initial interview" was on Friday, April 26, 1963, and--at the time I spoke with her (March 4, 2000)--Judyth apparently was unaware that the published records of the Warren Commission--in the form of these two Rachal items--offered documentary evidence as to what Oswald was wearing on that particular day.
Consequently, when I questioned her--on March 4, 2000--she glibly asserted that Lee was dressed in workman's clothes, and, as I recall, appeared somewhat grubby. Furthermore, when I asked her a second time (and perhaps even a third time) to nail down this point, she became somewhat hostile and defensive, as if to ask "Why do you want to know?"
Now, 10 years later, and because of the information I released (via Jack White, just in the last week), Judyth has had a serious "Ooops" moment. Now, she realizes that she had Oswald dressed in the wrong clothes, (and on the day of their very first meeting, no less!) And I stress this point because, after all, it is common knowledge that we usually remember what someone who means so much to us was wearing the first time we met them.
So what does Judyth do? Why, she does what she always does: she comes up with an "explanation." In this case, Judyth simply manufactures some new dialogue to her narrative, as if this is not an accurately documented history, but rather a "work in progress," a screenplay which she can change anytime she wishes. And so now she writes: "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."
Let's focus on just what is going on here: I produce evidence --from the 1963/64 record--that, on April 26, 1963, Lee was dressed in a "dress shirt, and tie" and Judyth now adds, in March, 2010, almost 47 years later, "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."
Is this plausible? Is Judyth credible? Are we supposed to take this ad hoc revision serioiusly?
But that's not the end of it, because Lee was not just wearing a dress shirt--he was wearing a suit, (and a tie). So now what can we do about those two "inconvenient truths"?
Well, I'll tell you what Judyth does: she engages in speculation as to where Lee obtained the suit. She writes:
NOW QUOTING FROM JUDYTH'S POST:
" Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt -- he did not mention a suit-- perhaps his relatives generously added the suit?" UNQUOTE
And then she adds these statements:
QUOTE
(1) " Lee leaves me in the morning and has time to see his aunt and change clothes."
(2) " Here is a logical time line: . . .April 25 [Thursday] -- Lee arrives around 11:00 AM from Dallas, checks into the YMCA, calls his
relatives, and they invite him over. . . Most of he day, he spends with his aunt and uncle and cousin, talking. It's been ten years, after all."
UNQUOTE
But here's the problem with Judyth's "logical time line," and her 2010 attempt at a reconstruction: Lee's Aunt, Lillian Murrett, testified that when she first heard from Lee (who said he was calling from the bus station) it was on "a Monday." That's right: Monday, April 29, 1963.
This testimony is also supported by the testimony of cousin Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time.
But Lee's interview in which he was so nicely dresse was on Friday, April 26.
So regardless of what day Lee may actually have arrived in New Orleans--THEY first heard from him on a Monday, and specifically, Monday, April 29, 1963, which means there is a three day "missing period" between Friday, April 26, when he showed up at the Louisiana Labor Dept office, for an interview (and was dressed in a suit, white shirt, tie, etc.) and the time he first called his relatives, said he was calling from the bus station, and claimed he had just arrived in New Orleans (which was obviously not true)..
So: Lee Oswald was obviously not telling the truth as to when he arrived, and where he had been, for clearly, he was at the Louisiana Labor Department on Friday, April 26, dressed in the white shirt, suit, and tie.
But now, back to Judyth, and her "work in progress": Whatever the explanation is for where Lee was for three days (and Judyth will no doubt be adept at coming up with something), the fact is that Oswald could not have borrowed such clothing from his relatives (to wear on Friday, April 26) if he didn't see them until Monday, April 29. Furthermore, his aunt Lillian's reaction on first seeing her nephew was that he needed better clothing and she offered to help him get better clothes. Again, no mention of having loaned him anything--no loan of a suit, tie, dress shirt, etc.
All this bears heavily on assessingt the credibility of Judyth, who we catch in the act of scampering around trying to come up with an explanation for how it was possible for Lee to be wearing a suit, dress shirt and tie, on Friday, April 26, when he had the interview with John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor. Again: If we meet someone who turns out to be important in our lives, we remember what they were wearing when we first met them. But, in her converstion with me, Judyth got it all wrong, and now she's trying to plug this "hole" in her story.
Judyth supposedly met Lee Oswald some 47 years ago, and has written about him extensively, but--apparently--it wasn't until a week ago that she became aware of this glitch in her account.
Unfortunately for Judyth, 10 years have passed since I questioned her on this point--and although I questioned her very carefully on this particular point, I did not reveal the significance of my questions, or my reaction to her answers. And so now, here we are, in March 2010, I reveal this line of questioning, and now, a decade later, Judyth comes up with new (and supposedly legitimate) information, and her entire tone has the defensive, and almost truculent quality, she exhibited when I spoke with her ten years ago: "I am a witness, and I know what happened. Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt. . ."
And we're supposed to take this person seriously?
I must ask you Jim: Is there no limit to your credulity?
At what point do you draw the line, and say, "Enough is enough!"
Judyth is a serial fabricator. She is a deluded woman, a fantast.
And rather than deal plainly and forthrightly with the situation, you are throwing your credibility out the window, and tossing great insults at a long time friend, like Jack White, because he has the common sense to see what is obvious (and so did Mary Ferrell, I might add).
DSL
3/31/10; 2:40 AM
Los Angeles, CA[/quote]