26-04-2010, 12:08 AM
JIM REPLIES TO DOUG WELDON ABOUT HIS ABSURD TAKE ON JUDYTH VARY BAKER
This appears to be the voice of a guilty conscience from someone who has not been paying attention. It
has only recently dawned upon me that Doug Weldon has a certain streak of arrogance about him. He is
among those whose work I have admired in the past--where I have defended him many times, just as I
have Jack and Lifton--but who somehow wants to do it his own way, which of course is also fine with me.
When I read what Jack had posted, it upset me tremendously, and I called David Lifton to ask if he had
been the author of that post. David assured me that he had not. In light of this (to my mind, ridiculous)
post by Doug Weldon, I now surmise that it was he who wrote to Jack, as I imagine he had done several
times. He thinks I was wrong to condemn Jack for posting his cruel post, and he wants to make amends.
He can correct me if I am wrong, but that appears to be his motivation. I am profoundly disappointed that
this man would marshall so much effort to publish such rubbish. If anything has become clear during the
course of this thread, it is that Judyth was where she claimed to have been associating with exactly those
she identified and doing precisely what she always claimed to have been doing. That much is utterly clear.
She was a brilliant, young, talented and idealistic woman who thought she might make a difference in the
battle against cancer. She was recruited by Alton Ochsner to come to New Orleans with the promise of a
fellowship and early admission to medical school. She worked with Mary Sherman and David Ferrie on one
of the most covert medical research projects in American history. And she was protected by Lee H. Oswald!
Doug Weldon has such vast belief in his powers of observation and reasoning that he does not understand
that this woman's entire life was lived out in about six-month's time. She was obsessive-compulsive about
every detail of her existence in New Orleans and absorbed what was happening around her like a sponge.
She kept records and documents and receipts and knows the details of that entire interval of her existence.
And that is because IT WAS HER ENTIRE LIFE. I am obsessive-compulsive myself. Ask my wife. I kept every
cancelled check I had ever written until I was around 60 years of age. Judyth, I have observed to myself and
perhaps occasionally on this thread, is smarter than anyone else here--including me! Doug has never had an
encounter with someone like her. He didn't believe her story. And now he is here feebly trying to explain why.
Feeling guilty because I broke off with Jack for posting a rubbish attack that should have been beneath them
both, Weldon has come here to display (what he takes to be) his vast sophistication and powers of reasoning
by making claims that might be true in most cases but do not apply to Judyth. He even disregards Ed Haslam's
astonishing research, which provides the framework within which Judyth's stunning story has to be understood.
There is more fakery and fraud in this single post from Doug Weldon than in the hundreds of posts that I have
exchanged with Judyth. Why anyone would think that I would allow myself to be taken in if she were a fraud
is beyond me. Am I not supposed to grasp that my reputation and credibility is on the line? Am I not able to
see what is so clear to Jack and to Doug and to others here who are not convinced by what she has to say?
The extent of the ops against Judyt boggle the mind if she actually were a fraud. The fact is that Doug Weldon
has posted this even after Howard Platzman has made some of the most discerning observations of them all:
(1) How well the totality of her testimony and documents explains mysteries that haunt the case better than any other extant story. For one of many instances, her explanation of the Clinton-Jackson witnesses is far more believable than any that has been offered elsewhere, even by Joan Mellen who brags that this is her expertise yet delivers a story that is ultimately incoherent.
(2) How well it predicts future finds and generates productive leads. In fact, her story of Clinton-Jackson "predicted" 60 Minutes' finding of an FBI report that Garrison was about to indict Alton Ochsner. Though king of INCA, his name has not come up in connection with any conspiracy to kill anyone. In fact, he was conspiring to kill Castro, with Judyth's help. but Garrison never quite figured this out -- it is fascinating to read his Playboy interview that includes musings about Ferrie and a bioweapon aimed at Castro.
The research community needs to go back to school. Standards for what count as evidence -- and for how much evidence is enough evidence -- are generally lacking in those who consider themselves professional researchers, whereas so many of them are just plain not (pace Jim, Jack White's maunderings have always struct me as below par). As for whose anti-Judyth work deserves serious attention, I am inclined to think that Barb J holds first place. She has actually made phone calls and spoken to witnesses (not to Judyth, alas).
The problem with Barb is that she doesn't realize that what she found fundamentally supports Judyth's claims! Barb tried to refute Judyth's claim that she did any serious work at Roswell when, in fact, she proved the opposite. Judyth was heartbroken over the loss of the paper she wrote based on her Roswell studies. In the end, Barb found the abstract to the paper. I thanked her for her diligence and contribution to the cause. She didn't seem to understand -- or didn't want to.
Doug may have been reading posts, but he hasn't been paying attention. I would take one Judyth over a dozen
Weldons, Whites, and others unnamed. At this point in time, there is no excuse for anyone to doubt the identity
of Judyth Vary Baker. Read what Howard has said. He has it exactly right. Most of those here, with the notable
exception of Michael Hogan, seem to think this is some kind of magical mystery tour. But it is too serious for that.
Judyth has reponded more openly and in greater detail than anyone I have ever seen. Her experiences during
that concentrated period of time were virtually imprinted upon her memory--which, like her mind in general, is
far superior to that of most of those here. What Doug has said might fit most people, but Judyth never was one
of them. She is simply a superior human being who has sacrificed her life doing what she believed to be right!
Ed Haslam, who subjected Judyth to the most intensive scruity, who grew up in New Orleans and who knows the
place like the back of his hand, has made the point that, within the range of human fallibility, he believes that
Judyth has told the truth to the best of her ability--and he has known those who have disagreed about what
happened when they were in the same room at the time of its occurrence, which many of us know to be true.
He points out one of the striking aspects of Judyth's story. When she went to meet Alton Ochsner, who had been
the President of the American Cancer Society, LEE WENT IN FIRST. As he emphasizes on pages 321-322, this
is a rather profound point. Ochsner would later claim that Oswald was a communist and the lone assassin, yet
he knew Lee well enough that Lee MET WITH HIM ALONE before he brought Judyth Vary in to meet with him.
Reread what Howard has to said. Study Ed Haslam's book. She was lured to New Orleans. She met Ochsner.
She worked with Mary Sharman and David Farrie. She did all the things she said she has done and they were
welcome and appreciated in New Orleans just as she has explained it. Nothing else makes any sense at all. I
am stunned at the incapacity to think things through by some I have admired in the past. They really should get
over it. Judyth is "the real deal" and what she has to tell us transforms our understanding of the death of JFK.
[quote name='Doug Weldon' post='190158' date='Apr 20 2010, 01:20 AM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='190023' date='Apr 19 2010, 12:18 AM']
NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED ME
I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past would stoop to such a sophomoric level by
lodging such a blatant ad hominem. Those who resort to arguments of this caliber have discredited
themselves massively. I denounce each and every one of them, including the author of the post Jack
has repeated her and the hack who posted it. I am completely disgusted and want nothing more to
do with them. Michael Hogan and Howard Platzman are honorable men. Those who resort to such
disgraceful tactics are not. Cease and desist, Jack White. You have forefeitted being taken seriously.
Please know that I want nothing more to do with you in any context at all. We are no longer friends.
[quote name='Jack White' post='190000' date='Apr 18 2010, 07:43 PM']
It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For
some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So
far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one
received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):
[color="#000080"]"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."
[/color]
There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This
has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become
disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?
Jack[/quote]
[/quote]
Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher opinion and respect for these people than I did at the beginning. If one has to agree with everything one posits then all of us are going to have a very short list of friends.
Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's.
I am going to make some personal references. I believe friendships and relationships are what is most important in life. If anyone on this forum believes that we are going to develop a total concensus on the death of JFK and bring people to justice then they are living in a fantasyland. To seek to find truth is not only noble it is imperative to defining the society in which we live and for those who will live after us. I use the rhetorical question of why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow? History will always be the myth that people choose to believe and I, as much as anyone, would like to remove much of the myth that exists about November 22, 1963. It is important but it is not so important that we destroy the friendships and relationships that are truly the essence of our lives. Again, I make a personal reference. It is easy to become obsessed in pursuing the truth in the JFK labrynith. I recall my ex-wife telling me that I seemed to pay more attention to a dead president than I did to her. Sadly, in retrospect, she was often correct. For any endeavor, there is a cost to be paid. The ultimate question is whether the cost was worth it. Sometimes it is. Many times it is not. To do it again, I would have made some different decisions.
The most rewarding aspect of being involved with this for 32 years has been the wonderful people and witnesses I have gotten to know. For the witnesses who trusted me I want to keep my promise to tell their accounts for history but I am under no pretense that everyone is going to agree with me or them and I understand that even to get my book published is likely to be a difficult endeavor. I do, however, value that I got to know these witnesses as people, and in writing my book I often smile as I listen to the conversations I had with these people, many now deceased. I enjoy the researchers I have met, agree or disagree, and I respect everyone of them whom I believe has truth as their objective. It is the personal part of these people that endures for me. It is my privilege to get to know these people, even if it is only a voice on the phone or a posting on the internet. I have met Jack and Jim a number of times. I value that. They are passionate people. Some people walk into a room softly. Others come in driving a truck with horns blaring. We can respect people for who they are and the world needs all of these types.
I cannot accept Judyth's account for a number of reasons. Jim, I have watched her on TMWKK. To be honest, when I copy the segments from 2003 and give them to people I often leave out her segment because I fear it detracts from the value of episode 7, on which both you and I appeared, and segment 9. The fact that Nigel Turner believes her really means nothing. I do not believe that there was an altruistic motive for Nigel in his productions but he was motivated by it being a commercial enterprise. I am not fooling myself. Nigel spent days at my house on several occasions. If my opinion was that Oswald did it alone I doubt that my charm would have captivated his time and attention. As Jim Garrison said about the Warren Commission and being told that they were important or distinquished people had no impact on his examination of the evidence.
I have read Haslam's book with great interest. Again, I submit a personal reference. In 2001 I had non-hodgkin's lymphoma and on the Men Who Killed Kennedy I was bloated and my eyes were distorted from Chemo. What is interesting about this cancer is that it is one of the cancers that are increasing and they are finding that a large portion of the people with the cancer have evidence of the "Monkey Virus." It is that, not Judyth, which stirred my interest in the book. Ironically, Jackie Kennedy died of this cancer!
There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did?
Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her. He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything. How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her. If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records? Do you have yours from 45 years ago? Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan Universityyears ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all.
Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous. Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated. Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies? Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show? When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was?
How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth.
Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164. Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so. He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books? It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil."
I can go on and on. Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted. She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself. She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility. The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there.
These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness. In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed. Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine.
All of us are only here for a moment. I respect everyone who has devoted themselves in an honest way to finding truth. It is thankless and often the best result is simply to be ridiculed. Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth? Did Armstrong give up 12 years of his life and the money and time for all of the "fame" this has now brought him. I think Barb, Jerry, and even Pamela care. Otherwise it's not worth it. People have become skiddish on this thread. Toi silence someone is not to convince them. How many people on this forum do you believe you have convinced that Judyth is the real deal? You know I am religious. Whether Judyth is truthful or not, may God bless her. I do hope truth will prevail, that right will triumph wrong, and as Garrison noted, that virtue shallbe its own reward.
Warm regards,
Doug
[/quote]
This appears to be the voice of a guilty conscience from someone who has not been paying attention. It
has only recently dawned upon me that Doug Weldon has a certain streak of arrogance about him. He is
among those whose work I have admired in the past--where I have defended him many times, just as I
have Jack and Lifton--but who somehow wants to do it his own way, which of course is also fine with me.
When I read what Jack had posted, it upset me tremendously, and I called David Lifton to ask if he had
been the author of that post. David assured me that he had not. In light of this (to my mind, ridiculous)
post by Doug Weldon, I now surmise that it was he who wrote to Jack, as I imagine he had done several
times. He thinks I was wrong to condemn Jack for posting his cruel post, and he wants to make amends.
He can correct me if I am wrong, but that appears to be his motivation. I am profoundly disappointed that
this man would marshall so much effort to publish such rubbish. If anything has become clear during the
course of this thread, it is that Judyth was where she claimed to have been associating with exactly those
she identified and doing precisely what she always claimed to have been doing. That much is utterly clear.
She was a brilliant, young, talented and idealistic woman who thought she might make a difference in the
battle against cancer. She was recruited by Alton Ochsner to come to New Orleans with the promise of a
fellowship and early admission to medical school. She worked with Mary Sherman and David Ferrie on one
of the most covert medical research projects in American history. And she was protected by Lee H. Oswald!
Doug Weldon has such vast belief in his powers of observation and reasoning that he does not understand
that this woman's entire life was lived out in about six-month's time. She was obsessive-compulsive about
every detail of her existence in New Orleans and absorbed what was happening around her like a sponge.
She kept records and documents and receipts and knows the details of that entire interval of her existence.
And that is because IT WAS HER ENTIRE LIFE. I am obsessive-compulsive myself. Ask my wife. I kept every
cancelled check I had ever written until I was around 60 years of age. Judyth, I have observed to myself and
perhaps occasionally on this thread, is smarter than anyone else here--including me! Doug has never had an
encounter with someone like her. He didn't believe her story. And now he is here feebly trying to explain why.
Feeling guilty because I broke off with Jack for posting a rubbish attack that should have been beneath them
both, Weldon has come here to display (what he takes to be) his vast sophistication and powers of reasoning
by making claims that might be true in most cases but do not apply to Judyth. He even disregards Ed Haslam's
astonishing research, which provides the framework within which Judyth's stunning story has to be understood.
There is more fakery and fraud in this single post from Doug Weldon than in the hundreds of posts that I have
exchanged with Judyth. Why anyone would think that I would allow myself to be taken in if she were a fraud
is beyond me. Am I not supposed to grasp that my reputation and credibility is on the line? Am I not able to
see what is so clear to Jack and to Doug and to others here who are not convinced by what she has to say?
The extent of the ops against Judyt boggle the mind if she actually were a fraud. The fact is that Doug Weldon
has posted this even after Howard Platzman has made some of the most discerning observations of them all:
(1) How well the totality of her testimony and documents explains mysteries that haunt the case better than any other extant story. For one of many instances, her explanation of the Clinton-Jackson witnesses is far more believable than any that has been offered elsewhere, even by Joan Mellen who brags that this is her expertise yet delivers a story that is ultimately incoherent.
(2) How well it predicts future finds and generates productive leads. In fact, her story of Clinton-Jackson "predicted" 60 Minutes' finding of an FBI report that Garrison was about to indict Alton Ochsner. Though king of INCA, his name has not come up in connection with any conspiracy to kill anyone. In fact, he was conspiring to kill Castro, with Judyth's help. but Garrison never quite figured this out -- it is fascinating to read his Playboy interview that includes musings about Ferrie and a bioweapon aimed at Castro.
The research community needs to go back to school. Standards for what count as evidence -- and for how much evidence is enough evidence -- are generally lacking in those who consider themselves professional researchers, whereas so many of them are just plain not (pace Jim, Jack White's maunderings have always struct me as below par). As for whose anti-Judyth work deserves serious attention, I am inclined to think that Barb J holds first place. She has actually made phone calls and spoken to witnesses (not to Judyth, alas).
The problem with Barb is that she doesn't realize that what she found fundamentally supports Judyth's claims! Barb tried to refute Judyth's claim that she did any serious work at Roswell when, in fact, she proved the opposite. Judyth was heartbroken over the loss of the paper she wrote based on her Roswell studies. In the end, Barb found the abstract to the paper. I thanked her for her diligence and contribution to the cause. She didn't seem to understand -- or didn't want to.
Doug may have been reading posts, but he hasn't been paying attention. I would take one Judyth over a dozen
Weldons, Whites, and others unnamed. At this point in time, there is no excuse for anyone to doubt the identity
of Judyth Vary Baker. Read what Howard has said. He has it exactly right. Most of those here, with the notable
exception of Michael Hogan, seem to think this is some kind of magical mystery tour. But it is too serious for that.
Judyth has reponded more openly and in greater detail than anyone I have ever seen. Her experiences during
that concentrated period of time were virtually imprinted upon her memory--which, like her mind in general, is
far superior to that of most of those here. What Doug has said might fit most people, but Judyth never was one
of them. She is simply a superior human being who has sacrificed her life doing what she believed to be right!
Ed Haslam, who subjected Judyth to the most intensive scruity, who grew up in New Orleans and who knows the
place like the back of his hand, has made the point that, within the range of human fallibility, he believes that
Judyth has told the truth to the best of her ability--and he has known those who have disagreed about what
happened when they were in the same room at the time of its occurrence, which many of us know to be true.
He points out one of the striking aspects of Judyth's story. When she went to meet Alton Ochsner, who had been
the President of the American Cancer Society, LEE WENT IN FIRST. As he emphasizes on pages 321-322, this
is a rather profound point. Ochsner would later claim that Oswald was a communist and the lone assassin, yet
he knew Lee well enough that Lee MET WITH HIM ALONE before he brought Judyth Vary in to meet with him.
Reread what Howard has to said. Study Ed Haslam's book. She was lured to New Orleans. She met Ochsner.
She worked with Mary Sharman and David Farrie. She did all the things she said she has done and they were
welcome and appreciated in New Orleans just as she has explained it. Nothing else makes any sense at all. I
am stunned at the incapacity to think things through by some I have admired in the past. They really should get
over it. Judyth is "the real deal" and what she has to tell us transforms our understanding of the death of JFK.
[quote name='Doug Weldon' post='190158' date='Apr 20 2010, 01:20 AM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='190023' date='Apr 19 2010, 12:18 AM']
NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF FRIENDSHIP WITH JACK WHITE, WHO HAS FINALLY DISGUSTED ME
I cannot believe that someone I have admired in the past would stoop to such a sophomoric level by
lodging such a blatant ad hominem. Those who resort to arguments of this caliber have discredited
themselves massively. I denounce each and every one of them, including the author of the post Jack
has repeated her and the hack who posted it. I am completely disgusted and want nothing more to
do with them. Michael Hogan and Howard Platzman are honorable men. Those who resort to such
disgraceful tactics are not. Cease and desist, Jack White. You have forefeitted being taken seriously.
Please know that I want nothing more to do with you in any context at all. We are no longer friends.
[quote name='Jack White' post='190000' date='Apr 18 2010, 07:43 PM']
It seems that most researchers (wisely) do not want to become involved in the thread re JVB. For
some reason many of them seem to focus on emailing me to vent their feelings at a safe venue. So
far about a dozen have emailed me varying messages about JVB. Here is a typical EXCERPT from one
received just today (anonymous for obvious reasons):
[color="#000080"]"I have believed for years that sexual frustration lies at the root of JVB’s motives – that she is more to be pitied than deplored. The sad but indisputable fact is that she is now overweight and unattractive and was once rather attractive (amply endowed, as she has pointed out on occasion), showing much promise in her academic abilities which never came to fruition. She has lived a life peppered with disappointment, unable to get along with people for more than a few weeks. Every relationship – mostly with men -- eventually goes down the toilet."
[/color]
There are many other unsolicited emails. They are wise to not enter the public area of controversy. This
has been going on for ten years now, with new supporters taking up the torch when others become
disenchanted. How much longer will it go on?
Jack[/quote]
[/quote]
Nothing bothers me more in this thread than this posting. On the windshield thread I noted more than once that one did not have to agree with me to be my friend. Barb, Tink, and Jerry disagree with me about the hole in the windshield but I have no personal animosity towards any of them. I simply believed that the arguments were becoming circuitous and that there was not enough understanding of the witnesses to engage further in a constructive dialog. I was not going to write my book on the thread but I did find portions of the thread to be constructive and at the end I actually held a higher opinion and respect for these people than I did at the beginning. If one has to agree with everything one posits then all of us are going to have a very short list of friends.
Each of us is entitled to an opinion and to weigh the evidence and because one has a higher educational background it does not make their opinion or analysis superior to anothers. I have five years of undergraduate credits, a law degee, a masters degree, and I am 6 course hours short of completing the course work for a P.H.D. in education. I think Joe Biden would rightfully respond to that, "Big F---ing Deal!" My analysis is not superior to anyone's.
I am going to make some personal references. I believe friendships and relationships are what is most important in life. If anyone on this forum believes that we are going to develop a total concensus on the death of JFK and bring people to justice then they are living in a fantasyland. To seek to find truth is not only noble it is imperative to defining the society in which we live and for those who will live after us. I use the rhetorical question of why do old men plant trees that they will never see grow? History will always be the myth that people choose to believe and I, as much as anyone, would like to remove much of the myth that exists about November 22, 1963. It is important but it is not so important that we destroy the friendships and relationships that are truly the essence of our lives. Again, I make a personal reference. It is easy to become obsessed in pursuing the truth in the JFK labrynith. I recall my ex-wife telling me that I seemed to pay more attention to a dead president than I did to her. Sadly, in retrospect, she was often correct. For any endeavor, there is a cost to be paid. The ultimate question is whether the cost was worth it. Sometimes it is. Many times it is not. To do it again, I would have made some different decisions.
The most rewarding aspect of being involved with this for 32 years has been the wonderful people and witnesses I have gotten to know. For the witnesses who trusted me I want to keep my promise to tell their accounts for history but I am under no pretense that everyone is going to agree with me or them and I understand that even to get my book published is likely to be a difficult endeavor. I do, however, value that I got to know these witnesses as people, and in writing my book I often smile as I listen to the conversations I had with these people, many now deceased. I enjoy the researchers I have met, agree or disagree, and I respect everyone of them whom I believe has truth as their objective. It is the personal part of these people that endures for me. It is my privilege to get to know these people, even if it is only a voice on the phone or a posting on the internet. I have met Jack and Jim a number of times. I value that. They are passionate people. Some people walk into a room softly. Others come in driving a truck with horns blaring. We can respect people for who they are and the world needs all of these types.
I cannot accept Judyth's account for a number of reasons. Jim, I have watched her on TMWKK. To be honest, when I copy the segments from 2003 and give them to people I often leave out her segment because I fear it detracts from the value of episode 7, on which both you and I appeared, and segment 9. The fact that Nigel Turner believes her really means nothing. I do not believe that there was an altruistic motive for Nigel in his productions but he was motivated by it being a commercial enterprise. I am not fooling myself. Nigel spent days at my house on several occasions. If my opinion was that Oswald did it alone I doubt that my charm would have captivated his time and attention. As Jim Garrison said about the Warren Commission and being told that they were important or distinquished people had no impact on his examination of the evidence.
I have read Haslam's book with great interest. Again, I submit a personal reference. In 2001 I had non-hodgkin's lymphoma and on the Men Who Killed Kennedy I was bloated and my eyes were distorted from Chemo. What is interesting about this cancer is that it is one of the cancers that are increasing and they are finding that a large portion of the people with the cancer have evidence of the "Monkey Virus." It is that, not Judyth, which stirred my interest in the book. Ironically, Jackie Kennedy died of this cancer!
There are many things which cause me concern about Judyth. I will only note a few. One of the arguments in favor of her credibility has been that a researcher went over the known timeline of Oswald's whereabouts and activities and she got everything right. A major reason I doubt her is that she got everything right. Can you tell me everything your wife did the first week of October 2009 yet 40 plus years ago? How about what you did?
Judyth remembers EVERYTHING Oswald told her. He must have been talking from morning to night and she would have to be a stenographer to keep track of everything. How could she ever remember the japanese girl or David Phillips and other names and instances that would have no meaning to her. If somewhat shot names or stories at you forty years ago that had no meaning to you would you remember them? Why would you save your pay stubbs and records? Do you have yours from 45 years ago? Again, a personal reference. While I was teaching in the criminal justice department at Western Michigan Universityyears ago, I shared an office with a former police officer, who the following semester murdered his wife, who was a leading local newscaster. It was the first case ever on Court Television and the prosecuter was an individual I shared rides with my first year in law school. There have been three books written about the murder. How easy would it be for me to start talking about the great friendship we had, how we would go out to the bar together, and the things he would talk about. He had been having affairs with his students which added to the interest. It would be so easy to insert and mesh my life with his. The truth is I really did not know him at all.
Judyth's so-called Russian statements to Oswald when they allegedly first met are preposterous. Furthermore, Judyth's recall of statements between her and Oswald is not only amazing but also preposterous. It makes Romeo and Juliet look like a slap-stick comedy. Listen to Oswald's radio interviews and his statements in Dallas such as "a policeman hit me." Yes, Oswald was intelligent but he was not educated. Judyth's Oswald makes James Bond look like a character from Hee Haw. Listen to him. Can you picture this Oswald making the tearful heartrenching statements about Judyth having babies? Would the worst soap opera on television even think about putting such dialog in their show? When you were in the marines could you picture yourself saying such things to your wife or girlfriend? Did Oswald not have enough on his schedule with having a wife, a child, and a new born baby, and his travel and activities, that he could or would fit in this elaborate affair with Judyth? Did Oswald not have feelings towards his newly born child? If their love was so deep and the future so fragile why did Judyth not become pregnant? Who would know whose child it was?
How difficult is it to create accounts for times where Oswalds whereabouts or activities were unknown? It seems like that every time something cannot be accounted for then, lo and behold, Judyth happens to be there. Every single unknown woman Oswald happened to be seen with turns out to be, Surprise, Judyth.
Again, I am not questioning that Oswald was bright, but do you believe he was an intellectual? JFK was not an intellectual. Oswald had an IQ of 118, Kennedy 119. Obama has an IQ of 126. Ironically, the president with the highest IQ was Nixon with 164. Judyth said Oswald's favorite poet was Pushkin. I have learned a lot about Pushkin and I don't think so. He certainly did not check out any books by Pushkin at the Dallas library. Where are the books? It would be like me telling everyone that I read some Shakespearian plays everyday for light reading until I have the opportunity to read something more entertaining like "The epistomology of Statistical Analysis when comparing river sediment in Brazil."
I can go on and on. Judyth is obviously very bright which makes her ability to create an account more plausible. After reading everything she has done I am beginning to believe that this poor woman was cheated out of all the Nobel prizes. Whatever the truth is, Judyth is a damaged witness. She has read too much. When she tells of something she has done it is virtually followed by a Wilkepedia article oin the subject. She is tainted. She knows where the holes can be found in the Oswald story and thus knows where she can safely insert herself. She is too good. She can account for virtually every moment. When she can't it was because she got rammed head on by a rhinocerous and momentarily lost her memory which then comes back. If something turns out to be wrong it is because it is an unauthorized account which happened to have gotten stolen. Who writes unauthorized accounts? Humans are fallible. One of the things I argued about the validity of Nick Prencipe was his fallibility.He could have researched Greer and knew exactly where to put himself having a conversation with his friend William Greer. His uncertainty and mistakes are what gave him credibility. The human mind distorts details after 40 years but certain things are remembered. I can tell you what a great party I was at 2 years ago and some people fell into a pool but I can't tell you everyone who was there and if I did I might remember someone being there who was not there.
These are concerns. I am not passing a final judgment on Judyth. You, with your contacts with her, are indeed in a better position than I to evaluate her. You may ultimately be right. However, because of her research, she is virtually worthless as a witness. In big cases, we were always concerned about overpreparing a witness to where their account seems contrived. I once had a case with a young girl who was a CSC victim. I wanted her to be prepared for whatever questions that might come her way. I would talk with her. At first her head would be down and she could only whisper. I would give her a tootsie roll pop each time. One day she came in my office smiling and said "Mr. Weldon, he put his penis in my vagina. Could I have a sucker?" I was crushed. Judyth has overprepared herself to the extent that she has lost, if it was there, the ring of truth. She is the witness that an opposing attorney would drool to cross-examine.
All of us are only here for a moment. I respect everyone who has devoted themselves in an honest way to finding truth. It is thankless and often the best result is simply to be ridiculed. Do you doubt that Jack or Lifton have a motive other than truth? Did Armstrong give up 12 years of his life and the money and time for all of the "fame" this has now brought him. I think Barb, Jerry, and even Pamela care. Otherwise it's not worth it. People have become skiddish on this thread. Toi silence someone is not to convince them. How many people on this forum do you believe you have convinced that Judyth is the real deal? You know I am religious. Whether Judyth is truthful or not, may God bless her. I do hope truth will prevail, that right will triumph wrong, and as Garrison noted, that virtue shallbe its own reward.
Warm regards,
Doug
[/quote]