Poking More Holes in Judyth Baker

[David Josephs]

It's depressing how much the waters have been muddied in the last few decades by fake witnesses, evidence, etc. A lot of energy and time has been consumed untangling various Gordian knots, since there is no Alexander to slice through them.

I also think that the JFK assassination has entered the realm of myth, and it's become almost impossible to separate the myths from the facts (like the search for the historical Jesus). The internet has dramatically sped up a process that used to take centuries.

You make an excellent point while describing the focus of my work.

By looking strictly at the evidence as indicative of the conspiracy - we can define it. We can show conclusively that the investigations and their results... the evidence left to history to describe the situation, is purely representative of the conspiracy that was perpetrated.

Ms. Baker represents what happens at the two ends of the spectrum.

Either what she is saying is totally and completely the truth which was hidden from the historical record or it is an elaborate hoax that has little if any effect on the study of the assassination.
If it were true, the evidence would make sense. There would be many more who can corroborate their being together (again, why have Anna get on film and muck it all up?)

With regards to Anna... only LEE could have been in New Orleans in Feb 1962... Baker does not say she is with that man but with Marina's husband.
Is it possible that LEE convinced her that he was Marina's husband? The it is LEE she is referring to in the summer of 63?

That might be worthy of research if that was what Baker asserted. But the entire story is Harvey's... Reily, Magazine, Murret, Bannister, Ferrie, Martin...
Whereas it was Ruby and Lee who were together from the time he returns after he leaves the Marines (per Gorsky - in March 1959) and seems to be involved in helping with Ruby's activities.

JA shows that Ruby was virtually untouchable in the gun running and other illegal activities while his comrades are arrested and detained. Lee being with a government informant also makes some sense.

In the end, the evidence Baker offers if woefully inadequate and raises more questions - like where in the world does that Copy B of the 1963 W-2 come from?
Were there special IRS forms used for CIA fronts?
And why wouldn't they make them look exactly like other W-2's of the era to avoid suspicion down the line?

We don't need 500 reasons why Baker is fiction... just 1 or 2 conflicts with the evidence offered. T
he article outlines these conflicts and asks, "why use these to corroborate the story when they don't?"