Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO JACK WHITE ABOUT
AN ERROR SHE HAS PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED

JUDYTH WRITES:

I can hardly believe what Jack White wrote.

Now he is slamming Dr. Williams, as if he were not a competent researcher.

Why the incredible hostility?

JACK WRITES:

What is emerging is that when an error occurs, IT IS ALWAYS THE FAULT OF SOMEONE ELSE.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

==I TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ERROR, JACK.
I MIS-READ THE MANUSCRIPT AND THOUGHT IT WAS JUST A LIST DUE TO SPACING ON THE PAGE.
==

JACK WRITES:

JVB would have us believe that John Delane Williams made up his article as fiction that he
created without any basis.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

==I SAID THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS A LIST, JACK. I HAD SENT HIM A LIST OF PEOPLE I MET IN APRIL AND MAY.==

JACK WRITES:

With no previous input using information provided by JVB, Williams
decided on his own,

JUDYTH REPLIES:

==LOOK AGAIN, JACK.. ON THE 27TH, I MET DAVID FERRIE.

THE REST OF IT WAS, DUE TO SPACING ON THE COMPUTER, I SAW AS A LIST.
IT WAS NOT DR. WILLIAMS' FAULT. I HAVE ALREAYD EXPLAINED THAT ELSEWHERE
IN THE PAPER IT CORRECTLY SAYS OCHSNER WAS OUT OF TOWN FOR TWO WEEKS.
THAT'S FROM APRIL 20 TO MAY 4TH.

A GOOD RESEARCHER CAN CONCLUDE THAT I DID NOT MEET OCHSNER ON THE 27TH
AND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR THERE. SAME FOR THE NAMES THAT FOLLOW, THEY HAD
OTHER DATES AND THAT IS CLEAR FROM EVERYTHING ELSE I HAVE SAID FOR YEARS.==

JACK WRITES:

that on the second day of knowing Lee, that Lee took her to the office of
Doctor Ochsner, and that while she waited outside, Lee went in to see the doctor,
came back out, and then took JVB into the doctor's office and introduced the two of them.
Why would Williams make this up?

JUDYTH REPLIES:

==UNBELIEVABLE STRETCH, TRYING TO INSINUATE THAT I WOULD CARELESSLY GIVE OUT ANY
OLD DATES AT ANY OLD TIME, WHEN THIS IS A SINGLE, DISTINCT ERROR THAT I HAVE CAREFULLY EXPLAINED IS OBVIATED WHEN THE REST OF THE TEXT CONCERNING OCHSNER IS READ.==

==HAVE YOU NEVER HEARD THE WORD 'ERRATA' BEFORE?==

IT EXISTS BECAUSE SOMETIMES A DOCUMENT CAN HAVE AN ERROR THAT NEEDS CORRECTING.
I WILL PUBLISH THE DOCMENT ON SCRIBD AND INDICATE THE ERROR AND EXPLAIN THAT IT WAS
AN ERROR THAT IN FACT CANNOT BE FOUND IN ANY OF MY OTHER DESCRIPTIONS OF THE TIME-LINE
OR IN "THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY" DOCUMENTARY.==

[NOTE: In an earlier post, she observed that the time line can also be
found in "The Love Affair" segment of Nigel Turner's documentary. So
her explanation here is in fact one that she has provided Jack before.]

JACK WRITES:

Where did he get the date? How did he know that Lee went in first and then later introduced the doctor
to JVB? This is extraordinary detail for someone to make up and not expect the fiction to be noticed.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

==WHAT IN GOD'S NAME ARE YOU CLAIMING? THAT DR. JOHN WILLIAMS MADE THIS UP, JUST BECAUSE
OF ONE ERROR? WILLIAM HAS INTEGRITY AND SO DO I. THIS IS A RELATIVELY EASY ERROR TO CORRECT.
BUT CARRY ON, VENT YOUR WRATH.==

JACK WRITES:

Or did he not know that Ochsner was in South America, and decided to just make
something up to add interest to the story? Why?

Did Williams have ANY basis for writing his article?

I am disappointed that I am the only one who feels that Williams wrote information that
had previously been presented to him in some form from the JVB story. I am disappointed
that I am castigated for making an observation that is so obvious that anyone should see
through the sham.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

==ONE ERROR AND YOU BLOW UP AND WON'T LISTEN TO REASON. I SHOW YOU THAT
ELSEWHERE IN THE MANUSCRIPT IT SAYS OCHSNER WAS OUT OF TOWN FOR TWO WEEKS,
WHICH YOU IGNORE. YOU MUST TAKE YOUR POUND OF FLESH FROM A SINGLE ERROR IN A
LONG MANUSCRIPT--YOU EVEN MENTIONED YOU WENT TO A LARGER PRINT TO READ--AND
YOU CALL EVERYTHING A SHAM.

YOU EVEN IMPLY THAT DR. WILLIAMS, A FINE RESEARCHER, IS SOMEHOW AN IDIOT FOR
WRITING THIS PAPER. I BELEVE YOU ARE AWARE THAT HE WROTE NOT ONE, BUT TWO
PAPERS ABOUT LEE OSWALD AND ME.

WILLIAMS IS A STATISTICIAN WITH A PHD IN THE SUBJECT WHO WAS INVESTIGATING MY
STORY. HE DID A FINE JOB. HE OFFERED A STATISTICAL STUDY OF THE EVIDENCE SHOWING
THAT THE PROBABILITY THAT OUR JOBS WERE ARRANGED FOR US AT REILY'S IS A MILLION
FOR AGAINST ONE. WE HAD TO CORRESPOND THROUGH EMAILS, BUT HIS ASSISTANT HAD
KNOWN ME PERSONALLY FOR YEARS. YOU IGNORE MY WITNESSES. YOU INSULT ME WITH
EVERY POST AND ARE ALLOWED TO DO SO.==

JVB

[quote name='Jack White' date='Mar 16 2010, 06:05 AM' post='187020']
What is emerging is that when an error occurs, IT IS ALWAYS THE FAULT OF SOMEONE ELSE.

JVB would have us believe that John Delane Williams made up his article as fiction that he
created without any basis. With no previous input using information provided by JVB, Williams
decided on his own, that on the second day of knowing Lee, that Lee took her to the office of
Doctor Ochsner, and that while she waited outside, Lee went in to see the doctor, came back
out, and then took JVB into the doctor's office and introduced the two of them. Why would
Williams make this up? Where did he get the date? How did he know that Lee went in first
and then later introduced the doctor to JVB? This is extraordinary detail for someone to
make up and not expect the fiction to be noticed. Or did he not know that Ochsner was in
South America, and decided to just make something up to add interest to the story? Why?

Did Williams have ANY basis for writing his article?

I am disappointed that I am the only one who feels that Williams wrote information that
had previously been presented to him in some form from the JVB story. I am disappointed
that I am castigated for making an observation that is so obvious that anyone should see
through the sham.

Jack

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='187018' date='Mar 16 2010, 03:57 AM']THE ONLY CONFLICT LIES IN YOUR PREJUDICE, JACK!

NOTE: I think that Judyth makes excellent points, Jack.
I am sorry to have to say I agree with her completely!

Dear Jack:

We have established the following:

1) I made a reading error that resulted in Banister and Ochsner being mentioned
on the wrong date. I supplied evidence that my correction matched what is easly
available online and that I had misinterpreted what was there as a list, which was
unconnected to the date a few lines aove it.

2) I pointed out that YOU misread the article yourself when you stated that I did
not mention Ochsner being out of town (South America). It seems you, too, are
capable of misreading the long article. I have shown you that Ochsner was out
of town and that it was in the article.

3) I pointed out that, for some reason, you have changed actual words, such as
'apartment' to 'room', and otherwise degraded information that is relevant to
establishing connectons between me and Oswald

4) You further left out connectors between Oswald and myself, such as mentioning
that, when I was forced to resign--yes, it was actually getting fired, but I signed a
resignation--it had occurred because I was seen with Oswald not long before he
was arrested for opassing out pamphlets--you simply didn't mention this connector.

By failing to do so, you exhibited a remarkable amount of prejudice in reporting my
position as a witness. I have been stunned, actually, by these seemingly deliberate
distortions of the record.

Now you compound everything with insults, such as beow:

Now, in 2010, she says that is wrong...that he was in South America at that time.

==We have alrerady addressed this, Jack--It says in the same article you supposedly
read that Oschner was out of town for two weeks when I arrived in New orleans.

Obviously, then, I could not have met him on April 27, since I arrived in New Orleans
on April 20. But let us move on to your insults and leave your errors behind:

Previously I had read that she had been invited to come to New Orleans to be an intern
under Dr. Ochsner. Now if you can sort this out and make sense of it, you are better
than I am at interpreting conflicting statements. I find this (and many other things)

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONFLICT. WHAT I FIND DISTURBING IS THAT YOU PASS
JUDGMENT ON ME APPARENTLY WITHOUT EVER SEEING THE DOCUMENTARY BY NIGEL
TURNER. IT IS CLEAR THERE--AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN CLEAR--THAT I WAS OFFERED
AN INTERNSHIP WITH DR. MARY SHERMAN BY OCHSNER AND THAT MY UNIVERSITY
WENT ON THE TRIMESTER SCHEDULE THAT YEAR.

WE GOT OUT TWO WEEKS EARLIER THAT OTHER SCHOOLS, BUT OCHSNER LEFT THE
COUNTRY, THINKING I WOULD ARRIVE TWO WEEKS LATER THAN I DID. SHERMAN
WAS WITH HIM PART OF THAT TME.

I FOUND MYSELF WTHOUT FUNDS. WATCH THE DOCMENTARY OR READ THE BOOK,
BUT PLEASE DO NOT PASS JUDGMENT ON ME WITHOUT HAVING EVEN READ THIS
ONE ARTICLE BY DR. JOHN WLLIAMS WITH CARE.

I AM SHOCKED AND SURPRISED AT THE CARELESSNESS INVOLVED HERE.

I CANNOT EVEN FEEL ANGER, JUST SHOCK.

YOU DO NOT CARE NOT WHETHER YOU DESTROY A WITNESS WHOSE TESTIMONY
YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY NEVER INSPECTED. YOU HAVE RELIED ON HEARSAY.

IT GRIEVES ME TO SAY THESE WORDS. YOU HAVE DONE SO MUCH FOR THE
RESEARCH COMMUNITY.

too confusing to sort out or bother with. And so what?

THESE WORDS IMPLY IGNORANCE OF WHAT I KNOW AND WISH TO CONVEY
TO THE FORUM HERE--IF I EVER GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK OF THOSE
THINGS INSTEAD OF HAVING TO DEFEND MY INTEGRITY AND VERY SANITY ON
THIS FORUM AGAINST SPECIOUS ATTACKS.

I AM WELL AWARE THAT I AM HUMAN AND CAN MAKE AN OCCASIONAL ERROR.
BUT YOUR STATEMENTS BRUSH ME OFF AS A WORTHLESS PERSON NOT EVEN
DESERVING OF A HEARING. AND YOU DID NOT GIVE ME A FAIR ONE, EITHER.

Was Ochsner behind the assassination? Or if he had ANY involvement, was it
important?

AT LAST, A QUESTON OF VALUE.

I do not get that impression from ANYTHING JVB has said. Even if EVERYTHING
she says is true, it does not enhance the things we already knew.

HOW CAN YOU BE IN A POSITON TO JUDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF WHAT I HAVE
TO SAY, MR. WHITE, SINCE YOU HAVE NEVER MET ME, NEVER INTERVIEWED ME,
NEVER EVEN SEEN THE DOCUMENTARY, WHICH IS BASIC TO COMPREHENDING
MY TESTIMONY.

MUCH INFORMATION I HAVE DID NOT MEAN MUCH TO ME AT THE TIME. BUT BEING
THREATENED, REVILED AND ATTACKED CHANGES ONE'S PERSPECTIVE, AND I HAVE
DILIGENTLY SOUGHT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I KNOW.

I HOPE ATTACKS WILL STOP AND I WLL BE ALLOWED TO PRESENT MY INFORMATION.

YOU HAVE SPENT PAGES AND PAGES ATTACKING ME, WHILE REVEALING THAT YOU
HAVE ACCEPTED THE JUDGMENTS OF OTHERS WITHOUT RELYING ON YOUR OWN
HIGH INTELLIGENCE AND GOOD SENSE. SOME PEOPLE YOU TRUSTED HAVE QUITE
NEGATIVELY INFLUENCED YOU, JACK,

I AM VERY SORRY TO HAVE TO WRITE THESE THINGS TO A MAN WHOM I HAVE LONG
RESPECTED, DESPITE HIS UNENDING HOSTILE ATTITUDE TOWARD ME FOR OVER FIVE
YEARS.

IT SEEMS THAT "I AM HATED WITHOUT CAUSE" BY YOU.

JVB[/quote]
[/quote]

What is emerging is that when an error occurs, IT IS ALWAYS THE FAULT OF SOMEONE ELSE.

JVB would have us believe that John Delane Williams made up his article as fiction that he
created without any basis. With no previous input using information provided by JVB, Williams
decided on his own, that on the second day of knowing Lee, that Lee took her to the office of
Doctor Ochsner, and that while she waited outside, Lee went in to see the doctor, came back
out, and then took JVB into the doctor's office and introduced the two of them. Why would
Williams make this up? Where did he get the date? How did he know that Lee went in first
and then later introduced the doctor to JVB? This is extraordinary detail for someone to
make up and not expect the fiction to be noticed. Or did he not know that Ochsner was in
South America, and decided to just make something up to add interest to the story? Why?

Did Williams have ANY basis for writing his article?

I am disappointed that I am the only one who feels that Williams wrote information that
had previously been presented to him in some form from the JVB story. I am disappointed
that I am castigated for making an observation that is so obvious that anyone should see
through the sham.

Jack