01-04-2010, 04:07 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2010, 03:32 PM by James H. Fetzer.)
JUDYTH REPLIES TO LIFTON ON LEE'S ARRIVAL IN NEW ORLEANS
NOTE: While I have previously responded to this Lifton post in more
general terms, Judyth refutes the purported details of his account. As
readers can discern for themselves, Lifton appears to have committed
a serious of blunders in making assumptions that turn out to be false.
This is a nice example of presumptuous reasoning passing for research.
The matter is settled decisively by Marina and Ruth's testimony about
his date of departure and the travel time by bus. Unless you think it is
more reasonably for Lee to sleep in the street, he checked into the "Y".
She provides an explanation that is about as reasonable as it could get.
I cannot imaging a more convincing refutation of Lifton's argument than
she has provided here. Consider this as one where Judyth defeats Lifton.
Lifton's statements are presented her in italics, Judyth's in roman fonts.
NOTE: JUDYTH CAUGHT TWO TYPOS ABOUT DATES I AM CORRECTING.
[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
FROM JUDYTH BAKER:
FACT 1: From the Mary Ferrell Chronology:
April 23, 1963 (Tuesday) - Marina says that Oswald checks some baggage to New Orleans on his bus ticket on the day before he leaves. (WC Vol 22, p. 778; WC Vol 23, p. 526)
Question from JVB: WHY did Oswald check 'some baggage to New Orleans" on the day before he leaves by bus?
Answer: He had a lot of stuff: several boxes, sea bags, suitcases, a zippered bag, etc.
Question: Did Lee Oswald ever spend time in a YMCA, activities largely unknown, before making his presence known to wife or relatives?
Answer: Yes. Upon his return from Mexico City, Lee checked into the YMCA and did not tell his wife he was in town for a day and a half:
"October 3, 1963: Dallas: LHO checks in at the YMCA. Later in the day, he files a claim at the employment office
October 4, 1963: LHO applies for work at Padgett Printing Co. ..Later, he telephones Marina and asks for a ride to Ruth Paine's home and is denied.
He hitchhikes the 12 miles to Ruth's house."
Question: Did Lee Oswald use the YMCA at any other time, when his activities -- before he got a job a Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, and, subsequently after work hours at J-C-S -- were largely unknown?
Answer: Yes. On Oct. 15, 1962, Gary Taylor drove Oswald to the YMCA, where he checked in to room 415. He checked out of the YMCA on Oct. 19th. Between Oct. 19 and Nov. 2, his address was undiscoverable to the Warren Commission. From Oct. 9 until he filed for a post office box, sometime on Oct. 11, 1962, nobody knew where Oswald was.
Question: When did Lee Oswald leave Texas for New Orleans?
Answer: Oswald had considerable baggage, including boxes, sea bags and suitcases. Marina Oswald told the Warren Commission that on April 23, 1963 , a Tuesday, Oswald checks baggage to New Orleans on his bus ticket "the day before he leaves."
Note: Marina's testimony as to when Oswald leaves for New Orleans is 7 months after the fact, while Mrs. Lillian Murret's testimony is that Lee moved in with them a while after Easter, perhaps as early as a week after EASTER (APPROX. April 22). However, Mrs. Murret also testified that Lee Oswald stayed with her family about 3-5 days, at which time he obtained a job and called his wife to join him in an apartment -- this was MAY 9, 1963. Marina arrived May 11.
Question: If Lee Oswald stayed 5 days with the Murrets, then he was not present there before May 5, 1963.
Answer: Marna said Lee Oswald left for New Orleans on April 24, a Wednesday. When Baker met Oswald on the 26th, he told her he had arrived in town on April 25th. It is 523 miles between Dallas and New Orleans, and the trip lasted at least twelve hours. If Oswald left Dallas on the 24th, he could easily have arrived after midnight on the 25th.
It is not surprising that he would follow a pattern used before -- first checking into the YMCA and contacting relatives later.
Question: But what about Oswald calling his relatives at the bus station, where all his baggage was located?
Answer: Imagine trying to move everything from the bus station -- boxes, sea bags, etc. -- to the YMCA after a long and weary rip on he bus. And at the "Y" it must then be kept safely -- in a locker -- and a cab has to be hired to carry all the objects to the "Y". And lee must spend money with the cab timer running in order to transfer baggage into the multi-story building and then to an upstairs room. It would take several trips to do so and run up the tab.
Instead, Oswald did the logical thing. He took the bag of things he needed with him, and -- just as he had checked in his baggage a day early at the bus station in Dallas -- in New Orleans he checks in his luggage and sea bags into a couple of lockers at the bus station again, which he will later have moved by the Murrets.
Question: Why didn't he go to the Murrets sooner?
Answer: Lillian Murret forgot that, when she first saw Lee -- and she testified to this -- he came over with just a small bag and had nothing suitable to wear to hunt for a job. She asked him to return and said that she would find something appropriate for him to wear.
Lee spent a Saturday night with his aunt and uncle, I think, because he reported eating a nice supper with them. Lee was very busy working with Guy Banister during his first week in New Orleans -- and also helping me find a room.
When a police raid forced me to move, the pastor and his wife who helped me called Lee Oswald at his aunt and uncle's house. The date was May 4. Lee Oswald came over about noon, ate lunch with the pastor, wife and me and then made calls from the rectory's phone there. He was able to find an apartment for me. Lee was located a hat time -- May 4 -- at the Murret's.
He had moved in with them recently. But when I met him on April 26, he was living at the YMCA.
Charles "Dutz" Murret picked Lee up at he bus station where Lee retrieved all his possessions and stacked them into the car. He did not want to burden them for too many days with his presence...
He was also a bit shy, not knowing how hey might treat him when he had been a (fake) "defector,."
For that reason, he had not contacted them from Texas after moving back to the US from the USSR.
So he was shy about simply moving in, and stayed at the "Y."
Later, he felt welcome and then moved in. NO long packages such as a rifle were reported or observed. Lee's things were placed in the Murret's garage stacked next to their washing machine. He began an active job search (for show) and they were then handy witnesses -- but, in fact, his Reily job had already been prearranged.
As the respected witness, Adele Edisen, has made clear -- and I concur -- Lee Oswald's address was known to more than one person before he moved into his apartment. He knew what his address would be when he placed me within easy walking distance of his own apartment at 4905 Magazine S. (often erroneously listed as 4907 Magazine, a false address he had placed on many documents, which I explain in my book), to which address the Murrets then transferred his luggage, sea bags and boxes upon the arrival of Marina and Ruth Paine. Lee had one suitcase full of Marina's clothes and baby clothes, by the way.
April 23, 1963 (Tuesday) - Marina says that Oswald checks some baggage to New Orleans on his bus ticket on the day before he leaves. (WC Vol 22, p. 778; WC Vol 23, p. 526)
Fact 2: Lillian Murrett, Lee's aunt, testified that Lee first called on Monday, April 29, and said he was at the bus station, which has been corroborated by her daughter, Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time.
==DISPUTED: Lee moved in with the Murretts some time after April 27, 1963, at the earliest. I have already explained that, based upon Marina's reports and bus ticket information, we know when Lee arrived -- early on April 25th.
Lifton errs in MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, once again, without checking the full record.
He assumed that because Lee called from the bus station--and that the Murrets assumed that that was when he arrived -- that that was when he arrived from Texas.
Marilyn said she talked to Lee the first day she thought he arrived in town and ha they had quite a long talk. But, as stated above, Lee might not always tell tell people the date on which he arrirved. Marilyn was VISITING with the Murrets -- a grown daughter -- and I believe had even been to Atsugi, Japan, and many other places by then.
Mr. Lifton failed to read what Marina -- who surely should know -- had to say about when Lee left Texas. As for me, I sought it out because I knew what date to look for -- the 25th -- which Lee had told me was the day he arrived.
Why can we trust this element of Marina's testimony? How could she remember this date?
An inventory of Ruth Paine's papers exists at Swarthmore College, showing that Ruth Paine took Marina Oswald into her home on April 24th and that she drove Oswald to the bus station that same day. It would be a date hard for Marina to forget.
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).
==Amazing -- and cause for concern -- is that Lifton again ignores his Aunt's testimony that Lee had came to her home the day before and HAD NO SUIT and that he had to return to her home the next day. Obviously, if he has to return to her, Lee Oswald is not living there.
Lifton DARES to again state what he has been shown to be false. This is a mater of concern. Does Mr. Lifton cherry-pick evidence to suit him, even if it is not true? or is it only in relation to his efforts o discredit me as a witness? Will he, in the future, continue to assert this blatant falsehood for the world to see?==
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).
I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE MY EYES (WHICH ARE GETTING VERY TIRED; SORRY ABOUT CAPS). WE HAVE ALREADY DETERMINED THAT LEE OSWALD HAD TO GO TO HIS AUNT'S HOME TO OBTAIN A SUIT TO WEAR, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE ONE. UNBELIEVABLY, LIFTON IGNORES THIS FACT.
SO NOW I SHOW THAT LEE OSWALD LEFT FOR NEW ORLEANS ON THE 24TH.
LIFTON TRIES TO PROVE THAT OSWALD ARRIVED ON THE 26TH -- DESPITE EASILY VERIFIABLE FACT THAT OSWALD'S TRIP WAS NOT MORE THAN 15 HOURS. WHICH MAKES HIM ARRIVE ON THE 25TH, JUST AS I SAID.
SADLY, LIFTON DISPLAYS PREJUDICE AND ALLOWS IT TO CLOUD HIS JUDGMENT. ONCE AGAIN, ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT MARINA AND RUTH PAINE HAD TO SAY ABOUT THIS.
FACT: LEE OSWALD PLACED LUGGAGE AND BAGGAGE IN A LOCKER AT THE BUS STATION A DAY PRIOR TO LEAVING TEXAS.
FACT: MARINA MOVED IN WITH RUTH PAINE AND RUTH DROVE LEE TO THE BUS STATION ON APRIL 24.
FACT: THE TRIP TAKES ABOUT 14 HOURS. LEE OSWALD OLD JUDYTH VARY BAKER HE ARRIVED IN NEW ORLEANS ON APRIL 25TH. HE SAID HE CHECKED IN AT THE YMCA.
FACT: LEE OSWALD HAD TO BE STAYING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN APRIL 25 AND AT LEAST UNTIL APRIL 27TH, THE DATE ON WHICH LIFTON INSISTS OSWALD MOVED IN WITH THE MURRETS.
FACT: LEE OSWALD IS ON RECORD AS HAVING LIVED AT YMCA'S AND NOT TELLING RELATIVES HE WAS THERE, WHICH MEANS WE HAVE PRECEDENT.
FACT: AS A WITNESS, I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. LIFTON IS A RESEARCHER WHOSE ASSUMPTIONS HAVE NOW -- SEVERAL TIMES, ACTUALLY -- LED HIM DOWN THE WRONG TRAIL. PERHAPS HE WILL LISTEN TO ME IN THE FUTURE.
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.
Jack has only helped mire Daid Lifton deeper in his own set of errors for everyone to see and contemplate....everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness
Consequently, when I questioned her--on March 4, 2000--she glibly asserted (PREJUDICED STATEMENT: THE WORD HE USED BEFORE WAS 'INSISTED', WHICH HAS NOW BEEN DEGRADED) that Lee was dressed in workman's clothes, and, as I recall, appeared somewhat grubby.
==IF HE MAKES THAT CLAIM, THEN I SUSPECT THAT MY SOUND BYTES HAVE BEEN ALTERED==
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?"
==I HAVE NEVER BEEN HOSTILE OR DEFENSIVE IN ANY INTERVIEW. IT WAS LIFTON WHO WAS COLD AND CALCULATING WHEN HE SPOKE WITH ME AND SECRETLY AND ILLEGALLY TAPED ME.==
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.
==EVERYONE READING THIS MUST REALIZE BY NOW THAT LEE OSWALD LEFT TEXAS ON THE 24TH, AS BOTH MARINA OSWALD AND RUTH PAINE TESTIFIED, AND THAT -- UNLESS OSWALD SLEPT ON THE STREETS FOR SEVERAL DAYS -- HE APPARENTLY CHECKED INTO THE 'Y.'
MOREOVER, THIS WAS CHARACTERISTIC AND PREDICTABLE BEHAVIOR ON HIS PART.
AND FURTHER, BECAUSE HE WAS FRUGAL, OSWALD, KEPT HIS BELONGINGS AT THE BUS STATION IN A LOCKER, PRECISELY AS I TOLD EVERYBODY IN 1999.
FOR A DECADE I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET THE FULL DETAILS OF LEE OSWALD'S LIFE TO THE PUBLIC.
SOMEBODY PLEASE ASK LIFTON AND JACK WHITE TO STOP REPEATING ACCUSATIONS PROVEN EMPTY.
SEEING THAT MR. LIFTON IGNORED EVERYTHING THAT DR. JAMES FETZER POSTED ON MY BEHALF -- AND EVEN THOUGH I HAVE BACKED UP EVERYTHING WITH OFFICIAL RECORDS -- THEN, SINCE LIFTON IS AN INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUAL, I AM FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT HE IS WILLING TO BEAR FALSE WITNESS TO ACCOMMODATE HIS OWN PURPOSES.
THIS MEANS HE IS CAPABLE OF REPEATING THESE FALSEHOODS ELSEWHERE IN PRINT TO OTHERS AT ANY TIME. IF HE DOES SO, THAT CONSTITUTES LIBEL. IF HE SPEAKS PRIVATELY TO OTHERS REGARDING THESE ISSUES, HE IS COMMITTING SLANDER.
MR. LIFTON APPEARS TO BE COMFORTABLE DESTROYING A WITNESS.
I HAVE GIVEN UP A GREAT DEAL FOR THE SAKE OF THE TRUTH.
ON THE OTHER HAND, MR.LIFTON HAS MADE ASSUMPTIONS AND BEEN SLOPPY IN RESEARCH. AND SEEING WHAT MR. LIFTON MANAGED TO MISS IN JUST THIS SMALL SECTION OF OSWALD'S LIFE, PERHAPS IT'S BETTER THAT HE HAS NEVER PUBLISHED HIS OSWALD BIOGRAPHY.==
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.
==REPEATING FALSEHOODS -- HE ACTS AS IF I HAD NOT REFUTED THIS -- SEE ABOVE==
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."
==NOTHING NEW HERE. I STATED THE SAME IN 1999. YOU COULD HAVE BEEN THERE, ASKING QUESTIONS. SHACKELFORD, LIVINGSTONE, PLAZTMAN, DANKBAAR, TURNER, DEVRIES, AND MARRS GOT THOUSANDS OF ANSWERS. WHERE WAS LIFTON? HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT I'VE SAID.
HE HAS ONLY SEEN WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED. ALL RESEARCHERS WORKING WITH ME KNOW I DO NOT POST EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT A SUBJECT. THEY GET EXTRA INFORMATION. LIFTON HAS NO CONCEPT OF WHAT I HAVE TOLD HONEST RESEARCHERS. HE IS IN NO POSITION TO JUDGE==
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."
==HE REPEATS HIS FALSE STATEMENT YET AGAIN. HE KNOWS THAT IF SOMETHING IS REPEATED ENOUGH IN THE THREAD, SOMEBODY MIGHT READ IT AND MISS THE TRUTH.==
Is this plausible?
==YES. IT IS CERTAINLY MORE PLAUSIBLE THAN HAVING LEE SLEEPING IN THE STREET==
Is Judyth credible?
==IS MR. LIFTON CREDIBLE?
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
1) HE ASSUMED LEE OSWALD ARRIVED APRIL 26, 1963 WHEN MARINA OSWALD AND RUTH PAINE SHOW HE LEFT TEXAS APRIL 24TH. REPEATING THIS ERROR AFTER BEING CORRECTED DOES NOT MAKE HIS VERSION TRUE.
2) HE ASSUMED LEE OSWALD HAD A SUIT, WHEN HE DID NOT.
3) HE ASSUMED THAT LEE OSWALD MOVED IN RIGHT AWAY WITH THE MURRETS WHEN WE HAVE LILLIAN MURRET SAYING LEE CAME OVER WITH NO CLOTHES AND RETURNED THE NEXT DAY FOR A SUIT.
4) HE ASSUMED--BECAUSE MCADAMS' WEBSITE SAYS SO?--THAT LEE LIVED WITH THE MURRETS BETWEEN APRIL 27 AND MAY 11, WHEN MARINA ARRIVED. BUT THE MURRETS SAID HE WAS LIVING WITH THEM ONLY 3-5 DAYS. LEE IN TOWN FROM APRIL 27. LIFTON'S VERSION WOULD HAVE LEE OSWALD AT THE MURRETS FOR 13-14 DAYS.
5) HE ASSUMED THAT BECAUSE LEE CALLED THE MURRETS FROM THE BUS STATION THAT HE HAD JUST ARRIVED IN NEW ORLEANS -- ACCORDING TO HIM, ON APRIL 27.
6) HE IGNORED THE BUS TRAVEL TIME DISCREPANCY
7) HE IGNORED MARINA'S AND RUTH'S TESTIMONIES
8) HE IGNORED THE EVIDENCE I HAVE PROVIDED
Are we supposed to take this ad hoc revision serioiusly?
==IT IS LIFTON WHO HAS PRODUCED AN INACCURATE 'AD HOC' VERSION. IT IS NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.==
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"?
==HERE IT IS, REPEATED AGAIN!==
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
==I WAS NOT PRESENT TO SEE LEE OSWALD IN THE CLOTHING DESCRIBED. BUT I WAS ABLE TO READ THAT HIS AUNT HAD SAID SHE WAS GOING TO PROVIDE SUITABLE CLOTHING FOR HIM. I ALSO KNEW THAT LEE SAID HE HAD TO 'LEAVE' BECAUSE HE HAD 'TO PICK UP A WHITE SHIRT.' THIS IS NOT SPECULATION,. THIS IS A STATEMENT FROM THE WITNESS. LEE OSWALD BROKE OFF OUR CONVERSATION AND GAVE ME A REASON FOR BREAKING IT OFF.==
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.
==LIFTON AGAIN REPEATS EVERYTHING ABOVE--SO THAT HIS READERS WILL ONLY SEE HIS ARGUMENT A THE END. BUT I WILL STICK WITH HM. ONCE AGAIN, SCROLL TO NEAR THE TOP OF HIS LONG MESSAGE TO SEE THAT LEE OSWALD KEPT HIS BELONGINGS AT THE LOCKER AT THE BUS STATION. OSWALD WAS DESCRIBED ON HIS FIRST VISIT TO THE MURRETS AS CARRYING JUST ONE BAG WITH HIM. READ ALL OF IT ABOVE, DO NOT REPLY ON LIFTON'S MISSATEMENTS (AGAIN! WHY REPEAT HIMSELF? IT'S AN OLD TRICK TO HAVE HIS STATEMENT AT THE BOTTOM, FOR PEOPLE TO SEE AS THE 'FINAL VERDICT". I WILL NOT LET THAT HAPPEN. SCROLL UP AND SEE THE TRUTH.==
This testimony is also supported by the testimony of cousin Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time.
==REPEATED AGAIN....SCROLL UP AND SEE THE RUTH.==
But Lee's interview in which he was so nicely dresse was on Friday, April 26.
==HE REPEATS THIS AGAIN AND REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE AS REASONABLE REFUTATIONS OF HIS MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS==
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,
==LIFTON IS REPEATING HIMSELF AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, NEVERTHELESS==
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)...
==INSTEAD OF NEEDING TO READ ANY MORE, SAVE SOME TIME AND SIMPLY SCROLL TO THE TOP FOR THE TRUTH AND READ THE EARLIER POST WHERE I REFUTED WHAT LIFTON NOW IGNORES.==
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.
==THERE IS NO CONFLICT. THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT WAS CREATED BY LIFTON'S OWN FAILURE TO ASK WHAT TIME I SAW OSWALD. HE ASSUMES OSWALD CAME TO NEW ORLEANS AFTER A 14 HOUR BUS RIDE READY TO INTERVIEW AT AN EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, WHERE HE LOOKED CRISP AND FRESH. THIS, HOWEVER, VERGES ON THE PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.==
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),
==I AM ADEPT AT "COMING UP WITH SOMETHING" BECAUSE I TELL THE TRUTH. I AM A WITNESS. I WAS THERE. LIFTON IS A RESEARCHER WITH OBVIOUS PREJUDICES. HE MAKES ASSUMPTIONS AND DOES NOT DO SUFFICIENT RESEARCH, AS PROVEN IN THIS THREAD. I AM NOT SAYING THIS MALICIOUSLY. I HAVE POINTED OUT KEY TESTIMONY THAT HE HAS IGNORED, ASSUMPTIONS HE HAS MADE, AND OMISSIONS HE HAS OVERLOOKED. LIFTON HAS OSWALD TAKING A 2 DAY BUS RIDE AND ARRIVING FRESH FOR AN INTERVIEW IN A SUIT OR SLEEPING ON THE STREETS FOR 2 DAYS, THEN GOING FIRST THING IN THE MORNING, FRESH AND CRISP, IN SUIT, TIE, ETC.==
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.
==MURRET'S TESTIMONY SHOWS SHE IS CONCERNED AND SAYS SHE WILL PROVIDE HIM WITH CLOTHING TO HELP HIM...SHE IS ON RECORD AS BUYING A FULL SET OF NEW SCHOOL CLOTHING FOR LEE WHEN HE CAME BACK FROM NEW YORK. SO THIS IS TYPICAL BEHAVIOR FOR HER. THE MURRETS EVEN BOUGHT HIM A BASEBALL GLOVE AND GOT HIM BASEBALL SHOES. THEY GAVE HIM MONEY TO RENT BICYCLES SO HE COULD GO RIDING BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE A BIKE. YES, IT'S IN THEIR TESTIMONY. THEY LOVED HIM.
LIFTON IS REPEATING EVERYTHING OVER AND OVER TO GET THE LAST WORD AND WEAR OUT THE READERS. HE WANTS THE READERS TO GIVE UP AND NOT CARE.
PLEASE CARE, READER. THE TRUTH IS AT THE TOP OF THIS LONG DIATRIBE.
I WILL NOT LET LIFTON HAVE THE LAST WORD AND MAKE IT APPEAR AS THOUGHT HE IS RIGHT WHEN HE IS WRONG. BUT I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE TRUTH TO BE BURIED==
All this bears heavily on assessingt the credibility of Judyth,
==ACTUALLY, IT BEARS HEAVILY ON ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY OF DAVID LIFTON==
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,
==HE REPEATS HIS HOPELESSLY INADEQUATE ACCOUNT AS THOUGH REPETITION WOULD MAKE A FALSE ACCOUNT TRUE. AND NOW HE INTRODUCES THE WORD "SCAMPERING", WHICH MIGHT BETTER DESCRIBE HIS EFFORTS TO CONVINCE YOU OF A VERSION THAT IS CLEARLY FALSE==
when he had the interview with John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor. Again:
==JUST BECAUSE HE REPEATS EVERYTHING AGAIN AND AGAIN DOES NOT MEAN HE HAS DONE ALL HIS RESEARCH. SAYING A PERSON HAS ONE TOE DOES NOT MEAN THAT "OTHER TOES" DO NOT EXIST.... HIS REASONING IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED....SCROLL UP TO SEE THE TRUTH.==
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.
==REPEATING HIMSELF AGAIN. SIMPLY SCROLL UP THIS POST TO SEE THE TRUTH.==
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.
==JUST BECAUSE HE HASN'T NOTICED SOMETHING I HAVE SAID HERE IN PRINT OR NEVER HEARD IT, HE THINKS IT'S A NEW STATEMENT. , WHEN IT ASSUREDLY IS NOT. LIFTON WAS NEVER WAS INVOLVED IN THE YEARS OF QUESTIONS THAT OTHER RESEARCHERS WHO NOW SUPPORT ME ENGAGED IN. GOOD RESEARCHERS.
LIFTON HAS BEEN REPEATING EVERYTHING OVER AND OVER. WITHOUT PRESENTING ANYTHING NEW IN ORDER TO WEAR YOU OUT. HE DOES NOT WANT YOU TO READ THIS. HE WANTS TO BURY YOU IN WORDS. DON'T FALL FOR IT. SCROLL UP AND READ THE TRUTH AT THE TOP.==
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.
==MR. LIFTON HAS REPEATED THE SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THIS POST. TO SAVE TIME, SCROLL ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP AND READ HE TRUTH. YOU WILL NOT FIND ANYTHING IN LIFTON'S STATEMENTS HERE THAT YOU WILL TAKE SERIOUSLY AFTER READING WHAT IS AT THE TOP. LIFTON AGAIN FAILED TO FIND THE ESSENTIAL RECORDS. I WROTE BETWEEN HIS MANY REPETITIONS, AFTER PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE HE SHOULD HAVE ACCESSED HIMSELF, TO SHOW YOU WHERE LIFTON HAS USED UP YOUR TIME. YOUR TIME AND MINE IS VALUABLE.==
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. SCROLL TO THE TOP AND SAVE SOME TIME BEFORE YOU READ MR. LIFTON'S LITANY.
RESPECTFULLY,
JUDYTH VARY BAKER
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 name='David Lifton' date='Mar 31 2010, 11:50 AM' post='188327']
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]
NOTE: While I have previously responded to this Lifton post in more
general terms, Judyth refutes the purported details of his account. As
readers can discern for themselves, Lifton appears to have committed
a serious of blunders in making assumptions that turn out to be false.
This is a nice example of presumptuous reasoning passing for research.
The matter is settled decisively by Marina and Ruth's testimony about
his date of departure and the travel time by bus. Unless you think it is
more reasonably for Lee to sleep in the street, he checked into the "Y".
She provides an explanation that is about as reasonable as it could get.
I cannot imaging a more convincing refutation of Lifton's argument than
she has provided here. Consider this as one where Judyth defeats Lifton.
Lifton's statements are presented her in italics, Judyth's in roman fonts.
NOTE: JUDYTH CAUGHT TWO TYPOS ABOUT DATES I AM CORRECTING.
[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
FROM JUDYTH BAKER:
FACT 1: From the Mary Ferrell Chronology:
April 23, 1963 (Tuesday) - Marina says that Oswald checks some baggage to New Orleans on his bus ticket on the day before he leaves. (WC Vol 22, p. 778; WC Vol 23, p. 526)
Question from JVB: WHY did Oswald check 'some baggage to New Orleans" on the day before he leaves by bus?
Answer: He had a lot of stuff: several boxes, sea bags, suitcases, a zippered bag, etc.
Question: Did Lee Oswald ever spend time in a YMCA, activities largely unknown, before making his presence known to wife or relatives?
Answer: Yes. Upon his return from Mexico City, Lee checked into the YMCA and did not tell his wife he was in town for a day and a half:
"October 3, 1963: Dallas: LHO checks in at the YMCA. Later in the day, he files a claim at the employment office
October 4, 1963: LHO applies for work at Padgett Printing Co. ..Later, he telephones Marina and asks for a ride to Ruth Paine's home and is denied.
He hitchhikes the 12 miles to Ruth's house."
Question: Did Lee Oswald use the YMCA at any other time, when his activities -- before he got a job a Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, and, subsequently after work hours at J-C-S -- were largely unknown?
Answer: Yes. On Oct. 15, 1962, Gary Taylor drove Oswald to the YMCA, where he checked in to room 415. He checked out of the YMCA on Oct. 19th. Between Oct. 19 and Nov. 2, his address was undiscoverable to the Warren Commission. From Oct. 9 until he filed for a post office box, sometime on Oct. 11, 1962, nobody knew where Oswald was.
Question: When did Lee Oswald leave Texas for New Orleans?
Answer: Oswald had considerable baggage, including boxes, sea bags and suitcases. Marina Oswald told the Warren Commission that on April 23, 1963 , a Tuesday, Oswald checks baggage to New Orleans on his bus ticket "the day before he leaves."
Note: Marina's testimony as to when Oswald leaves for New Orleans is 7 months after the fact, while Mrs. Lillian Murret's testimony is that Lee moved in with them a while after Easter, perhaps as early as a week after EASTER (APPROX. April 22). However, Mrs. Murret also testified that Lee Oswald stayed with her family about 3-5 days, at which time he obtained a job and called his wife to join him in an apartment -- this was MAY 9, 1963. Marina arrived May 11.
Question: If Lee Oswald stayed 5 days with the Murrets, then he was not present there before May 5, 1963.
Answer: Marna said Lee Oswald left for New Orleans on April 24, a Wednesday. When Baker met Oswald on the 26th, he told her he had arrived in town on April 25th. It is 523 miles between Dallas and New Orleans, and the trip lasted at least twelve hours. If Oswald left Dallas on the 24th, he could easily have arrived after midnight on the 25th.
It is not surprising that he would follow a pattern used before -- first checking into the YMCA and contacting relatives later.
Question: But what about Oswald calling his relatives at the bus station, where all his baggage was located?
Answer: Imagine trying to move everything from the bus station -- boxes, sea bags, etc. -- to the YMCA after a long and weary rip on he bus. And at the "Y" it must then be kept safely -- in a locker -- and a cab has to be hired to carry all the objects to the "Y". And lee must spend money with the cab timer running in order to transfer baggage into the multi-story building and then to an upstairs room. It would take several trips to do so and run up the tab.
Instead, Oswald did the logical thing. He took the bag of things he needed with him, and -- just as he had checked in his baggage a day early at the bus station in Dallas -- in New Orleans he checks in his luggage and sea bags into a couple of lockers at the bus station again, which he will later have moved by the Murrets.
Question: Why didn't he go to the Murrets sooner?
Answer: Lillian Murret forgot that, when she first saw Lee -- and she testified to this -- he came over with just a small bag and had nothing suitable to wear to hunt for a job. She asked him to return and said that she would find something appropriate for him to wear.
Lee spent a Saturday night with his aunt and uncle, I think, because he reported eating a nice supper with them. Lee was very busy working with Guy Banister during his first week in New Orleans -- and also helping me find a room.
When a police raid forced me to move, the pastor and his wife who helped me called Lee Oswald at his aunt and uncle's house. The date was May 4. Lee Oswald came over about noon, ate lunch with the pastor, wife and me and then made calls from the rectory's phone there. He was able to find an apartment for me. Lee was located a hat time -- May 4 -- at the Murret's.
He had moved in with them recently. But when I met him on April 26, he was living at the YMCA.
Charles "Dutz" Murret picked Lee up at he bus station where Lee retrieved all his possessions and stacked them into the car. He did not want to burden them for too many days with his presence...
He was also a bit shy, not knowing how hey might treat him when he had been a (fake) "defector,."
For that reason, he had not contacted them from Texas after moving back to the US from the USSR.
So he was shy about simply moving in, and stayed at the "Y."
Later, he felt welcome and then moved in. NO long packages such as a rifle were reported or observed. Lee's things were placed in the Murret's garage stacked next to their washing machine. He began an active job search (for show) and they were then handy witnesses -- but, in fact, his Reily job had already been prearranged.
As the respected witness, Adele Edisen, has made clear -- and I concur -- Lee Oswald's address was known to more than one person before he moved into his apartment. He knew what his address would be when he placed me within easy walking distance of his own apartment at 4905 Magazine S. (often erroneously listed as 4907 Magazine, a false address he had placed on many documents, which I explain in my book), to which address the Murrets then transferred his luggage, sea bags and boxes upon the arrival of Marina and Ruth Paine. Lee had one suitcase full of Marina's clothes and baby clothes, by the way.
April 23, 1963 (Tuesday) - Marina says that Oswald checks some baggage to New Orleans on his bus ticket on the day before he leaves. (WC Vol 22, p. 778; WC Vol 23, p. 526)
Fact 2: Lillian Murrett, Lee's aunt, testified that Lee first called on Monday, April 29, and said he was at the bus station, which has been corroborated by her daughter, Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time.
==DISPUTED: Lee moved in with the Murretts some time after April 27, 1963, at the earliest. I have already explained that, based upon Marina's reports and bus ticket information, we know when Lee arrived -- early on April 25th.
Lifton errs in MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, once again, without checking the full record.
He assumed that because Lee called from the bus station--and that the Murrets assumed that that was when he arrived -- that that was when he arrived from Texas.
Marilyn said she talked to Lee the first day she thought he arrived in town and ha they had quite a long talk. But, as stated above, Lee might not always tell tell people the date on which he arrirved. Marilyn was VISITING with the Murrets -- a grown daughter -- and I believe had even been to Atsugi, Japan, and many other places by then.
Mr. Lifton failed to read what Marina -- who surely should know -- had to say about when Lee left Texas. As for me, I sought it out because I knew what date to look for -- the 25th -- which Lee had told me was the day he arrived.
Why can we trust this element of Marina's testimony? How could she remember this date?
An inventory of Ruth Paine's papers exists at Swarthmore College, showing that Ruth Paine took Marina Oswald into her home on April 24th and that she drove Oswald to the bus station that same day. It would be a date hard for Marina to forget.
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).
==Amazing -- and cause for concern -- is that Lifton again ignores his Aunt's testimony that Lee had came to her home the day before and HAD NO SUIT and that he had to return to her home the next day. Obviously, if he has to return to her, Lee Oswald is not living there.
Lifton DARES to again state what he has been shown to be false. This is a mater of concern. Does Mr. Lifton cherry-pick evidence to suit him, even if it is not true? or is it only in relation to his efforts o discredit me as a witness? Will he, in the future, continue to assert this blatant falsehood for the world to see?==
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).
I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE MY EYES (WHICH ARE GETTING VERY TIRED; SORRY ABOUT CAPS). WE HAVE ALREADY DETERMINED THAT LEE OSWALD HAD TO GO TO HIS AUNT'S HOME TO OBTAIN A SUIT TO WEAR, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE ONE. UNBELIEVABLY, LIFTON IGNORES THIS FACT.
SO NOW I SHOW THAT LEE OSWALD LEFT FOR NEW ORLEANS ON THE 24TH.
LIFTON TRIES TO PROVE THAT OSWALD ARRIVED ON THE 26TH -- DESPITE EASILY VERIFIABLE FACT THAT OSWALD'S TRIP WAS NOT MORE THAN 15 HOURS. WHICH MAKES HIM ARRIVE ON THE 25TH, JUST AS I SAID.
SADLY, LIFTON DISPLAYS PREJUDICE AND ALLOWS IT TO CLOUD HIS JUDGMENT. ONCE AGAIN, ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT MARINA AND RUTH PAINE HAD TO SAY ABOUT THIS.
FACT: LEE OSWALD PLACED LUGGAGE AND BAGGAGE IN A LOCKER AT THE BUS STATION A DAY PRIOR TO LEAVING TEXAS.
FACT: MARINA MOVED IN WITH RUTH PAINE AND RUTH DROVE LEE TO THE BUS STATION ON APRIL 24.
FACT: THE TRIP TAKES ABOUT 14 HOURS. LEE OSWALD OLD JUDYTH VARY BAKER HE ARRIVED IN NEW ORLEANS ON APRIL 25TH. HE SAID HE CHECKED IN AT THE YMCA.
FACT: LEE OSWALD HAD TO BE STAYING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN APRIL 25 AND AT LEAST UNTIL APRIL 27TH, THE DATE ON WHICH LIFTON INSISTS OSWALD MOVED IN WITH THE MURRETS.
FACT: LEE OSWALD IS ON RECORD AS HAVING LIVED AT YMCA'S AND NOT TELLING RELATIVES HE WAS THERE, WHICH MEANS WE HAVE PRECEDENT.
FACT: AS A WITNESS, I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. LIFTON IS A RESEARCHER WHOSE ASSUMPTIONS HAVE NOW -- SEVERAL TIMES, ACTUALLY -- LED HIM DOWN THE WRONG TRAIL. PERHAPS HE WILL LISTEN TO ME IN THE FUTURE.
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.
Jack has only helped mire Daid Lifton deeper in his own set of errors for everyone to see and contemplate....everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness
Consequently, when I questioned her--on March 4, 2000--she glibly asserted (PREJUDICED STATEMENT: THE WORD HE USED BEFORE WAS 'INSISTED', WHICH HAS NOW BEEN DEGRADED) that Lee was dressed in workman's clothes, and, as I recall, appeared somewhat grubby.
==IF HE MAKES THAT CLAIM, THEN I SUSPECT THAT MY SOUND BYTES HAVE BEEN ALTERED==
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?"
==I HAVE NEVER BEEN HOSTILE OR DEFENSIVE IN ANY INTERVIEW. IT WAS LIFTON WHO WAS COLD AND CALCULATING WHEN HE SPOKE WITH ME AND SECRETLY AND ILLEGALLY TAPED ME.==
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.
==EVERYONE READING THIS MUST REALIZE BY NOW THAT LEE OSWALD LEFT TEXAS ON THE 24TH, AS BOTH MARINA OSWALD AND RUTH PAINE TESTIFIED, AND THAT -- UNLESS OSWALD SLEPT ON THE STREETS FOR SEVERAL DAYS -- HE APPARENTLY CHECKED INTO THE 'Y.'
MOREOVER, THIS WAS CHARACTERISTIC AND PREDICTABLE BEHAVIOR ON HIS PART.
AND FURTHER, BECAUSE HE WAS FRUGAL, OSWALD, KEPT HIS BELONGINGS AT THE BUS STATION IN A LOCKER, PRECISELY AS I TOLD EVERYBODY IN 1999.
FOR A DECADE I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET THE FULL DETAILS OF LEE OSWALD'S LIFE TO THE PUBLIC.
SOMEBODY PLEASE ASK LIFTON AND JACK WHITE TO STOP REPEATING ACCUSATIONS PROVEN EMPTY.
SEEING THAT MR. LIFTON IGNORED EVERYTHING THAT DR. JAMES FETZER POSTED ON MY BEHALF -- AND EVEN THOUGH I HAVE BACKED UP EVERYTHING WITH OFFICIAL RECORDS -- THEN, SINCE LIFTON IS AN INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUAL, I AM FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT HE IS WILLING TO BEAR FALSE WITNESS TO ACCOMMODATE HIS OWN PURPOSES.
THIS MEANS HE IS CAPABLE OF REPEATING THESE FALSEHOODS ELSEWHERE IN PRINT TO OTHERS AT ANY TIME. IF HE DOES SO, THAT CONSTITUTES LIBEL. IF HE SPEAKS PRIVATELY TO OTHERS REGARDING THESE ISSUES, HE IS COMMITTING SLANDER.
MR. LIFTON APPEARS TO BE COMFORTABLE DESTROYING A WITNESS.
I HAVE GIVEN UP A GREAT DEAL FOR THE SAKE OF THE TRUTH.
ON THE OTHER HAND, MR.LIFTON HAS MADE ASSUMPTIONS AND BEEN SLOPPY IN RESEARCH. AND SEEING WHAT MR. LIFTON MANAGED TO MISS IN JUST THIS SMALL SECTION OF OSWALD'S LIFE, PERHAPS IT'S BETTER THAT HE HAS NEVER PUBLISHED HIS OSWALD BIOGRAPHY.==
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.
==REPEATING FALSEHOODS -- HE ACTS AS IF I HAD NOT REFUTED THIS -- SEE ABOVE==
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."
==NOTHING NEW HERE. I STATED THE SAME IN 1999. YOU COULD HAVE BEEN THERE, ASKING QUESTIONS. SHACKELFORD, LIVINGSTONE, PLAZTMAN, DANKBAAR, TURNER, DEVRIES, AND MARRS GOT THOUSANDS OF ANSWERS. WHERE WAS LIFTON? HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT I'VE SAID.
HE HAS ONLY SEEN WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED. ALL RESEARCHERS WORKING WITH ME KNOW I DO NOT POST EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT A SUBJECT. THEY GET EXTRA INFORMATION. LIFTON HAS NO CONCEPT OF WHAT I HAVE TOLD HONEST RESEARCHERS. HE IS IN NO POSITION TO JUDGE==
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."
==HE REPEATS HIS FALSE STATEMENT YET AGAIN. HE KNOWS THAT IF SOMETHING IS REPEATED ENOUGH IN THE THREAD, SOMEBODY MIGHT READ IT AND MISS THE TRUTH.==
Is this plausible?
==YES. IT IS CERTAINLY MORE PLAUSIBLE THAN HAVING LEE SLEEPING IN THE STREET==
Is Judyth credible?
==IS MR. LIFTON CREDIBLE?
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
1) HE ASSUMED LEE OSWALD ARRIVED APRIL 26, 1963 WHEN MARINA OSWALD AND RUTH PAINE SHOW HE LEFT TEXAS APRIL 24TH. REPEATING THIS ERROR AFTER BEING CORRECTED DOES NOT MAKE HIS VERSION TRUE.
2) HE ASSUMED LEE OSWALD HAD A SUIT, WHEN HE DID NOT.
3) HE ASSUMED THAT LEE OSWALD MOVED IN RIGHT AWAY WITH THE MURRETS WHEN WE HAVE LILLIAN MURRET SAYING LEE CAME OVER WITH NO CLOTHES AND RETURNED THE NEXT DAY FOR A SUIT.
4) HE ASSUMED--BECAUSE MCADAMS' WEBSITE SAYS SO?--THAT LEE LIVED WITH THE MURRETS BETWEEN APRIL 27 AND MAY 11, WHEN MARINA ARRIVED. BUT THE MURRETS SAID HE WAS LIVING WITH THEM ONLY 3-5 DAYS. LEE IN TOWN FROM APRIL 27. LIFTON'S VERSION WOULD HAVE LEE OSWALD AT THE MURRETS FOR 13-14 DAYS.
5) HE ASSUMED THAT BECAUSE LEE CALLED THE MURRETS FROM THE BUS STATION THAT HE HAD JUST ARRIVED IN NEW ORLEANS -- ACCORDING TO HIM, ON APRIL 27.
6) HE IGNORED THE BUS TRAVEL TIME DISCREPANCY
7) HE IGNORED MARINA'S AND RUTH'S TESTIMONIES
8) HE IGNORED THE EVIDENCE I HAVE PROVIDED
Are we supposed to take this ad hoc revision serioiusly?
==IT IS LIFTON WHO HAS PRODUCED AN INACCURATE 'AD HOC' VERSION. IT IS NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.==
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"?
==HERE IT IS, REPEATED AGAIN!==
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
==I WAS NOT PRESENT TO SEE LEE OSWALD IN THE CLOTHING DESCRIBED. BUT I WAS ABLE TO READ THAT HIS AUNT HAD SAID SHE WAS GOING TO PROVIDE SUITABLE CLOTHING FOR HIM. I ALSO KNEW THAT LEE SAID HE HAD TO 'LEAVE' BECAUSE HE HAD 'TO PICK UP A WHITE SHIRT.' THIS IS NOT SPECULATION,. THIS IS A STATEMENT FROM THE WITNESS. LEE OSWALD BROKE OFF OUR CONVERSATION AND GAVE ME A REASON FOR BREAKING IT OFF.==
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.
==LIFTON AGAIN REPEATS EVERYTHING ABOVE--SO THAT HIS READERS WILL ONLY SEE HIS ARGUMENT A THE END. BUT I WILL STICK WITH HM. ONCE AGAIN, SCROLL TO NEAR THE TOP OF HIS LONG MESSAGE TO SEE THAT LEE OSWALD KEPT HIS BELONGINGS AT THE LOCKER AT THE BUS STATION. OSWALD WAS DESCRIBED ON HIS FIRST VISIT TO THE MURRETS AS CARRYING JUST ONE BAG WITH HIM. READ ALL OF IT ABOVE, DO NOT REPLY ON LIFTON'S MISSATEMENTS (AGAIN! WHY REPEAT HIMSELF? IT'S AN OLD TRICK TO HAVE HIS STATEMENT AT THE BOTTOM, FOR PEOPLE TO SEE AS THE 'FINAL VERDICT". I WILL NOT LET THAT HAPPEN. SCROLL UP AND SEE THE TRUTH.==
This testimony is also supported by the testimony of cousin Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time.
==REPEATED AGAIN....SCROLL UP AND SEE THE RUTH.==
But Lee's interview in which he was so nicely dresse was on Friday, April 26.
==HE REPEATS THIS AGAIN AND REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE AS REASONABLE REFUTATIONS OF HIS MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS==
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,
==LIFTON IS REPEATING HIMSELF AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, NEVERTHELESS==
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)...
==INSTEAD OF NEEDING TO READ ANY MORE, SAVE SOME TIME AND SIMPLY SCROLL TO THE TOP FOR THE TRUTH AND READ THE EARLIER POST WHERE I REFUTED WHAT LIFTON NOW IGNORES.==
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.
==THERE IS NO CONFLICT. THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT WAS CREATED BY LIFTON'S OWN FAILURE TO ASK WHAT TIME I SAW OSWALD. HE ASSUMES OSWALD CAME TO NEW ORLEANS AFTER A 14 HOUR BUS RIDE READY TO INTERVIEW AT AN EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, WHERE HE LOOKED CRISP AND FRESH. THIS, HOWEVER, VERGES ON THE PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.==
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),
==I AM ADEPT AT "COMING UP WITH SOMETHING" BECAUSE I TELL THE TRUTH. I AM A WITNESS. I WAS THERE. LIFTON IS A RESEARCHER WITH OBVIOUS PREJUDICES. HE MAKES ASSUMPTIONS AND DOES NOT DO SUFFICIENT RESEARCH, AS PROVEN IN THIS THREAD. I AM NOT SAYING THIS MALICIOUSLY. I HAVE POINTED OUT KEY TESTIMONY THAT HE HAS IGNORED, ASSUMPTIONS HE HAS MADE, AND OMISSIONS HE HAS OVERLOOKED. LIFTON HAS OSWALD TAKING A 2 DAY BUS RIDE AND ARRIVING FRESH FOR AN INTERVIEW IN A SUIT OR SLEEPING ON THE STREETS FOR 2 DAYS, THEN GOING FIRST THING IN THE MORNING, FRESH AND CRISP, IN SUIT, TIE, ETC.==
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.
==MURRET'S TESTIMONY SHOWS SHE IS CONCERNED AND SAYS SHE WILL PROVIDE HIM WITH CLOTHING TO HELP HIM...SHE IS ON RECORD AS BUYING A FULL SET OF NEW SCHOOL CLOTHING FOR LEE WHEN HE CAME BACK FROM NEW YORK. SO THIS IS TYPICAL BEHAVIOR FOR HER. THE MURRETS EVEN BOUGHT HIM A BASEBALL GLOVE AND GOT HIM BASEBALL SHOES. THEY GAVE HIM MONEY TO RENT BICYCLES SO HE COULD GO RIDING BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE A BIKE. YES, IT'S IN THEIR TESTIMONY. THEY LOVED HIM.
LIFTON IS REPEATING EVERYTHING OVER AND OVER TO GET THE LAST WORD AND WEAR OUT THE READERS. HE WANTS THE READERS TO GIVE UP AND NOT CARE.
PLEASE CARE, READER. THE TRUTH IS AT THE TOP OF THIS LONG DIATRIBE.
I WILL NOT LET LIFTON HAVE THE LAST WORD AND MAKE IT APPEAR AS THOUGHT HE IS RIGHT WHEN HE IS WRONG. BUT I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE TRUTH TO BE BURIED==
All this bears heavily on assessingt the credibility of Judyth,
==ACTUALLY, IT BEARS HEAVILY ON ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY OF DAVID LIFTON==
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,
==HE REPEATS HIS HOPELESSLY INADEQUATE ACCOUNT AS THOUGH REPETITION WOULD MAKE A FALSE ACCOUNT TRUE. AND NOW HE INTRODUCES THE WORD "SCAMPERING", WHICH MIGHT BETTER DESCRIBE HIS EFFORTS TO CONVINCE YOU OF A VERSION THAT IS CLEARLY FALSE==
when he had the interview with John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor. Again:
==JUST BECAUSE HE REPEATS EVERYTHING AGAIN AND AGAIN DOES NOT MEAN HE HAS DONE ALL HIS RESEARCH. SAYING A PERSON HAS ONE TOE DOES NOT MEAN THAT "OTHER TOES" DO NOT EXIST.... HIS REASONING IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED....SCROLL UP TO SEE THE TRUTH.==
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.
==REPEATING HIMSELF AGAIN. SIMPLY SCROLL UP THIS POST TO SEE THE TRUTH.==
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.
==JUST BECAUSE HE HASN'T NOTICED SOMETHING I HAVE SAID HERE IN PRINT OR NEVER HEARD IT, HE THINKS IT'S A NEW STATEMENT. , WHEN IT ASSUREDLY IS NOT. LIFTON WAS NEVER WAS INVOLVED IN THE YEARS OF QUESTIONS THAT OTHER RESEARCHERS WHO NOW SUPPORT ME ENGAGED IN. GOOD RESEARCHERS.
LIFTON HAS BEEN REPEATING EVERYTHING OVER AND OVER. WITHOUT PRESENTING ANYTHING NEW IN ORDER TO WEAR YOU OUT. HE DOES NOT WANT YOU TO READ THIS. HE WANTS TO BURY YOU IN WORDS. DON'T FALL FOR IT. SCROLL UP AND READ THE TRUTH AT THE TOP.==
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.
==MR. LIFTON HAS REPEATED THE SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THIS POST. TO SAVE TIME, SCROLL ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP AND READ HE TRUTH. YOU WILL NOT FIND ANYTHING IN LIFTON'S STATEMENTS HERE THAT YOU WILL TAKE SERIOUSLY AFTER READING WHAT IS AT THE TOP. LIFTON AGAIN FAILED TO FIND THE ESSENTIAL RECORDS. I WROTE BETWEEN HIS MANY REPETITIONS, AFTER PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE HE SHOULD HAVE ACCESSED HIMSELF, TO SHOW YOU WHERE LIFTON HAS USED UP YOUR TIME. YOUR TIME AND MINE IS VALUABLE.==
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. SCROLL TO THE TOP AND SAVE SOME TIME BEFORE YOU READ MR. LIFTON'S LITANY.
RESPECTFULLY,
JUDYTH VARY BAKER
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 name='David Lifton' date='Mar 31 2010, 11:50 AM' post='188327']
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]