Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO JACK REGARDING HIS "SUSPICIONS" ABOUT ROBERT

Jack,

There are four stages of scientific inquiries: (i) puzzlement (because something
does not fit into your background knowledge); (ii) speculation (in considering all
of the possible alternative explanations); (iii) adaptation of evidence to theories
(using the principle of inference to the best explanation); and (iv) explanation
(where the hypothesis with the highest likelihood is accepted when the evidence
"settles down"), in the both tentative and fallible fashion characteristic of science.

Since I have focused on the medical, ballistic, and photographic evidence, which
includes especially the Zapruder film, apart from a chapter in MURDER in which
I explained why he could not have been convicted in a court of law and several
"smoking guns", such as the inability of the Mannlicher-Carcano to have fired the
bullets that killed the president, becoming this involved in research on Lee and
Judyth was far from my expectations. But I am now immersed in doing just that.

Naturally, I would have expected that those who have made him the centerpiece
of their own investigations, including you and John Armstrong and David S. Lifton,
would be the "real experts" who could help to sort out the true and the false with
respect to Judyth's story. Instead, you have advanced at least a dozen complaints
about Judyth, none of which has withstood critical scrutiny; HARVEY & LEE commits
a major blunder within its first few pages; and David has now come on with his litany
of purported objections to Judyth's story, which have met the same fate as yours.

Frankly, I had expected more from all of you. The photos that you have advanced,
including the "passport photo" and the "hunting photo", appear to be either altered
or complete fakes. The characterizations you have given of "Lee" as a hot-headed,
non-intellectual and non-Russian speaker, compared with "Harvey", the Hungarian
born, relatively relaxed intellectual who spoke fluent Russian and could not drive,
where one had blue and the other hazel eyes, has already been rebuffed by Judyth.

Given what I am learning about the shoddy methodology that produced HARVEY &
LEE by vacuuming up every document in the public domain--which you assured me
meant that they were all "authentic documents" that could not be challenged--hinged
on a trifling equivocation between being genuine "as documents" and being genuine
"with respect to their contents". Apparently, little or no effort was expended by John
in sorting them out, which means we have a massive compilation of "documents and
records" the significance of which appears to be completely and hopelessly obscure.

It is as though neither of you (Jack and John) had ever heard of Frank Wisner, the
propaganda genius who boasted of his capacity to manage the mass media, which
he described as "The Mighty Wurlitzer" (encompassing The New York Times, The
Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC, and all the rest) for his ability to make them all
play the same tune with the same tone that he might dictate as the magisterial of
all directors of disinformation. And when I have asked on what basis you and John
determined which documents had true content and which not, I was met with silence.

So you are certainly correct that my current inclination to believe that Robert is the
key to the cover-up and framing of his brother is only my "best guess" at this point
in time. But given the meager results of the research that has gone before, the fact
that he looked like his brother, had an affair with his brother's wife after her death,
and has done everything he can to support the "official account" of the death of JFK,
even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including a book about
his brother that even appears to present faked photographs--tells me that he is far
more likely to hold the key to understanding these events than your "Harvey & Lee".

Indeed, as I have observed before and will no doubt observe again, Judthy appears
to know more about the man she knew in New Orleans that all the members of this
forum collectively, whereby I specifically include you (and by extension Armstrong)
and David Lifton. This pains me. Lifton is playing coy about his attitude toward your
work with John but, when it eventually emerges, I have scant doubt he will be on the
same side with Judyth and me as profoundly skeptical that you and John have proven
your case, where she appears to be providing more and better information about him.

So although it is true that I am presently articulating my "suspicions" and "suspicions
are not history", when he was the spitting image of his brother, when there were many
allegations of impersonations, when he had an affair with his deceased brother's wife,
when he offered many interviews and even published a book declaring the accuracy
of the "official account", I cannot think of a better candidate for playing the role that
you ascribed to "Harvey" and "Lee" than that of two nearly-identical brothers, Robert
and Lee, where my research on this subject has only just begun and would actually
be unnecessary had you and John and David done the work you claim to have done.

Jim

FROM ROBERT'S "FRONTLINE" INTERVIEW ABOUT HIS BROTHER, "THE ASSASSIN":

In your mind, are there questions about whether Lee shot President Kennedy?

There is no question in my mind that Lee was responsible for the three shots fired,
two of the shots hitting the president and killing him. There is no question in my mind
that he also shot Officer Tippit. How can you explain one without the other? I think
they're inseparable. I'm talking about the police officer being shot and the president.
You look at the factual data, you look at the rifle, you look at the pistol ownership,
you look at his note about the Walker shooting. You look at the general opportunity
-- he was present. He wasn't present when they took a head count [at the Texas
School Book Depository].

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ews/oswald.html

[quote name='Jack White' post='188550' date='Apr 2 2010, 07:52 PM']

This, of course, is Jack's work and Jack's caption and, in case anyone has
missed it, I suspect Robert of playing a key role--both as an impersonator
and as a conspirator--implicating his brother for a crime he did not commit.

Jim..."suspicions" are not good research nor good history.

There is NO reason to suspect that Robert ever impersonated his brother.
There is NO reason to suspect that Robert ever functioned as a "conspirator"

Those may be interesting HYPOTHESES to consider in looking at evidence,
but NO EVIDENCE OF YOUR SUSPICIONS HAVE EVER SURFACED.

On the other hand, it is clear that Robert WAS AWARE that his mother
had volunteered his brother Lee to lend his identity to the government
to use in a false defector program. Lee was AWARE that an impostor
was using Lee's name and identity...and in fact, as part of this imposture,
Robert actually met the impostor and Marina at the THANKSGIVING
REUNION on November 22, 1962.

Therefore, it was a shock and great dilemma to Robert when the impostor
was named and the assassin. Robert testified that he went for a long
nighttime drive to think things over and sort things out.

During this drive, he decided that it would be imprudent to expose
the impostor since this would EXPOSE THE SECRET DEFECTION PROGRAM,
so he decided to keep quite. And anyway, he KNEW THAT THE IMPOSTOR
WAS NOT HIS BROTHER, so he decided to go along with whatever the
SECRET SERVICE TOLD HIM TO DO.

If Jim were to investigate Robert Edward Lee Oswald and prove his
"suspicions" correct, that would indeed be a startling new development
in the case. But I think Jim will find that Robert was just an ordinary
hard working family man who was a brick salesman...who got caught
up in an avalanche which was beyond his control.

But he KNOWS. He could still confirm what really happened. But he will
never tell.

Jack[/quote]