Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON JIM'S RESPONSE TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH"

NOTE: Jack writes in post #912 about the "blockbuster" post,

Just what is this blockbuster post about a missing tooth?
It is covered in great detail in Harvey & Lee...pages 91-92. Jim and
Judyth may be surprised to learn that it was LEE who had the
missing tooth...NOT HARVEY. (It was Harvey that JVB knew.)

So what is the JVB blockbuster? Armstrong DOCUMENTS IT
BY INTERVIEWING A CLASSMATE, Ed Voebel, who was present
during the fight between LEE and Robin Riley, who punched
Lee in the mouth. If the JVB version of the blockbuster differs
from this, it is FALSE.

Voebel told John that Riley knocked out an LHO tooth. It was on
the schoolyard of Beauregard Junior High School. That's it.

Jack

In post #914, he posts this graphic attributed to J. Pruitt in 2002:




JUDYTH COMMENTS:

Believe it or not, the 'blockbuster' matter is here, because one of the persons -- 'Harvey' or "Lee' -- was supposed to
have no front tooth. Yet we have no later photos showing a missing front tooth in either 'collection' so far as I am aware.

IT'S A BIG DEAL THAT LEE SAVED HIS TOOTH BECAUSE THIS SHOWS NO 'TOOTH' DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'HARVEY'
AND 'LEE' AFTER ALL...

The argument is that "Harvey" was returned to New Orleans. The photo at he school cannot be "Lee" as Armstrong
says a puny "Harvey" is going to school here. Yet the boy in the photo with the tooth out is obviously a big boy.



Here is the argument as I see it so far:

1) Armstrong says the teacher Myra D describes a small, puny boy who wants to be called "Harvey" -- but she is shaky
on other memories, such as homeroom record showing "Harvey" in a different classroom for home room, describing
"Exhchange Alley" and a "ballroom" instead of pool hall...She also mentions Voebel as "Harvey's" friend -- who always
called Lee "Lee."

So this is shaky to use as 'evidence' that "Harvey" is at Beauregard.

2) We have the photo of Lee Oswald and Dave Ferrie at camp, showing a "Harvey" who has grown a heck of a lot in a
short period of time...In fact, he is at the New York height....

3) We have the earlier photo of who is supposed to be "Harvey" showing off his lost tooth at Beauregard...But now, he is
called LEE -- because he is obviously not a shrimp?

Please tell me what is going on here. I do not have the book. Is Armstrong saying that "Harvey" returned from New York
with Marguerite, and is described as a "shrimp" by the elderly teacher, and as wanting to be called "Harvey" but somehow
in the same school we have "Lee" showing off a missing tooth?

Or is this supposed to be "Harvey" showing off a missing tooth?

I am curious to know, because the person in the photo is Lee H. Oswald, and he is not a shrimp. Can Jack explain what
we are looking at here, better, so I can understand? Because he said LEE was left behind in New York, and LEE and HARVEY
are registered at different schools...etc.

Can Jack make us a timeline?

For I have information about the school records that is quite different. It is based on information Lee gave about why they
left New york, when they left, and when thy arrived in New Orleans.

Meanwhile, this issue is important because....

LEE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXHUMED, MARINA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH ALL OF THIS, EXCEPT FOR EVERYONE
INSISTING 'HARVEY' WAS NOT LEE, THAT (HARVEY/LEE) HAD A MISSING TOOTH AND -- WORSE -- THAT THE MUMMIFICATION
PROCESS THAT HELD TOGETHER THE SKULL WOULD BE INTERPRETED TO MAKE A MORTICIAN (WHO IS NOT A DOCTOR OR A
FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST) THINK THE CRANITOMY NEVER HAPPENED AND THAT THIS MUST BE SOMEBODY ELSE'S SKULL,
BECAUSE IT DID NOT FALL APART.

THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS THAT I EXPLAINED IN AN EARLIER POST ABOUT PARTIAL MUMMIFICATION AND
CALCIFICATION THAT SEALS UP SUTURES.

I BELIEVE THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES AND THAT THE INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT.
PLEASE REREAD WHAT IMPLICATIONS ARE AT STAKE HERE.

THE HARVEY AND LEE MATTER -- WE NEED TO FIND OUT MUCH MORE ABOUT INTERVIEWS, ETC.

I AM CONCERNED THAT MYRA D WAS GUIDED TO SOME OF HER STATEMENTS, SUCH AS SAYING LEE WANTED TO BE CALLED
"HARVEY", SINCE LEE'S FRIEND, ED VOEBEL, CALLED HIM "LEE".

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE....

SOMEONE WISER THAN I AM CAN PERHAPS EXPLAIN WHY LEE WOULD HAVE ASKED HER TO CALL HIM 'HARVEY,' AS I KNOW LEE
DISLIKED HIS MIDDLE NAME.

I HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE RECORDS AT STRIPLING AND BEAUREGARD WHICH WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED YET.

I guess my analysis of the mummification process, and how calcification of the cranial suture where the bone was sawed, and
jellyfying of the scalp tissues in the partial mummification would hide the suture and also hold the top of the cranium secure with
the rest of the cranium...was not absorbed the readers...The exhumation should not have taken place if people had understood
how blood drained from the face changes the contours of the face drasically...the TERRIBLE job done by the mortician I shall not
comment further upon...But in the end, they exhumed poor Lee...

JVB

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188879' date='Apr 5 2010, 08:54 AM']
JIM REPLIES TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH" AND MUCH, MUCH MORE

I have now read pages 91-92 of HARVEY & LEE, which seem to imply that "Lee" suffered a permanent
loss of tooth. What struck me is that the alleged difference between "Lee" and "Harvey" is explainable
by the scenrio Judyth has sketched of the tooth having been restored. Are there records of either of
the alleged "Oswalds" having a false tooth? Are there adult photos of "Lee" as opposed to "Harvey",
because I have considerable reservations about the photo studies that have been discussed, where it
seems to me, apart from a few that do not belong in these sets, they may all be of the same person.

Since I am responding to your concerns and concede that my description may have been overblown,
how about reciprocating in relation to the question that Howard has raised about your having found
the abstract of a paper that Judyth had said she had presented, but which--like every other claim she
has made--has been vigorously disputed by someone on this forum or elsewhere? Would you be so
kind as to summarize the content of the paper whose abstract you discovered? That you have found
substantiation for some of her claims leads me to believe you may not be as biased as I have thought.

Reading more of HARVEY & LEE, I am getting a better sense for why Jack finds it impossible to even
talk about these things without making explicit his reference to "Lee" or to "Harvey", because John is
relentless in his usage of those names. It seems to me that Judyth's knowledge of the man she knew
in New Orleans--whom Jack and John call "Harvey"--does not depend on the refutation of the possible
existence of the other, but clearly does call into question some of the traits attributed to him, including
his place of birth, whether he could drive, and such, but not necessarily refuting their entire scenario.

It would certainly be a good idea, however, if one or the other of you were more responsive to some
of the points upon which Judyth appears to possess superior knowledge, such as Jack's false claim
that he was "undesirably discharged" (post #904), his false claim about the "index" in his attempt to
shield John from my criticism (posts #777 and #925), his false claim that we do not know how Lee
traveled to New Orleans (post #926), and his false claim about "Harvey" being unable to drive (post
#928), for example, which undermines any prospect for rational discussion of all of this (post #785).

I also believe that Judyth has raised legitimate questions about the photographic record that should not
be swept under the rug, as post #704, #830, #876, and #878, are serious contributions. I know her to
extremely gifted and knowledgeable about the man she knew in New Orleans and her arguments, such
as her eye color study in post #736, are brilliant and deserve to be acknowledged. I am deeply troubled
Robert's role in all of this has not been examined with more diligence. Posts as early as #469, #676, #679,
#689, #800, and especially #813 offer indications of the reasons for my suspicions. Perhaps David Lifton
will take pains to track Robert's role relative to his brother, which appears to me to be the key to the case.

There are obvious disadvantages to my becoming involved in this, since I have not been exposed to the
interrogations of Judyth in the past. For that very reason, however, I believe I have a contribution that
others cannot make. Sometimes a fresh look with a new pair of eyes can make a difference. I believe
that she has not been given a fair shake in the past, which I am attempting to provide here. And that I
am not immersed in the conception of "Harvey & Lee" also grants the intellectual freedom to consider a
different pair of "Oswalds", Robert and Lee, which I would like to believe may provide the stimulus for a
new look at the other brother who, in my estimation, is the ideal candidate to have impersonated Lee.

[quote name='Barb Junkkarinen' post='188873' date='Apr 5 2010, 07:44 AM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188826' date='Apr 4 2010, 11:50 PM']
So why did you bring it up again now, right after this blockbuster about Lee's missing tooth? You trade in trivia, while Judyth is making major contributions. Linda has it right: You post nothing significant because you have nothing significant to post. Your conduct here is utterly transparent.[/quote]

Oh please. There are many issues being discussed in this thread. I was responding to something Pamela said ... and used that as an example for her to tell us all how I "cherrypick" ... as I had posted it many many pages and posts ago, so it was already here.

But, I do stand in awe ... for you actually seem unaware that the debate over the "two Oswald's" .... Harvey vs Lee, the 2 schools, etc... and yes, the tooth ... is very old news! Your "blockbuster" has been discussed and discussed over the years. How can you really not already know this stuff ... and that it has been hotly debated over the years? Funny ... I even found an exchange Doug Weldon and I had on the issue in 1999 ... when someone else mentioned putting a tooth in milk so it could be put back into the socket. Ah, but it's Judyth's "blockbuster" that is the news and importance here, you'll say!

But this is not the first time Judyth has written/spoken about this ... she has on Rich's forum, on BlackOp and on the moderated group. Back as far as at least 2002.

It really astounds me that you seem to think this is some new groundbreaking news on Judyth's part ... and that you are so unaware of her story over the years. Yet you chastise others as if you are teaching them!

Her story was a little different then ... changed in midstream when a problem with her chronology was pointed out. First she had LHO telling her all about how Ferrie had slugged him and at least loosened the tooth after a CAP gathering at Ferrie's house (in her post here now she says LHO rode with Ferrie on a Harley to Ferrie's house after a CAP gathering) and then a week later it was knocked out by someone at school. She notes there was a famous photo showing it. The problem is that the photo was taken, and the school incident occurred, months before LHO attended CAP meetings and met Ferrie.

At one point she has Ferrie telling LHO about milk, at another time she has an unnamed person at school advising him to put the tooth in milk.

I did a post in 2004 that includes a chronology of it all ... something Dave Reitzes had put together of quotes and posted in 2002. Looks like most of this story was related by Judyth on the jfkResearch forum ... and Dave had those posts.

It is long, so here is the link for anyone who is interested. I could post it all here, but if this works for everyone, there is no need.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...r%3Ajunkkarinen

Kind of a wonder that Judyth wanted to delve back into this one, especially with the new change, though she did now say she may have mixed up some small details. :-)
[/quote]
[/quote]