Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON HOWARD'S 2001 POST REGARDING JUDYTH'S RECORD-KEEPING FOR LEE

NOTE: Howard Platzman has put it extremely well in his commentary about Paul Hoch: The evidence, when it is all laid out for you, is copious: This woman has lived a very unusual life, and no con artist could "insert herself" into Lee Oswald's life so neatly at so many points. When you consider the research Ed Haslam has done and published in DR. MARY'S MONKEY with the definitive evidence of Judyth's genius as a student of science and at research on cancer with the situation in New Orleans at the time, as he has explained it, I have a hard time appreciating why anyone would continue to doubt he truth of the core of her story in relation to Dr. Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Dr. Alton Ochsner. Everyone should be begin by reading Edward Haslam's through-going study.

Howard wrote this in 2001: 01/10/2001 12:19:59 PM Central Standard Time

This document is evidence we had given up hope of ever finding. It is well over a year and a half since I first heard about the missing piece part of the credit report. The crazy thing is that Paul Hoch, who found it, seems to think it hurts her case. Don't you think she'd have pulled this out of her hat to keep from losing CBS...FOUR SEPARATE TIMES?!

This claim, one among many, was one she had no reason to make and every reason not to (the intitials that aren't hers, e.g.). We have agonized over the seeming disappearance of this report. And now that it has been found, it is being presented as something she was saving to impress you all with at the right time. Well, the "right time" has come and gone.

I once had a great deal of respect for Paul Hoch, but he has refused to respond to personal e-mails in which I, quite calmly, I believe, point out the irrationality of his theories.

When countered, by J or Martin, he takes a step back. He seems no less biased than McAdams, with his last stated position being that she may have somehow "absorbed" the document, but she couldn't have written it. Yikes! From what position did she do so?

He has refrained from calling her a liar, so I assume this at least puts her at Reily's. But he has speculated that she saw it at the Archives, which, for J, would be tantamount to calling her a liar. It's silly to argue that she had a false memory of something she recently researched, so I guess it's "liar" by default.

Now, with this thing in front of me, I can see why J claims she had a devil of a time typing it. The typed portion had to be aligned with the preprinted subject line.

J spoke of boxes and lines: well here they are.



And she spoke of two sections (maybe two pages): well, here is one page with two separate sections



Note two other rather interesting things [about the copies he was viewing]:

1 - There is no company name on it, at least that I can see on my screen

[Note: we finally got a copy where you can see the company name, in 2004 JVB]

2 - The typed-in word "affect" in "savings and affects" is MISSPELLED!

So a man who does several of these reports a day (according to Hoch), who is a professional, who I would guess is likely to write this rather common phrase over and over again in the natural course of his duties, a man who surely has at least seen it before in text written by others (reports by other investigators, how-to manuals, client files, etc.), cannot even spell it correctly?! Is there no room for suspicion here? By contrast, this is (pardon me, J) just the sort of spelling mistake J makes (recently, "publically" for "publicly").

Note by JVB: Yes, I'm a lousy typist....Note that Desmare was the Supervisor over the other investigators. As if a supervisor (not mentioned as such except in one report) would do an investigation on a mere maintenance man rather than handing it to one of his workers.

But I did not have initials for any of them -- just for Mr. Desmare -- HCD -- as he had given me his card when Monaghan brought me over to Reail Credit's office.

I did not have access to Personnel files over at Reily's, for we were working in the small Standard Coffee Office.

NOTE WELL: For decades researchers stated Lee worked at "Reily Coffee Company," and I have been told that nobody --until I spoke out in 1999-2000 about our week together at Standard -- nobody mentioned that Lee had worked for a week a Standard. Perhaps because we managed to get all his checks issued from Reily.

We laundered his record, people, with the Reily check, and this report is a perfect example of our further laundering.

It says Lee came directly from the Marines to New Orleans, etc. More below, but back to Howard's post:==JVB==

3 - Even if J "researched" her way to this -- while forgetting to pull it out of her head when she needed it most -- what does a document that says Oswald had this kind of money (probably $16,000 or so in today's dollars)[$22,000 today!] tell us about him.

Surely it tells us he was not the pauper the WC described.

Yet the now "lone-nutter," Paul Hoch, doesn't even think this worth a mention.

What does this document tell him about LHO? I don't know, because he doesn't respond to me.

We should be celebrating the discovery of this report -- even our seasoned professional investigator gave us no hope of finding it -- not bemoaning its existence.[/b]

Howard

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

==Note: this report was buried a few places in official records. But we certainly couldn't find it.==

After Howard wrote the above, Hoch tried to pooh-pooh the report as a boiler-plate, something cranked out because the investigator was in a hurry. In other words, that Retail Credit cheated Reily and just pretended to write a background report.

A single telephone call to check if Lee had been in the Marines would have exposed his undesirable discharge and automatic disqualification as a Reily employee.

This is precisely why I was asked to prepare this background check.

My inexperience notwithstanding, that Lee and I having fun with his assets and possessions (Lee said, "Let's make me a successful Capitalist pig!") shows all over the place, but it didn't matter.

The goal was to transfer Lee (and me) after ONE week at Standard Coffee, to Reily's, to avoid Personnel there requesting a background report on Lee at the outset.

Note that we rigged it so ALL of Lee's CHECKS came from REILY's, even though it clearly states that Lee worked for a week a Standard. BTW, I have a check stub showing I worked at Sandard hat same week a Standard with Lee. It is attached.

The report iself says "Lee Harvey Oswald is employed as a Mantenance Man for the Standard Coffee Company and has been engaged in this occupation for the pas one week..."

I received secretarial training in that same week, and also laundered Lee's background report.

Then we simply walked it across the street to Reily's. Reily would not repeat a 'passed' background check from its own subcompany --it was an expense to avoid -- and Personnel scarcely looked at it.

MY background report was made IN MY PRESENCE at Retail Credit while Monaghan and I visited there.

Why did they cooperate to let us have blank forms, so I could create this?

Reily was building a new factory and was going to be hiring oodles of new workers, each of whom would need a background report. Mr. Desmare would have hopped around the block on one foot to please Monaghan, and he certainly couldn't say 'no' to my obtaining some blank forms "to write examples for the secretary training manual." And so we got the blank forms.==

Here is the next round between Paul Hoch, etc. and Dr. Howard Platzman. Note that McAdams & Co did not bring up the Retail Credit Character-Financial Report over at the Education Forum.

Here's why:

From: Howpl (howpl@aol.com)
Subject: Hoch is Back: Team Judyth Responds
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Date: 2003-08-25 21:09:32 PST

Well, not Team Judyth; just me. I promise to haunt this site as long as Paul Hoch is publishing here. Since he has for some reason decided to resurrect the famed "Hoch-Shinley Research," as MacAdams so pompously calls it, I have no choice.

This was a man I admired. [He has since revealed other aspects of his Lone Nut belief system --JVB]

Following are Paul Hoch's comments on the Reily background report and my annotations following two dashes (--) None of what appears below represents anyone but me. I have not "cleared it" with Judyth or Martin. Hoch's arguments in the past have not stood up to reason. The resumption of debate over this report actually finds him strengthening the case FOR Judyth.

See if you don't agree.

Subject: FBI interview with the author of Judyth's credit report
In a thread entitled "Problems with the "Judyth" story -- a
summary," John wrote:

"4. The Retail Credit fib -- Judyth claims to have written a somewhat bizarre, and highly inaccurate, background report on Lee. But the FBI interviewed the person who actually wrote and initialed it." [according to THEM! -- read on! JVB]

-- Hoch acknowleges that the report on Lee is "somewhat bizarre and highly inaccurate." We're off to a promising start.

Martin responded (on December 14):

"The person they interviewed didn't seem able to tell them much of anything except that his initials were on the report. The report doesn't resemble anything that a real background check would have produced. Paul Hoch never offered any explanation for those problems.

"In fact, Henry Coe Desmare "said he had conducted the investigation concerning OSWALD."

-- That's what he said initially, but the story changes. See below.

HOCH: He also remembered that the name of the aunt he had interviewed "was something like MUREL" (it was Lillian Murrett) and that she lived on French Street. Indeed, Desmare was identified because his initials are on the report.

-- When Judyth first mentioned the report about four years ago, she told me the initials of someone else, she guessed a secretary, were on it. [JVB: IT HAD BEEN 35 YEARS. It was Desmare, not a secretary...then I remembered I had been given Desmare's card....]

Evidently the report turned up in an FBI check of various businesses which might be expected to have a record of Oswald.

On November 23, FBI SA James Peck interviewed Vincent Imbornone, a clerk at the Retail Credit Company on Canal Street, who "furnished a carbon copy of a Retail Credit Company report, form 1630 dated May 16, 1963....

He advised that the report furnished bore the initials 'HCD' and explained that the person writing this report for his company was HENRY COE DESMARE.... He added that this individual was a supervisor for the Retail Credit Company."

Later that day, Henry Coe Desmare was interviewed by SA's Theodore Viater and Ronald Hoverson. He identified himself as "the [sic] investigator for the Retail Credit Company, New Orleans."

"After viewing a copy of a report dated May 16, 1963, concerning LEE HARVEY OSWALD, 757 French Street, New Orleans,

-- Not Oswald's address. He was no longer living with his uncle and aunt.

HOCH: ....he said he had conducted the investigation concerning OSWALD under Account No. 6605, which is the number for Standard Coffee Company, New Orleans."

References: NARA Record Number 157-10003-10115 (Imbornone) and 157-10003-10114 (Desmare); these items are also CD 75, pp. 440 and 438-439 respectively, published in CE 1141 (22 WCH 145-146); pointed out to me by Jerry Shinley.

The Monaghan interview referred to earlier, which quotes the credit report but does not indicate that it came from an outside firm, is CD 75, p. 30-32 (CE 1894).

[JVB: Of course, Monaghan didn't refer to Standard! That would have led to ME and well as LEE, hired same day, transferred to Reily the same day, Monaghan's complicity, and much, much more. Better to never mention he word "Standard"--and it worked. Nobody mentioned "Standard" that we know of, until I spoke out about it early in 1999.]

-- Judyth also told me early on that she composed the report during a week of training, off-site. It would make perfect sense for training in this activity to be conducted at a company engaged in this activity.

HOCH: There is no question that Desmare's report was superficial.

-- You already said "somewhat bizarre and highly inaccurate." "Superficial" waters down the meaning, don't you think? It includes nothing about Oswald's stay in Russia; "U.S. Marines" is shown as his previous address and employment.

-- Quite an oversight. Defecting to Russia was not exactly the national pastime. You'd think patriotic Americans, like Reily (who was heavily involved in INCA) and Judyth's own boss, Monaghan (ex-FBI), would want to be sure that they had not hired such a person. This was not an era that took background reports lightly.

-- Interestingly, another FBI exhibit reveals that Garrison considered indicting Reily as an accessory in the assassination. He wasn't, of course. But Reily and Monaghan knew who Lee Oswald really was. They needed a bland report for the files, so Lee's immediate supervisors [and the Personnel office -JVB] would be kept in the dark. Was a pro forma report typical of the work of the Retail Credit Company when one of their regular customers hired a maintenance man? That wouldn't surprise me.

-- This refers to the report questions. No reason for the questions to be "highly inaccurate" -- only the answers.

In my correspondence with Judyth, I said that the apparent author "admitted [to interviewing agents] that he could not explain some of the discrepancies they pointed out."

-- So Judyth's claim led to the unearthing of this virtually unknown piece of evidence. And instead of getting credit for drawing our attention to EVIDENCE THAT BLOWS AWAY THE WARREN COMMISSION'S ACCOUNT OF LEE'S FINANCES, she is accused of concocting the wild claim that she wrote it, as part of her larger concoction. Then she keeps her possession of it a secret from everyone, including Joe, Martin, and me since early 1999. [1998 corr. by JVB to 1999]

If she never planned to produce it, there was no use in holding onto it. And if she did plan to produce it, she somehow forgot to do so over the course of several rounds of dithering with CBS, in manuscripts sent to publishers, and in evidence shown to researchers who visited her.

HOCH: But the interviewing agents were apparently not interested in the accuracy or completeness of the background information Desmare recorded about Oswald. They were pursuing a more serious matter - apparent evidence of Oswald associates.

The problems with that apparent evidence are not relevant to claims about the authorship of the report, I believe,

-- Not relevant?! What sort of "belief" makes wildly inaccurate reports of 2-year "associates" in New Orleans irrelevant? Especially since he just moved back to New Orleans and he was in Russia 1 ½ to 2 years ago but here are the details.

The copy of the form given to the FBI by William Monaghan indicates that just one person was interviewed by Desmare. The first question on the form is "How long known to you and informants?" In the space for the answer is the typed information "1 1/2 yrs-2y" and "intv Aunt".

-- His aunt knew LHO for only 2 years?! Say again?

-- Even if this were true, he only lived with them for a few weeks in April of 1963.

The natural reading of this information is that Desmare interviewed one person, Oswald's aunt, and that she said that she had known Oswald for one and a half or two years.

-- Yes. [JVB: consider this absurdity: the Murrets had known Lee all his life!]

However, the carbon copy of the form which was retained in Retail Credit Company files bears the notation "intv Aunt and two personal associate_ of subject." ["_" is the FBI's convention for "sic".] As spelled out in the FBI FD-302, when Imbornone provided the form and identified the author he stated that this notation "apparently meant that the individual who conducted the investigation relative to this report and wrote this report had interviewed an aunt of LEE HARVEY OSWALD as well as two personal associates of OSWALD in New Orleans."

-- Yes, yes.

Consequently, Desmare was visited at home by two FBI agents. The presence of a second agent at an interview is often a sign of the seriousness of the matter.

My hypothesis is that Desmare interviewed only one informant, and sent a report reflecting that to Standard Coffee, but that in the file copy he padded his workload by adding the notation about interviewing two personal associates.

-- This would be hilarious if not for the fact that this is an important piece of evidence. What two associates? Do companies that compose such reports not retain somewhere the names and addresses of the people they interview? In any case, the report includes something the loan-nutter, Hoch, has no way to account for. It says, among the other bizarre and inaccurate things, that Oswald had the 2003 equivalent of $17,000 in "personal effects and savings."

Add the misspelling of "affects" - a term of art one would think a senior investigator would have long ago learned how to spell correctly ? and things get really fishy. This is rank speculation. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should believe this, and every reason why, if this was a common practice, the firm would be out of business rather quickly

Hoch: Perhaps he had a quota of interviews to meet. Or perhaps the notation was added by someone else, based on a misunderstanding.

-- "Perhaps" anything, Paul.

Judyth's story at least has the advantage of being simple and comprehensible. She wrote a report for the files that did not include any unsavory elements and made up essentially bland material that sounds nothing like the Lee Oswald we know. She did this as a part of an attempt to establish Lee's cover so none of his direct supervisors would raise an eyebrow.

First, it seems, Desmare confirmed the clerk's reading of the notation: "He stated that the notation at the top of the report 'intv Aunt and two personal associate_ of subject' made reference to the fact that he had interviewed OSWALD's aunt in addition to two personal associates.

Digging himself deeper into a hole, he told the FBI agents that "Under Item No. 1 'informants', the notation '1 1/2 yrs-2y' meant the two associates he interviewed knew OSWALD for 1 1/2 years and two years respectively."

The trouble with this explanation is that it means there is no information in the report to indicate how long the third informant, Oswald's aunt, had known him.

-- No, Paul, "the trouble with this explanation" is that, so far, there are two other associates unnamed and unaccounted for. Unless he gave Ferrie and Banister as references. (Joke.)

Again, I think that the natural interpretation is that she said "one and a half to two years" and that no other associates were actually interviewed.

-- Hold it. A moment ago, you said "Desmare confirmed the clerk's reading of the notation...[which implied] he had interviewed OSWALD's aunt in addition to two personal associates." That is the "natural reading of this information."m The meaning as set forth in your hypothesis is pure, unadulterated speculation.
　
Desmare was unable to explain the supposed two other interviews to the FBI agents.

"He said he had no recollection concerning the identities of the
associates but that the aunt's name was something like MUREL and lived on French Street, New Orleans."

[JVB: But the FBI agents stated that BEFORE Desmare said this, he had been SHOWN he credit report. Obviously, having read it, he was then able to somewhat recall 'Murret' as "Murel'--they cheated, and he STILL didn't get it right.]

"DESMARE said the requesting company, in this case Standard Coffee Company, sends a card listing the names of references and associates which he assumed were taken from application forms.

-- Who has possession of this card? Matt? Debra? Jerry? Where are the application forms? Show us any piece of evidence with names that Lee could have submitted as references and we will at least have the basis for a discussion. As it stands, we only have a bizarre claim that Lee knew his aunt for only two years and a senior officer at a credit check agency is willing to confess to gross incompetence. Was Reily not a good client?

It was his opinion that the names of the associates he interviewed were probably on the application in the files of Standard Coffee Company."

The agents pointed out that, in addition to John Murrett on French Street, the associates listed on the application were both said to be "on active duty with the U. S. Marines."

-- Which would have made them hard to interview unless they were stationed in or around New Orleans. Do you have any idea who these former Marine Corps buddies might be? Kerry Thornley was in New Orleans that summer, but not on active duty. The challenge to your hypothesis now grows even stronger, as the FBI has now given a description of how these two people were related to Lee. Care to further speculate on how the FBI came up with its information?

"DESMARE said the names of the Marines [Robert Hidell, J. Evans] were not familiar, and he could not recall whether he interviewed them or someone else in the neighborhood of 757 French Street."

The agents recognized that Desmare did not have a logical explanation:

"DESMARE was reminded that OSWALD had not lived at that address but used it as a mailing address and had used it beginning in May, 1963. DESMARE was of the opinion he may have contacted the personal associates of OSWALD in the neighborhood, but it was pointed out to him that they were supposed to have known OSWALD for 1 1/2 and two years respectively and that he had not lived in the neighborhood."

Desmare then gave up:

-- But not Hoch --

"DESMARE said he was unable to explain this other than to say that he must have interviewed someone at some place or he would not have reported it."

-- EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD SAY IF THE ONLY EVIDENCE YOU DID THE INVESTIGATION IS THE FBI'S ASSERTION THAT YOU DID. THE MAN CAN'T BE ANY CLEARER: HE REMEMBERS NOTHING. INDEED, HE MIGHT HAVE DENIED WRITING IT IF THE FBI DIDN'T SAY IT POSSESSED A REPORT WITH HIS INITIALS ON IT. DOES IT ALL COME DOWN TO THIS?!

YES, IF YOU BELIEVE HOCH'S ONLY WITNESS.

[McA]There is no indication in this FD-302 that the agents recognized another possibility, which would mean that there were no unidentified Oswald associates: that Desmare had padded his count of informants After all, the FBI agents never padded their reporting of sources.

-- He lived in New Orleans before. He knew his aunt for more than two years. So that means he "padded" his count from ZERO to three. That's not padding. That's making up out of whole cloth.

[McA] For the benefit of those who can work their way out of any evidentiary corner, and will come up with some scenario explaining how it was really Judyth, not Henry Desmare, who wrote this report:

-- You just made her testimony more credible, not less. I don't know why you remained fixated on this dead horse when she offers a highly detailed story -- which has not been even been released to the general public yet!

And you're not doing decently with the few pieces you have. Your hypothesis requires a highly dishonest investigator (if he lied back then about interviewing these people, whoever they are, why should we trust him now?). And it depends on a witness sabotaging the chance of a lifetime (60 Minutes) because she couldn't produce this document during the course of a 14-month saga with them.

-- Let me repeat the question I have asked you and Jerry before. Each time, you simply ignored it. WHY, IF 60 MINUTES WAS SO DESPERATE FOR HARD EVIDENCE, WOULD JUDYTH KEEP THIS DOCUMENT SECRET FROM THEM? They already heard about the initials.

-- Moreover, Judyth has from the beginning explained to me how much trouble she had "lining up" the answers on her typewriters (you older folks remember them, right?). When pressed by Martin and me to describe the document, she spoke of boxes and lines and carbons. When we finally saw it -- produced by the hostile Debra Conway, I believe, I could see exactly why she had so much trouble typing it -- compounding the fact, known all too well by her e-mail correspondents, that she is a lousy typist.

-- Another item that argues in her favor: her obstinacy when she could help herself by lying. Yours is not an uncommon experience, Paul. An "expert" on one part of the story, or one figure in the story, latches onto it and "catches" her in what they regard as an untruth. Knowing full well that she could plead "false or adulterated memory" and shake loose from criticism, she resists this course and insists, with more vehemence that before, that she is telling the truth.

Not always -- Martin and I and others have pressed her into uncertainty on some points -- but sometimes. For instance, she was interviewed by an editor of a major news journal [the Posnerite, Brian Duffy, a powerfl man who wrote a centerfold huge article on CASE CLOSED for US News & World Report, praising Posner!]

He pressed her for the exact date she received a piece of information, over and over again, in an obsessive manner that seemed a waste of everyone's limited time. The simple fact is, she could have just given a date amd NO ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE WISER. IN THIS CASE, AT LEAST, ONLY SHE WOULD KNOW IF SHE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH OR FABRICATING JUST TO GET THIS ANNOYING FELLOW OUT OF HER FACE. Still, she claimed she couldn't peg a date and refused to.

Similarly, when confronted with your arguments, she could have asked long ago for a pardon on the grounds of false memory; she is only human, as you point out, So you've provided a ready means of escape, but she still refuses. Have we grown so used to opportunism that we can no longer recognize heroism when we see it?

-- Finally, there is so much else in her story of far greater importance, and so much more evidence that she and Lee led synchronized lives for over four months in the spring and summer of 1963.

The Platzman Ratio Test is conclusive: this story has far too details that check out, details you can only get by searching corners of the literature few of us have ever visited. For many reasons, including interviews with family members who lived with and near her, I believe her story was not researched and that it is, as she told me from the outset, complicated but logical.

The evidence, when it is all laid out for you, is copious: This woman has lived a very unusual life, and no con artist could "insert herself" into Lee Oswald's life so neatly at so many points.

Not just insert herself, but allow us to understand him better -- through her relationship with him and his relationship to her project. The revival of the background report as a point of attack is, like the Great Cancun Crisis, just so much silliness.

Some of you may be wondering why I'm posting again after previous "hit and runs." The answer is I'm extremely angry and probably not acting in my own best interests.

It's just that there is so much pseudo-scholarship emanating from Judyth's detractors that I can't resist any longer.

Next on the chopping block: the Hoch Ratio Test, about on the same level of logical soundness as the Lifton Insertion Theory.

Howard Platzman