Poking More Holes in Judyth Baker

[Jim DiEugenio]

I don't know how anyone can say that Josephs treat Anna Lewis' claims as real.

He does not.

And you should hear Debra Conway talk about that interview.

She was outraged at the whole thing. To her it was clearly rehearsed and scripted. But Anna was screwing up her lines.

In this article, David exposes at least four different aspects of the whole JVB ethos. I mean how much more do you want?

As Tracy writes, what this kind of stuff, alone with the likes of the James Files fiasco, is trivialize and turn into a sideshow what is really a national tragedy.

It is people like us who are supposed to be on guard against that.

Thanks to David, and Tracy for understanding that.

[Albert Doyle]

Ah James... He does. It's on the Education Forum.



If Anna Lewis is scripted why would the Judyth Vary Baker who doesn't believe in Harvey & Lee rehearse a time period for Anna's first meeting with Oswald that wasn't possible? Why would she tell Anna to say spring 1962?

[David Josephs]

It's depressing how much the waters have been muddied in the last few decades by fake witnesses, evidence, etc. A lot of energy and time has been consumed untangling various Gordian knots, since there is no Alexander to slice through them.

I also think that the JFK assassination has entered the realm of myth, and it's become almost impossible to separate the myths from the facts (like the search for the historical Jesus). The internet has dramatically sped up a process that used to take centuries.

You make an excellent point while describing the focus of my work.

By looking strictly at the evidence as indicative of the conspiracy - we can define it. We can show conclusively that the investigations and their results... the evidence left to history to describe the situation, is purely representative of the conspiracy that was perpetrated.

Ms. Baker represents what happens at the two ends of the spectrum.

Either what she is saying is totally and completely the truth which was hidden from the historical record or it is an elaborate hoax that has little if any effect on the study of the assassination.
If it were true, the evidence would make sense. There would be many more who can corroborate their being together (again, why have Anna get on film and muck it all up?)

With regards to Anna... only LEE could have been in New Orleans in Feb 1962... Baker does not say she is with that man but with Marina's husband.
Is it possible that LEE convinced her that he was Marina's husband? The it is LEE she is referring to in the summer of 63?

That might be worthy of research if that was what Baker asserted. But the entire story is Harvey's... Reily, Magazine, Murret, Bannister, Ferrie, Martin...
Whereas it was Ruby and Lee who were together from the time he returns after he leaves the Marines (per Gorsky - in March 1959) and seems to be involved in helping with Ruby's activities.

JA shows that Ruby was virtually untouchable in the gun running and other illegal activities while his comrades are arrested and detained. Lee being with a government informant also makes some sense.

In the end, the evidence Baker offers if woefully inadequate and raises more questions - like where in the world does that Copy B of the 1963 W-2 come from?
Were there special IRS forms used for CIA fronts?
And why wouldn't they make them look exactly like other W-2's of the era to avoid suspicion down the line?

We don't need 500 reasons why Baker is fiction... just 1 or 2 conflicts with the evidence offered. T
he article outlines these conflicts and asks, "why use these to corroborate the story when they don't?"

[Tracy Riddle]

Ransom Stoddard: You're not going to use the story, Mr. Scott?
Maxwell Scott: No, sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
(The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance)

In my younger days, I studied a lot of comparative religion and ancient history. You think there's a lot of controversy about the JFK assassination? Wander into the areas of Biblical archaeology or Egyptology and see what a minefield they are. All we know about ancient Carthage pretty much comes from the Romans, and that wasn't flattering. An early example of the winners writing the history books. People today are being oppressed and killed because of 3000-year-old myths about Palestine and Israel.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/...raper-text

"In no other part of the world does archaeology so closely resemble a contact sport. Eilat Mazar is one of the reasons why. Her announcement in 2005 that she believed she had unearthed the palace of King David amounted to a ringing defense of an old-school proposition under assault for more than a quarter centurynamely, that the Bible's depiction of the empire established under David and continued by his son Solomon is historically accurate. Mazar's claim has emboldened those Christians and Jews throughout the world who maintain that the Old Testament can and should be taken literally. Her purported discovery carries particular resonance in Israel, where the story of David and Solomon is interwoven with the Jews' historical claims to biblical Zion."

Because of the loss of ancient libraries like Alexandria, we have gaping holes in the record. So it became easier for people to believe the myths and legends. Just as there were once many Gospels of Jesus, and the Imperial-backed Roman Church picked four of them as the "official" Gospels, we have our official history and many alternate accounts. Sometimes the truth becomes unknowable.

With modern events like JFK/MLK/RFK, we actually have too much information, and a lot of it is irrelevant or false. I think I have a pretty good overall idea of what happened on 11/22/63, but many details are probably lost forever. A lot of questions may never be answered.

[Albert Doyle]

Is it possible that LEE convinced her that he was Marina's husband? That it is LEE she is referring to in the summer of 63?

That would explain a lot of the timing problems.

[Scott Kaiser]

David Josephs presents Anna Lewis's claim that she met Oswald in the spring of 1962 as real. I also think this might be credible. This could be perfectly explained by the non-defecting Oswald who stayed behind in America meeting Lewis as part of his spook ops.


This raises the dilemma of how many of her other claims towards Judyth Vary Baker are real?


I personally think JVB exposes herself by claiming Oswald came back from Mexico and described the curly haired impostor at the Cuban Consulate to her and other Mexico events. As it turns out history is showing that Oswald never visited Mexico. So I think JVB exposes herself as a fabricator here because Oswald couldn't have given fine details about those visits if he never made them. So JVB remains a mystery because it appears you can work from the sides towards the middle with her real and false claims.

Is it true, that the interviewees of Anna Lewis from Lancer was coaching her as to what to say? Someone pointed out that you could actually hear them in the background telling Ana what to say.

Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the message.

[Lauren Johnson]

David Josephs presents Anna Lewis's claim that she met Oswald in the spring of 1962 as real. I also think this might be credible. This could be perfectly explained by the non-defecting Oswald who stayed behind in America meeting Lewis as part of his spook ops.


This raises the dilemma of how many of her other claims towards Judyth Vary Baker are real?


I personally think JVB exposes herself by claiming Oswald came back from Mexico and described the curly haired impostor at the Cuban Consulate to her and other Mexico events. As it turns out history is showing that Oswald never visited Mexico. So I think JVB exposes herself as a fabricator here because Oswald couldn't have given fine details about those visits if he never made them. So JVB remains a mystery because it appears you can work from the sides towards the middle with her real and false claims.

Is it true, that the interviewees of Anna Lewis from Lancer was coaching her as to what to say? Someone pointed out that you could actually hear them in the background telling Ana what to say.

Don't shoot the messenger, shoot the message.

In one camera orientation you can see the top of someone's head sitting on the floor behind her. That was weird.

[Albert Doyle]

I heard some challenging of details but no direct coaching. Anna was a cajun who was afraid of looking bad so she was gesturing when to cut.

[Jim DiEugenio]

Scott gets it.

Albert, you were not there. Debra was.

This is a mistake you make often.

And as David says, what she is describing is Harvey--through and through.

[Albert Doyle]

Scott gets it.

Albert, you were not there. Debra was.

This is a mistake you make often.

And as David says, what she is describing is Harvey--through and through.

You probably misunderstand my intent. I think JVB has exposed herself with several provably false claims. Especially the Mexico one. However if you read David's post more closely there's no doubt he's saying that Anna Lewis must have seen Lee since Harvey was in Russia at the time.

Also, Anna Lewis responds to JVB quickly at one point of the interview regarding the degree of JVB's involvement with Oswald. The body language of Anna's instant response to JVB bespeaks truthfulness and reacting to a real memory. Anna says "I could say some things but I won't" (as if she could add some details about the degree of JVB's sexual involvement with Oswald). Unless this was a really good team of liars it appears she's being truthful.