Poking More Holes in Judyth Baker

[Scott Kaiser]

And, in good news for parts of the Third World, Judyth has announced at the end of her interview a month or so ago that "Lee in Me" (sic) is going to be published in spanish, and she'll be in Mexico City for the big event !! Oh, Lordy.

Whatever happened to I don't travel, my life is in danger. Or, is this an attempt to see if she could get into Cuba by way of Mexico, I see it coming!

[Scott Kaiser]

And, in good news for parts of the Third World, Judyth has announced at the end of her interview a month or so ago that "Lee in Me" (sic) is going to be published in spanish, and she'll be in Mexico City for the big event !! Oh, Lordy.

Whatever happened to "I don't travel, I've received death threats," or is this just another step towards publicity? If it's not then why publish it? ::

[Albert Doyle]

I disagree Albert. The "Harvey & Lee theory" is founded on many bricks of solid documentation and witness testimony. Her claim is at best one more piece of confirming testimony if what she claimed was true. One more brick in the wall....

But to wade thru all the other dreck her and JVB have offered up to find one small gem seems a waste of time.

We've proven JVB is lying about Oswald coming back from Mexico and describing his visits to the Cuban Consulate. If it never happened then Oswald couldn't have described it. JVB is an interesting case because a good linguistic forensics expert would see a childish make it up as she goes along style to her accounts. I agree with Pamela Brown that JVB inserts herself into known Oswald accounts. She got caught with Mexico City. JVB is caught in a syndrome of having to insert herself so much that she then has no explanation for not being more on the radar.


However the same linguistic forensic expert could look at Anna Lewis's interview and realize when JVB said she only had a platonic relationship with Oswald Anna remarked quickly that she could challenge that but wouldn't. This fast reaction body language is what an expert would look at for a sign of telling the truth. It is also unlikely JVB and Anna would plan a ruse where JVB said she was celibate and Anna would refute it. Anna's body language of reacting immediately and saying to JVB "I could say something but I won't" was something that happened too fast for somebody making up a story. It is what you would look for with somebody recounting a real memory.

This is important because Anna also insisted in an equal manner that she met Oswald in the spring of 1962. This was before Harvey came back from Russia. I believe Anna met Lee.

A good detective would compute how this affects JVB and her stories.

[Scott Kaiser]

Right around 24-25 years ago JVB came out with her story about meeting Lee. She also met Alex Rourke, Ferre, Banister, Marcelo, and everyone else, but she never met Marina? I suppose if you're the other woman, why would you?

Within those twenty years or so I've heard stories about sixty minutes wanting to pick up her story, but would later be dropped like a hot potato, why? Is it because they couldn't find any evidence whatsoever that her and Lee had a relationship? Now, I'm not picking on her, but if there are some researchers who can tell me how many peanuts were packed in Oswald's crap the night before he went to bed on 11/21/1963, how is it they can't find any information regarding her and Oswald riding a bus, dating or even having a love affair?

Then! [AFTER] twenty years or so she suddenly remembers Rafael Cruz? Her exact words are, "I confirm Rafael Cruz was in New Orleans, and I know he was an associate of Oswald," why did it take more then twenty years for her story to come out regarding Cruz, or, is it because someone else came out with this story that she wanted to jump on the bandwagon?

Here's something that many folks may not already know, but when I found my father's address book, and I looked though it and found names like Frank Ferinnie who I knew was Sturgis and Bill Pawley who I knew as a child as Sidney Saks, I about shit my pants and immidatly posted that information right away, I didn't wait 20 years, hell, I don't believe I even waited a day, but my point is, if she really knew Cruz well like she says she did along with everyone else, then why hadn't she mentioned him in her book?

Now, I know that leaving out material may be common, I've done it, but I haven't been in this as long as she has, since 1963, and, I walked away from TrineDay, I have my reasons, but I also rewrote the entire book too, for some reason, something told me to leave out information. I suppose it was a test to find out who I was dealing with, and my suspicions only confirmed their actions. But, that's neither here nor there.


It just seems a bit fishy to me that if some folks want to push bullshit, and I don't use the word loosely, and, they ignore facts, then, it's no wonder we have a f%*#ed up society that will never again get congress to push for one last investigation because everyone is now to concerned about their own image.

I went through hell and back looking for those who killed my father, and I found them, to bad they're dead, because if they weren't, I guarantee you, I would have killed them.

Peace out, I need sometime away from all this.

[Scott Kaiser]

^Edited.

[Ray Kovach]

I disagree Albert. The "Harvey & Lee theory" is founded on many bricks of solid documentation and witness testimony. Her claim is at best one more piece of confirming testimony if what she claimed was true. One more brick in the wall....

But to wade thru all the other dreck her and JVB have offered up to find one small gem seems a waste of time.

We've proven JVB is lying about Oswald coming back from Mexico and describing his visits to the Cuban Consulate. If it never happened then Oswald couldn't have described it. JVB is an interesting case because a good linguistic forensics expert would see a childish make it up as she goes along style to her accounts. I agree with Pamela Brown that JVB inserts herself into known Oswald accounts. She got caught with Mexico City. JVB is caught in a syndrome of having to insert herself so much that she then has no explanation for not being more on the radar.


However the same linguistic forensic expert could look at Anna Lewis's interview and realize when JVB said she only had a platonic relationship with Oswald Anna remarked quickly that she could challenge that but wouldn't. This fast reaction body language is what an expert would look at for a sign of telling the truth. It is also unlikely JVB and Anna would plan a ruse where JVB said she was celibate and Anna would refute it. Anna's body language of reacting immediately and saying to JVB "I could say something but I won't" was something that happened too fast for somebody making up a story. It is what you would look for with somebody recounting a real memory.

This is important because Anna also insisted in an equal manner that she met Oswald in the spring of 1962. This was before Harvey came back from Russia. I believe Anna met Lee.

A good detective would compute how this affects JVB and her stories.

Albert, I understand that Anna's statements lend weight to the fact that "Lee" was here in the USA while defector "Oswald" was in Russia. Precisely because of the reasons you have eloquently stated above (among other things) I believe she was likely making a true statement (at least in her own mind) when she said what she did during that interview. But me personally, I've grown weary of people like Judith Vary. Trying to sort the wheat from the chaff of what people like her have to say about anything used to be frustrating for me. So I just ignore anything they say now, have said in the past, or will say in the future. That goes for all who are entwined in her charade, and that disappointed me especially in the case of Mr. Haslam, who I thought did some very good work. My whole point was that I have far too few days left on the earth to be squandering them on easily discredited persons and their statements. The "Harvey & Lee" scenario has been proven to me enough that I don't need Anna Lewis' spur of the moment statements to bolster my conviction that it's true.

And by the way Al, Peter Falk as Columbo was my favorite detective. What do you think he would've made of this conspiracy? Could he have rounded up all the culprits responsible in one episode? Or would it have taken 2 shows? LOL