Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT "HARVEY & LEE"

Let me say that I am just the least bit taken aback by your cavalier attitude
toward the "hunting photo", which has been among those you have used to
establish the existence of "Lee" as a person separate from "Harvey", whom
you insist was the person Judyth knew in New Orleans--the one who was
born in Hungary, could not drive, intellectual and interested in philosophy,
and all that, while "Lee" was the one who was hot-tempered, uninterested
in Marxism and could not speak Russian. You observe that the man in the
"hunting photo" does not look like "Harvey", which is true, but then almost
any random photo of an adult male would not look very much like "Harvey":

The "hunting photo" is NOT my photo, but was a personal photo allegedly
taken by Robert when he took Lee hunting just before Lee "departed
for New Orleans" for his defection. I copied the photo from LEE, written
by Robert Oswald. The way a Marine handles a rifle is not necessarily
indicative of what he would do when out hunting. Not everyone behaves
according to any preconceived notion. I have no opinion on the veracity
of the photo. It may be genuine, it may be faked. But it does not resemble
the LHO of Dealey Plaza.

I am also disturbed by your source, which is Robert, after I have explained
that he appears to be a prime candidate for impersonating his bother and
for publishing a phony book about him, including fake photographs. You do
not seem to appreciate the depth of instruction provided by the Marine Corps
with respect to the proper handling of weapons. It is not something you can
"turn on and off" like a spigot. It is a set of habits deeply ingrained within a
recruit that they are required to maintain. That you should have "no opinion"
of the veracity of the photograph raises extremely disturbing questions, not
just about the photograph but about the methodology behind "Harvey & Lee".

You have insinuated that, if Judyth or I do not know that the "Oswald ID" you
and John featured on the cover of HARVEY & LEE is fake, then we have no
qualifications for undertaking a study of the adequacy of your research on
this subject. And, of course, as you observe, it is featured on the cover:



On the inside flap, however, the immediate images that one encounters are these,
albeit with the order of the images reverse, "Harvey" to the left, "Lee" to the right:



where, as you may or may not know, Judyth has questioned the authenticity of the
image you label "Lee", suggesting that his face appears somewhat bloated, which
not only does not resemble the man in the "hunting photo" but, if you consider her
take on how it may have been produced, actually does resemble the man whom you
have labeled "Harvey" in the Oswald arrest photo. Where, if she is correct, then one
of the key pieces of photographic evidence that you have advanced to establish the
existence of "Harvey & Lee" tends to merge into two photos of one man, "Harvey".

From the photo image, I infer that you and John are well aware of the possibility of
forged documents and other forms of fakery in the documentary records, where, as
I have asked before, the methodology used to sort out the authentic from the non-
authentic requires consideration. You have told me (independently) that John only
relied upon "public sources", which guaranteed that these documents were genuine.
But that only establishes that they were "genuine documents" as physical entities,
not with respect to their actual contents. Indeed, in the Introduction to HARVEY &
LEE, which I find quite fascinating, John offers a brilliant explanation of the process
followed by the FBI to take evidence from Dallas, launder it and return it, and then
stage an elaborate "retaking of evidence" to create the impression that it was being
taken into possession by the FBI for the very first time! Which is a brilliant scheme.

I am less impressed, however, by the assertion on fourth page of the unnumbered
Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission,
who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence
Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what
John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page
WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26
volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that
was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry
for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275,
279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459,
461, 463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here?

Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of
this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her
SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as
the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976)
explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland,
has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In
2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the
Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of
publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions,
and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>.
Which leads me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong!

Not to belabor the point, but you have no warrant in taking for granted that the
documents and records that John Armstrong vacuumed up from "public sources"
are authentic in relation to their content as well as their existence as documents.
Unless you can authenticate the content of those documents, then we have what
most students of the assassination would call "a serious problem". And when we
factor in the propaganda expertise of Frank Wisner and his mastery of the media,
where he referred to his capacity to manipulate it to his will--CBS, NBC, ABC, The
New York Times, The Washington Post, and all that--as "The Mighty Wurlitzer", I
am more than a little floored by your reluctance to address the problem. Because
if we don't know which have authentic content and which do not, then what you
and John provided is only a starting point and not the answer to "Harvey & Lee".

[quote name='Jack White' date='Mar 29 2010, 02:55 AM' post='188089']
The "hunting photo" is NOT my photo, but was a personal photo allegedly
taken by Robert when he took Lee hunting just before Lee "departed
for New Orleans" for his defection. I copied the photo from LEE, written
by Robert Oswald. The way a Marine handles a rifle is not necessarily
indicative of what he would do when out hunting. Not everyone behaves
according to any preconceived notion. I have no opinion on the veracity
of the photo. It may be genuine, it may be faked. But it does not resemble
the LHO of Dealey Plaza.

Jack

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188041' date='Mar 28 2010, 02:49 AM']
JIM COMMENTS ON THE ALLEGED "HUNTING PHOTO OF LEE"

Let me state that his "hunting photo of Lee" categorically falsifies your
theory. "Lee", of course, on your scenario, was in the Marine Corps. I
can assure you that no one who had ever served in the Marine Corps
would hold a rifle or shotgun in the manner shown here. They would
have the weapon across their arms, cradled with the end pointed up-
ward. They would never display the casual, grab-ass behavior that is
displayed by the "Lee" of your photograph, which, as I have observed
before, looks like a completely phony photo in any case. But once a
man has served in the Marine Corps and acquired a minimal degree of
competence with a rifle, they would not handle a long gun as shown.
Either the man in the photo is not your "Lee" or the photo is a phony.

[quote name='Jack White' post='188015' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:59 PM']
I will reply to your questions in segments, because the forum format is
not good for a "mass reply".

Segments to follow.

Jack

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188010' date='Mar 27 2010, 07:38 PM']
Jack,

OK. Let's see if we can sort some of it out together. By "you guys", I am
referring to you, John Armstrong, and David Lifton, whom I have taken
to be the leading experts on Lee Harvey Oswald. I know that John and
you believe there were two, one "Lee", the other "Harvey", and that the
one Judyth knew in New Orleans was the one to whom you refer to as
"Harvey". According to Dawn Mededith, the one you call "Lee" (not the
one whom Judyth knew) was short-tempered, non-intellectual and could
not speak Russian, while the one you call "Harvey" was mild-mannered,
intellectual and fluent in Russian. You say the one called "Harvey" was
born in Hungary and liked the name "Harvey", while Judyth's says that
he was born in Louisiana, had a slight Cajun accent, and hated the name
"Harvey". So we know that at least some of this has to be wrong. OK?

I do not know if Lifton believes there were "two Oswalds", but I rather
suspect he does not. So what we know about "Oswald" is very obscure.
Now, in this new post you say that you have been suggesting for years
that Robert was involved in framing "Harvey", the man Judyth knew in
New Orleans as "Lee", who, according to you, was not his brother, even
though they looked enough alike that they were virtually "dead ringers"
for one another. In addition, in a recent post, you make this observation:

Today, 05:23 PM
Post #674

Super Member
****
Group: Members
Posts: 7127
Joined: 26-April 04
Member No.: 667

Robert Oswald, of course, knew that Harvey was not his brother, and to this
day he "cooperates" with the perpetrators, as does Marina...for safety reasons.

Robert, Marina and Ruth Paine are the only remaining living persons who
knew both Harvey and Lee. If they were to tell what they know, the case
would be solved.

Robert likely was an unwitting participant. Because both he and Lee were
Marines, and they looked very much alike, the military had photos and
records of both to use in creating confusion in the official record. I am
fairly certain that photos of Robert were in some cases used to portray
Lee. Of course Robert was ASTOUNDED when the assassination happened
and Harvey was named the assassin. What he had assumed was a rather
benign assignment of Lee took a very terrible turn. Read his testimony for
his reaction to the event.

Jack

So here are my questions:

(1) The man who died, according to you, was "Harvey", whom Judyth
knew as "Lee" and who was shot to death by Jack Ruby on 24 November.

(2) Although Robert was the brother of the one you call "Lee" and not of
the one Judyth knew and Ruby shot, they were "dead ringers" of each other.

(3) According to your latest, #678, you have always insisted that Robert
was involved in framing the man that Judyth knew and that Ruby shot.

(4) In your earlier, #674, however, you state (a) that Robert likely was an
unwitting participant and (B) was astounded when "Harvey" was fingered.

(5) Now, if Robert was helping to frame "Harvey", how could he possibly
have been astounded when "Harvey" was blamed for the the assassination?

(6) Reading his testimony for his reaction to the event sounds like a waste
of time when we know that (a) he "found" the Imperial Reflex camera no one
had been able to locate in the Paine's garage; (B) he had an affair with Marina
following her husband's death; and, © he move into a nice, new brick home,
which he previously could not have afforded. What speaks louder to you?

(7) Moreover, Judyth has shown that, when you correct for distortion, the
images of "Lee" and of "Harvey" tend to converge, which suggests to me
that, while there may have been "two Oswalds", they are not adequately
identified as "Harvey & Lee" but instead more plausibly as "Robert & Lee":



So my question for you, my friend, is how can you reconcile what I have
just presented, especially your claims (i) that Robert was involved in the
framing of "Harvey" and (ii) that he was an unwitting participant who was
"astounded" when "Harvey" was fingered as the assassin? I don't get it.

It is plausible to me that Robert was impersonating Lee on some occasions.
And I hope you are not going to suggest that Robert "found" the Imperial
Reflex camera, had an affair with Marina, and purchased a new brick home
because he had to "play along" with the perpetrators "for safety reasons"!

Jim

[quote name='Jack White' post='188002' date='Mar 27 2010, 08:36 PM']
Who are the YOU GUYS you refer to?

What are your questions?

I have always said that Robert Oswald participated in the framing of Harvey.
Harvey was not his brother, so he cooperated in framing him. Now what is
your question about this opinion? Are you saying I am wrong about Robert?
I have long said that some photos of "Lee" are really of Robert. Are you
disputing this? Your questions are not clear.

It is clear to me that Robert helped frame "LHO". I have said this for about
thirty years. Are you disputing this? I do not understand your accusation.

Jack

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='187998' date='Mar 27 2010, 05:53 PM']
JIM HAS MORE QUESTIONS FOR JACK ABOUT ROBERT OSWALD:



In post #469 on page 32, Judyth made the following observations:

I knew that Lee was aware of and even wanted impersonations. We covered up our tracks very well and after Lee left Reily, I could never dare meet him outside there anymore.

Just trying to say, when you know the man, you know some things simply aren’t true.

Then it's easy to find what is true and present it.

Lee told me he even had a relative there. In New Orleans, two of his relatives were working for Reily when he was, and one worker describes a relative as smoking who was actually Lee, as Lee mentioned his male relative smoked.

People should notice that the boy is leaning back...the photo itself has been altered slightly around the nose ...as many other photos, as well...also, though this is supposed to be the Bronx Zoo, Robert Oswald has a fuzzy memory on a lot of stuff, and remember, Lee was visiting John Pic's home, not Robert's, in New York.

Robert has committed various errors and told lies as well, due to his affair with Marina shortly after Lee's death.

He 'found' the damning Imperial Reflex camera in the PAINE garage that had been so thoroughly searched...



Right after being caught with Marina....

Robert then moved into a nice new brick house that he could not have afforded before then.


Then catch what Robert has to say about his brother Lee as the assassin of JFK during a PBS "Frontline" interview:

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

Robert Oswald:

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].

I watched the deterioration of a human being. You look at that last year -- his work, his family, trying to go to Cuba, trying to go back to Russia. His wife is wanting to go back to Russia. Everything is deteriorating.

You look at all the data there, and it comes up to one conclusion as far as I'm concerned -- the Warren Commission was correct.

JIM'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE ALLEGED "EXPERTS" ON LEE HARVEY OSWALD:

These observations suggest to me that Robert was a key player in framing Lee. This is quite outrageous. You guys are supposed to be the "experts" on Lee Harvey Oswald and I have to learn about Robert having what appears to be motive, means, and opportunity to frame him from Judyth? And you guys have the nerve to challenge her background and her competence and her qualifications? The situation here is entirely outrageous. This woman appears to me to be doing more to solve the case in relation to Lee Harvey Oswald than you and John Armstrong and David S. Lifton put together.

[quote name='Jack White' post='187962' date='Mar 27 2010, 04:04 AM']
Lee and Robert were almost as interchangeable as twins.

Jack[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO LIFTON ON LEE'S ARRIVAL IN NEW ORLEANS

NOTE: While I have previously responded to this Lifton post in more
general terms, Judyth refutes the purported details of his account. As
readers can discern for themselves, Lifton appears to have committed
a serious of blunders in making assumptions that turn out to be false.

This is a nice example of presumptuous reasoning passing for research.
The matter is settled decisively by Marina and Ruth's testimony about
his date of departure and the travel time by bus. Unless you think it is
more reasonably for Lee to sleep in the street, he checked into the "Y".

She provides an explanation that is about as reasonable as it could get.
I cannot imaging a more convincing refutation of Lifton's argument than
she has provided here. Consider this as one where Judyth defeats Lifton.
Lifton's statements are presented her in italics, Judyth's in roman fonts.

NOTE: JUDYTH CAUGHT TWO TYPOS ABOUT DATES I AM CORRECTING.

[name='David Lifton' post='188327' date='Mar 31 2010, 10:50 AM']
Jim,

On the matter of when Lee arrived in New Orleans, and what he was wearing on April 26, 1963, your statements are incorrect.

Fact 1: We do not know exactly when Lee Oswald arrived in New Orleans. We only know, for sure, that he went for an interview on Friday, April 26, 1963, at which point he was dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie

FROM JUDYTH BAKER:

FACT 1: From the Mary Ferrell Chronology:

April 23, 1963 (Tuesday) - Marina says that Oswald checks some baggage to New Orleans on his bus ticket on the day before he leaves. (WC Vol 22, p. 778; WC Vol 23, p. 526)

Question from JVB: WHY did Oswald check 'some baggage to New Orleans" on the day before he leaves by bus?

Answer: He had a lot of stuff: several boxes, sea bags, suitcases, a zippered bag, etc.

Question: Did Lee Oswald ever spend time in a YMCA, activities largely unknown, before making his presence known to wife or relatives?

Answer: Yes. Upon his return from Mexico City, Lee checked into the YMCA and did not tell his wife he was in town for a day and a half:

"October 3, 1963: Dallas: LHO checks in at the YMCA. Later in the day, he files a claim at the employment office

October 4, 1963: LHO applies for work at Padgett Printing Co. ..Later, he telephones Marina and asks for a ride to Ruth Paine's home and is denied.

He hitchhikes the 12 miles to Ruth's house."

Question: Did Lee Oswald use the YMCA at any other time, when his activities -- before he got a job a Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, and, subsequently after work hours at J-C-S -- were largely unknown?

Answer: Yes. On Oct. 15, 1962, Gary Taylor drove Oswald to the YMCA, where he checked in to room 415. He checked out of the YMCA on Oct. 19th. Between Oct. 19 and Nov. 2, his address was undiscoverable to the Warren Commission. From Oct. 9 until he filed for a post office box, sometime on Oct. 11, 1962, nobody knew where Oswald was.

Question: When did Lee Oswald leave Texas for New Orleans?

Answer: Oswald had considerable baggage, including boxes, sea bags and suitcases. Marina Oswald told the Warren Commission that on April 23, 1963 , a Tuesday, Oswald checks baggage to New Orleans on his bus ticket "the day before he leaves."

Note: Marina's testimony as to when Oswald leaves for New Orleans is 7 months after the fact, while Mrs. Lillian Murret's testimony is that Lee moved in with them a while after Easter, perhaps as early as a week after EASTER (APPROX. April 22). However, Mrs. Murret also testified that Lee Oswald stayed with her family about 3-5 days, at which time he obtained a job and called his wife to join him in an apartment -- this was MAY 9, 1963. Marina arrived May 11.

Question: If Lee Oswald stayed 5 days with the Murrets, then he was not present there before May 5, 1963.

Answer: Marna said Lee Oswald left for New Orleans on April 24, a Wednesday. When Baker met Oswald on the 26th, he told her he had arrived in town on April 25th. It is 523 miles between Dallas and New Orleans, and the trip lasted at least twelve hours. If Oswald left Dallas on the 24th, he could easily have arrived after midnight on the 25th.

It is not surprising that he would follow a pattern used before -- first checking into the YMCA and contacting relatives later.

Question: But what about Oswald calling his relatives at the bus station, where all his baggage was located?

Answer: Imagine trying to move everything from the bus station -- boxes, sea bags, etc. -- to the YMCA after a long and weary rip on he bus. And at the "Y" it must then be kept safely -- in a locker -- and a cab has to be hired to carry all the objects to the "Y". And lee must spend money with the cab timer running in order to transfer baggage into the multi-story building and then to an upstairs room. It would take several trips to do so and run up the tab.

Instead, Oswald did the logical thing. He took the bag of things he needed with him, and -- just as he had checked in his baggage a day early at the bus station in Dallas -- in New Orleans he checks in his luggage and sea bags into a couple of lockers at the bus station again, which he will later have moved by the Murrets.

Question: Why didn't he go to the Murrets sooner?

Answer: Lillian Murret forgot that, when she first saw Lee -- and she testified to this -- he came over with just a small bag and had nothing suitable to wear to hunt for a job. She asked him to return and said that she would find something appropriate for him to wear.

Lee spent a Saturday night with his aunt and uncle, I think, because he reported eating a nice supper with them. Lee was very busy working with Guy Banister during his first week in New Orleans -- and also helping me find a room.

When a police raid forced me to move, the pastor and his wife who helped me called Lee Oswald at his aunt and uncle's house. The date was May 4. Lee Oswald came over about noon, ate lunch with the pastor, wife and me and then made calls from the rectory's phone there. He was able to find an apartment for me. Lee was located a hat time -- May 4 -- at the Murret's.

He had moved in with them recently. But when I met him on April 26, he was living at the YMCA.

Charles "Dutz" Murret picked Lee up at he bus station where Lee retrieved all his possessions and stacked them into the car. He did not want to burden them for too many days with his presence...
He was also a bit shy, not knowing how hey might treat him when he had been a (fake) "defector,."

For that reason, he had not contacted them from Texas after moving back to the US from the USSR.
So he was shy about simply moving in, and stayed at the "Y."

Later, he felt welcome and then moved in. NO long packages such as a rifle were reported or observed. Lee's things were placed in the Murret's garage stacked next to their washing machine. He began an active job search (for show) and they were then handy witnesses -- but, in fact, his Reily job had already been prearranged.

As the respected witness, Adele Edisen, has made clear -- and I concur -- Lee Oswald's address was known to more than one person before he moved into his apartment. He knew what his address would be when he placed me within easy walking distance of his own apartment at 4905 Magazine S. (often erroneously listed as 4907 Magazine, a false address he had placed on many documents, which I explain in my book), to which address the Murrets then transferred his luggage, sea bags and boxes upon the arrival of Marina and Ruth Paine. Lee had one suitcase full of Marina's clothes and baby clothes, by the way.

April 23, 1963 (Tuesday) - Marina says that Oswald checks some baggage to New Orleans on his bus ticket on the day before he leaves. (WC Vol 22, p. 778; WC Vol 23, p. 526)

Fact 2: Lillian Murrett, Lee's aunt, testified that Lee first called on Monday, April 29, and said he was at the bus station, which has been corroborated by her daughter, Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time.

==DISPUTED: Lee moved in with the Murretts some time after April 27, 1963, at the earliest. I have already explained that, based upon Marina's reports and bus ticket information, we know when Lee arrived -- early on April 25th.

Lifton errs in MAKING ASSUMPTIONS, once again, without checking the full record.

He assumed that because Lee called from the bus station--and that the Murrets assumed that that was when he arrived -- that that was when he arrived from Texas.

Marilyn said she talked to Lee the first day she thought he arrived in town and ha they had quite a long talk. But, as stated above, Lee might not always tell tell people the date on which he arrirved. Marilyn was VISITING with the Murrets -- a grown daughter -- and I believe had even been to Atsugi, Japan, and many other places by then.

Mr. Lifton failed to read what Marina -- who surely should know -- had to say about when Lee left Texas. As for me, I sought it out because I knew what date to look for -- the 25th -- which Lee had told me was the day he arrived.

Why can we trust this element of Marina's testimony? How could she remember this date?

An inventory of Ruth Paine's papers exists at Swarthmore College, showing that Ruth Paine took Marina Oswald into her home on April 24th and that she drove Oswald to the bus station that same day. It would be a date hard for Marina to forget.

Putting fact 1 and fact 2 together, it seems clear that Lee was in New Orleans by Friday, April 26, at which time he went for the interview, dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie. (And then called his family on Monday, claiming to have just arrived).

==Amazing -- and cause for concern -- is that Lifton again ignores his Aunt's testimony that Lee had came to her home the day before and HAD NO SUIT and that he had to return to her home the next day. Obviously, if he has to return to her, Lee Oswald is not living there.

Lifton DARES to again state what he has been shown to be false. This is a mater of concern. Does Mr. Lifton cherry-pick evidence to suit him, even if it is not true? or is it only in relation to his efforts o discredit me as a witness? Will he, in the future, continue to assert this blatant falsehood for the world to see?==

When I spoke with Judyth, who claimed to have met Lee for the first time at the Post Office--and that date being April 26, 1963--and when I asked Judyth how Lee Oswald was dressed, she said he was in workman's clothes. She made a big point of this.

Unfortunately for Judyth, who apparently attempts to insert herself into the record, whereever she spots an opening, she was unaware--I repeate UNAWARE--at the time I spoke with her (on March 4, 2000) of the Rachal Deposition Exhibit, and the Rachal affidavit, both of which are in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission Report.. These two documents offer credible evience as to what Oswald was wearing on Friday, April 26, 1963, at the time of his job placement interview at the Louisiana Department of Labor. The Rachal Deposition Exhibit includes John Rachal's handwritten notes, recording Lee Oswlad's appearance when he appeared before him for a job placement interview: "Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite." (Rachal Deposition Exhibit--see WC Volume 21, page 283). In his 6/22/64 Warren Commission affidavit, he swears: "I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview." (WC Vol 11, p. 475).

I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE MY EYES (WHICH ARE GETTING VERY TIRED; SORRY ABOUT CAPS). WE HAVE ALREADY DETERMINED THAT LEE OSWALD HAD TO GO TO HIS AUNT'S HOME TO OBTAIN A SUIT TO WEAR, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE ONE. UNBELIEVABLY, LIFTON IGNORES THIS FACT.

SO NOW I SHOW THAT LEE OSWALD LEFT FOR NEW ORLEANS ON THE 24TH.

LIFTON TRIES TO PROVE THAT OSWALD ARRIVED ON THE 26TH -- DESPITE EASILY VERIFIABLE FACT THAT OSWALD'S TRIP WAS NOT MORE THAN 15 HOURS. WHICH MAKES HIM ARRIVE ON THE 25TH, JUST AS I SAID.

SADLY, LIFTON DISPLAYS PREJUDICE AND ALLOWS IT TO CLOUD HIS JUDGMENT. ONCE AGAIN, ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT MARINA AND RUTH PAINE HAD TO SAY ABOUT THIS.

FACT: LEE OSWALD PLACED LUGGAGE AND BAGGAGE IN A LOCKER AT THE BUS STATION A DAY PRIOR TO LEAVING TEXAS.

FACT: MARINA MOVED IN WITH RUTH PAINE AND RUTH DROVE LEE TO THE BUS STATION ON APRIL 24.

FACT: THE TRIP TAKES ABOUT 14 HOURS. LEE OSWALD OLD JUDYTH VARY BAKER HE ARRIVED IN NEW ORLEANS ON APRIL 25TH. HE SAID HE CHECKED IN AT THE YMCA.

FACT: LEE OSWALD HAD TO BE STAYING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN APRIL 25 AND AT LEAST UNTIL APRIL 27TH, THE DATE ON WHICH LIFTON INSISTS OSWALD MOVED IN WITH THE MURRETS.

FACT: LEE OSWALD IS ON RECORD AS HAVING LIVED AT YMCA'S AND NOT TELLING RELATIVES HE WAS THERE, WHICH MEANS WE HAVE PRECEDENT.

FACT: AS A WITNESS, I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. LIFTON IS A RESEARCHER WHOSE ASSUMPTIONS HAVE NOW -- SEVERAL TIMES, ACTUALLY -- LED HIM DOWN THE WRONG TRAIL. PERHAPS HE WILL LISTEN TO ME IN THE FUTURE.

At my request, Jack White kindly posted an exhibit I prepared depicting the relevant excerpts from these two documents.

That "initial interview" was on Friday, April 26, 1963, and--at the time I spoke with her (March 4, 2000)--Judyth apparently was unaware that the published records of the Warren Commission--in the form of these two Rachal items--offered documentary evidence as to what Oswald was wearing on that particular day.

Jack has only helped mire Daid Lifton deeper in his own set of errors for everyone to see and contemplate....everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness

Consequently, when I questioned her--on March 4, 2000--she glibly asserted (PREJUDICED STATEMENT: THE WORD HE USED BEFORE WAS 'INSISTED', WHICH HAS NOW BEEN DEGRADED) that Lee was dressed in workman's clothes, and, as I recall, appeared somewhat grubby.

==IF HE MAKES THAT CLAIM, THEN I SUSPECT THAT MY SOUND BYTES HAVE BEEN ALTERED==

Furthermore, when I asked her a second time (and perhaps even a third time) to nail down this point, she became somewhat hostile and defensive, as if to ask "Why do you want to know?"

==I HAVE NEVER BEEN HOSTILE OR DEFENSIVE IN ANY INTERVIEW. IT WAS LIFTON WHO WAS COLD AND CALCULATING WHEN HE SPOKE WITH ME AND SECRETLY AND ILLEGALLY TAPED ME.==

Now, 10 years later, and because of the information I released (via Jack White, just in the last week), Judyth has had a serious "Ooops" moment.

==EVERYONE READING THIS MUST REALIZE BY NOW THAT LEE OSWALD LEFT TEXAS ON THE 24TH, AS BOTH MARINA OSWALD AND RUTH PAINE TESTIFIED, AND THAT -- UNLESS OSWALD SLEPT ON THE STREETS FOR SEVERAL DAYS -- HE APPARENTLY CHECKED INTO THE 'Y.'

MOREOVER, THIS WAS CHARACTERISTIC AND PREDICTABLE BEHAVIOR ON HIS PART.

AND FURTHER, BECAUSE HE WAS FRUGAL, OSWALD, KEPT HIS BELONGINGS AT THE BUS STATION IN A LOCKER, PRECISELY AS I TOLD EVERYBODY IN 1999.

FOR A DECADE I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET THE FULL DETAILS OF LEE OSWALD'S LIFE TO THE PUBLIC.

SOMEBODY PLEASE ASK LIFTON AND JACK WHITE TO STOP REPEATING ACCUSATIONS PROVEN EMPTY.

SEEING THAT MR. LIFTON IGNORED EVERYTHING THAT DR. JAMES FETZER POSTED ON MY BEHALF -- AND EVEN THOUGH I HAVE BACKED UP EVERYTHING WITH OFFICIAL RECORDS -- THEN, SINCE LIFTON IS AN INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUAL, I AM FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT HE IS WILLING TO BEAR FALSE WITNESS TO ACCOMMODATE HIS OWN PURPOSES.

THIS MEANS HE IS CAPABLE OF REPEATING THESE FALSEHOODS ELSEWHERE IN PRINT TO OTHERS AT ANY TIME. IF HE DOES SO, THAT CONSTITUTES LIBEL. IF HE SPEAKS PRIVATELY TO OTHERS REGARDING THESE ISSUES, HE IS COMMITTING SLANDER.

MR. LIFTON APPEARS TO BE COMFORTABLE DESTROYING A WITNESS.

I HAVE GIVEN UP A GREAT DEAL FOR THE SAKE OF THE TRUTH.

ON THE OTHER HAND, MR.LIFTON HAS MADE ASSUMPTIONS AND BEEN SLOPPY IN RESEARCH. AND SEEING WHAT MR. LIFTON MANAGED TO MISS IN JUST THIS SMALL SECTION OF OSWALD'S LIFE, PERHAPS IT'S BETTER THAT HE HAS NEVER PUBLISHED HIS OSWALD BIOGRAPHY.==

Now, she realizes that she had Oswald dressed in the wrong clothes, (and on the day of their very first meeting, no less!) And I stress this point because, after all, it is common knowledge that we usually remember what someone who means so much to us was wearing the first time we met them.

==REPEATING FALSEHOODS -- HE ACTS AS IF I HAD NOT REFUTED THIS -- SEE ABOVE==

So what does Judyth do? Why, she does what she always does: she comes up with an "explanation." In this case, Judyth simply manufactures some new dialogue to her narrative, as if this is not an accurately documented history, but rather a "work in progress," a screenplay which she can change anytime she wishes. And so now she writes: "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."

==NOTHING NEW HERE. I STATED THE SAME IN 1999. YOU COULD HAVE BEEN THERE, ASKING QUESTIONS. SHACKELFORD, LIVINGSTONE, PLAZTMAN, DANKBAAR, TURNER, DEVRIES, AND MARRS GOT THOUSANDS OF ANSWERS. WHERE WAS LIFTON? HE HAS NO IDEA WHAT I'VE SAID.

HE HAS ONLY SEEN WHAT HAS BEEN POSTED. ALL RESEARCHERS WORKING WITH ME KNOW I DO NOT POST EVERYTHING I KNOW ABOUT A SUBJECT. THEY GET EXTRA INFORMATION. LIFTON HAS NO CONCEPT OF WHAT I HAVE TOLD HONEST RESEARCHERS. HE IS IN NO POSITION TO JUDGE==

Let's focus on just what is going on here: I produce evidence --from the 1963/64 record--that, on April 26, 1963, Lee was dressed in a "dress shirt, and tie" and Judyth now adds, in March, 2010, almost 47 years later, "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."

==HE REPEATS HIS FALSE STATEMENT YET AGAIN. HE KNOWS THAT IF SOMETHING IS REPEATED ENOUGH IN THE THREAD, SOMEBODY MIGHT READ IT AND MISS THE TRUTH.==

Is this plausible?

==YES. IT IS CERTAINLY MORE PLAUSIBLE THAN HAVING LEE SLEEPING IN THE STREET==

Is Judyth credible?

==IS MR. LIFTON CREDIBLE?

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

1) HE ASSUMED LEE OSWALD ARRIVED APRIL 26, 1963 WHEN MARINA OSWALD AND RUTH PAINE SHOW HE LEFT TEXAS APRIL 24TH. REPEATING THIS ERROR AFTER BEING CORRECTED DOES NOT MAKE HIS VERSION TRUE.

2) HE ASSUMED LEE OSWALD HAD A SUIT, WHEN HE DID NOT.

3) HE ASSUMED THAT LEE OSWALD MOVED IN RIGHT AWAY WITH THE MURRETS WHEN WE HAVE LILLIAN MURRET SAYING LEE CAME OVER WITH NO CLOTHES AND RETURNED THE NEXT DAY FOR A SUIT.

4) HE ASSUMED--BECAUSE MCADAMS' WEBSITE SAYS SO?--THAT LEE LIVED WITH THE MURRETS BETWEEN APRIL 27 AND MAY 11, WHEN MARINA ARRIVED. BUT THE MURRETS SAID HE WAS LIVING WITH THEM ONLY 3-5 DAYS. LEE IN TOWN FROM APRIL 27. LIFTON'S VERSION WOULD HAVE LEE OSWALD AT THE MURRETS FOR 13-14 DAYS.

5) HE ASSUMED THAT BECAUSE LEE CALLED THE MURRETS FROM THE BUS STATION THAT HE HAD JUST ARRIVED IN NEW ORLEANS -- ACCORDING TO HIM, ON APRIL 27.

6) HE IGNORED THE BUS TRAVEL TIME DISCREPANCY

7) HE IGNORED MARINA'S AND RUTH'S TESTIMONIES

8) HE IGNORED THE EVIDENCE I HAVE PROVIDED

Are we supposed to take this ad hoc revision serioiusly?

==IT IS LIFTON WHO HAS PRODUCED AN INACCURATE 'AD HOC' VERSION. IT IS NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.==

But that's not the end of it, because Lee was not just wearing a dress shirt--he was wearing a suit, (and a tie). So now what can we do about those two "inconvenient truths"?

==HERE IT IS, REPEATED AGAIN!==

Well, I'll tell you what Judyth does: she engages in speculation as to where Lee obtained the suit. She writes:

NOW QUOTING FROM JUDYTH'S POST:

"Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt -- he did not mention a suit-- perhaps his relatives generously added the suit?" UNQUOTE

==I WAS NOT PRESENT TO SEE LEE OSWALD IN THE CLOTHING DESCRIBED. BUT I WAS ABLE TO READ THAT HIS AUNT HAD SAID SHE WAS GOING TO PROVIDE SUITABLE CLOTHING FOR HIM. I ALSO KNEW THAT LEE SAID HE HAD TO 'LEAVE' BECAUSE HE HAD 'TO PICK UP A WHITE SHIRT.' THIS IS NOT SPECULATION,. THIS IS A STATEMENT FROM THE WITNESS. LEE OSWALD BROKE OFF OUR CONVERSATION AND GAVE ME A REASON FOR BREAKING IT OFF.==

And then she adds these statements:

QUOTE

(1) " Lee leaves me in the morning and has time to see his aunt and change clothes."

(2) " Here is a logical time line: . . .April 25 [Thursday] -- Lee arrives around 11:00 AM from Dallas, checks into the YMCA, calls his relatives, and they invite him over. . . Most of he day, he spends with his aunt and uncle and cousin, talking. It's been ten years, after all."

UNQUOTE

But here's the problem with Judyth's "logical time line," and her 2010 attempt at a reconstruction: Lee's Aunt, Lillian Murrett, testified that when she first heard from Lee (who said he was calling from the bus station) it was on "a Monday." That's right: Monday, April 29, 1963.

==LIFTON AGAIN REPEATS EVERYTHING ABOVE--SO THAT HIS READERS WILL ONLY SEE HIS ARGUMENT A THE END. BUT I WILL STICK WITH HM. ONCE AGAIN, SCROLL TO NEAR THE TOP OF HIS LONG MESSAGE TO SEE THAT LEE OSWALD KEPT HIS BELONGINGS AT THE LOCKER AT THE BUS STATION. OSWALD WAS DESCRIBED ON HIS FIRST VISIT TO THE MURRETS AS CARRYING JUST ONE BAG WITH HIM. READ ALL OF IT ABOVE, DO NOT REPLY ON LIFTON'S MISSATEMENTS (AGAIN! WHY REPEAT HIMSELF? IT'S AN OLD TRICK TO HAVE HIS STATEMENT AT THE BOTTOM, FOR PEOPLE TO SEE AS THE 'FINAL VERDICT". I WILL NOT LET THAT HAPPEN. SCROLL UP AND SEE THE TRUTH.==

This testimony is also supported by the testimony of cousin Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time.

==REPEATED AGAIN....SCROLL UP AND SEE THE RUTH.==

But Lee's interview in which he was so nicely dresse was on Friday, April 26.

==HE REPEATS THIS AGAIN AND REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE AS REASONABLE REFUTATIONS OF HIS MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS==

So regardless of what day Lee may actually have arrived in New Orleans--THEY first heard from him on a Monday, and specifically, Monday, April 29, 1963, which means there is a three day "missing period" between Friday, April 26,

==LIFTON IS REPEATING HIMSELF AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN, NEVERTHELESS==

when he showed up at the Louisiana Labor Dept office, for an interview (and was dressed in a suit, white shirt, tie, etc.) and the time he first called his relatives, said he was calling from the bus station, and claimed he had just arrived in New Orleans (which was obviously not true)...

==INSTEAD OF NEEDING TO READ ANY MORE, SAVE SOME TIME AND SIMPLY SCROLL TO THE TOP FOR THE TRUTH AND READ THE EARLIER POST WHERE I REFUTED WHAT LIFTON NOW IGNORES.==

So: Lee Oswald was obviously not telling the truth as to when he arrived, and where he had been, for clearly, he was at the Louisiana Labor Department on Friday, April 26, dressed in the white shirt, suit, and tie.

==THERE IS NO CONFLICT. THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT WAS CREATED BY LIFTON'S OWN FAILURE TO ASK WHAT TIME I SAW OSWALD. HE ASSUMES OSWALD CAME TO NEW ORLEANS AFTER A 14 HOUR BUS RIDE READY TO INTERVIEW AT AN EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, WHERE HE LOOKED CRISP AND FRESH. THIS, HOWEVER, VERGES ON THE PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.==

But now, back to Judyth, and her "work in progress": Whatever the explanation is for where Lee was for three days (and Judyth will no doubt be adept at coming up with something),

==I AM ADEPT AT "COMING UP WITH SOMETHING" BECAUSE I TELL THE TRUTH. I AM A WITNESS. I WAS THERE. LIFTON IS A RESEARCHER WITH OBVIOUS PREJUDICES. HE MAKES ASSUMPTIONS AND DOES NOT DO SUFFICIENT RESEARCH, AS PROVEN IN THIS THREAD. I AM NOT SAYING THIS MALICIOUSLY. I HAVE POINTED OUT KEY TESTIMONY THAT HE HAS IGNORED, ASSUMPTIONS HE HAS MADE, AND OMISSIONS HE HAS OVERLOOKED. LIFTON HAS OSWALD TAKING A 2 DAY BUS RIDE AND ARRIVING FRESH FOR AN INTERVIEW IN A SUIT OR SLEEPING ON THE STREETS FOR 2 DAYS, THEN GOING FIRST THING IN THE MORNING, FRESH AND CRISP, IN SUIT, TIE, ETC.==

the fact is that Oswald could not have borrowed such clothing from his relatives (to wear on Friday, April 26) if he didn't see them until Monday, April 29. Furthermore, his aunt Lillian's reaction on first seeing her nephew was that he needed better clothing and she offered to help him get better clothes. Again, no mention of having loaned him anything--no loan of a suit, tie, dress shirt, etc.

==MURRET'S TESTIMONY SHOWS SHE IS CONCERNED AND SAYS SHE WILL PROVIDE HIM WITH CLOTHING TO HELP HIM...SHE IS ON RECORD AS BUYING A FULL SET OF NEW SCHOOL CLOTHING FOR LEE WHEN HE CAME BACK FROM NEW YORK. SO THIS IS TYPICAL BEHAVIOR FOR HER. THE MURRETS EVEN BOUGHT HIM A BASEBALL GLOVE AND GOT HIM BASEBALL SHOES. THEY GAVE HIM MONEY TO RENT BICYCLES SO HE COULD GO RIDING BECAUSE HE DIDN'T HAVE A BIKE. YES, IT'S IN THEIR TESTIMONY. THEY LOVED HIM.

LIFTON IS REPEATING EVERYTHING OVER AND OVER TO GET THE LAST WORD AND WEAR OUT THE READERS. HE WANTS THE READERS TO GIVE UP AND NOT CARE.

PLEASE CARE, READER. THE TRUTH IS AT THE TOP OF THIS LONG DIATRIBE.

I WILL NOT LET LIFTON HAVE THE LAST WORD AND MAKE IT APPEAR AS THOUGHT HE IS RIGHT WHEN HE IS WRONG. BUT I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE TRUTH TO BE BURIED==

All this bears heavily on assessingt the credibility of Judyth,

==ACTUALLY, IT BEARS HEAVILY ON ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY OF DAVID LIFTON==

who we catch in the act of scampering around trying to come up with an explanation for how it was possible for Lee to be wearing a suit, dress shirt and tie, on Friday, April 26,

==HE REPEATS HIS HOPELESSLY INADEQUATE ACCOUNT AS THOUGH REPETITION WOULD MAKE A FALSE ACCOUNT TRUE. AND NOW HE INTRODUCES THE WORD "SCAMPERING", WHICH MIGHT BETTER DESCRIBE HIS EFFORTS TO CONVINCE YOU OF A VERSION THAT IS CLEARLY FALSE==

when he had the interview with John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor. Again:

==JUST BECAUSE HE REPEATS EVERYTHING AGAIN AND AGAIN DOES NOT MEAN HE HAS DONE ALL HIS RESEARCH. SAYING A PERSON HAS ONE TOE DOES NOT MEAN THAT "OTHER TOES" DO NOT EXIST.... HIS REASONING IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED....SCROLL UP TO SEE THE TRUTH.==

If we meet someone who turns out to be important in our lives, we remember what they were wearing when we first met them. But, in her converstion with me, Judyth got it all wrong, and now she's trying to plug this "hole" in her story.

==REPEATING HIMSELF AGAIN. SIMPLY SCROLL UP THIS POST TO SEE THE TRUTH.==

Judyth supposedly met Lee Oswald some 47 years ago, and has written about him extensively, but--apparently--it wasn't until a week ago that she became aware of this glitch in her account.

==JUST BECAUSE HE HASN'T NOTICED SOMETHING I HAVE SAID HERE IN PRINT OR NEVER HEARD IT, HE THINKS IT'S A NEW STATEMENT. , WHEN IT ASSUREDLY IS NOT. LIFTON WAS NEVER WAS INVOLVED IN THE YEARS OF QUESTIONS THAT OTHER RESEARCHERS WHO NOW SUPPORT ME ENGAGED IN. GOOD RESEARCHERS.

LIFTON HAS BEEN REPEATING EVERYTHING OVER AND OVER. WITHOUT PRESENTING ANYTHING NEW IN ORDER TO WEAR YOU OUT. HE DOES NOT WANT YOU TO READ THIS. HE WANTS TO BURY YOU IN WORDS. DON'T FALL FOR IT. SCROLL UP AND READ THE TRUTH AT THE TOP.==

Unfortunately for Judyth, 10 years have passed since I questioned her on this point--and although I questioned her very carefully on this particular point, I did not reveal the significance of my questions, or my reaction to her answers.

==MR. LIFTON HAS REPEATED THE SAME THINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THIS POST. TO SAVE TIME, SCROLL ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP AND READ HE TRUTH. YOU WILL NOT FIND ANYTHING IN LIFTON'S STATEMENTS HERE THAT YOU WILL TAKE SERIOUSLY AFTER READING WHAT IS AT THE TOP. LIFTON AGAIN FAILED TO FIND THE ESSENTIAL RECORDS. I WROTE BETWEEN HIS MANY REPETITIONS, AFTER PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE HE SHOULD HAVE ACCESSED HIMSELF, TO SHOW YOU WHERE LIFTON HAS USED UP YOUR TIME. YOUR TIME AND MINE IS VALUABLE.==

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. SCROLL TO THE TOP AND SAVE SOME TIME BEFORE YOU READ MR. LIFTON'S LITANY.

RESPECTFULLY,

JUDYTH VARY BAKER

And so now, here we are, in March 2010, I reveal this line of questioning, and now, a decade later, Judyth comes up with new (and supposedly legitimate) information, and her entire tone has the defensive, and almost truculent quality, she exhibited when I spoke with her ten years ago: "I am a witness, and I know what happened. Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt. . ."

And we're supposed to take this person seriously?

I must ask you Jim: Is there no limit to your credulity?

At what point do you draw the line, and say, "Enough is enough!"

Judyth is a serial fabricator. She is a deluded woman, a fantast.

And rather than deal plainly and forthrightly with the situation, you are throwing your credibility out the window, and tossing great insults at a long time friend, like Jack White, because he has the common sense to see what is obvious (and so did Mary Ferrell, I might add).

DSL
3/31/10; 2:40 AM
Los Angeles, CA

--------------------------------
[quote name='David Lifton' date='Mar 31 2010, 11:50 AM' post='188327']
Jim,

On the matter of when Lee arrived in New Orleans, and what he was wearing on April 26, 1963, your statements are incorrect.

Fact 1: We do not know exactly when Lee Oswald arrived in New Orleans. We only know, for sure, that he went for an interview on Friday, April 26, 1963, at which point he was dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie.

Fact 2: Lillian Murrett, Lee's aunt, testified that Lee first called on Monday, April 29, and said he was at the bus station. (And this was corroborated by her daughter Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time).

Putting fact 1 and fact 2 together, it seems clear that Lee was in New Orleans by Friday, April 26, at which time he went for the interview, dressed in a white shirt, suit, and tie. (And then called his family on Monday, claiming to have just arrived).

When I spoke with Judyth, who claimed to have met Lee for the first time at the Post Office--and that date being April 26, 1963--and when I asked Judyth how Lee Oswald was dressed, she said he was in workman's clothes. She made a big point of this.

Unfortunately for Judyth, who apparently attempts to insert herself into the record, whereever she spots an opening, she was unaware--I repeate UNAWARE--at the time I spoke with her (on March 4, 2000) of the Rachal Deposition Exhibit, and the Rachal affidavit, both of which are in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission Report.. These two documents offer credible evience as to what Oswald was wearing on Friday, April 26, 1963, at the time of his job placement interview at the Louisiana Department of Labor. The Rachal Deposition Exhibit includes John Rachal's handwritten notes, recording Lee Oswlad's appearance when he appeared before him for a job placement interview: "Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite." (Rachal Deposition Exhibit--see WC Volume 21, page 283). In his 6/22/64 Warren Commission affidavit, he swears: "I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview." (WC Vol 11, p. 475).

At my request, Jack White kindly posted an exhibit I prepared depicting the relevant excerpts from these two documents.

That "initial interview" was on Friday, April 26, 1963, and--at the time I spoke with her (March 4, 2000)--Judyth apparently was unaware that the published records of the Warren Commission--in the form of these two Rachal items--offered documentary evidence as to what Oswald was wearing on that particular day.

Consequently, when I questioned her--on March 4, 2000--she glibly asserted that Lee was dressed in workman's clothes, and, as I recall, appeared somewhat grubby. Furthermore, when I asked her a second time (and perhaps even a third time) to nail down this point, she became somewhat hostile and defensive, as if to ask "Why do you want to know?"

Now, 10 years later, and because of the information I released (via Jack White, just in the last week), Judyth has had a serious "Ooops" moment. Now, she realizes that she had Oswald dressed in the wrong clothes, (and on the day of their very first meeting, no less!) And I stress this point because, after all, it is common knowledge that we usually remember what someone who means so much to us was wearing the first time we met them.

So what does Judyth do? Why, she does what she always does: she comes up with an "explanation." In this case, Judyth simply manufactures some new dialogue to her narrative, as if this is not an accurately documented history, but rather a "work in progress," a screenplay which she can change anytime she wishes. And so now she writes: "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."

Let's focus on just what is going on here: I produce evidence --from the 1963/64 record--that, on April 26, 1963, Lee was dressed in a "dress shirt, and tie" and Judyth now adds, in March, 2010, almost 47 years later, "Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt."

Is this plausible? Is Judyth credible? Are we supposed to take this ad hoc revision serioiusly?

But that's not the end of it, because Lee was not just wearing a dress shirt--he was wearing a suit, (and a tie). So now what can we do about those two "inconvenient truths"?

Well, I'll tell you what Judyth does: she engages in speculation as to where Lee obtained the suit. She writes:

NOW QUOTING FROM JUDYTH'S POST:

" Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt -- he did not mention a suit-- perhaps his relatives generously added the suit?" UNQUOTE

And then she adds these statements:

QUOTE

(1) " Lee leaves me in the morning and has time to see his aunt and change clothes."

(2) " Here is a logical time line: . . .April 25 [Thursday] -- Lee arrives around 11:00 AM from Dallas, checks into the YMCA, calls his relatives, and they invite him over. . . Most of he day, he spends with his aunt and uncle and cousin, talking. It's been ten years, after all."

UNQUOTE

But here's the problem with Judyth's "logical time line," and her 2010 attempt at a reconstruction: Lee's Aunt, Lillian Murrett, testified that when she first heard from Lee (who said he was calling from the bus station) it was on "a Monday." That's right: Monday, April 29, 1963.

This testimony is also supported by the testimony of cousin Marilyn, who was living with her mother at the time.

But Lee's interview in which he was so nicely dresse was on Friday, April 26.

So regardless of what day Lee may actually have arrived in New Orleans--THEY first heard from him on a Monday, and specifically, Monday, April 29, 1963, which means there is a three day "missing period" between Friday, April 26, when he showed up at the Louisiana Labor Dept office, for an interview (and was dressed in a suit, white shirt, tie, etc.) and the time he first called his relatives, said he was calling from the bus station, and claimed he had just arrived in New Orleans (which was obviously not true)..

So: Lee Oswald was obviously not telling the truth as to when he arrived, and where he had been, for clearly, he was at the Louisiana Labor Department on Friday, April 26, dressed in the white shirt, suit, and tie.

But now, back to Judyth, and her "work in progress": Whatever the explanation is for where Lee was for three days (and Judyth will no doubt be adept at coming up with something), the fact is that Oswald could not have borrowed such clothing from his relatives (to wear on Friday, April 26) if he didn't see them until Monday, April 29. Furthermore, his aunt Lillian's reaction on first seeing her nephew was that he needed better clothing and she offered to help him get better clothes. Again, no mention of having loaned him anything--no loan of a suit, tie, dress shirt, etc.

All this bears heavily on assessingt the credibility of Judyth, who we catch in the act of scampering around trying to come up with an explanation for how it was possible for Lee to be wearing a suit, dress shirt and tie, on Friday, April 26, when he had the interview with John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor. Again: If we meet someone who turns out to be important in our lives, we remember what they were wearing when we first met them. But, in her converstion with me, Judyth got it all wrong, and now she's trying to plug this "hole" in her story.

Judyth supposedly met Lee Oswald some 47 years ago, and has written about him extensively, but--apparently--it wasn't until a week ago that she became aware of this glitch in her account.

Unfortunately for Judyth, 10 years have passed since I questioned her on this point--and although I questioned her very carefully on this particular point, I did not reveal the significance of my questions, or my reaction to her answers. And so now, here we are, in March 2010, I reveal this line of questioning, and now, a decade later, Judyth comes up with new (and supposedly legitimate) information, and her entire tone has the defensive, and almost truculent quality, she exhibited when I spoke with her ten years ago: "I am a witness, and I know what happened. Lee told me he was going to borrow a white shirt. . ."

And we're supposed to take this person seriously?

I must ask you Jim: Is there no limit to your credulity?

At what point do you draw the line, and say, "Enough is enough!"

Judyth is a serial fabricator. She is a deluded woman, a fantast.

And rather than deal plainly and forthrightly with the situation, you are throwing your credibility out the window, and tossing great insults at a long time friend, like Jack White, because he has the common sense to see what is obvious (and so did Mary Ferrell, I might add).

DSL
3/31/10; 2:40 AM
Los Angeles, CA
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO GREG BURNHAM ON A GREAT SUGGESTION

[NOTE: The table has been garbled in posting, which I will attempt to fix and repost.]

My friend Monk has advanced an excellent suggestion for conducting an inventory of the
state of the argument, which I am going to pursue by an enumeration of the criticisms
that have been directed to Judyth, the posts in which they were raised and those where
she has replied. That will thereby demonstrate what we have been learning about who
has and who has not been advancing positions that are or are not rationally defensible.
This will require that I conduct a review of this entire thread, which I am going to do. In
the meanwhile, however, I want to respond in a general way to some of his observations.

I have remarked that many of Judyth's reports about her life with the man she knew are
highly implausible, which means that they are difficult to believe and, on initial consideration,
appear to be more likely to be false than true. The point I have made is that, when claims
that are initially implausible turn out to be true (or, at least, supported by better arguments
than the alternatives), that has the effect of greatly increasing the credibility of the source.
Monk concedes that this is a human psychological tendency, but expresses hesitation over
whether it is warranted rationally as a matter of logic. The answer, however, is that it is.

The study of the impact of new evidence upon our beliefs (or degrees of belief) is among
the most extensively studied subjects in the philosophy of science and epistemology, where
the predominant approach is known as "Bayesianism" for its appeal to a theorem due to a
mathematician by the name of Thomas Bayes. It interprets probability as a measure of the
strength of our beliefs in relation to the evidence available to us. There are objectivist and
subjectivist interpretations of Bayesianism, but the core of the objectivist interpretation has
it (correctly) that there are definable objective standards relating evidence to hypotheses.

This means that rational agents are not free to believe or not believe when confronted with
relevant evidence. Suppose, for example, that you believe all rabbits are white. When you
encounter a brown rabbit, that belief is no longer rationally warranted. If you are rational in
your adherence to the principles of deductive reasoning, in this case, then when confronted
with a brown rabbit, you will reject your belief that all rabbits are white. Analogously, with
respect to the claim that there is a pink elephant in your living room, if you visit your living
room and detect no signs of a pink elephant, if you are rational, you will reject that belief.

Deductive reasoning is conclusive in the sense that, given the truth or the existence of the
premises as evidence, the conclusion cannot be false. In the examples I have just given,
we are dealing with deductive reasoning, where the existence of even a single brown rabbit
guarantees the truth of the conclusion that it is not the case all rabbits are white, and where
the absence of evidence that would have to be present if the elephant hypothesis were true
provides (virtually) conclusive evidence that no elephant is present based upon perception,
which is not as definitive because of the possibility of visual problems, mental states, etc.

Perceptual reasoning tends to be a highly reliable form of inductive reasoning, where the
content of the conclusion goes beyond the content of its premises by adding something to
it. Familiar examples of inductive reasoning include drawing inferences about populations
on the basis of sampling, reasoning from the past to the future, and from the observable
to the unobservable. But there are well-established standards, in general, for the weight
that should be assigned to the evidence, which is the domain of the study of logic, which
is concerned with the investigation and certification of those standards for rational belief.

In general, for a person to be rational, there should be an approximate correspondence
between their degree of belief (or strength of conviction) and the strength of the evidence
for that belief when objective standards are applied to the available relevant evidence. As
a general indication of this relationship, consider the following schematization that applies:





where persons are rational in relation to their beliefs when there is an appropriate correspond-
ence (which need not be an exact alignment) between their degrees of subjective certitude and
the objective degrees of evidential support. Persons should properly be incredulous about what
cannot possibly be true (such as that 2 + 2 = 5 in pure mathematics, for example, or that rabbits
are not animals in ordinary English) and completely credulous about what cannot possibly be false
(such as that 2 + 2 = 4 in pure mathematics and that bachelors are unmarried in ordinary English).

With respect to measures of truthfulness, therefore, we might employ a truth-quotient index as a
ratio of true statements made to statements made. Persons who are truthful obviously have high
truth-quotient indices, while those who are not have low. In a case where it is suspected that a
person might be a non-truth teller, presumably their truth quotient index will be low. And that is
certainly going to be the case for someone who is presumed to be a fabricator (teller of tall tails).
If such a person's story seems far-fetched initially, then that creates the presumption that they are
not truth-tellers because they have what appears to be a low truth-quotient. But should it turn out
that initially implausible elements of their story are true, the situation reverses itself dramatically.

More to come . . .

[quote name='Greg Burnham' post='188319' date='Mar 31 2010, 07:13 AM'][quote name='Jack White' post='188302' date='Mar 30 2010, 09:06 PM']
Monk...

Many JVB claims appear "plausible" and some cannot be "refuted", simply because all are
her OPINIONS, things she SAYS she witnessed, without proof offered. I do not care whether
her tales are true or not.[/quote]

Yes, Jack--but, Jim's argument is the opposite, in a sense... He is saying that many of her claims are extremely IMPLAUSIBLE (an opinion with which I think we all agree). He is further observing, correctly IMHO, that every time one of her "improbable claims" turns out to be TRUE--that serves to bolster perception of her overall credibility. I will not defend the logic of that perception, but I will acknowledge his accuracy as to human tendencies--logical or not.

Some of her tales are irrelevant. What is the relevance to JFK studies if she claims an illicit
affair with a man she just met? What does it matter that she thinks she resembles Marina?
What does it matter that she thinks she and LHO pledged to meet somewhere in Mexico and
explore ancient ruins? What does it matter that she claims to have personally met Shaw,
Banister, Ferrie, Ochsner, Sherman, etc. etc.? Her knowing these well documented figures
adds NOTHING to the information already known.

It does strain the mind...indeed.

Her information changes frequently as it suits her purpose. I will even grant that if everything she says
is true it does not amount to a bigratsass in the overall study of the investigation. Cancun or Kan Kun...
who cares?

Thanks, Monk.

Jack

Well, Jack, my friend--I have known you a very long time (or so it seems) and have never "read you" using profanity. And you still escaped it tonight...albeit by inventing a new word! New word: "bigratsass" -- and it conveyed your meaning (and mine) very well, indeed!

GO_SECURE

monk
[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT THE "STREET CAR" ROUTE

NOTE: It is just the least bit embarrassing when Jack does not know the
difference between a "street car" and a bus route. Judyth expresses her
agreement with Monk's suggestion about making an inventory of all the
issues that have been raised in this thread, which will take a while to put
together, but where I believe that the consequences will be illuminating.

JUDYTH'S REPLY:

Greg Burnham suggested making a list of all points. I will be happy to
make a list of everything already discussed.

Secondly, I remain astonished at Jack White's lack of accuracy regarding
what he thinks I claim.

He now wants me to provide the "streetcar route" to show it went past
Oswald's apartment. I have always said it was the Magazine Bus. This
is mentioned in the "14 Reasons to Believe in Judyth Vary Baker" that
you, Dr. Fetzer, asked Jack to read.



The Church at Napoleon and Magazine Streets



The Magazine Street Bus (Not Streetcar) Route

Misquoting happens so often that I am amazed. There is no effort to quote me,
or to show citations. All is hearsay.

See attached showing a map...Also Jack has never read DR. MARY'S MONKEY
and therefore knows less than nothing, whereas Ed Haslam has spent over
2,000 hours verifying my statements--which was reported to me a year ago.

Painstaking checking of NEW evidence is the major reason the book has been
delayed so long. Plus, some files "vanished" in some kind of cyber attack they
have experienced at the publisher’s. They fight them off constantly. But the
book will have every possible map and many photos as well as evidence files.

What can't fit in the book, such as my map of the Mental Hospital--yes, I even
have a map of the East Louisiana Hospital at Jackson--I hope to put online at
my (currently google-blocked) blog at http://judythbaker.blogspot.com/



East Louisiana Mental Hospital Map



The Clinton Courthouse Map

[quote name='Jack White' post='188388' date='Apr 1 2010, 12:46 AM'][quote name='Greg Burnham' post='188387' date='Mar 31 2010, 11:40 PM']Jim,

I have a suggestion. I think it would be helpful if you listed the claims (in list format, without qualification or justification) that you believe Judyth has already adequately explained in her response to detractors. For instance, the whole Cancun issue, the clothing issue, the ability to drive issue... I guess what I'm suggesting is that you put forth the items you feel are explained and allow her critics to "check off" the items that they also agree her explanations COULD ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN. IOW: even if they tend to disbelieve these explanations, surely there are at least a few (or even just one) explanation that they can "allow" as a possibility.

If there are NONE -- there is a serious problem, no? Even her most staunch detractors shouldn't be so closed minded as to reject ALL claims irrespective of merit. If they do, there is a problem. If they do--and it is truly HONEST--the problem may lie elsewhere.[/quote]

Great idea, Greg. But I would suggest some "partial" documentation also. For instance, she says her
streetcar line passed LHO's house and they rode to and from work together. How about naming
the streetcar line and its route. Otherwise it is just an assertion.

Jack
[/quote]

[Magda Hassan]

Greg Burnham suggested making a list of all points. I will be happy to
make a list of everything already discussed.

I think this is a good idea and was only saying this the other day by email to some one here. It would be good to have all Judyth's points summarized, allegations against said point and her refutations against said allegations on a point by point basis. It is a long thread and easy to lose track of what was said where. tupido:

[James H. Fetzer]

JIM REPLIES TO DAVID LIFTON ABOUT JUDYTH ON LEE'S ARRIVAL

As a former professor of critical thinking, I am not used to your committing so many fallacies at once:

(1) You beg the question by taking for granted that Judyth is a fraud, which is the issue we confront;

(2) You commit the genetic fallacy by assuming that my arguments are affected by who offered them;

(3) You commit the appeal to pity by suggesting I should abandon Judyth lest my reputation should suffer.

But you and I have been there before, David. You have been assailed for suggesting that there was surgery to the head and that all of the shots were fired from the front (correct me if I am wrong) and we have both been assailed for our advocacy of the position that the Zapruder film has been fabricated. Neither of us would be worth a damn if we abandoned positions in which we believe because of social pressure. I haven't done it in the past and I am not going to do it now, in spite of your entreaties.

We both tend to compose long posts, so let me make this more pointed. We agree that he left Dallas on the 24th. We both agree he had an interview on the 26th. We both agree that the trip by bus would have taken 14 or 15 hours. Yet you write IN THIS VERY POST, "If the bus left on the evening of Wednesday, April 24 (as Ruth Paine testified was the case) then –if it was a 14 hour trip—it would have arrived late on the evening of Thursday, April 25, or perhaps in the early AM of Friday, April 26." Perhaps on the 26th?

Give me a break, David. You have to have the courage to admit when you are wrong. If he left on the 24th and it was a 14 or 15 hour trip, then he arrived on the 25th! I cannot believe that you are trading on a presumed vagary or ambiguity--another fallacy, by the way--when there is none. If he left on the 24th and took a 14 or 15 hour bus trip, then he arrived on the 25th, with no "if"s, "and"s, or "but"s, absent some heretofore unknown traffic accident that interfered with his arrival, of which there is no evidence.

Hence, you have a missing day to account for. Now, in dealing with events in the relatively distant past-- where this occurred in April of 1963 and this is April of 2010, which makes it 47 years ago--we really should not expect to be able to nail down every aspect of every day, even though, in this case, quite a lot of effort has been expended in that endeavor. Now unless you are prepared to suggest that he slept in the street, as Judyth has appropriately observed, he slept somewhere, and it was not with the Murrets.

Your dependence on the FBI and THE WARREN REPORT would be ridiculous if you did not find them useful to you in this instance. The FBI was "tidying things up" on behalf of the official account, just in case you haven't noticed. They even secretly took the physical evidence to Washington, cleaned it up, brought it back and then staged an elaborate and public "official transference" to Washington! They had agents at all the photo processing plants in Dallas for two weeks taking photos and films of relevance, and all that.

Surely we was staying somewhere. You say, "We don't know." But Judyth has an explanation that seems to fit the situation, which she has elaborated in painstaking detail. You seem to regard these "details" as proof of fabrication, but in my judgment--from a logical point of view--quite the opposite is the case. As Karl Popper observed, the more precise an hypothesis, the more easily it can be subjected to potential refutation, which is part and parcel of the importance of quantitative formulations over non-quantitative.

If Lee had the luggage she described (and we have no reason to dispute it), then it would have made a great deal of sense for him to have stored most of it at the bus depot (which is what I myself would have done had I thought it through) before heading for the "Y" to check in and become oriented before making contact with my relatives (which, of course, he would do subsequently). What we don't have (according to you) is records from the "Y", which may be absent for various reasons, including the FBI took them.

Judyth has been accused of so many distortions and fabrications where she has been able to fend them off, again and again, that I am simply astonished by how much she appears to know about these things. She has, again and again, provided more detailed and more specific explanations in rebuttal, which, in my view, by and large, are more reasonable than the arguments of those who challenge her authenticity, where of course, I specifically include you. And she has more and more to tell us about Lee H. Oswald!

Not only does her story "hang together" in the right way, but she has demonstrated, again and again, the extent of her knowledge of the man she knew in New Orleans. Let me offer her eye-color story as a nice illustration. John Armstrong and Jack White maintain, in defense of their thesis of "the two Oswalds", that one of the subjects had blue eyes and the other one had hazel eyes. In post #736, Judyth takes this claim to task in a brilliant study that demonstrates--conclusively, in my view--that their claim is unsustainable.

Now, according to her own account, Judyth was motivated because of her profound affection for the man she knew in New Orleans. She knew the color of his eyes based upon personal experience, if we are to believe her. And the fact of the matter is that, to the best of my knowledge, even though you are also a skeptic of the "Harvey & Lee" scenario, you have not only not advanced any supporting evidence for your position, but have not even been willing to simply state your attitude toward it, much less defend it here.

Let me offer an example of why I believe in Judyth. Ed Haslam conducted extensive discussions (some would say "interrogations") with Judyth before he concluded that she was "the real deal". Unlike your solitary conversation, he examined her for as much as 1,000 hours! Something that struck him early on was Judyth's observation that the photograph he was planning for the cover was NOT Dr. Mary Sherman. He actually visited the family and discovered it was actually a photo of her sister, who looked a lot alike.

Now unless Judyth had actually known her, it is not simply highly improbable but virtually impossible that Judyth could have distinguished between a photo of her sister and a photo of Mary Sherman. But she did. And the fact that she can provide so much new information about Lee H. Oswald in New Orleans--much of which has seemed implausible on its face but upon further investigation appears to be true--tremendously enhances her credibility. And Ed Haslam and I are far from alone in believing that she is "the real deal".

Fallacious reasons are not going to affect my attitude. I am going to defend the truth as I understand it, which I presume you can appreciate, having "been there" yourself! When I am convinced that she is not the person I believe her to be, you will be among the first to know. In the meanwhile, I would appreciate just a bit more candor about your take on "Harvey & Lee" and current information about your book on the subject that fascinates us even more than Judyth Vary Baker, which, of course, is Lee H. Oswald himself.

[quote name='David Lifton' post='188513' date='Apr 2 2010, 01:03 PM']Jim:

Contrary to your glib assertions (“Judyth refutes the purported details of his [Lifton’s] account”) Judyth has refuted nothing. My facts are impeccable, and my logic sound. Contrary to your statement that “Lifton appears to have committed a ser[ies] of blunders in making assumptions that turn out to be false,” it is you have become entangled in the false details of Judyth’s tale, to the point where you have been bamboozled by a woman promulgating a thoroughly false and fictitious account of a non-existent relationship with Lee Oswald.

Candidly, I could care less if the only casualty was whether or not—either through carelessness or excessive credulity--you were taken in by this lady. What concerns me is the role you have played in attempting to expose major fraud in the physical evidence, and what I am talking about, of course, is the Zapruder film.

Because surely, as this situation unwinds—and it will-the question will be asked: if a person cannot distinguish between the false and the real, when it comes to the matter of Judyth Baker, can we trust that person’s judgment when it comes to the far more important situation of “fraud in the evidence,” and especially in a matter as technical as the Zapruder film?

Do you remember a month or two back, when a photo was circulating supposedly showing JFK's body--laid out on the autopsy table? And you were rather enthusiastic about that item? Within a ay or so, when it became obvious that that was nothing but a mock-up, one created in connection with the making of the movie JFK, you changed your opinion. Well, that photo sure looked real--and, at first glance, Judyth's story can look real, and even be appealing. Unfortunately, it is all bogus, and the prodocut of someone who is the victim of what, medically, is called "pseudologia fantastica" or "mythomania."

Unfortunately, you have been taken in my all this; and it is sure to result in great harm.

Anyway, those are my concerns—but I am sure you will not be deterred in doing what you personally believe is right—even if it is provably incorrect.

So let me now drop that subject, and turn to Judyth’s latest post, as conveyed by you, to all the readers on this board.

MY RESPONSE TO JUDYTH”S LATEST POST (i.e., to the one titled “Judyth Replies to Lifton on Lee’s Arrival in New Orleans”)

Judyth’s very long post is loaded with weak arguments, circular logic, and just plain false statements. If this were a university test booklet, the reader would give her a failing grade, writing again and again, either “irrelevant,” or “so what?” or “false inference.”

Let’s review the immutable facts:

Fact: Lee’s journey from Dallas to New Orleans began on Wednesday, April 24. We know that from the testimony of Ruth Paine, who says she brought Lee to the bus station, with some bags. Then—after dropping those bags off at the bus station, and after offering Marina the option of not accompanying Lee to New Orleans, but instead staying with her-- they returned to his apartment and emptied what was left from his apartment. Then, they all returned (and by “they all” I’m referring to Ruth Paine, Lee, and Marina) to Paine’s home. Ruth Paine testified that Lee left that evening, Wednesday, April 24, for New Orleans, but she does not say who took Lee from Irving back to the Greyhound bus station in Dallas. All she does is mention that Lee would have had to take a city bus to get back to Dallas from Irving, and then board the Greyhound bus for New Orleans.

Did he do that? The fact is—we don’t know. The assumption is that he did, but he could just as well have used Greyhound to carry his baggage, and gone to New Orleans by some other means (and in fact I’m very open, if not partial, to that possibility). Judyth notes an interesting fact that I have not dwelt on here--that twice in FBI interviews, Marina says that Lee went to the bus station the day before April 24--i.e., on April 23--to check some bags. Marina told the FBI that (the believed) Ruth drove Lee there, the day before, but Ruth's account says nothing about that. If Marina is correct, and Lee checked some bags on 4/23/63, then obviously, someone else was involved with Lee, in making preparations for this trip to New Orleans, and that also raises the possibility that he simply shipped his bags by Greyhound, but did not actually use the bus, to get to New Orleans.

BUT, for the purpose of this discussion, let’s return to what the Warren Report states. That keeps the discussion very simple, and permits us to see how Judyth is attempting to “burrow into” a small hole in the actual historical record, one at the New Orleans end of the line.

Fact: Lee traveled to New Orleans –as far as the Warren Commission investigation is concerned—alone. Further, according to the Warren Report, he traveled by bus—i.e., on the Greyhound bus carrying his bags. Marina stayed with Ruth Paine. If the bus left on the evening of Wednesday, April 24 (as Ruth Paine testified was the case) then –if it was a 14 hour trip—it would have arrived late on the evening of Thursday, April 25, or perhaps in the early AM of Friday, April 26.

Fact: The contemporaneous record created by John Rachal, at the Louisiana Department of Labor, records the data that Lee was attired in a suit and tie on Friday, April 26, at the time of his interview. His handwritten notes read “Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite” (See Rachel deposition Exhibit, Volume 21, p. 283, of the WC hearings) and his June 1964 Warren Commission affidavit reads: “I recall that Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview.” (Volume 11, p. 475).

Fact: Lillean Murret testified that she first heard from Lee on a Monday—when he called from the bus station, saying that he had “just arrived” in New Orleans.” That statement is provably untrue because he had already had an interview on Friday, April 26, at which point he was dressed in “a suit, dress shirt, and tie.”

Fact: Monday—the day Lillian Murret first heard from Lee, who said he was calling from the bus station, and had “just arrived” etc.—would have been Monday, April 29, 1963. This is a critical time-marker: nothing Judyth says can change that immutable fact. “Monday” was April 29.

FACT: No one was ever located, nor did any one ever come forward to say that they were on that bus—or any bus—with Lee Oswald, from Dallas to New Orleans, leaving on or about Wednesday evening, April 24, 1963. Unlike the situation regarding Oswald’s trip to Mexico, where the FBI was able to locate people who were halfway around the world on that bus, we have no eyewitness placing Oswald on a bus from Dallas to New Orleans on or about April 24, 1963. The Dallas-to-New Orleans bus journey—with Lee Oswald (and not just his luggage) on board, is all conjecture—perhaps reasonable conjecture, based on his having brought his boxes to the bus station—but there is no evidence that he actually rode on the bus to New Orleans. All we know is that he was in New Orleans on Friday, April 26, 1963, when he appeared at the Louisiana Department of Labor, and had the interview with John Rachal.

FACT: As any discerning reader can see, this leaves a small “time hole” in the record—one extending from Lee’s putative “time of arrival” in New Orleans, until his April 26, 1963 placement interview with Rachal; and then another between that same placement interview and Monday, April 29, 1963, when he called his Aunt Lillian for the first time, said he was at the bus station, and desired help in getting all his boxes over to her place.

FACT: No one –except Judyth—says that Lee Oswald stayed at the YMCA between April 25 and April 29. She can say anything she wants, but that does not make it so. The YMCA keeps records. No one has ever produced such a record.

FACT: Anyone who has studied the records of the warren Commission knows how careful and meticulous the FBI could be (when it wanted to be); and how hotels and motels were scoured for records of Lee’s whereabouts. When he stayed at the Dallas YMCA, for example, between October 15 an October 19, 1962, the actual records were produced, which listed his room number, and even accounted for the $1 deposit for a room key. (See the deposition exhibit of John Hulen, in volume 10 of the Warren Commission, and the Hulen Deposition Exhibits, in Volume 21).

Question: where did Lee stay between the time he arrived in New Orleans—however he got there, and whenever he got there—and Friday, April 26, 1963? And where did he stay between Friday, April 26, and Monday, April 29, when he first called his aunt? Honest answer: we don’t know. According to Aunt Lillian’s testimony, Lee did not call her (saying he had “just arrived” etc.) until a Monday—which would be April 29, 1963—when he called from the bus station, and when his uncle Dutz (Lillian’s husband) then went to pick him up, and his luggage.

But Lee’s statement about when he “first arrived” was clearly false, i.e., a deliberate lie—and that’s obviously so based on the data proferred by John Rachal, and published in the Warren Report. Lee was there some days earlier, and was certainly there on Friday, April 26. Well, then, where did he stay? Truthful answer: We don’t know.

Fact: No Murrett family member—not Aunt Lillian, not Uncle Dutz, not cousin Marilyn—ever stated, in any statement to the FBI, nor in any Warren Commission testimony, that Lee had said he had stayed in the YMCA. That is purely an unsupported assertion of Judyth.

Fact: Because no Murrett family member ever stated, or even speculated, that Lee had stayed at the YMCA, the FBI never checked the New Orleans YMCA for any record of his having stayed there. (If I am wrong on this point, and there was in fact an FBI investigation on this point, I would sure appreciate being informed where it can be found). Nor, for that matter, did the FBI ever check hotels or rooming houses seeking to find where Lee stayed between April 24, 1963 and April 29, 1963. In other words, this “gap” wasn’t spotted by the official investigation. And so there is no paper trail that Lee ever stayed at the YMCA—or anywhere else, for that matter—upon arriving in New Orleans in the Spring of 1963, and one reason there is no paper trail is that there was never any FBI investigation; and the reason there was no FBI investigation is that there is not a scintilla of testimony that Lee ever said he stayed anywhere prior to the time he called Aunt Lillian.

So now we turn to Judyth’s justification and rationale for invoking the YMCA.

JUDYTH AND HER STATEMENTS ABOUT LEE OSWALD HAVING STAYED AT THE YMCA

Fact: Lee stayed at the Dallas YMCA in the fall of 1962, for some four days, when he moved from Fort Worth to Dallas (10/15-10/19/62). Lee also stayed at the Dallas YMCA on the night of Thursday, October 3, 1963, upon his return from Mexico City, and before he hitched a ride out to the Paine house on Friday, October 4, 1963. In each case there is a clear YMCA paper trail. The room number is listed; the amount paid; even the $1 deposit for a room key (See the testimony of John Leroy Hulen, who’s deposition was taken by WC attorney Jenner, and the document admitted into evidence at that time—called the Hulen Deposition Exhibit, in Volume 20 of the Warren Report).

We now come to an important false inference by Judyth Baker, one which exposes her entire methodology.

False Inference By Judyth: in effect, Judyth claims—but has no right to—that because LHO stayed once before at the Y in Dallas (and would later stay at the YMCA after his Mexico City trip) she can now infer that he stayed at the YMCA in New Orleans late April, 1963. That is what she does—repeatedly. (She wonders aloud: Where ELSE could he have stayed? Did he sleep on the street? And Jim Fetzer chimes in: Yeah, what do you say to that? Did he sleep on the street?”

What do I say to that? Here’s what I say. Everyone has heard the phrase “junk science.” This is “junk history.” What Judyth has done, in an attempt to insert herself into the valid history of this event—a history that (admittedly) has some gaps in the record—is to use the concept of “pattern evidence” to find a home for Lee Oswald in the brief period between the time she infers the bus from Dallas must have arrived, and the time Lee called Aunt Lillian on Monday, April 29. So the YMCA serves that purpose—it is, for Judyth, her “Motel 6.” But it is as contrived as the Single Bullet Theory, with all its twists and turns. In that case, we have a trajectory designed to account for a multiplicity of wounds. Here we have an itinerary, custom-designed by Judyth Baker, to account for some missing nights. This is her invention concerning the YMCA. This is her device for inserting herself into the Oswald narrative. And the gullible buy into that and say, “Well, where could he have stayed? Did he sleep on the street?”

Sorry, but posing such a question is no substitute for evidence as to where he stayed.

THE LACK OF A YMCA PAPER TRAIL

Unfortunately, for Judyth, there is no New Orleans YMCA paper trail, nor is there a smidgeon of evidence that Lee ever told anyone that he stayed at the YMCA—not his aunt, not his uncle, not his cousin, not his own wife. (And, to repeat, had he said any such thing, the FBI would have been all over it—interviewing the YMCA people and checking the records.) But no such investigation ever occurred, and it’s a safe inference that it did not because no one ever reported Lee as having said any such thing. And that’s a crucial missing link: no statements about the YMCA, no FBI investigation of the New Orleans YMCA; no YMCA paper trail. Just unsupported assertions by Judyth.

No doubt Lee stayed somewhere—but Judyth has struck out here (and once again, I might add) by positing it was the New Orleans YMCA, and then attempting to crawl into this interstitial space, by manufacturing dialogue and events.

JUDYTH’s “Ooops” moment

BUT (as in “ooops,” as I have said), Judyth did not realize—until this past month, when Jack White posted the exhibit I prepared--that there is a documentary record of how Lee was dressed on Friday, April 26, the day she claims to have met him at the post office; and that record, created by John Rachal, of the Louisiana Deaprtment of Labor, and published in the Warren Report, established that Lee was attired in a suit and tie. I have just quoted that record, earlier in this post: handwritten notes by Rachal made on 4/26/63, plus his Warren Commission affidavit: “Neat. Suit. Tie. Polite” (the notes) and “Oswald was neatly dressed with a suit, dress shirt, and tie on the occasion of our initial interview” (Rachel Affidavit, 11 WCH 475).

The second aspect of this “oops” moment concerns me, and the first (and only) time I ever spoke with Judyth—on March 4, 2000. Yes, it is a tape recorded conversation, but not because I was lying in wait, or anything of the sort. It was tape recorded because –initially—I gave Judyth the benefit of the doubt, thought I’d be speaking to someone the official investigation had missed, and wanted there to be an accurate record of what she said.

So what happened?

Judyth was unaware, until a few days ago, that not only did she now have to contend with the Rachal Exhibit, and what it says, but another “inconvenient truth” as well: what Judyth told me on March 4, 2000. That’s when I personally questioned Judyth, on this very point, as to how he was dressed, on April 26, 1963, the day she supposedly met Lee Oswald at the Post Office. And she told me he was in workman’s clothes. At that time (3/4/2000), Judyth was decidedly uncomfortable with my repeated questions on the subject, and wanted to know why, but I declined to say. In other words, I did not say, “Judyth, I am asking you a very important question, and you keep answering it the wrong way, so let’s repeat the question, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding.” No, I did not say that. But I asked my question more than once, because I knew very well the implication of the false response I was getting, and she kept answering it all wrong—and further (I might add) she also has it wrong in her manuscript.

WHERE WE ARE NOW—10 YEARS LATER (i.e., in March-April, 2010)

Well, ten years have passed, and now she knows. Judyth now knows that ten years ago, on March 4, 2000, in my first and only telephone conversation with her, and at a time when I (but not she) was fully aware of the Rachal evidence, I carefully questioned her as to how Lee was attire on the day she met him at the Post Office, and she answered in workman’s clothes.

And so now—i.e., in March, 2010—having just found this out—Judyth has to deal with this double whammie: the record of April, 1963, and, in addition, the record she herself created in March 2000, in her conversation with me, a conversation which was tape recorded. And so, having just had this embarrassing “ooops” moment—she goes back to her story, and –like a screenplay writer after a meeting with the producer, and after being informed that there is a glitch in her account—Judyth now adds new dialogue to her narrative. “Lee told me he was going to borrow a shirt,” she now lamely writes.

Well, then, what about the suit? (And what about the tie?) Well, she speculates, perhaps he borrowed that (the suit) from the Murrets. (Lee “told me” he was going to borrow a tie, she says; but, unfortnatley (for Judyth), that won’t work, because—say what she might-- Lee didn’t meet the Murrets until Monday, April 29, when she called Aunt Lillian, and when Aunt Lillian’s husband, Uncle Dutz, came to the bus station to pick up Lee and his luggage. And so now Judyth has become all tangled up in the problem of her fabricated chronology. Because regardless of whether or not Aunt Lillean wanted to buy Lee some clothes—i.e., later—that cannot (and does not) account for his attire on Friday, April 26. But Judyth is unfazed. She proclaims: “I am a witness. . I know. . I was there.” She wants us to believe; indeed, she practically demands that we do so.

And so now she embroiders some more. Well, what can be done about the chronology?

Here’s what Judyth does. Judyth, ignoring the record while attempting to amend her story, says that Lee actually arrived on April 25, and stayed with the Murrets, and they cooked him a nice dinner, loaned him clothing, etc etc. ad nauseum.

I write ad nauseum because it is all false, and contrary to the known record.

And throughout, she makes all kinds of personal accusations against me, and furthermore, adopts the tone that she is some kind of exalted witness:

Just get a whiff of her tone:

QUOTE:

Lee spent a Saturday night with his aunt and uncle, I think, because he reported eating a nice supper with them. Lee was very busy working with Guy Banister during his first week in New Orleans -- and also helping me find a room. UNQUOTE

My comment:: “Lee spent a Saturday night with his aunt and uncle, I think, . . . “

Notice the “I think”—how modest of you Judyth, followed by “because he reported eating a nice support with them. . “

Reported? Reported to whom? To the FBI? Not at all. “Reported” as in “reported” to Judyth, of course. In this manner, she becomes a corroborating witness to her own false story.

ANOTHER INSTANCE:

Judyth writes: “everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness” Notice how she now narrates her own story in the 3rd person.

What gall. She’s both narrator—as if she was speaking from the bench—and a witness. Just read that again: “everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness.”

Translated: Everyone should believe what I say and believe it to be a fact, even thought I’m a fabricator, because I claim the status of being a witness.

Judyth: who are you kidding? Do you really believe everyone is that gullible? That we should heed your command when you say: “I’m a witess. . I know what happened. . everyone please see the above list of facts offered by the witness.”

Finally: I must make the following personal statement, directed at Judyth.

A PERSONAL STATEMENT TO JUDYTH

Lee Oswald is not akin to some wall in a pubic toilet, where you can inscribe your destructive graffiti. Besmirching the personal reputation of a man with a wife and child, and expecting another (daughter Rachel, born on 10/20/63) on the way. Lee Oswald was a real person, with a real wife and a young child, both of whom he loved very much—and who had just learned she was pregnant with their 2nd child.

The notion that he was carrying on an affair with you in New Orleans is not just false—it is ludicrous.

I knew Marina, very well—having spoken to her dozens of times, over a thirteen year period, after Best Evidence was published in 1981.

And, as Lloyd Bentsen said to Senator Dan Quayle, “Senator, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine, and you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

Judyth: Marina Oswald was a friend of mine—and I (along with another writer) even threw her daughter a party here in Hollywood, when the Warner Brothers movie was being made. So let me assure you, Judyth Baker: I knew Marina quite well, and Judyth, you’re no Marina. Not even close.

If you wish to write fiction, go take a course in creative writing, and try your hand at a screenplay—but lay off the Oswald family and spin your false yarns elsewhere.

Again: Lee Oswald’s life is not akin to a public washroom, where you can go and inscribe graffiti, while you run around attempting to manufacture a counterfeit version of history.

DSL
4/2/2010; 4:40 AM[/quote]

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH REPLIES TO LIFTON'S "PERSONAL STATEMENT TO JUDYTH"

David, I believe you have crossed the line several times in impugning Judyth's integrity.
I know you think you know it all, but there are reasons to doubt that is the case. She
has send me reports about your conduct in relation to Marina and one of her daughters,
which I cannot verify for myself, but where I invite you to explain if they are accurate.
I suggest you track down a copy of The Dallas Observer article and publish it here:

JUDYTH'S RESPONSE:

Mr Lifton relies on "knowing Marina" --not "knowing Lee Oswald" and gives
advice, as follows:

Judyth: Marina Oswald was a friend of mine—and I (along with another writer) even
threw her daughter a party here in Hollywood, when the Warner Brothers movie was
being made. So let me assure you, Judyth Baker: I knew Marina quite well, and Judyth,
you’re no Marina. Not even close.."

Reply: Never said I was "Marina." And you are correct that Marina Oswald "was" a
friend of yours. The family no longer has anything to do with you, after how you
treated one of her daughters. I corresponded myself with Laura Miller when she
was Mayor of Houston (where I used to work as a reporter) and she affirmed the
elements of the usenet post below:

<debhart94103@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:55nervc9uvcpjq7i4rk8mj61m3g87egk70@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:39:52 GMT, "David P. Nesbitt"
> <cnesbitt@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Ok, I'll bite. What did [David Lifton] do to Marina's daughter?
>
> Get a copy of the Dallas Observer article, written by Laura Miller
> (current mayor of Dallas, TX), which lays it out in all its sordid
> detail. In summary...[Lifton] lied to Miss Oswald-Porter,
> claiming he wanted to "interview [her] for historical purposes only".
> He paid her a few dollars (literally) "for her time" and got a
> "release". (she was a nursing student, working her way through school
> at the time). Then, he turned around and SOLD THE TAPE to HARD COPY
> FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS.. She was literally waiting tables in a
> restaurant in Austin, TX when she looked up at a screen to see herself
> on HARD COPY.
>
> And THAT'S NOT ALL.
>
> He used computer technology to take a "still" picture from the video
> tape, and sold it to tabloids ALL OVER EUROPE for THOUSANDS MORE.
> ....Even the *cameramen* at HARD COPY (not to mention the executive
> producers) considered him scum.

Thanks for the info, Deb! I had no idea that this had occurred. It is sad
that there are so many who shamefully capitalize on this national tragedy.

---

I also received a personal email from Rachel in 203, where she has told me
what she thought of Mr. Lifton.

I mention this only because Mr. Lifton keeps accusing me of misrepresentations.
I take no pleasure in doing so. I will always appreciate his work in "Best Evidence."
I still hope he will produce a fine Oswald biography. But his biography will NOT be
accurate if his posts here are any indication of how he interprets data as a researcher,
including ignoring data I wished to share with him. As a witness, I wanted his book
to be a fine one.

JVB

A PERSONAL STATEMENT TO JUDYTH

Lee Oswald is not akin to some wall in a pubic toilet, where you can inscribe your destructive graffiti. Besmirching the personal reputation of a man with a wife and child, and expecting another (daughter Rachel, born on 10/20/63) on the way. Lee Oswald was a real person, with a real wife and a young child, both of whom he loved very much—and who had just learned she was pregnant with their 2nd child.

The notion that he was carrying on an affair with you in New Orleans is not just false—it is ludicrous.

I knew Marina, very well—having spoken to her dozens of times, over a thirteen year period, after Best Evidence was published in 1981.

And, as Lloyd Bentsen said to Senator Dan Quayle, “Senator, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine, and you’re no Jack Kennedy.”

Judyth: Marina Oswald was a friend of mine—and I (along with another writer) even threw her daughter a party here in Hollywood, when the Warner Brothers movie was being made. So let me assure you, Judyth Baker: I knew Marina quite well, and Judyth, you’re no Marina. Not even close.

If you wish to write fiction, go take a course in creative writing, and try your hand at a screenplay—but lay off the Oswald family and spin your false yarns elsewhere.

Again: Lee Oswald’s life is not akin to a public washroom, where you can go and inscribe graffiti, while you run around attempting to manufacture a counterfeit version of history.

DSL
4/2/2010; 4:40 AM

[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]

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON SOME OF JACK'S PHOTOS IN SUPPORT OF "TWO OSWALDS"

NOTE: By a nice coincidence, I have just received several posts from Judyth about photos
alleged to support the existence of "two Oswalds", Harvey and Lee. I also believe in "two
Oswalds", Robert and Lee, where my belief in "two Oswalds" seems to have stronger support.
Judyth has sent an email with a file, where there appears to be considerable overlap between
them. Instead of attempting to merge them, I am providing both for consideration. They offer
an illustration of why I regard Judyth as knowing more than the other contributors together.



We have what seems to be a plethora of bloated photos. When the "fat' photo of Lee was corrected by measuring the width of other photos taken in Dallas, we obtained a specific length from ear tip to ear tip compared to the length of the head. When corrected, it turned out that the 'bloated' photo was 9.5% distorted in width. The distortion was corrected to match other Dallas arrest photo with respect to head lengths and widths, plus double-checked with pupil-to-pupil measurements (obtained from the color arrest photo of Oswald), where the apparent differences tend to disappear.

We next learned that the "Lee" photo, when corrected for bloating as well, turned out to be Lee H. Oswald as shown in Dallas, due to ear distortion removed, and other feaures.

Next, we took a photo "from Russia" of a fat-faced Oswald that Mr. White submited. Surprisingly, this photo, when corrected the same head length and distance beween the pupils, matched ear-tip widths and other criteria precisely. The bloated "Russia" photo was distorted 8.6%. See attached.

We have now have experienced a parade of bloated photos that when corrected resemble Osewald more than they did when distorted. This was also the case with "Marguerite" photos.

This may have been the result of a faulty scanner or printing. Whatever the cause, efforts should have been made to check every photo for distance from pupil-to-pupil, distance from ear tip to ear tip, distance from edge of eye to edge of eye, etc. compared to length of head. It is our responsibility to be accurate and to follow some basic scientific principles.

The first step was to make sure all head lengths were the same,as well as head widths, etc., and could be set side-by-side with the same head-shot photos of Oswald in custody in Dallas which appeared immediately in newspapers. Comments such as the width of the bridge of the nose in a bloated photo are null and void. A bloated photo would widen the bridge of the nose.

There's more to come...



THE SHADOWS UNDER THE EYES ARE SIMPLY THE RESULT OF A STRONG OVERHEAD LIGHT SOURCE.

ON THE LEFT: THE ‘BLOATED’ OSWALD WAS CORRECTED TO 4.2 CM WIDE, WHICH THEN CORRESPONDS TO THE WIDTH EAR-TO-EAR OF OTHER ‘ARREST PHOTOS’ IN DALLAS.

TO THE LEFT IS THE PHOTO PROVIDED BY JACK WHITE. FOR SOME REASON, IT, TOO IS ‘BLOATED.’

THE ‘BLOATED’ USSR PHOTO WAS THEN CORRECTED TO CONFORM TO THE SAME WIDTH EAR-TO-EAR AS THE CORRECTED OSWALD ARREST PHOTO (CENTER). THE PHOTO OBAINED RESEMBLES OSWALD ENOUGH TO QUALIFY AS A POSSIBLE PHOTO OF OSWALD BECAUSE OSWALD’S FACIAL STRUCTURE WAS STILL MATURING WHEN THE “RUSSIAN” PHOTO WAS TAKEN.

1) OSWALD’S MUG PHOTO WAS CORRECTED TO PROPER DIMENSIONS (WHICH HAD SOMEHOW BEEN
BLOATED TO 9.5% WIDER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN).

2) SURPRISINGLY, THE PHOTO TO THE RIGHT AS SUPPLIED TO THE EDUCATION FORUM, WHEN CORRECTED TO THE SAME EAR WIDTH AND HEAD LENGTH, WAS DISTORTED 8.6%.

3) THE CORRECTED OSWALD PHOTO, CENTER, NOW RESEMBLES OSWALD MORE THAN THE BLOATED VERSION.

I HAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR WHY THESE PHOTOS ARE BLOATED, EXCEPT TO PROPOSE THAT A COPYING PROBLEM SOMEWHERE WAS INVOLVED. HOWEVER, ALL PHOTOS WHEN COMPARED TO ONE ANOTHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISPLAYED AT THE SAME HEAD LENGTH.

WHEN THIS IS DONE, WE THEN CORRECT TO THE KNOWN WIDTH FROM EAR TIP TO EAR TIP TO SEE IF THERE HAS BEEN ANY DISTORTION.

WHEN WE DO SO, WE ARE DISCOVERING, ON A REGULAR BASIS,THAT PHOTOS PROVIDED OF OSWALD BY MR. WHITE ARE DISTORTED. WHEN CORRECTED, WE HAVE PHOTOS THAT RESEMBLE OSWALD TO A GREATER EXTENT.

OSWALD’S FACE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF MATURING IN RUSSIA. IT IS EXPECTED THAT IT WOULD BE MORE ROUNDED THAN IN LATER PHOTOS. OSWALD ALSO LOST WEIGHT BETWEEN NEW ORLEANS PHOTOS AND PHOTOS IN DALLAS, MAKING HIS FACE LOOK LEANER IN THE PHOTO TO THE LEFT.

I CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR SO MUCH DOSTORTION IN THE PHOTOS PROVIDED. DID THE RUSSIANS DISTORT THESE PHOTOS DELIBERATELY, OR DID THE DISTORTION HAPPEN DURING COPYING?

WE NEED TO SEE THE EARLIES EXAMPLES AND THEIR PROVENANCE. WE NEED TO SEE ‘ORIGINALS’ AND SEE IF THE DISTORTION WAS IN THE ORIGINALS.

LEE SOMETIMES SMILED BY PULLING HIS UPPER LIP HIGHER. THE "RUSSIAN" PHOTO -– SMILING -- IS ENTIRELY CONSISTENT WITH A COUPLE OF PHOTOS SHOWING LEE WITH MARINA WHERE HE SMILES IN THE SAME WAY.

AS FOR SHADOWS, SHADOWS FROM A STRONG OVERHEAD LIGHT SOURCE CREATED SRTONG SHADOWS UNDER THE SKULL ORBITS AND UNDER THE NOSE, AS WELL AS ILLUMINATED MORE OF OSWALD’S CHIN THAN A SOFTER LIGHT SOURCE WOULD HAVE, THE SUBSEQUENT LIGHT-SPREAD CREATING THE IMPRESSION OF A FULLER JAWLINE.

JVB

[James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH ON “LEE” AND “HARVEY” WITH A SECOND LOOK AT ‘STOCK PHOTOS’

WHEN JACK WHITE SUBMITTED A FUZZY PHOTO OF "LEE" PLACED WITH A PHOTO OF "HARVEY"
THAT LOOKED TOO FAT TO BE HIS FACE (I KNEW LEE OSWALD), I DECIDED TO DO SOME
MEASURING. I FOUND A COPY OF A MORE PRISTINE PHOTO OF THE SAME “LEE” ON THE
INTERNET. IN FACT, IT IS FROM JACK’S COLLECTION – A PASTICHE INCLUDING A SERIES
OF PHOTOS, SOME OF WHICH I DO NOT ACCEPT AND WANT TO KNOW THEIR PROVENANCE.

THE MORE PRISTINE PHOTO SHOWED DETAILS THAT ARE ALSO FOUND ON “HARVEY’S” FACE,
BUT WHICH WERE WASHED OUT ON THE ‘FUZZY’ PHOTO (SEE BELOW). THE PHOTO SHOWN
ON THE RIGHT IS THE ONE JACK WHITE POSTED A THE EDUCATION FORUM. NOTICE THAT IT
IS ‘WASHED OUT’ AND DETAILS SEEN IN THE MORE PRISTINE PHOTO TO THE LEFT ARE MISSING.

OF CONCERN IS THE FACT THAT THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT IS BLOATED. POSSIBLE CAUSES :
COPYING A COPY OF A COPY, ETC. WHICH CAUSES A POSSIBLE ‘PINCUSHION EFFECT’ – OR
SOMEBODY USED PHOTOSHOP (OR FAULTY COPYING PROGRAM) AND MADE THE FACE 'FATTER’
ACCIDENTALLY OR ON PURPOSE.

IT WAS A GROSS ERROR THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT BY PHOTOGRAPHIC EXPERTS.





The photo on the right is 9.2% wider than the photo on the left. It is a significant
difference, making the identification of the photo on the right as “Lee H. Oswald” more
visually difficult. Both photos are in Jack White’s collection: the photo on the left is more
“pristine” and has more details. I is closer to the original than the photo on the right, which
was used by Jack as an example of “Lee” in relation to “Harvey” as per Armstrong’s thesis.





“HARVEY” AND “LEE” UNCORRECTED FOR DISTORTIONS, SIDE BY SIDE

THIS SET OF PHBOTOS WAS USED TO SHOW THE THAT “LEE” AND “HARVEY” WERE TWO
DIFFERENT PEOPLE BY JACK WHITE, AND PRESUMABLY, BY JOHN ARMSTRONG. BUT THEN
I DISCOVERED ANOTHER PROBLEM. THE PHOTO OF “HARVEY” HAD ALSO BEEN DISTORTED.
THE WIDTH FROM EAR TIP TO EAR TIP IS 4.5 CM FOR “HARVEY". But when it was corrected
to 4.2 cm wide, (making it the same width as the famous color arrest photo, for the
same head length), the distortion of “Harvey” was obvious:





THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT IS 9.6% TOO WIDE. A SIGNIFICANT AND TROUBLING DIFFERENCE.
WHAT HAPPENED? WE HAVE THE SAME “OVER-WIDE” PHENOMENON AGAIN. THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN PUPILS NOT THE SAME. EARS ON FIGURE TO RT. SEEM MORE FLARED. IT’S AN
ILLUSION CAUSED BY THE BLOATING. OUR EYES MEASURE THESE ITEMS AUTOMATICALLY.

NOW LET’S PLACE “HARVEY” (CORRECTED) AND “LEE” (CORRECTED) SIDE BY SIDE:





DESPITE SWOLLEN RIGHT EYE (LEFT TO VIEWER), THE EYES ARE SAME. EARS ARE IDENTICAL.
NOSE ON FIGURE TO RIGHT IS SOFTER, DUE TO YOUNGER AGE, BUT EYEBROWS ARE IDENTICAL.
THE DISTANCE BETWEEN PUPILS IS NOW IDENTICAL. SKULL SHAPES IDENTICAL. CONCLUSION:
THE MAN IN BOTH PHOTOS IS LEE H. OSWALD. THE PHOTO ON LEFT DOES NOT PASS
MUSTER AS EVIDENCE FOR A SEPARATE ‘LEE.’

JVB