Display results as :
Advanced Search
Latest topics
Log in
Social bookmarking
Social bookmarking digg  Social bookmarking delicious  Social bookmarking reddit  Social bookmarking stumbleupon  Social bookmarking slashdot  Social bookmarking yahoo  Social bookmarking google  Social bookmarking blogmarks  Social bookmarking live      

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website
RSS feeds

free forum

Go down

Re: Judyth Baker - a credible source?

on Sat 01 Nov 2014, 3:26 am
Sorry about the comment length, but why make another topic when the discussion is already started?

The Ghost of Speculations Past

(An inspection of Judyth V. Baker's assertions concerning the Kennedy Assassination)
Official and public commentaries have attempted to fill many evidentiary gaps in the Kennedy assassination. Yet these attempts were not all based on rigorous inquiry and evidence. Perhaps a few sought a place in history, to profit, and generated their biased view of events via their own speculative presumptions. The worst of these possible are those attempting to create ideas of whole cloth with a veneer of actual evidence in attempts to gain credibility.

Some of these people are content to make grand claims with little evidence perpetually. When our ideas are represented as evidence without verified proof, they fail to be compelling. Additionally, they create myths that plague reliable inquiry. All official and independent public statements are subject to reasonable skepticism.

The weakest defense offered is that reasoned criticism is a personal attack. Unless someone purposefully uses erroneous information and targets personal attributes without evidence, reasonable criticism is not a personal attack. If assertions cannot stand upon verifiable evidence, they deserve criticism. Just as substantial evidence deserves support.

In the matter of Judyth V. Baker, quite a few spectacular claims have been offered. Yet do they enjoy the support of substantial evidence? Is the alleged story of Oswald's secret mistress credible? Do her statements emerge from proven information or from Baker's claims? While Baker has supporters, they as well do not offer evidence to support Baker, but faith in her allegations. Faith can be important, but what we invest our faith in is doubly so.

Perhaps the words of Baker herself may be instructive. "Lee had told me that he was being set up to get trapped and killed, because he had penetrated an assassination ring, in the hope of saving Kennedy, by means of his association with David Ferrie and anti-Kennedy former FBI officer Guy Banister, and others." i. In just this extended claim are significant problems. She claims to have known all these people yet she never spoke out. She waited until many associated with her claims are dead and unable for comment.

We must assess the probability of Baker knowing Oswald. They did work at the same business for a period. Baker offers time cards and business documents, yet none of this supports her grand claims regarding Oswald. ii. Working closely together and working at the same business is not substantial; many others too worked with Oswald. Baker claims three witnesses who support her views, a former bouncer with asserted deep criminal connections, a friend, and her sister. Yet none of them has filed legal statements that are subject to perjury laws. She claims to have met Oswald's alleged CIA handler, but gives only a physical description available to anyone who does research on him. iii.

Now begins a consistent method of Baker's to alleging personal credit for the research provided by other people without supporting evidence. Baker asserts author Joan Mellon never credited her for information used in a book. Baker supporter James Fetzer claims, "This lack of giving credit has occurred several times with (nameless) researchers". iv. Yet Baker has offered no conclusive evidence for public review. Fetzer offers just her word as proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  

Baker states "Lee became a successful double agent working secretly against Castro for the CIA, with ties to the FBI, even while posing as pro-Castro. He had successfully worked for the US inside the Soviet Union, and was soon worked as a spy inside Cuba. But he also had numerous jobs to do for the CIA and FBI here in the United States and I was aware of many of them, having posed as his wife in New Orleans, and for some time had also served to help cover his activities while he and I worked at a small coffee company in New Orleans. " v.

If Oswald had prior knowledge he would be trapped and killed, why did he not expose the assassination ring? In my view, intelligent Conspirators feasibly would not kill his entire family and mistress as Baker suggests due to the great public and media attention it would draw. vi. Oswald being a feasible government employee is not a recent concept. Oswald was asserted to have been a government agent by repeated authors, films, and media outlets a decade prior to Baker's assertions. None of this information supports she even knew Oswald. All are speculations without substantial evidence.

Why does not a single eyewitness that is not a Baker supporter or relative confirm any of her ideas? If someone is active in various intelligence programs, why not immediately document them privately and gather supporting proof for their existence? There is no fixed timeline and she offers no relevant documents to verify these multiple accounts. This method is similar to portions of the President's (Warren) Commission in my view.

Baker claims to know David Ferrie, no substantial evidence is offered. David Ferrie never mentions Judyth Baker in official investigations. If he were aware of her, would he not implicate her as well to provide himself a legal bargaining chip? Why would David Ferrie who had no interest in women, care about the supposed teenage mistress of an underling?

Officials seeking to portray Oswald as guilty feasibly would have paraded such domestic strife to damage his credibility. Baker's unverified ideas could have aided their case and discredited those contending official claims. Yet there is no conclusive link to Oswald. Having faith in Baker's view alone does not prove anything but a decided lack of inquiry.  No living person has, nor likely will be the key to the Kennedy Assassination. Yet that does not dissuade many from seeking to claim such a place.

Baker states Oswald was a "courier and lab tech" vii. in her claimed cancer project. Oswald had no professional scientific training, nor undertook documented courier activities. According to Marina Oswald, her husband did not go out for more than a few hours daily in New Orleans. How could he have time for these countless activities and without the training necessary to undertake them all? When did they find time for the enduring romance proposed?

Fetzer states, Baker possesses an American Express receipt that he assert is "linked in such a way as to show it was illogical for Baker to have purchased it for any other reason than to give Oswald an untraceable $30". viii. However, Oswald received loans from his uncle Dutz Morret in New Orleans who did associate with minions of Carlos Marcello. Oswald did not require Judyth Baker to fund untraceable activities if he was an intelligence asset. Intelligence programs have untraceable budgets far exceeding the financial means of Baker.

Oswald could have obtained a largely untraceable weapon yet he did not, so why is the thirty dollars so important to conceal? Many inconsistent and unreasonable methods accompany Baker's ideas in my view. No identifying evidence supports this claim, similar to repeated others. It only proves a financial transaction occurred.
Baker claims a green glass she has possessed since 1963 was a gift from Oswald. Yet it was not until 1980 this claim is "known to many", the claim and the glass prove nothing besides her possession of a glass. ix. Baker has not supported these ideas regarding Oswald with verifiable evidence. Anyone living in New Orleans in the period Baker did could possess all these irrelevant documents and items.

Fetzer opines that President's (Warren) Commission testimony supports Baker, yet none is cited. Fetzer concludes Oswald's time keeping at work is irregular, and alleges inconsistent business practices regarding Oswald. This according to Fetzer and Baker is substantial evidence. Yet this only proves Oswald was late and the manager was possibly incompetent. Neither claim supports Baker's extraordinary assertions.

Baker persuades Fetzer of a three-year plot that Baker and Oswald allegedly undertook based on her claims, and little else. Baker's "report" about Lee Harvey Oswald is the source of each allegation. Yet anyone with access to similar documents and a minimum of evidence could generate a feasibly possible report. No such report proves any personal association with Oswald without utilizing consistent evidence. The proven "collusion" x. suggested is but speculative association.

Fetzer claims Baker knew the Mafia boss of New Orleans Carlos Marcello. xi. This uncorroborated claim is not fully verified, most involved are dead, to prove this requires a great deal more. Not satisfied with merely "knowing" Marcello, Baker claims he paid for a hotel room for her and Oswald. No corroboration occurs. If Marcello were connected to a plot, he would not meet and pay for the expenses of a patsy and his girlfriend. xii. He would likely stay as far away from any person directly involved to not incriminate himself.

Marcello possessed massive criminal holdings and is fighting the United States Justice Department prior to 1963. He feasibly had countless important matters dominating his attention. Touring the city with Baker and Oswald and portraying a nefarious cupid is highly improbable. Baker also claims to have met and known proven assassin Jack Ruby and Garrison suspect Clay Shaw. Ruby, Marcello, Shaw, Oswald, and Ferrie never mention Baker; none of them ever corroborated her ideas. No definitive evidence places her with any of these men; no official documents offered verify she ever participated in intelligence operations. Operations Baker improbably asserts began while she was still in high school. xiii.

Her "Oswald" love notes allegedly have no identifying marks to denote the sender. Some might claim this was to maintain secrecy, yet where is the actual evidence? Torn notes prove nothing if they cannot be verified. Time cards and streetcar receipts prove nothing about Oswald. xiv. If Oswald indeed was part of a secret assignment why tell Baker? If he cared so much for her why use her for operations that risked her life as well? 

The repeated inconsistency of her contentions and lack of proof render them untenable in my view.All Baker's claims seem highly improbable. They are possible, of course nearly anything unproven could be. Consider Baker's allegations of being the target of a large Internet conspiracy. Ponder how many people are necessary in the improbable asserted plot to stifle Judyth Baker.

"Over 300,000 references using my name, by this time, were on the Internet. I had also published poetry, was a professional artist, had published short stories and writings, and had participated in news groups...One important (yet nameless) website "crashed" and "lost" hundreds of posts and supporting statements. When it was restored, all the posts but mine had been saved..." She claims a second "newsgroup collected about a hundred of my posts suddenly erased them all. A (nameless) webmaster of some very large (unidentified) websites that attacked me personally on the Internet was also the moderator of an important newsgroup...In 2008, this (nameless) moderator erased 250,000 newsgroup references to my name..." xv. All these claims are unsubstantiated without proof. They resemble a significant deficiency of method requiring incredible belief without evidence.

Baker asserts for years she "... had been harassed, threatened, robbed, burglarized, hit on the head" Regarding this Baker additionally stated, "when I opened the trunk of my car with groceries...the trunk was slammed down on my head. I was knocked unconscious. No, they didn't take the car, just my purse...but I had to the hospital for a concussion." xvi. Despite the unfortunate occurrence, it is not related to the Kennedy case; anyone can be assaulted and robbed for common reasons.

Baker states eminent danger surrounds her, she alleges someone "...had my car's brake lines severed" xvii. Baker asserts she "received death threats and assassination attempts...crazy people persecute her and opens (sic) her mail...Baker claims she can not (sic) get a job in their home country because of what she is known for." xviii. The last claim is wholly improbable. Millions of Americans likely have no idea who Judyth Baker is, most not involved in research have no reason to know of her. xix.

She asserts being "...forced twice overseas for my safety...Due to death threats, in 2007 I had to leave my teaching position in Hungary...I entered the EU political asylum program..." xx. However, that is not accurate. Baker submitted an application for asylum and appealed the initial refusal. Sweden denied her a place in the asylum program. xxi. Swedish officials found no reliable evidence to grant her the status. She may now claim it was obtained in another country, yet no evidence of such claims is offered presently.

She never was granted asylum in Sweden based on the allegations offered and subsequently left. xxii. "Send me anywhere except the Unite States, appeals Judyth Baker."xxiii. Now she has returned to her asserted last choice location. I suppose other interests allow her to overcome her prior fears. Additionally Baker offers six different methods of donation because according the former blog "Judyth lives in exile w/medical bills, heating bills, etc!"

Baker purports "a white van that I had complained to friends had been following me for months. It came full speed as I sat at a red light only blocks from my house. I sustained a concussion...the car was dripping gas and could have turned into a fireball." Just as Judyth Baker could have known Oswald, what might be is not consequential.  She states the driver of the white van gave "false information" to authorities. The van according to Baker "had no known owner. He vanished."

On a subsequent occasion, Baker offers, "As I drove, a black van pulled out and began following me. I went some five or six miles trying to evade it, but finally, the van forced another car against me just as we were going under a cement-walled underpass. I could have been killed, but a wall of water from the rain pushed up between me and the car that was forced against mine, which saved me from crashing into the cement wall there." xxiv. Should we accept this asserted film style encounter?

Suppose we accept this second unidentified van was attempting to kill Baker for her "knowledge". Just this once we forgo reasonable consideration of any verifiable corroborating witnesses. Baker then states "The car received little damage..." which based on the harrowing tale is improbable. How could little damage feasibly occur if it striking another car that was being pushed by the aggressive black van? Yet let us build these improbable ideas upon the sand offered. Now enter a lifesaving wall of water and truly look at what Baker proposes.

"For my protection I dress in a burka and live in Turkey. You could make a movie out of all that's happened." xxv. Another of her allegations is while teaching in Hungary "I was suddenly told to quit: Hungarian agents warned me to leave the country but not to return to America." xxvi. "My phone lines were tapped in Europe...I finally obtained safe haven in the Middle East and Europe..." Baker travels extensively "through the actions of friends and my children...I am free to go anywhere I choose..." xxvii. Yet what definitive evidence has Baker provided for all the good will and generosity offered?

Her contending narrative does not aid her arguments. She is poor but well traveled and free to go anywhere. She fled America due to purported death threats, yet has returned now to the place she repeatedly begged not be sent to. Why has she returned if this plot is still active? Is promotion of a book worth your life? Inconsistent methods and actions sincerely damage these claims.

None of these alleged trials and tribulations proves anything regarding Lee Harvey Oswald or any other infamous people mentioned. The question becomes how a number of nefarious forces could eliminate targets of greater importance with superior security, but not Judyth Baker. She also claims repeated concussions and being unconscious during some allegations yet maintains that her memory of events is superior to those with substantial evidence.

None of these statements is based upon anything but what Baker and her supporters prior offered. Why do so many claims appear without necessary information to corroborate them? The stories vary from incarnation to incarnation, as do her ever-growing list of alleged nefarious attacks. Baker claims often-unnamed perpetrators launched an Internet crusade against her. All dubiously attributed to a conspiracy too large that hounds Baker alone.

Perhaps Baker herself within her biography offers the most damaging admission. "I began writing The Oswald Connection, a mishmash of memories thrown together without regard to my painfully written and highly accurate letters. If any publisher showed interest in this incomplete story, which omitted some key names and activities. I'd then bring out the full 600 pages I'd written and ask for protection from lawsuits." xxviii. Thus, Baker put forward an unreliable version of her assertions to generate publicity and publisher interest. Any misinformation that emerged from this is her responsibility.

These incomplete and vague statements could allow her to fill in the many improbabilities once a financial deal was secured. She was not concerned with accuracy or evidence but generating interest. These are her prior words. Baker's methods and admissions render her current story untenable.

Some may claim that Baker's belief in these latest ideas with their support is enough, and those people are wrong. The random items cobbled together over the decades to prove her assertions are not substantial evidence. She has no legal statements, photographs to offer, nor significant evidence to consider. No prominent witness in the case ever mentions her at the time; no conclusive evidence proves Baker even knew Oswald personally beyond a short employment period.

Baker now claims on her blog "THE DEBATE IS OVER", xxix. again she is incorrect. The true debate requires substantial evidence and legal support, and she has never met the standards of such an undertaking in my view. The uninformed shall embrace Baker's ideas similar to other improbable claims. Yet the burden of proof is upon her, she must prove her claims with more than mere words and random items. If someone will not regard the majority of evidence to rely on extraordinary claims, they are not engaging in research but creative writing.

C. A. A. Savastano

i. Judyth Vary Baker and Dr. James Fetzer, Biography,  October 11, 2014, judythbaker.blogpot. com

ii. James Fetzer, 14 Reasons to believe in Judyth Vary Baker, March 1, 2010,

iii. Ibid

iv. Ibid

v. JVB and J. Fetzer, Biography, Oct. 11, 2014

vi. Ibid

vii. Ibid

viii. James Fetzer, 14 Reasons to believe in J.V.B.

ix. Ibid

x. Ibid

xi. Ibid

xii. Doug MacCash, Lee Harvey Oswald's purported mistress's tour draws conspiracy devotees, The Times-Picayune, October 21, 2013,

xiii. Judyth Vary Baker with Howard Plaztman, Ph.D, Deadly Alliance, Outline of the Conspiracy, Judyth is Recruited: To April of 1963 

xiv. Ibid

xv. James Fetzer, Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile, February 25, 2010,

xvi. Ibid

xvii. Ibid

xviii. Maria Svensson, November 22, 2007, I Was Oswald's girlfriend, DT,

xix. Ibid

xx. Fetzer, JVB: Living in Exile,

xxi. M. Svenson, I was Oswald's girlfriend

xxii. Ibid

xxiii. Ibid

xxiv. Fetzer, JVB: Living in Exile,

xxv. Ibid

xxvi. JVB and JF, Biography

xxvii: Ibid

xxviii: Ibid

xix: Ibid, Homepage

Last edited by Carmine Savastano on Sat 01 Nov 2014, 5:08 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : spacing)
Posts : 67
Join date : 2011-12-15
View user profile

Re: Judyth Baker - a credible source?

on Sat 01 Nov 2014, 3:49 am
the above proves the opposite of what she claims to prove; we know from both Martino and Nagell that Oswald did NOT know who he was really working for. Nagell tried to convince him he was being manipulated but was unsuccessful. At any rate, you can save a lot of time because, as I said, the whole tone of her writing wreaks of falseness, written like a bad suspense novel (and I don't mean Gordon).
Posts : 1111
Join date : 2013-08-27
View user profile

Re: Judyth Baker - a credible source?

on Tue 04 Nov 2014, 10:42 pm
greg parker wrote:
JFK Student wrote:Judyth has written a new book.It is about David Ferrie.

Yes, but you're going to have to wait a bit longer for some actual facts. I know Judyth. I know her MO. I know how she weaves little tiny bits of truth with research - hers or anyone else's (unpublished) work, with herself placed in the middle of it.

It's selling like hot cakes. She is quite the self-promoter.

I wonder how many will bother with the facts when they do come out - as they certainly will?

One thing - it will be too late to incorporate them into this semi-fiction.

Very well put,Greg.I guess she is motivated by fame and money.
Posts : 1111
Join date : 2013-08-27
View user profile

Re: Judyth Baker - a credible source?

on Tue 04 Nov 2014, 10:43 pm
Thanks for the essay,Carmine.It was quite interesting.

Re: Judyth Baker - a credible source?

on Wed 05 Nov 2014, 7:56 am
JFK Student wrote:Thanks for the essay,Carmine.It was quite interesting.

My pleasure. I am glad you enjoyed it. The deeper one looks at her claims the less probable this particular hypothesis becomes in my view. 

Here is another facet of the improbable to consider.

JVB meets the OIC
Posts : 1557
Join date : 2015-07-21
View user profile

Re: Judyth Baker - a credible source?

on Mon 21 May 2018, 6:00 pm
Ed Edwards reciting a poem at JVB shindig, boy are this lot compromised..........

Posts : 1111
Join date : 2013-08-27
View user profile

Re: Judyth Baker - a credible source?

on Mon 21 May 2018, 7:14 pm
A convention of nutcases.
Sponsored content

Re: Judyth Baker - a credible source?

Back to top
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum