Edward Haslam wrote:Anna Lewis knew about Oswald’s connection to Carlos Marcello, to Banister, to Baker and to the anti-Castro activities in New Orleans. She was afraid to speak out.
Personally, I found Anna Lewis' testimony to be the most compelling I've ever seen regarding the JFK assassination because as David Lewis' wife she was not really one of the anti-communist gang but was well placed to observe everything that went on. Her opinion was that it was all a big joke, just ego stuff like kids planning to go 'egging' a house. She never believed it would come to anything, just talk.
It is like you say a real shame that she didn't speak out to Garrison at the time and that Judyth Baker didn't take a polygraph test. Lewis not only knew about Oswald's connection to the people you mention but also to her husband and herself. She's heard them all plotting and scheming and by speaking out could have implicated herself or been forced to implicate friends or people she'd rather not mess with. Like she says in the interview, she wasn't a snitch.
Judth Baker questions
-
Edward Haslam
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Who should have polygraphed Judyth Vary Baker?
The polygraph question is an interesting one and a good place to start a discussion about Judyth.
If I may re-position the question a bit, it will help me get to my point. Given that there is solid evidence (her 1963 W2 form from the Reily Coffee Company) that Judyth Vary Baker worked with Lee Harvey Oswald (even starting on the same day as Oswald) in the summer of 1963. The RCC timecards show that she clocked in within minutes of him day-after-day. Why then was she not picked up by the FBI, the New Orleans Police Department, or the Warren Commission to be polygraphed, or at least, questioned?
Any gumshoe dectective investigating a murder suspect would have started with friends and associates, particularly at their place of employment. Given that neither Lee nor Judyth owned a car, that they both clocked in within minutes of each other, and both lived along the Magazine Street bus route, it would have been fairly easy to figure out they took the same bus to work every morning. Such a common sense observation (if asked in 1963) would have easily led to the bus driver(s) that drove the Magazine bus at those times each morning. Having lived in New Orleans and used public transportation much of my life, I can assure you that the bus drivers recognize their regular customers. Oswald would get on the bus each morning at the corner of the 4900 block of Magazine. Several minutes later, an attractive young female would board the bus at Marengo Street and then sit down next to Oswald. Both would get off together by the Reily Coffee Company. Would this have gone un-noticed by the bus driver? (I note that the driver of the bus that Oswald boarded in Dallas on November 22, 1963 was questioned!)
What happened instead of a common sense gumshoe investigation was that FBI investigators went to Monihan, an ex-FBI agent who worked for Reily, one of the most notorious anti-Communists business people in the city. Monihan hired Oswald and was Baker’s immediate supervisor. Supposedly the FBI asked Monihan about Oswald’s character. Are we to believe that Monihan did not know that Baker and Oswald arrived together at the entrance to the coffee company on a daily basis for nearly three months? Was the point of asking Monihan about Oswald instead of doing a real investigation to make sure that the answers would pass FBI muster? Is this why Monihan never mentioned his secretary Judyth Baker in his response about Oswald?
I will add that Baker’s friend, Anna Lewis (see interview on www.JFKmurderSolved.com) acknowledges that she saw Judyth and Lee together on a regular basis and that she and her husband (David Lewis - an employee of ex-FBI agent-in-charge Guy Banister) socialized with Judyth and Lee on a number of occassions. Further, Anna Lewis admits that she lied to Jim Garrison and his investigators concerning her knowledge of Oswald. Had Anna Lewis told Garrison the truth, Garrison might very well have picked up Judyth Baker for questioning! And Garrison, who was infamous for giving polygraphs to witnesses, might very well have asked her to take a polygraph test. Why did this not happen? Anna Lewis knew about Oswald’s connection to Carlos Marcello, to Banister, to Baker and to the anti-Castro activities in New Orleans. She was afraid to speak out.
Ed Haslam
author of MARY, FERRIE & THE MONKEY VIRUS
webmaster of www.TheMonkeyVirus.com
If I may re-position the question a bit, it will help me get to my point. Given that there is solid evidence (her 1963 W2 form from the Reily Coffee Company) that Judyth Vary Baker worked with Lee Harvey Oswald (even starting on the same day as Oswald) in the summer of 1963. The RCC timecards show that she clocked in within minutes of him day-after-day. Why then was she not picked up by the FBI, the New Orleans Police Department, or the Warren Commission to be polygraphed, or at least, questioned?
Any gumshoe dectective investigating a murder suspect would have started with friends and associates, particularly at their place of employment. Given that neither Lee nor Judyth owned a car, that they both clocked in within minutes of each other, and both lived along the Magazine Street bus route, it would have been fairly easy to figure out they took the same bus to work every morning. Such a common sense observation (if asked in 1963) would have easily led to the bus driver(s) that drove the Magazine bus at those times each morning. Having lived in New Orleans and used public transportation much of my life, I can assure you that the bus drivers recognize their regular customers. Oswald would get on the bus each morning at the corner of the 4900 block of Magazine. Several minutes later, an attractive young female would board the bus at Marengo Street and then sit down next to Oswald. Both would get off together by the Reily Coffee Company. Would this have gone un-noticed by the bus driver? (I note that the driver of the bus that Oswald boarded in Dallas on November 22, 1963 was questioned!)
What happened instead of a common sense gumshoe investigation was that FBI investigators went to Monihan, an ex-FBI agent who worked for Reily, one of the most notorious anti-Communists business people in the city. Monihan hired Oswald and was Baker’s immediate supervisor. Supposedly the FBI asked Monihan about Oswald’s character. Are we to believe that Monihan did not know that Baker and Oswald arrived together at the entrance to the coffee company on a daily basis for nearly three months? Was the point of asking Monihan about Oswald instead of doing a real investigation to make sure that the answers would pass FBI muster? Is this why Monihan never mentioned his secretary Judyth Baker in his response about Oswald?
I will add that Baker’s friend, Anna Lewis (see interview on www.JFKmurderSolved.com) acknowledges that she saw Judyth and Lee together on a regular basis and that she and her husband (David Lewis - an employee of ex-FBI agent-in-charge Guy Banister) socialized with Judyth and Lee on a number of occassions. Further, Anna Lewis admits that she lied to Jim Garrison and his investigators concerning her knowledge of Oswald. Had Anna Lewis told Garrison the truth, Garrison might very well have picked up Judyth Baker for questioning! And Garrison, who was infamous for giving polygraphs to witnesses, might very well have asked her to take a polygraph test. Why did this not happen? Anna Lewis knew about Oswald’s connection to Carlos Marcello, to Banister, to Baker and to the anti-Castro activities in New Orleans. She was afraid to speak out.
Ed Haslam
author of MARY, FERRIE & THE MONKEY VIRUS
webmaster of www.TheMonkeyVirus.com
-
Simon West
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Re: Who should have polygraphed Judyth Vary Baker?
Edward Haslam wrote:Why then was she not picked up by the FBI, the New Orleans Police Department, or the Warren Commission to be polygraphed, or at least, questioned?
Was she picked up and questioned regarding the (still unsolved) murder of Mary Sherman? I guess not since her relationship with Oswald would have become known. I don't know the answer... can you enlighten me?
If not since I presume the murder file remains open surely the investigating police would be interested in a statement from her former colleague and perhaps a polygraph as well, since Wim says she is willing to give one.
Was she picked up and questioned regarding the (still unsolved) murder of Mary Sherman? I guess not since her relationship with Oswald would have become known. I don't know the answer... can you enlighten me?
If not since I presume the murder file remains open surely the investigating police would be interested in a statement from her former colleague and perhaps a polygraph as well, since Wim says she is willing to give one.
-
Simon West
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
I found the following on the net. It is attributed to Judyth Baker and I was wondering if that is correct.
Clay Shaw, famed in the film JFK, also suddenly died -- of suspected lung cancer. He was buried less than 24 hours after death without an autopsy--and he died in Dr., Ochsner's clinic. Ochsner was in charge of the get- Castro cancer research development project that Ruby had seen underway at Dave Ferrie's apartment. He knew quite well that cancer cells, along with 'penicillin' with a larger gauge needle (painful) was the method. Ruby was injected with penicillin an unusual number of times just before contracting lung cancer. He was also x-rayed an exorbitant number of times --the exact preferred method to pull down the immune system to allow the injected cancer cells to take hold, just as happens today with AIDS cases, where cancers develop because of the ruined immune system. Dr. Mary Sherman, the cancer research expert and orthopedic surgeon who guided our get-Castro research in tandem with Ferrie, was dedicated to helping little kids never get polio again. She became involved with the SV-40 monkey virus contaminating the polio vaccine cultures. Dr. Ochsner's own grandson, inoculated with the polio vaccine, died from it. Ochsner realized how easily a needle could bring death by virus, with the best of physicians not realizing what was happening, and he became intrigued with the idea of killing Fidel castro, whom he hated, on the sly. Dr. Sherman helped speed up the project with radiaition. I had noting to do with that part of the research.
Clay Shaw did die of lung cancer but not suddenly like she claims. He was diagnosed in May 73 and died in August 74, aged 61, long after Garrison had put him on trial and been aquitted. An autopsy was not done because his physicians knew very well that he had terminal cancer.
Injecting cancer cells into a person will not cause cancer. In fact Oliver Stone shot this scene for JFK with Ruby being injected and it was cut for that reason. Prolonged use of X-Rays doesn't just suppress the immune system, it can directly cause cancer, and in the 60s doctors rountinely overused X-Rays due to the risk being little understood. But there's no evidence that Ruby had lots of X-Rays prior to being diagnosed with cancer. He died aged 56 not from cancer but from a pulmonary embolism resulting from a blood clot that had formed in his leg.
Several studies have been done on the SV-40 virus and its effect on the 10 million or more people who contracted it through the polio vaccine and there is no evidence of increased rates of cancer in those subjects.
She says she had nothing to do with this research... so my question is which part was she involved in?
Clay Shaw, famed in the film JFK, also suddenly died -- of suspected lung cancer. He was buried less than 24 hours after death without an autopsy--and he died in Dr., Ochsner's clinic. Ochsner was in charge of the get- Castro cancer research development project that Ruby had seen underway at Dave Ferrie's apartment. He knew quite well that cancer cells, along with 'penicillin' with a larger gauge needle (painful) was the method. Ruby was injected with penicillin an unusual number of times just before contracting lung cancer. He was also x-rayed an exorbitant number of times --the exact preferred method to pull down the immune system to allow the injected cancer cells to take hold, just as happens today with AIDS cases, where cancers develop because of the ruined immune system. Dr. Mary Sherman, the cancer research expert and orthopedic surgeon who guided our get-Castro research in tandem with Ferrie, was dedicated to helping little kids never get polio again. She became involved with the SV-40 monkey virus contaminating the polio vaccine cultures. Dr. Ochsner's own grandson, inoculated with the polio vaccine, died from it. Ochsner realized how easily a needle could bring death by virus, with the best of physicians not realizing what was happening, and he became intrigued with the idea of killing Fidel castro, whom he hated, on the sly. Dr. Sherman helped speed up the project with radiaition. I had noting to do with that part of the research.
Clay Shaw did die of lung cancer but not suddenly like she claims. He was diagnosed in May 73 and died in August 74, aged 61, long after Garrison had put him on trial and been aquitted. An autopsy was not done because his physicians knew very well that he had terminal cancer.
Injecting cancer cells into a person will not cause cancer. In fact Oliver Stone shot this scene for JFK with Ruby being injected and it was cut for that reason. Prolonged use of X-Rays doesn't just suppress the immune system, it can directly cause cancer, and in the 60s doctors rountinely overused X-Rays due to the risk being little understood. But there's no evidence that Ruby had lots of X-Rays prior to being diagnosed with cancer. He died aged 56 not from cancer but from a pulmonary embolism resulting from a blood clot that had formed in his leg.
Several studies have been done on the SV-40 virus and its effect on the 10 million or more people who contracted it through the polio vaccine and there is no evidence of increased rates of cancer in those subjects.
She says she had nothing to do with this research... so my question is which part was she involved in?
Re: Who should have polygraphed Judyth Vary Baker?
Simon West wrote:If not since I presume the murder file remains open surely the investigating police would be interested in a statement from her former colleague and perhaps a polygraph as well, since Wim says she is willing to give one.
Please propose or arrange it!
Please propose or arrange it!
-
Edward Haslam
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Errata: William Monaghan, VP at Reily
In a prior post I refered to the VP at Reily as Monihan. Sorry, I mispelled his last name. His name was William I. Monaghan. After leaving the FBI he became the head of security for Standard Fruit (a New Orleans based company competitive to United Fruit) and then moved to the Reily Coffee Company for about two years. During that time, he hired Oswald and Baker. He testified before the Warren Commission about Oswald, but not Baker. Bill Davy points to a de-classified memo that identifys the Reily Coffee Company as a CIA contact.
Later Monaghan became a member of the Metropolitan Crime Commission. Does this sound like it was an official organization that was part of some governmental authority? I am not sure; don't think it was. I think it was part of what I call the faux-government in New Orleans. Private sector groups acting "official." But I will note that MAFIA KINGFISH author John Davis credits the MCC with supplying him with much of the information on Carlos Marcello that he used to write his book (which claims that Marcello killed JFK). His book was financed by the Gugenheim Foundation. So I looked up the Board of the Gugenheim Foundation (back in the early 1990s) and was interested to find a William Westmoreland on it. (Is this General William Westmoreland who headed the American military operations in Viet Nam?)
Later Monaghan became a member of the Metropolitan Crime Commission. Does this sound like it was an official organization that was part of some governmental authority? I am not sure; don't think it was. I think it was part of what I call the faux-government in New Orleans. Private sector groups acting "official." But I will note that MAFIA KINGFISH author John Davis credits the MCC with supplying him with much of the information on Carlos Marcello that he used to write his book (which claims that Marcello killed JFK). His book was financed by the Gugenheim Foundation. So I looked up the Board of the Gugenheim Foundation (back in the early 1990s) and was interested to find a William Westmoreland on it. (Is this General William Westmoreland who headed the American military operations in Viet Nam?)
-
Edward Haslam
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Baker's 60 Minutes Polygraph
Now that Simon got me ponder polygraphs (a subject that I tend to avoid simply because I don't like the idea), I wondered why 60 Minutes did not do a polygraph on Judyth, since she was apparently willing to be polygraphed (per Wim).
Emails from inside 60M which were forwarded to me at the time portrayed frustrated executives at the top of the 60M organization. In their words (my paraphrase) they had spent more time and more on the Judyth Baker story than on any story in 60M's 20 year history.
Ultimately (at least according to what I heard) they could not prove that she was telling the truth. (This does not mean they thought she was lying, but they felt they had an obligation to have more solid evidence than they had in order to support the story she was presenting.) [The debacle over the Bush National Guard documents proves that their concerns were real.]
Here is my thought: Think about how much easier it was for 60M to say "We don't have the evidence to support the story" if they didn't have a polygraph test in their files?
If 60M was confident that polygraphs were reliable, they could have easily had Judyth take one. But doing so would have made walking away from the story that much more difficult and painful, if she had "passed it."
My concern about polygraphing Judyth is (in my opinion) that it will not settle the questions. Those who believe in the "veracity" of polygraphs will believe them. Those who believe in the "Variability" of them won't. At the edge of the experience (the Dave and John show) we can expect, it only proves "she is crazy" because "she believes her own lies." While I do not quarter this beast, I do not want to hand it to someone to use and abuse.
There may be some benefits to a polygraph, particularly for the future, but it is reasonable to conclude that there are also some risks to it, given the short-term environment.
Those are my thoughts. What are yours?
Emails from inside 60M which were forwarded to me at the time portrayed frustrated executives at the top of the 60M organization. In their words (my paraphrase) they had spent more time and more on the Judyth Baker story than on any story in 60M's 20 year history.
Ultimately (at least according to what I heard) they could not prove that she was telling the truth. (This does not mean they thought she was lying, but they felt they had an obligation to have more solid evidence than they had in order to support the story she was presenting.) [The debacle over the Bush National Guard documents proves that their concerns were real.]
Here is my thought: Think about how much easier it was for 60M to say "We don't have the evidence to support the story" if they didn't have a polygraph test in their files?
If 60M was confident that polygraphs were reliable, they could have easily had Judyth take one. But doing so would have made walking away from the story that much more difficult and painful, if she had "passed it."
My concern about polygraphing Judyth is (in my opinion) that it will not settle the questions. Those who believe in the "veracity" of polygraphs will believe them. Those who believe in the "Variability" of them won't. At the edge of the experience (the Dave and John show) we can expect, it only proves "she is crazy" because "she believes her own lies." While I do not quarter this beast, I do not want to hand it to someone to use and abuse.
There may be some benefits to a polygraph, particularly for the future, but it is reasonable to conclude that there are also some risks to it, given the short-term environment.
Those are my thoughts. What are yours?
-
Jim Thompson
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
SEE: TOPIC -- JUNGLE DRUM FLASH !!
Edward Haslam wrote:Those are my thoughts. What are yours?
I concur. A polygraph is not the way to go, simply because someone will say that such is unreliable & therefore open to doubt. I would say that Judith should go ahead & publish her story in book form, which is a project Judyth is planning. Let a lawyer scan the manuscript for possible libel issues. Let Wim & Ed assist Judyth by providing her with additional material which fortifies & corroborates her story. Let them also provide editorial assistance. I believe that Judyth has been assisted by certain individuals in the past, who have been dubbed by Judyth's critics as "Team Judyth." Judyth should get help from other sources, someone with the intellectual rigor & precision of Ed or Wim, both of whom have the deep knowledge base in the field which Judyth needs. What do you think Ed & Wim?
FLASH: SEE TOPIC -- JUNGLE DRUM FLASH
I concur. A polygraph is not the way to go, simply because someone will say that such is unreliable & therefore open to doubt. I would say that Judith should go ahead & publish her story in book form, which is a project Judyth is planning. Let a lawyer scan the manuscript for possible libel issues. Let Wim & Ed assist Judyth by providing her with additional material which fortifies & corroborates her story. Let them also provide editorial assistance. I believe that Judyth has been assisted by certain individuals in the past, who have been dubbed by Judyth's critics as "Team Judyth." Judyth should get help from other sources, someone with the intellectual rigor & precision of Ed or Wim, both of whom have the deep knowledge base in the field which Judyth needs. What do you think Ed & Wim?
FLASH: SEE TOPIC -- JUNGLE DRUM FLASH
-
Simon West
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Judith Baker is absolutely telling the truth.... from her own point of view.
But consider the facts...
She was with Oswald for a maximum of 3 months. How well can you know someone in that amount of time?
She was besotted with him. Therefore her testimony should be understood in that context.
Consider your average James Bond film. Bond seduces the girl to get to his objective, get her to turn on her employers and assist Bond in his goal.
Oswald seduced the young, emotionally intense Judyth Baker and gave himself legitimacy and credibility in infiltrating CIA plots to kill Castro.
She says it was the real deal between her and Oswald but really it is more likely that he was just using her and telling her what she wanted to hear. Oswald was a brilliant liar who fooled a lot of people.The Oswald that Judyth Baker thought she knew was the anti-Castro Oswald persona, not the real Oswald.
When caught Oswald made no attempt to contact her, but called Ruth Paine asking for his wife. His wife was probably the only person that really understood him, having lived with him and fought with him over his revolutionary ambitions, and she is completely forward in acknowledging that Oswald was capable of assassinating Kennedy.
A polygraph I feel will just show that Judyth Baker may have perhaps embelished the truth, but I'm sure she believes that Oswald loved her. But take into account the facts about what Oswald was up to, she was just an expendable 'Bond Girl' character in his story.
But consider the facts...
She was with Oswald for a maximum of 3 months. How well can you know someone in that amount of time?
She was besotted with him. Therefore her testimony should be understood in that context.
Consider your average James Bond film. Bond seduces the girl to get to his objective, get her to turn on her employers and assist Bond in his goal.
Oswald seduced the young, emotionally intense Judyth Baker and gave himself legitimacy and credibility in infiltrating CIA plots to kill Castro.
She says it was the real deal between her and Oswald but really it is more likely that he was just using her and telling her what she wanted to hear. Oswald was a brilliant liar who fooled a lot of people.The Oswald that Judyth Baker thought she knew was the anti-Castro Oswald persona, not the real Oswald.
When caught Oswald made no attempt to contact her, but called Ruth Paine asking for his wife. His wife was probably the only person that really understood him, having lived with him and fought with him over his revolutionary ambitions, and she is completely forward in acknowledging that Oswald was capable of assassinating Kennedy.
A polygraph I feel will just show that Judyth Baker may have perhaps embelished the truth, but I'm sure she believes that Oswald loved her. But take into account the facts about what Oswald was up to, she was just an expendable 'Bond Girl' character in his story.
-
Stephen Stocker
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Re: Baker's 60 Minutes Polygraph
Edward Haslam wrote:Now that Simon got me ponder polygraphs (a subject that I tend to avoid simply because I don't like the idea), I wondered why 60 Minutes did not do a polygraph on Judyth, since she was apparently willing to be polygraphed (per Wim).Emails from inside 60M which were forwarded to me at the time portrayed frustrated executives at the top of the 60M organization. In their words (my paraphrase) they had spent more time and more on the Judyth Baker story than on any story in 60M's 20 year history.Ultimately (at least according to what I heard) they could not prove that she was telling the truth. (This does not mean they thought she was lying, but they felt they had an obligation to have more solid evidence than they had in order to support the story she was presenting.) [The debacle over the Bush National Guard documents proves that their concerns were real.]Here is my thought: Think about how much easier it was for 60M to say "We don't have the evidence to support the story" if they didn't have a polygraph test in their files?If 60M was confident that polygraphs were reliable, they could have easily had Judyth take one. But doing so would have made walking away from the story that much more difficult and painful, if she had "passed it."My concern about polygraphing Judyth is (in my opinion) that it will not settle the questions. Those who believe in the "veracity" of polygraphs will believe them. Those who believe in the "Variability" of them won't. At the edge of the experience (the Dave and John show) we can expect, it only proves "she is crazy" because "she believes her own lies." While I do not quarter this beast, I do not want to hand it to someone to use and abuse.There may be some benefits to a polygraph, particularly for the future, but it is reasonable to conclude that there are also some risks to it, given the short-term environment.Those are my thoughts. What are yours?
Mr. Haslam,
I'm far too busy to get into this discussion in any meaningful way right now, but I did want to say that I'm very glad to see you posting here. I never thought, when I began looking into Judyth's story, that I'd end up convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that she is exactly who and what she claims to be.
Suffice it to say, I was 100% wrong, and I applaud her courage in speaking up, as I do yours. Thank you.
I will say that I agree with your opinions regarding polygraph examinations. There are far too many problems with their reliability. The probability is great that the disinformation crowd would then claim that Judyth may believe her story but that she is mentally unsound.
At any rate, I am glad to see that this subject continues to gain the attention of so many, from all sides of the debate.
Mr. Haslam,
I'm far too busy to get into this discussion in any meaningful way right now, but I did want to say that I'm very glad to see you posting here. I never thought, when I began looking into Judyth's story, that I'd end up convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that she is exactly who and what she claims to be.
Suffice it to say, I was 100% wrong, and I applaud her courage in speaking up, as I do yours. Thank you.
I will say that I agree with your opinions regarding polygraph examinations. There are far too many problems with their reliability. The probability is great that the disinformation crowd would then claim that Judyth may believe her story but that she is mentally unsound.
At any rate, I am glad to see that this subject continues to gain the attention of so many, from all sides of the debate.