Judyth Baker

tisdag 25 november 2014

Staffan Westerberg, spekulationer, faktoider och fakta, del 2.




Det har uppskattats att mer än 100.000 människor befann sig längs den kortegeväg i Dallas som annonserades ut några dagar i förväg och där president Kennedy skulle passera förbi, den 22:a november 1963.  Från flygplatsen Love Field, där Air Force One landade och till Trade Mart, där president Kennedy skulle hålla ett tal under en lunch-sammankomst. Med såväl presidentparet, inklusive den då omåttligt populära presidenthustrun och USAs First Lady Jackie Kennedy, som guvernörsparet Connally från Texas på plats i limousinen är det inte konstigt att många också passade på att ta kameran med sig. Under presidentvalskampanjen tre år tidigare hade dåvarande senatorn John Kennedy också åkt i kortege genom Dallas, men den gången utan sin hustru. De allra flesta Texasbor hade naturligtvis inte sett någon av dem in natura tidigare.




Hela resan var minutiöst planerad så att presidentparet skulle erhålla så mycket publicitet som möjligt och dessutom så att så många vanliga Texasbor som möjligt skulle få en möjlighet att kunna se dem personligen. Kortegen från flygplatsen till Trade Mart var schemalagd vid lunchtid för att åstadkomma maximal effekt. När man tar del av många av bilderna så är det ingen tvekan om att man i Dallas hade gått man ur huse för att se president- och guvernörsparen med egna ögon. President Kennedy hade inlett sin återvalskampanj inför valet ett år senare. Delstaten Texas med sina många väljare och därmed stora antal elektorsröster skulle givetvis kunna bli avgörande i nästa års val.

Kennedy's politik hade många i det starkt konservativa Texas inte mycket till övers för, men trots detta fanns det gott om de som respekterade och gillade Kennedy på ett mer personligt plan. Och det är ingen slump att The First Lady var med på den här resan. Jacqueline Kennedy var enastående populär hos det amerikanska folket och detta var hennes första resa tillsammans med maken efter det tragiska dödsfallet av deras nyfödda son några månader tidigare. Det är väl känt att hon inte var särskilt förtjust i en del av de politiska plikterna, men hon förstod mycket väl hur viktig den här resan var. Resan runt Texas hade dagarna innan man anlände till Dallas varit en enda lång succé för Jackie, och därmed också för presidenten.

Som tydligt framgår av bilderna här var många av de foton vi kan ta del från den här resan också av utmärkt kvalité. Detta då alla resor av den här kalibern regelmässigt bevakades av ett stort antal proffsfotografer från nyhetsbyråer, press, tv-stationer och så vidare. Exakt hur många som befann sig på eller vid Dealey Plaza när mordet ägde rum är inte känt, men uppskattningar via de filmer och foton som togs, ligger på drygt sexhundra personer. En alfabetisk listning av 216 st av dessa finns här, där man också kan se exakt var de befann sig när skotten föll samt deras vittnesmål. Det är också belagt att c:a trettiofem personer tog foton eller filmade på platsen vid tidpunkten för mordet. Nya, dvs tidigare okända, filmsekvenser och foton har dykt upp med jämna mellanrum sedan mordet ägde rum och det kan givetvis inte uteslutas att fler kommer att se dagens ljus i framtiden. 



Och kanske kan det tyckas egendomligt att trots alla dessa film- och stillbildskameror i händerna på åskådarna runt Dealey Plaza så existerar inga bilder av någon skytt i något fönster på skolbokslagret, TSBD, och inte heller från någon annan byggnad vid Plazan. Men alla hade naturligtvis ögonen på limousinen och dessutom var hela skottsekvensen över på mindre än tio sekunder. Dealey Plaza ger också upphov till ekon som gör det mycket svårt att avgöra varifrån ett ljud uppkommer. Vittnen som befann sig bara några meter ifrån varann, redogjorde för en lång rad olika uppfattningar om varifrån skotten kom. Allt detta förklarar i någon mån varför inga foton där en skytt kan ses, existerar.

Förslag har däremot inte saknats, researchers av alla de slag har tyckt sig se skyttar lite överallt runt Dealey Plaza enligt egna, passionerade undersökningar av olika fotografier. Nästan utan undantag har dock samtliga avfärdats både av andra researchers och av olika kommissioner.

Dock finns det åtminstone ett fotografi där vissa fortfarande anser att en skytt kan skönjas. Det gäller det berömda Polaroid-fotot taget av Mary Moorman. Det här fotot är taget i stort sett samtidigt som ett skott träffar Kennedy i huvudet och dödar honom.



Inom rektangeln, ovanför den främre muren och bakom staketet, skulle det enligt två researchers, Jack White och Gary Mack, finnas en person med ett gevär anlagt och dessutom antas det visa en mynningsflamma. Senare  benämndes detta -  Badgeman. Mack, som för övrigt fungerar som intendent vid 6th Floor Museum på Dealey Plaza, uttrycker sig numera i ganska försiktiga ordalag om vad det är som syns. När detta först presenterades i början av åttiotalet var det i betydligt mer starka ordalag om att detta troligen var en människa med ett gevär som syns (den digitala kopian ovan ger inte möjlighet att se detaljer, det är ett mycket litet område som det handlar om).

JFK researchern Dale K. Meyers genomförde en grundlig undersökning av fotografiet och den påstådda Badgeman. Meyers slutsats, som också är densamma som Discovery Channels undersökning, visar att proportionerna och storleken på den påstådda skytten är såna att han måste ha befunnit sig flera meter bakom staketet och dessutom från en upphöjd position. Inget vittne, t.ex., Lee Bowers, Abraham Zapruder eller Marilyn Sitzman (Zapruders assistent), som alla hade utmärkt uppsikt över området bakom staketet, stödjer att någon skytt synts i en sådan position. Sitzman uttalade bland annat i en lång intervju 1965 med researchern Josiah Thompson att hon hört skotten komma "från någonstans till vänster om mig, ovanifrån", alltså i riktning TSBD. I senare intervjuer, bland annat en strax innan hon avled 1993 ville hon inte utesluta att någon kunde ha avfyrat ett vapen "med ljuddämpare i så fall" från en position bakom staketet på gräskullen. Det förefaller inte konstigt om hon likt så många andra vittnen påverkats av den debatt som rasat under många år, och kanske också Oliver Stones film JFK. Inget vittne säger sig ha sett en skytt vid gräskullen.

Notera också de tre männen på trapporna lite snett framför, till höger om och ovanför limousinen. Någon sekund efter fotot togs vänder de blixtsnabbt om och rusar uppför trapporna. De har sett hur Kennedys huvud exploderar och reaktionen är reflexmässig, bort från farozonen. Fanns det någon skytt bakom dem så framstår det ju som självklart att de säkerligen inte hört något skott avfyrat bakom sig, en skytt som de således därefter skulle springa rakt emot. Detta kan ses i filmen som togs av Orville Nix från andra sidan av Dealey Plaza.

Den medicinska bevisningen är ett kapitel för sig som jag ska återkomma till, men ingen av de experter som deltagit i någon av de kommissioner som granskat den medicinska bevisningen anser att Kennedy träffats av ett skott framifrån. Sammanlagt är detta alltså trettionio personer, samtliga tillhörande den absolut främsta expertis USA haft att tillgå inom sina respektive medicinska ämnesområden.

Att ett skott avfyrats från det hållet är naturligtvis heller inte samma sak som att det träffade sitt mål. Sammanfattningsvis vill jag påstå att i termer av sannolikheter så är det utan tvekan mycket stark övervikt mot att inget skott avfyrades från gräskullen.  Omöjligt - nej, sannolikt, nej.

Nåväl, att någon skytt inte finns dokumenterad på bild har på inget sätt hindrat spekulationerna kring vilka personer det de facto är som syns på en del av de bilder som togs, i synnerhet på eller i omedelbar närhet till Dealey Plaza. Allt ifrån den blivande presidenten Bush1 och den blivande presidenten Bush2, via diverse välkända yrkesmördare, påstådda CIA-agenter och politiska högerfanatiker/extremister till olika mindre välkända maffiamördare, har av passionerade konspirationsförespråkare förklarats befinna sig på platsen när mordet på Kennedy ägde rum.

Logiken i detta är i många fall häpnadsväckande. Föreställer man sig att man deltar i och/eller har kunskap om att USAs president ska mördas, hur, när och var detta kommer att ske, så är det ingen överdrift att påstå att det finns en plats på detta jordklot där man på inga villkor ska befinna sig när det äger rum; och det är självfallet Dealey Plaza i Dallas, den 22:a november 1963.

Av alla märkliga förklaringar jag tagit del av som skulle motsäga detta, är den ena mer bisarr än den andra. Som exempelvis att man vill vara på plats för att bevittna en historisk händelse, eller att man äntligen ska få se när landsförrädaren John F. Kennedy tas av daga.

Redan på detta stadie torde flertalet av de som föreslås vara fotograferade på platsen kunna räknas bort. De fotografier där diverse personer påstås vara avbildade visar uteslutande situationer som är allt annat än dramatiska. De syns i mängden av människor och betraktar kortégen eller syns gående vid Plazan. Att alla de som föreslagits alltså skulle haft något operativt ansvar på platserna de befann sig enligt fotografierna, förefaller knappast särskilt sannolikt. De påstådda CIA agenter eller maffiamördare som det ibland påstås handla om, tillhör förmodligen de mest ljusskygga individer man kan föreställa sig. Att dessa helt ogenerat, bland folk, kameror, poliser och Secret Service-agenter skulle visa upp sig på platsen där Kennedy mördas framstår - om uttrycket ursäktas, som både skrattretande och suicidalt. De är både tränade i och har erfarenhet av att vara osynliga "i tjänsten". Och det är ingen överdrift att påstå att visa upp sig i anslutning till mordet på Kennedy skulle strida mot varje uns av självbevarelsedrift, varje erfarenhet de lärt och varje instinkt de kan förmodas inneha.

Logik i all ära, inget hindrar givetvis att somliga kan visa sig agera fullständigt ologiskt och rentav idiotiskt, också de som mördar presidenter. Så är det naturligtvis, men jag anser ändå att ovanstående förtjänar att nämnas och funderas på i det här sammanhanget. Och jag blev följdaktligen inte förvånad när jag gick igenom Staffan Westerbergs (SW) artikel rubricerad "CIAs dubbelgångare" (del 11 av SWs artiklar).

Det är mycket som förtjänar att kommenteras av vad SW skriver i den här artikeln. Jag väljer dock att försöka hålla mig till det som avser de foton SW diskuterar kring. Artikeln inleds med ett par bilder där SW bland annat kommenterar så här:

"Av alla kända och publicerade bilder tagna vid Dealey Plaza den dagen är det bara en person som var klädd i en sådan rock och hatt. Strax innan skotten stod den mannen bredvid en man som var slående lik hans gamle radarpartner Lucien Conein från CIA:s begynnelse."

Här bilderna som avses:



Låt oss först studera fotot ovan. De inflikade bilderna upptill visar den ökände CIA agenten E. Howard Hunt, därom råder inga tvivel. Vem mannen mitt i bilden är, vet däremot ingen. Han befann sig bevisligen på Dealey Plaza omedelbart efter att skotten föll, och finns också på någon ytterligare bild, lugnt gående mot gräskullen, dit många begav sig i förvirringen strax efter skotten. Att det finns vissa likheter med Hunt är det heller ingen tvekan om. Men det är också så att den där Fedorahatten var ett vanligt manligt attribut i Texas på sextiotalet, liksom den rock mannen bär. Alldeles säkert massor av män som klädde sig på det här viset vid den här tiden.

Inte heller går det att identifiera mannen via ansiktet. Bildens kvalité och fokus räcker inte för någon slags identifiering, oavsett vem mannen är. Om Howard Hunt och hans son och de historier de vittnat om, kan man ganska snabbt bilda sig en uppfattning via lite Internet-sökning. Howard Hunts eget vittnesmål är knappast trovärdigt, mannen var en notorisk lögnare och vad han uttalade vid sin dödsbädd kan inte utan vidare verifiering anses ha något större värde. Dessutom råder det delade meningar om vad det egentligen är Hunt säger vid sin dödsbädd.

Vi går vidare till nästa bilder i Westerbergs artikel:

Lucien Conein


I cirkeln ser vi dels, åter en man i Fedorahatt, delvis skymd av MC-polisen. Och dels, till höger i bild (till vänster om mannen i Fedorahatt) ytterligare en person i cirkeln. 

Först kan man konstatera att huruvida Fedoramannen i denna bild är samma person som i bilden ovan inte alls är säkert. Det kan vara så, men baserat bara på påståendet att "bara en man var klädd så" går det naturligtvis inte att avgöra med säkerhet om det verkligen är samma person som på bilden ovan.

Den andre mannen, som av en del konspirationsförespråkare ansetts vara Lucien Conein, har definitivt likheter med Conein. Denne var dessutom också CIA-agent och sysslade med många ljusskygga operationer åt CIA, en kortare biografi finns här. Det faktum att dessa två, bara sekunder innan skotten avlossas, befinner sig så nära varandra skulle ju kunna tyda på att det kan ligga något i misstankarna om att det verkligen är Hunt och Conein som finns på bilden? När Westerberg på det här sättet spekulerar kring fotografier och vad de visar, så vore det återigen förtjänstfullt om han inte undanhåller sånt som läsaren bör informeras om. I det här fallet finns nämligen en ganska anmärkningsvärd berättelse kring just fotot ovan med de två männen i cirkeln.

Fotot med de två männen längs Houston Street ovanför presidentparet togs av James "Ike" Altgens, alltså samma AP fotograf som tog det berömda fotot där Kennedy just skjutits genom halsen och syns med uppsträckta händer mot halsen genom limousinens vindruta. Också den här bilden hade via AP publicerats i olika dagstidningar i USA.

Den konspirationsorienterade researchern Allan Eaglesham kontaktades 2008 av Frank Caplett, som hade en intressant berättelse om fotot. Vid ett besök i Texas 1999 hos en pensionerad gammal dam hade han råkat se en inramad version av fotot, upphängd på väggen hos den gamla damen, inklusive den tidningsartikel som författats i anslutning till bilden. Vid en fråga hade den gamla damen, vid namn Imogen Adams, förklarat att jodå, det är min man Robert på bilden, "vi har haft den där artikeln och bilden på väggen i många år och är väldigt stolta att min avlidne make fotograferades tillsammans med president Kennedy hans sista dag i livet". Eaglesham talade sedan med den gamla damen per telefon och kunde konstatera att hon gav en mycket trovärdig berättelse och att historien för hans del, därmed var avslutad. Det var Robert Adams på fotot - inte Lucien Conein:

Robert H. Adams

"I am grateful to Morgan for following up on the information provided by Frank, thus clarifying the situation further. Beyond a reasonable doubt, the man with the "widow's peak," in the photo taken by James Altgens at the corner of Main and Houston, was not Lucien Conein. -- Allan Eaglesham (1/30/11)"

Historien kan läsas här. Som är brukligt inom de konspirationsorienterade kretsarna i USA, accepterades inte historien av somliga, bland annat därför att datumet som synes vid artikeln var felaktigt. "Typisk CIA false flag!" och så vidare. Westerbergs mentor, Jim Fetzer, hade sedan tidigare ansvarat för publikationer där det konstaterades att det definitivt var Conein på bilden och vägrade erkänna att han misstagit sig. Om Westerberg avsiktligt undanhåller den här historien vet jag förstås inte. Men som jag föreställer mig att de flesta instämmer i, bör den berättas så att läsaren själv kan forska vidare och ta ställning till vem det är bilderna föreställer. Några verifierande fakta som skulle stödja att Conein faktiskt befann sig i Dallas den här dagen, har mig veterligt aldrig framkommit.

Mer om Staffan Westerbergs artikel, del 11, följer i nästa inlägg,,

onsdag 27 augusti 2014

Staffan Westerberg, spekulationer, faktoider - och fakta om JFK-mordet. Del 1.


I en lång serie artiklar, 2013 på nätmagasinet Paragraf, publicerade journalisten Staffan Westerberg en genomgång av allehanda konspirationsteorier kring mordet 1963 på USAs trettiofemte president, John F. Kennedy. Ett lovvärt initiativ då det fortfarande återstår frågor kring mordet, mer än femtio år senare. Lovvärt också därför att en svensk läsekrets på så sätt får ta del av diskussionerna kring mordet framförda av en svensk journalist, på svenska.




Det visade sig dock att artiklarna i huvudsak är en ytlig genomgång av en lång rad, ofta disparata, teorier om hur Kennedy på ett eller annat sätt mördades genom en massiv konspiration som i varierande grad innehåller en lång rad parter i det amerikanska samhällslivet, bara begränsad av fantasin; maffian, Castrofientliga kubaner, flera olika underrättelsetjänster, militären, högt uppsatta regeringsrepresenter med Lyndon Johnson i spetsen och med avgörande bidrag från ett stort antal civilister som på ett eller annat sätt råkat bli vittne till händelserna, eller på annat sätt förekommer i utredningarna kring mordet och som av konspirationsförespråkare utpekats som lögnare och/eller medhjälpare till mordet.

Det enkla faktum som är alldeles säkert, att president Kennedy mördades på ett, och endast ett sätt, och hur detta påverkar de här konspirationsteorierna kommenterar inte Westerberg vidare, det saknas på det hela en röd tråd i presentationen, som tar upp såväl äldre som nyare teorier. Så länge det handlar om en konspiration förtjänar det att presenteras, tycks vara mottot.

Så långt ska man kanske inte bli förvånad, konspirationsteoriernas utveckling är idag ett sammelsurium, där seriösa researchers tankegångar friskt blandas med rent stolliga propåer om vad som hände.


Vad som enligt mitt sätt att se saken är betydligt värre är den metodik Westerberg använder.
Återkommande utelämnar Westerberg avsiktligt viktig information eller några som helst invändningar mot teorierna. Dessutom betraktas alla konspirationsteoretiker som "oberoende utredare", medan andra, dvs de som förfäktar att Oswald inte är oskyldig, beskrivs som "CIA assets" eller med liknande epitet som insinuerar att dessa inte har rent mjöl i påsen. Ett djupt ohederligt förhållningssätt oavsett vad man anser beträffande hur mordet gick till. Det finns gott om seriösa researchers på alla sidor av detta och det finns mångdubbelt fler som kan betraktas som högljudda och passionerade men dessvärre fullkomligt inkompetenta.

Inte heller skiljer Westerberg på vad som är teorier hämtade från diverse författares böcker och vad han själv anser eller ställer sig bakom. Med tanke på att ingen egentlig diskussion förekommer hur olika påståenden innehåller svagheter eller framförs som fakta hade också en del källhänvisningar varit önskvärda, där då läsare kan välja att läsa vidare. Det blir varken hackat eller malet i slutänden. Möjligen kan det bero på att Westerberg gärna skriver under på alla tänkbara teorier som presenteras. Det hade tillfört en dimension om Westerberg på ett nyanserat, istället för refererande, sätt fört en egen diskussion kring de teorier han framför i artiklarna. Återkommade presenteras vad som inte är annat än fria spekulationer, som fakta.

När man sedan till ovanstående lägger Paragrafs chefredaktör Dick Sundevalls bisarra uppträdande där han tar bort de kritiska synpunkter som diskuterats i kommentarsfälten kring mordet så blir alltså summan av kardemumman att den läsare som vill få en mer komplett bild av konspirationsteorierna lämnas tämligen tomhänta i Staffan Westerbergs presentationer. De invändningar som framfördes, och Westerbergs många icke-svar, finns heller inte kvar att ta del av.

Det är anledningen till att jag här ska ta upp en del av de invändningar och den kritik som framstår som självklar mot bakgrund av hur Westerberg presenterar teorierna och påståendena. Jag gör inga anspråk på att detta är en heltäckande genomgång, däremot tar jag fram en del som jag anser förtjänar att nämnas.

Författaren Norman Mailer.
För den som inte stött på begreppet faktoider, tarvas en förklaring. Faktoider är ett begrepp som ursprungligen myntades av den amerikanske författaren Norman Mailer och som i sin enkelhet är briljant. Mailer avser med begreppet sånt som uppfattas som fakta, refereras till så som varandes fakta, men som inte alls uppfyller de krav som kan ställas på fakta. Helt enkel fria spekulationer, rena påhitt, åsikter, teorier och så vidare. Uppgraderingen till fakta sker till exempel genom att fler tar upp samma sak, författare eller journalister som korsrefererar till varandras berättelser. Och över tid kan på så sätt vilka spekulationer som helst övergå till att bli betraktade som sanningar, som fakta. I dagens Internetbaserade samhälle kanske något att fundera kring med tanke på den flora av artiklar och berättelser i snart sagt varenda ämne som man snabbt kan ta del av på nätet. Det är lätt att förstå hur den grävande författaren Norman Mailer ställdes inför massor av situationer där det utan tvekan måtte varit svårt att skilja på vad som var vad när han researchade många av de böcker han skrev.

Eftersom jag tidigare här på bloggen skrivit en essä om mina erfarenheter av Judyth Baker börjar jag med att ta upp ett par saker som relaterar till Staffan Westerbergs (SW) artikel som handlar just om Judyth Baker (http://www.magasinetparagraf.se/historiskt/kennedymordet-del-5-kvinnan-som-offrades?page=3)

SW skriver följande beträffande hur hon återgett det ögonblick när hon första gången mötte Oswald:

Fredagen den 26 april 1963 hade 19-åriga Judyth Vary just anlänt till New Orleans från Brandenton, Florida. Judyth var en ytterst lovande student med förhoppningen om att en dag bli läkare och forskare. När det blev hennes tur vid postluckan i Civic Center råkade hon tappa sin tidning ner på stengolvet. Men innan hon hann reagera hade en ung man bakom henne i kön redan plockat upp tidningen.

– Varsågod, fröken, sa den unge mannen och log vänligt.

Det var så de träffades – Judyth Vary och Lee Oswald, skriver Judyth Vary Baker i boken Me & Lee. Efter att de utfört sina ärenden gjorde de sällskap ut från Posten.

– Du måste vara ny i stan, sa Lee. Jag kom precis hit själv. Fast jag är faktiskt född här och spenderade mina första år i New Orleans.

En förtjusande liten historia om hur kärlek kan uppstå ur de mest oväntade situationer. Just det här avsnittet av Bakers berättelse är av flera skäl ett av de mest kritiserade och omskrivna. Dessvärre för läsaren undanhåller SW medvetet just det faktum som blivit allra mest ifrågasatt kring det här mötet.

Judyth Baker påstår nämligen att den här konversationen inleddes, inte på engelska, utan på ryska!
Här har vi alltså två unga amerikaner, kring de tjugo och lite över, som på ett postkontor i New Orleans, Louisiana, år 1963, ses för första gången. Något får dem att börja prata med varann. På ryska. Att detta ter sig fullständigt osannolikt för de flesta som gått igenom berättelsen är inte svårt att förstå.

Men det jag vänder mig i första hand emot är givetvis att SW inte förmedlar detta viktiga faktum i den här historien. Ett journalistiskt skamgrepp att undanhålla detta i syfte att göra berättelsen mer trovärdig. På en direkt fråga jag ställde om detta svarade SW något i stil med att "det inte var så viktigt". Bevare oss för journalister som istället för att återge fullständiga fakta kring de ämnen de behandlar självsvåldligt klampar in och lägger till, drar ifrån eller förändrar fakta baserat på vad man vill uppnå. 

Inte heller klargör SW att han i själva verket är personlig vän med Baker och tillhör den försvinnande lilla minoritet av researchers som faktiskt betraktar Baker som trovärdig. En mycket stor majoritet av de researchers som ägnar sig åt mordet på Kennedy har för länge sedan avskrivit Bakers historia som påhittad.

"Efter vad hon var med om hade hon känt behov av att spara allt som kunde påminna henne om sommaren 1963 med Lee. Där fanns tidkorten från Reily´s Coffee Company, bussbiljetter, annonser som var riktmärken för hennes och Lee´s telefonsamtal, fotografier.

Där fanns flertalet artiklar om henne som ung lovande forskarstudent i Manatee, Florida, Harold Diehls visitkort från 1959. Jag hade också granskat hennes historia i ljuset av skeptikernas argument, men där fanns ingenting som övertygade."

En häpnadsväckande slutsats, då jag förutsätter att SW läst detta:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm (John McAdams)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/viklund.htm (Glenn Viklund)
http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-menu.html (David Reitzes)

De här sidorna täcker det mesta av Judyth Bakers förehavanden mellan åren 2000 och 2014. Skulle mot förmodan Staffan Westerberg läsa detta och ha något att invända mot de fakta som framförs i någon av dessa sidor så är han välkommen att höra av sig, jag lovar att publicera det här. Hur någon som tagit del av det här materialet betraktar Judyth Baker som ett trovärdigt vittne är det oerhört svårt att förstå.

Eftersom detta var den inledande artikeln jag tog del av så var dock dessa fakta kring SWs metodik att behandla ämnet en bra varningssignal för vad jag hade att vänta i resten av artikelserien och detta var naturligtvis bra, varningsflaggan var hissad.

OIC (Oswald Innocence Campaign)


Den varudeklaration som SW gör kring sin egen person innehåller bland annat följande:

"Staffan ingår i gruppen Oswald Innocence Campaign tillsammans med de viktigaste oberoende utredarna av Kennedymordet i USA. Vidare är han en del av journalisten Russ Bakers nätverk av researchers, med inriktning mordet på JFK."

Det är naturligvis subjektivt vilka som kan anses vara de "viktigaste oberoende utredarna" av Kennedymordet. Personligen betraktar jag i bästa fall påståendet som rent önsketänkande. SW vet förstås, men undanhåller även här, att det inte stämmer. Det jag utan vidare påstår är att grundarna av den här sammanslutningen, Ralph Cinque och Jim Fetzer, i stort sett är uteslutna ur alla tänkbara sammanhang som sysslar med mordet på Kennedy. De är bägge rabiata konspirationsförespråkare och åtminstone Fetzer skriver under på snart sagt varenda konspirationsteori under solen. Bägge har gång på gång producerat osubstantierade och undermåligt researchade slutsatser. Bägge uppträder dessutom i diskussioner på ett sätt som föranlett dem att bli uteslutna ur forum efter forum och tro mig, anledningen till det är vare sig briljans eller övertygande argumentation.

Men vad påstår denna grupp av "oberoende utredare"?

Utgångspunkten är att Oswald är oskyldig. Det är dessutom ett krav för att få tillhöra det eminenta sällskapet att man skriver under på detta. Bakgrunden detta bygger på är en enda sak, att det finns ett fotografi som man anser bevisar detta:

Kennedy träffad, höjer händerna mot halsen. Courtesy David Von Pein.
Fotot är taget av den amerikanske AP-fotografen James "Ike" Altgens, som befann sig på den lilla gräsplätten i mitten av Dealey Plaza. Vad vi ser är presidentens limousine som nu är på väg ner mot järnvägsövergången (the Triple Underpass) på Elm Street. Tittar vi genom vindrutan så ser vi också att Kennedys vänstra hand befinner sig högt uppdragen, knuten, i höjd med backspegeln framför (grön cirkel). Att Kennedy drog upp händerna till en position strax framför halsen råder det ingen tvekan om, det vet vi från såväl filmer som vittnesmål.

Detta visar att president Kennedy för ett par sekunder sedan träffats av en kula. Uppe vid ingången till Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) ser vi också att till vänster (sett framifrån) står någon intill väggen vid entren, några trappsteg upp (röd cirkel).

Överst: Urklipp från Altgens 6, starkt förstorat. Courtesy Robin Unger.
Nedan: Oswald och Lovelady. Courtesy Copweb.be.
Denne person är, enligt OIC, Lee Harvey Oswald. Skulle denna utsaga vara korrekt så är det med andra ord uteslutet att Oswald samtidigt kunde befinna sig på sjätte våningen i byggnaden eller att han vare sig därifrån eller någon annanstans ifrån kunde ha avlossat några skott mot Kennedy. I och med detta är han således oskyldig, enligt OIC.

Problemet med fotografiet och med slutsatsen att det är Oswald ligger i att en annan anställd av de flesta bedömare är den som syns, nämligen Billy Nolan Lovelady (BL), som bland annat pekade ut sig själv på fotot under förhör med Warren kommissionen (WC). Det intygades av två andra anställda vid TSBD, Sarah Stanton och Bill Shelley. Bägge vittnade att detta var Lovelady, inte Oswald och bägge befann sig när skotten avlossades också i entren, men i skuggan och kan inte skönjas på fotot. Inget av de vittnen som kan ses strax nedanför trapporna angav i sina vittnesmål att de sett Oswald där. Oswald själv påstod i förhör med Dallaspolisen att han befann sig på första våningen i huset när skotten avlossades. Senare har ytterligare en anställd vid TSBD, Buell Frazier, också vittnat om att det var Lovelady. inte Oswald. Frazier befann sig högst upp i uppgången, också lite bakom i skuggan och kan inte ses på fotot. Det kan också nämnas att samtliga anställda på skolbokslagret som vittnade inför WC uppgav att de inte sett någon annan individ som inte hörde hemma i byggnaden vare sig före, under eller efter skottlossningen. Vilket är en förutsättning för att någon annan än Oswald skulle ha befunnit sig på sjätte våningen i fönstret när skjutningen ägde rum. Flera vittnen såg ett gevär där i direkt anslutning till att skotten avlossades.

Likheten mellan Oswald och Lovelady kan inte förnekas. Dock är det så att de flesta av arbetskamraterna på TSBD inte ansåg dem särskilt lika till utseendet. Oswald var en betydligt tunnare byggd person. WC undersökte detta också med hjälp av fotografisk expertis och drog slutsatsen att det är Billy Lovelady som syns på bilden. Genom åren har diskussionen då och då blossat upp även om de flesta konspirationsorienterade researchers anser saken utagerad och att det inte är Oswald som syns.

Så vad gör OIC så säkra på saken, ovanstående är ju synnerligen starka indikationer på att slutsatsen inte är korrekt?

En av OICs grundare, en kiropraktor vid namn Ralph Cinque, gjorde för ett par år sedan en "fotografisk analys". Cinque kom fram till att kläderna på bilden som Lovelady har inte matchar de han hade på sig den här dagen, men att de stämmer med Oswalds. RC drog också slutsatsen att bilden är förfalskad, bland annat har hårlinjen ändrats så att den bättre överensstämmer med Loveladys. RC har också på flera andra punkter kommit fram till att bilden medvetet ändrats, för att dölja att den föreställer Oswald. Resonemangen kan också hittas på den blog han skriver:

http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.se/

När bilden skulle ha förfalskats, vem som gjort det eller var detta ägt rum, det har man inte visat någon bevisning alls kring. Det hör till saken att bilden gick via fax till nyhetsbyråer bara några timmar efter att den tagits. Inte heller kan man förklara hur det kommer sig att så många vittnen på platsen uppenbarligen måste ha ljugit om sina iakttagelser. Det innebär dessutom att den som ville företa sig att göra ändringar av detta fotografi måste först känna till exakt vad skulle ändras, och dessutom göra dessa förändringar med vetskap om att andra fotografier kan ha tagits samtidigt av andra som befann sig på platsen och som därmed skulle avslöja foul play? Det har OIC heller inga svar på.

Ytterligare en faktor som inte ska glömmas i det här sammanhanget är Oswald själv. Om det nu vore så att han var oskyldig och stod i den entren, varför skrek han inte ut detta till den församlade världpressen när han hade möjlighet? Flera gånger under helgen innan Oswald mördades vallades han runt i polishuset mitt framför ögonen på pressen och uttalade sig hela tiden på olika sätt, men aldrig ett ord om att han skulle befunnit sig i entren till byggnaden när skotten avlossades. Så här sa istället Oswald, direkt till den församlade pressen när han passerade förbi dem vid åtta-tiden samma kväll som mordet på Kennedy ägde rum:


REPORTER --"Did you shoot the President?"
LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building."
REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?"
LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."


Svaret är lika självklart som uppenbart - Oswald befann sig inte i entrén, ingenting pekar på detta. Ett annat svar torde väl också vara givet, det är på inga sätt de "viktigaste oberoende utredarna" som kommit fram till detta. Det är istället ett exempel på hur oseriös research leder till osubstantierade och felaktiga slutsatser. Positivt är trots allt att detta inte ens nått faktoidstadiet utan kvarstår bland de vilda spekulationerna.

Warrenkommissionens rapport kan i sin helhet hittas här:

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/



onsdag 23 april 2014

Judyth Vary Baker - Oswalds älskarinna?

A message to English speakers, this article has a short introduction in Swedish, following this the rest of the article is in English, and I believe you will also find a few addendum at the end interesting.

Jag avhandlar Judyth Baker, kvinnan som påstår sig ha varit Lee Harvey Oswalds älskarinna strax innan mordet på President Kennedy, i några poster här. Av artiklarna jag skrivit så framgår alltså hela historien om hur hon sökte politisk asyl i Sverige år 2007. Och vad som därefter hände i samband med den här historien.

Artiklarna skrevs ursprungligen för Facebook-gruppen JFK-The Truth: https://www.facebook.com/groups/449371715190297/ där man alltså kan gå med om man är intresserad av mordet på John Kennedy. Forumet domineras av de som anser Oswald skyldig, men även andra deltar i diskussionerna. Och så hoppas jag att språket inte är något bekymmer, skulle något vara oklart är det bara att skicka en kommentar så svarar jag så snart jag har möjlighet.

Jag ska tillägga också att de här artiklarna kan ha sitt särskilda intresse för en svensk publik, eftersom de ger en helt annan syn på Judyth Baker än den som Staffan Westerberg presenterat i sina artiklar i rättsmagasinet Paragraf. Dessutom är hon delvis bosatt i Sverige och ger ibland intervjuer i svensk massmedia.

http://www.magasinetparagraf.se/historiskt/kennedymordet-del-5-kvinnan-som-offrades.

************
Artiklarna publicerade i mars och april, 2014.

In 2007 Judyth Baker applies for political asylum in Sweden. Part one.

She is denied, appeals this decision and is denied again and leaves the country in the summer of 2008.

Yes, those are the simple, basic facts about her asylum procedure in Sweden. But, as per usual and as I was about to find out, very few things are ever simple or straight forward about Judyth Baker. The story carries quite a few facts that are revealing and might be of interest to anyone interested in the JFK assassination.

Back in 2008 I was well aware about the existence of Judyth Baker. I knew about her basic claims but had never bothered to look into her story on a deeper level. I had for many years followed some of the Internet forums and at times she was the subject of the debate.

In the fall of 2008 I happened to notice (alt.assassination.jfk) that someone claimed that Baker was living in asylum, in Sweden. To say the least, this was surprising. An American citizen having been granted asylum in Sweden? The last time I could recall that happening was when US citizens avoided the US draft for the Vietnam war, those people who did apply for political asylum on this basis were granted asylum in Sweden. Primarily because they risked being executed if returning to the US. I also knew that one basic requirement to be granted political asylum is that you can prove that your own government cannot or will not protect your personal safety to the same standards as any other citizen when living in your home country. Had she really proven this?

I decided to do some research into this matter. The first thing I wanted to know was of course if she'd ever been to Sweden at all? It didn't take very long to find this interview, which she had given to a Swedish local newspaper, published the 22nd of November 2007:

http://www.dt.se/nyheter/dalarna/1.3376333--jag-var-oswalds-flickvan-

The title of the article is ”I was Oswalds girlfriend” and it certainly starts with a bang: ”I know who killed President Kennedy and that's the reason I will be killed if I return to the US”. And below the photo of her, it says ”I'm the last living witness who knows what really happened when Kennedy was murdered”. Wow. Now she had indeed caught my interest, these statements are sensational, but could they really be true? And how could I not be aware about such fantastic claims?

In the article it also says that she'd recently been denied asylum in the first (lower) instance, and that she could therefor be thrown out of Sweden at any moment, so in retrospect we know that the interview was done before she appealed. She was to stay in Sweden for almost another nine months as things turned out. The backlog to deal with asylum appeals was heavy at this point in time and that's the reason her appeal took eight-nine months to pass through the asylum process.

But of course, now I wanted to know about the entirety of this story. For the next couple of weeks I spent a fair amount of time on phone calls and emails to dig through the bureaucratic fog related to Bakers asylum process and also to learn the fine print about how the asylum procedure works.The efforts paid off well. I received the asylum decisions in Judyth Bakers case from both instances involved, the Migration Board and the Migration Court (appeals). The information contained in these documents is really very thorough indeed. Her story as told word by word by Baker herself, all relevant dates, the decisions of the Courts and their reasoning behind those decisions. Really all you can ask for. Here it was, all of it. Now I knew.

This is when I decided to forward this information to Professor John McAdams. In order for all concerned on his forum, I figured it was a good idea to give them the correct information about her asylum. I had certainly noticed that those discussions were littered with falsehoods, incorrect facts and outright lies. And in general terms it was of course the right decision to provide everyone interested with the info I had. On a personal level, however, I'm not so certain. As I could have no idea of what was about to come because of this.

**********

In 2007 Judyth Baker applies for political asylum in Sweden. Part two.

In the discussion forum alt.assassination.jfk the debate about Judyth Baker was intense in the late fall of 2008. By now, Baker had apparently completely given up participating herself directly in any forums at all. She had, without success, tried several forums. In fact, it's fair to say that by now she didn't have much support at all in the research community. But she did still have a few and some of those actually acted as JVB proxies.

They seemed to have direct access to Baker and they would relay her views on basically any subject related to her story and anything related to the JFK assassination. And, I strongly suspect, she had now again realized that it's a good thing to be able to blame others for your own screw-ups, just as she did regarding one of the first versions of her book. And she would, indeed, do so later on.

These are the basic facts of her asylum process as stated in two court decisions:

Judyth Baker arrived in Sweden on September 11th, 2007, applied for asylum (PUT) the same day. This was rejected on the 11th of November, 2007. She appealed November 28th, 2007, and the appeal was rejected the 2nd of June, 2008. She left Sweden on July 14th, 2008. I will go through her own story in greater detail in the next part, but as for decisions of the courts involved, it can be summarized to this, in short:

They did not agree to her claims that her home country would not, or could not, protect her. No evidence of this was presented to the courts. Both of them likewise rejected her claims that she had been threatened and/or harassed in Europe, as she had presented no evidence of this. Now, before I continue I would like to say this. As Martin Shackelford has been posting in this forum regarding Baker, and as it is well known that Martin is still a believer in Baker, Martin has not personally attacked me about anything I've posted anywhere. Not once, and Martin deserves due credit for this. I need to be clear about that, because when I finally decided to join McAdams forum to discuss the asylum issue I was quite shocked by the treatment I received from a couple of others in that forum.

But first, this is one example from April 2008, a posting that describes what Baker obviously had told her proxies, ”team Judyth”, as they were commonly referred to:

”I am told that it is permissible to mention that the country that gave Judyth asylum, based in part on information confirmed by the Hungarian police,was Sweden. The information indicated that her life had been in danger,and that Hungarian police had warned her to leave the country for that reason.”


In reality, the Migration Board had rejected her application, they had not granted her asylum. Her status was that of an asylum seeker and the only reason she was still in the process (and in Sweden) was her appeal of this decision. Iow, she had been granted nothing, quite the contrary. Moreover, among her many arguments she had indeed told them that she'd been harassed and threatened, both in Hungary and in the Netherlands. She also told them that she could, and would, prove this. Which, of course, she never did. The Migration Board specifically commented on this; ”this did most likely never happen”.

Baker was all over the Internet already back then, just not in any of the established research forums – so these are her own words about this, from earlier in 2008:

QUOTE:

I was unable to show you the Holland permits until now --- as the Swedish government kept my passport. I can now show you one of the permits. NOTE: I am choosing to leave Sweden, after ten months. The law is an American can stay only 90 days in Sweden, but I was given political asylum for ten months. 

INTERESTING: BECAUSE I WAS IN POLITICAL ASYLUM, MY PASSPORT HAS NOT BEEN STAMPED ! NOT AT ALL! IT'S THE WAY THEY DO ITIF YOU ARE IN POLITICAL ASYLUM. NO RECORD OF WHERE YOUWERE. ALL FOR MY PROTECTION, YOU CAN'T TELL I WAS EVER IN SWEDEN! 

My life was saved. I could have petitioned for permanent residency, here, but I'd probably be rejected because of my age (over 65). I can't afford to stay without social security here,on MY social security, with the dollar in trouble, it is too expensive, so I'm moving. I've been given a letter explaining that I was not deported, because Barb and others will of course try to say that, and that is not true.” 

UNQUOTE.

And this is the reality:

1. She did not choose to leave Sweden, she was forced to.
2. She was not "in political asylum" for ten months.
3. She was denied twice during which time she was an asylum seeker.
4. The duration of ten months was due to a backlog of cases like hers, not due to a decision.
5. The lack of stamps in her passport has got nothing to do with her being in asylum, or her being ”protected”, even after 9/11 no stamps is common practice in Europe.
6. It is relatively easy to find her traces from Sweden, as ten months of her whereabouts are in the publicly available record.
7. She *did* apply for permanent residency, that's exactly what the asylum process is all about. She could not have "petitioned" for anything more, as she had exhausted her options already.
8. Her age had nothing to do with her being rejected; the fact that the courts did not believe her story, did.
9. She has received no letters from Swedish authorities stating ”I was not deported...”.
10. The fact is that she was indeed deported, at the expense of the Swedish Government.

Needless to say, the above is probably unsurpassed; such a short statement and basically all of it verifiably separated from the truth.

When joining McAdams newsgroup I was certainly prepared to discuss anything about the asylum issue. However, I was not prepared to be accused of being a thief or a spy, for bringing these facts forward. Her most ardent and loud supporters made all kinds of accusations like those. I found this very unpleasant, at the time.

None of them had probably ever heard of the Swedish principles of Public Record, which among other things means that any court decision made is in the public domain. You just need to figure out how to find them, that's all. In other words, according to Baker I must have stolen those documents, or being a translator involved in her process that simply leaked the information!

But Baker does not give up easily. In december of 2008, team Judyth proudly announced this:

”I just forwarded a copy to Tony Marsh of the letter granting asylum, which was issued in July of this year.” (Marsh's site being where the document was published). When reading this document, I could hardly believe what I saw:

”You are called to the Migration Board to talk about your journey home" (translated).

Simply. With all due logos and preprints, no doubt the document was authentic. Judyth Baker had sent them a document proving that she was about to be deported, which had been presented as a grant of asylum. Unbelievable!

Bakers explanation? As usual she had one:

”Nit-picking.Marsh posted the letter to prove I had been accepted into the Swedish political asylum SYSTEM and was NOT an illegal alien, as XX and others were accusing me.”
 
After about a month of debate I withdrew from the group. I'd had enough of Baker, of asylum and of being accused of this and that. It was now just about 15 months before I discussed Baker again. Which was needed, because when, in March of 2010, I again joined in to discuss Judyth Baker, this time at the (UK, John Simkin) Education Forum, well, that's when the *real* fun began …

Now, the photo of Baker I provided below, is an identity card given to all asylum seekers. In the discussions at the EF, Baker said this about the ID-card:

QUOTE:

YOU ARE NOT LOCKED UP. YOU GET LIVING QUARTERS, A FUNDS CARD, ETC. I HAVE ATTACHED MINE. NOTE THE EXPIRATION DATE IS FAR BEYOND ONE MONTH. IT WAS GOOD UNTIL JULY, 2008. I ENTERED THE SYSTEM SEPTEMBER, 2007.

UNQUOTE

What she's not telling anyone about here, is that this is her second ID-card issuance. This is easily confirmed as those ID cards are issued only with a duration of three, four or six months. But her - cleverly disguised - claim that it was issued already when she arrived, does of course fit very well into her story of having been granted asylum for ten months. She was first issued one of those with a duration of three or four months and then, when she appealed, another one with a duration of six months, in fact, it could even be her third ID-card in 10 months. There's no truth to her suggestion that she got only one of these when first arriving in Sweden, that lasted for the duration of her stay in the country.

But that isn't really the same thing, is it?

Also note down below the photo:

8. Asylsökande, which is Swedish for Asylum Seeker. The very clear definition of her status in Sweden. And of which she claimed to be unaware.

End of part two.

**********


In 2007, Judyth Baker applies for poltical asylum in Sweden. Part three.

Operation Smear; Character assassinate the researcher

By 2010 Judyth Baker was now represented by a another, and new, proxie; Professor James Fetzer. At the Education Forum this became clear when Professor Fetzer started a new thread, ”Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile”. This thread was to become the longest in the history of EF, with more than 3000 postings (last I checked), nearly all of them in just a little over two months. It should be noted that despite JudyFetz desperately working around the clock, the efforts to convince a single researcher about the authenticity of Judyth Baker failed completely. To the contrary, judging by how the debate progressed it is far more likely that the number of sceptics increased as a result. Fetzer's outlandish behavior surely did neither Baker, nor himself, no favours.

Oh my, was this a thread! In some respects, probably one of the best discussions I've ever seen, related to the JFK assassination. In other respects, no doubt also with some of the worst characteristics of any Internet forum discussion about any subject. Those interested to see it, here's the link (and I would suggest you to do this sooner rather than later as John Simkin has announced that the EF – JFK is about to be shut down permanently and as I understand it, everything on the JFK part of the site will be lost):

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=acaa924280443db318427fc4a7c978d8&showtopic=15559&st=0

And as long time JFK researcher  Barb Junkkarinen participated in this discussion on a whole range of issues, this alone should be a very good reason for most researchers to actually have a look at this thread. You will no doubt understand why Baker ever since is constantly trying to smear Barb – she thoroughly demolished Baker's arguments on point after point, issue after issue. Much the same way Baker is backstabbing Dave Reitzes at every chance she get's, for the same reason. There is an explanation for this.

It's not an overstatement to suggest that Baker went all-in here. Photos, newspaper snippets, lengthy postings endlessly and even some answers. We were all honored to see the JFK-assassination through the eyes of Judyth Baker, spring 2010 version. Everything presented through the watchful eye of Professor Fetzer. But let's be crystal clear, of those hundreds and hundreds of documents and photos, not a single one proves that she ever met Oswald; much less knew him or had a relationship with him. Not a single one.

Shortly after the thread was initiated I contacted Fetzer to provide him with the info I had (Fetzer later published the entire email exchange in this thread), thinking that perhaps it might be of interest to him. But this turned out to be wishful thinking and a little later Fetzer dismissed both me and the info as ”drivel!” Subsequently, Team JudyFetz produced this impressive list within 24 hours of my first posting at the EF:

QUOTE:

”he is a highly dubious source” [Fetzer]
”APPEARS TO BE GRANDSTANDING ” [Fetzer]
”WHO IS MR. VIKLUND?” [Baker]
”..considered a spy” [Baker]
”What kind of man is this Mr. Viklund, if that is his name?” [Baker]
”THIS PARAGON OF ETHICAL BEHAVIOR, AN EMBARRASSMENT” [Fetzer]
”get Xeroxes about who YOU really are, Mr. Viklund” [Baker]
”they also think you're a spy” [Baker]
”WHO IS MR. VIKLUND? HOW DID HE LEARN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION ABOUT ME?” [Baker]


UNQUOTE.

IOW, they both blew a fuse – well, the first one, that is - and I would quickly learn that Baker now had a different strategy entirely. If I was naive enough to be surprised by Baker pulling out this nonsense, I was flabbergasted to see a scholar, an academic and professor, behave this way. Of course, since then I've better understood why Fetzer is where he is about so many things; he's not a researcher but a propagandist that selectively picks who, what, when and how, in order to fit his agendas. And who is fully prepared to do *anything at all* to do away with that which contradicts his positions. In this regard, JudyFetz is positively a match made in heaven.

Previously, the excuses for all the errors and outright lies about her asylum issue had basically been referred to as misunderstandings. Team Judyth of 2008 had diligently explained that ”temporary asylum”, ”provisional asylum”; ”In the asylum process” and so forth, had been what they had tried to say. Neither one exists in the judicial language related to asylum in Sweden. ”No, no – no *grant* of asylum”, ”of course not”. Which certainly was exactly what Baker and her team had told the world for some time before, "she had a foreign Government behind her!"

Now Baker was taking it all a step further. In her deposition to the Migration Board Baker had claimed that she had been kidnapped, politically persecuted, had her phone tapped, been chased by cars, had phone threats, had been the victim of attempted murder, to mention her most notable claims. With some clearly visible surprise, the Court simply states that no evidence of any of this had been presented. Beyond the dry judicial lingo; they simply didn't believe a word of this.

When I now asked Baker if she had ever, even once, reported a single incident to the police in either the US, Greece, Hungary or the Netherlands where she claimed these various atrocities had occurred, I received just her standard blathering, but no real answer. Look at the claims – no reporting of such claims? And it's still going on today as she readily conveys on a frequent basis.

But Baker is not Baker for nothing. To her much visible excitement, she had now found an ad that I placed in a newsgroup, more than nine years earlier, ”confirming” that I was a mercenary, and clearly implying once again that I'd been paid by McAdams to steal the information about her. JudyFetz was now in full blown attack mode as new revealing information about me had finally surfaced!

I had indeed placed the ad. As an economist I'd worked for several years as a consultant and among other things assisted many companies in finding info about markets, competition and other things on Internet when the net was still in it's infancy. At the time I'd recently returned to Sweden from working a year in London and was looking for new clients. Nothing came of it though as I shortly after I placed the ad was offered a nice position which I did accept. Confidentiality in Baker's world is something sinister. In my world, the business community, it's a badge of honor.

But this is how you plant smear and mistrust into the discussion. Character assassinate your adversaries, if nothing else works. She'd frantically searched the Internet to find anything, this was obvious; since I'd been living Armenia how would I know about her asylum procedure; since I was a translator and was working for the Government why did I not know that the information about her asylum process was confidential? Etc, etc, Baker learned the hard way that I'm not the only one from Sweden who is named G.V. I've never set foot in Armenia and neither am I a spy, nor did I work for the government or steal any documents. Above all, not a single document I found is confidential.

Instead of answering questions, in true Baker fashion and unsurprisingly she had new information. One of her new claims was that she had been escorted to Sweden by ”Swedish agents” when first arriving. She had been threatened on the phone to leave Hungary ”before the 11th of September”. So when did she arrive in Sweden? Right, the 11th of September 2007. "Escorted by agents".

But when she could produce no evidence of this, she now claimed that the Swedish Government had assisted to ”make sure of her safe arrival” in Sweden. Of course, I had talked to a couple of officials and they in no uncertain terms strongly denied this, and if I remember correctly this is when one of them asked me: ”what's wrong with this woman?”.

But it did not stop at that. Again, there's was a new twist. With nowhere else to go, now this had all taken place ”under the table”. Accordingly, there's nothing to be found in any document or that could be verified by any official. How surprising and how convenient. Baker in a nutshell.

And so it goes. If any of this seems hilarious and incomprehensible, you have my sympathy. It does to me also.

After asking her a few questions three or four times, at long last she responded as follows [my comments here between brackets] :

1. Who; what authority, has decided that you are to travel in secrecy, ”for your protection”?

"Who are you to dare ask such a question of a person you have never met and for whom you have only secondhand information. Further, do you think I would expose the agents who saved my life? Do you think I would place in my files everything pertaining to the case, knowing that snoopers such as you exist?" 

[ Drama queen Baker shows herself. She's certifiably lying up to her neck about this and still has the audacity accuse those who asks her questions. This really is nothing but laughable. It is indeed telling that researchers who checks out her story, which any honest broker would welcome, are referred to as snoopers.]

2. Why did your friends present – as I showed by quotation – a summon to a meeting, as a grant of asylum?

"They are not “experts” (as you are) in technical legal terminology. They were only trying to help, when I was accused of being an illegal alien. My friends did not know that ‘granted political asylum’ is a term that could only be used after being granted ‘permanent political asylum’—something I told them would not happen."

[This is pure baloney, an outright lie. The discussion and how this came about has zero to do with team Judyth not understanding. They *triumphantly* claimed it to be a grant of asylum, and most certainly did so as a result of Baker telling them this. Also note how she tries to flatter me, which is another side she used quite frequently prior to these answers and in between the smears and character assassination attempts. To put the blame on her team is otherwise Baker standard practice. There is nowadays an astounding number of ex-team-Judyth-researchers-and-ex-friends. There are only believers and traitors in the world of Judyth Baker.]

3. Why are you giving the impression that you received special treatment, when your case, in every possible respect, was a standard asylum seekers case?

"You are wanting to hear motive in this loaded question. Let’s get to the ‘question’ : WAS it a “standard asylum seekers case”? I was an American woman with a service dog, handicapped, who had just come from another EU country and should have been sent right back to that other EU country. I was the first American non-combatant woman, I was told, in decades, to enter the system. After five days of inquiries, etc., they advised me I could never win the case, but I would receive help by being allowed into the system for my protection. Is any of this “standard?”

[Another non-answer, answer. Nothing of this has the slightest to do with my question. She pompously on the Internet told everyone that she set the dates, she asked for and got extra time, that she got special protection and quite a bit more along these lines. None of which is true. Here, when caught, she does say that she couldn't have been permitted to stay. Without the public records out in the open, in all likelyhood she would be all over the Internet stating that a foreign Government believed and support her story, which of course is ludicrous. What she actually said on the Internet - despite being rejected twice! - gives us a hint of how she would have used a *true* grant of asylum. Oh dear.]

"a) I came from Hungary and had been there only one month, yet was not returned to Hungary, as EU agreements specify. Was that standard? No."

[Anyone can apply for asylum in Sweden. Those who do does of course not get thrown out at the border if after a quick initial examination their story cannot be immediately dismissed. Her fantastic tale, however ridiculous, certainly couldn't at first sight. Not despite her being an American, but because she's an American citizen; this fact helped her get in.]

"I was granted inhibition: few people obtain it. Is inhibition “standard”?"

[Here she uses a word I had explained a couple of days earlier. And yes, for those who are on appeals, it is standard procedure. It simply means that they won't have to leave before a verdict has been made. She trying to muddy the waters here without understanding what it is that she is talking about, that's all.]

"c) I was not immediately deported to the US at the outset, even though the US is on a list of countries considered ‘safe.’ Is there another non-combatant American in the system anywhere? Why wasn’t ‘standard deportation’ upheld?"

[See above.]

"d) I was advised to make an appeal in person. Other kinds of appeals were also made, as I was guided on what to do so I could stay as long as possible until my family could help me. Such advice does not get into an official record. Why would it? I was also advised to appeal on Swedish national television to receive inhibition. After the TV appeal was made, inhibition was granted. That was not ‘standard.’"

[This makes no sense: ”I was also advised to appeal on Swedish national television to receive inhibition.” Appeal to receive something she already had? Good lord, she's just babbling on here. She had inhibition for the duration of her stay except for the short periods after the two verdicts.
Moreover, Baker is suggesting that any of this has anything to do with her appearing on a local TV-station. In her mind, I'm sure that is so, but that's positively the only place.

Note that she's suggesting that others told her to go on television, which she did (a local station, not national), and as many researchers have long since pointed out, how can she claim to be hiding and still go to interviews and making herself public? That's what she's really covering for here, and again blaiming others..]

4. Why are you saying that you could have stayed another ”year or two”, when, in fact, you by every possible means available to you, had exhausted your options to stay in Sweden?

"I exerted ‘every possible means’ because I faced real danger. I had to leave a good teaching job in Hungary, with free housing, free bus transport, health insurance, an annual plane ticket to the US, and $750/mo. teaching 25 hours a week total, for two high schools. I had prestige and good living conditions for a single person there.

Imagine how horrible it was to have to leave, due to death threats. How expensive.
My options were not exhausted regarding living in Sweden. I could have filed a third appeal from any country outside Sweden (or not) and then returned, to take a position in a company that offered to hire me so I could stay in Sweden. I could have stayed under a business residency permit. Such permits are good from six months to two years and are renewable. What business is this of yours, Mr. Vuklund?"

[She's avoiding the question – her laywer must have most certainly told her that she was done in Sweden. She had to leave the country no matter what she wanted to apply for again.]

5. Why are you suggesting that the two Swedish Court who decided in your case, disregarded the evidence and used a ”standard reply” to motivate their findings?

"Again, a loaded question. Asking ‘why’ is a common rhetorical ploy. You ask why and then add any old question to the ’why.’ The ploy tries to extricate information that has nothing to do with the question. It also makes a reader of the question suspicious of me instead of being suspicious of Mr. Viklund’s motives. BTW, Citation, please."

[More no-answer, answering. She stated this earlier in the thread the above, and here she cannot stand by that statement, as she knows I have it in front of me. The Court motivated their findings very diligently, with all necessary specifics.]

6. What is the name of the official who told you that the two Court decisions would be kept confidential?

"This intrusive question into my civil rights is none of your business. I have witnesses who will privately verify the fact to Dr. Fetzer and others who are of reputable character--who respect issues of privacy and human rights (unlike yourself) to reveal the names of the kind people who helped me." 

[To this I would simply say: please don't waste my time with such mumblings when caught lying, it does not work. Of course no Swedish Official would tell her any such thing, it's beyond belief that she would make a claim like this one. All it shows is how little she understands about Sweden. Again, it's like an American Official telling immigrants to the US that ”we don't have free speech in this country”? I don't think so. But this is where people end up when entangled in a web of lies.]

So there we have it. And even if this covers most of the basics related to her asylum issue in this thread (appr. pages 10-30) it did surface several times later on. The asylum issue in reality being a micro cosmos of the rest of her story. She never quits coming up with answers and new twists. Never, no matter how indefensible they are.

I apologize for drilling down to this level, but as we know the devil is in the details and therefor I really had to be specific. In the last part, next, I will explain why I believe this not-so-sexy issue-of-asylum matters and what conclusions I've come to as a result. Placed in a more general context of Baker the patterns become very clear.

End of part three.

**********


In 2007 Judyth Baker applies for political asylum in Sweden. Part four - the end..

"You've never met me!"

Many are those of us who's been accused by Judyth Baker for not having the right to speak our minds about her since we've never met in person with her. It's difficult to describe the experience of having discussed with (online) and researched Baker. Her asylum issue at its core of what happened is a straight forward, well documented and standard practice process. Nothing can be misunderstood or misinterpreted. The laws and regulations that constitutes the judicial foundation for this area are also not very complicated. The difficulties sometimes lies in the application of these foundations, it's after all human beings involved and to many of those the outcome of this process can truly be a question of life and death.

It is of course not possible to be certain about Bakers motives for so monumentally misrepresent her asylum experience. I would suggest that there were basically two; the economic advantages and the links to her alleged knowledge about the Kennedy assassination. A positive outcome would have given her a pension, free health care and a roof over her head. Nothing fancy but a life where her elderly years would have a degree of financial stability. Moreover, the way she laid this out, there can be no doubts that she intended connect her reasons to apply for asylum, and of course hoping to be granted asylum, to her alleged witness capacity in the JFK-assassination.

Vince Bugliosi sometimes refer to the assassination as ”a toxic subject”; once you get into it, it's impossible to stay away. And I believe many would agree no matter what level of knowledge on the subject they may have, it is surely hard to quit. The actual variety of people among researchers is truly amazing. Scholars, scientists, hobbyists, journalists and what not, endlessly. For better or worse, I find Judyth Baker to be both one of the most fascinating and most tragic characters that I've come across in relation to the Kennedy assassination.

No one should doubt the intelligence of this woman. Her student years are often mentioned and she was indeed a prodigy in her student years, this is unquestionable. Having said this it may not be exactly all that she has stated herself about this from time to time. Nor can it be denied that she is a dedicated assassination researcher. And of course, her story as a witness cannot be put together without a deep level of knowledge about various facts related to the assassination, and in her case, more specifically about the Garrison investigation and trial back in the sixties.

With this in mind it's all the more perplexing how she's concocted and twisted the facts related to the asylum issue. Obviously convinced that she could get away with this, at all unhindered. During the process of defending an indefensible story she repeatedly entangles herself into more and more lies to the point where it simply does not make any sense whatsoever.

Her total lack of judgment here is on many levels, astonishing. Had she just said from the beginning what she commented in this group on my part three posting, this could all have been a non-issue:

”I did not know the language and did not know the difference between being a political asylum seeker and one who gets political asylum....”.

This would have saved her, her ”team” and others a considerable amount of time and energy wasted on nothing but nonsense. Even though, again, she's not being honest. Of course she's aware of the difference between being an asylum seeker, waiting for a decision, and having been granted asylum.

This is however not the only way where she repeatedly shows poor judgment. Instead of giving her adversaries the benefit of doubt, she instantly treats those who oppose her as idiots, far below her intelligence levels and completely unable or unqualified to engage in educated arguments with her. I would suggest that this is why she reacts with both anger and patented rants when she realizes that she's made a prejudgmental mistake in treating people this way.

Moreover, she often very quickly switches behavior from anger to flatter, or from total disrespect to normal courtesy. And then, ultimately, when nothing else works, the nasty – and I do mean really nasty – personal attacks. She can be utterly limitless in this respect. I don't know if she does not understand how bad this can really hurt those subjected to such attacks or if she frankly does not care. Again, it shows at the very least a complete lack of judgment. To this day, she will still do anything to backstab and smear those long time researchers who has looked at her story and rejected it. If it's credibility she's trying to achieve, she's doing the exact opposite as to how this could be built.

It has been suggested that these events took place a very long time ago and accordingly it isn't fair to expect her to remember every little detail here and there. I agree. It isn't fair. But more importantly, Baker herself does not seem to agree. Her knee jerk reaction is to always defend whatever it is that she has claimed. This sort of approach has time and time again resulted in embarrassments of a caliber that would make most people run for the hills – at least until the overheated blushing has faded away.


Those obvious and easily detected patterns in her behavior had, of course, surfaced many years prior to Baker applying for asylum in Sweden. The probably first occasion was the infamous Cancun debacle which started in 2000 and went on for years, but there is an interesting observation one can make that has been far less written about, in relation to this episode.

Long time JFK researcher David Lifton had made a phone interview with Baker, a quite lengthy interview where Baker responded to Lifton's questions. Lifton concluded almost immediately that he did not believe her story, partly based on the fact that she had mentioned her supposed rendez vous with Oswald in Cancun, of course the Cancun as we've all come to know it, didn't exist in 1963. At first Baker had all kinds of explanations as to why Lifton had misunderstood or misinterpreted what she'd said. Of course, the similarities with her actions related to the asylum issue are striking already at this stage. And there was more to come. As this went on Baker switched strategy and went into full attack mode instead.

She was now accusing Lifton of lying about what had occured and vigorously defended her position. Lifton had twisted the interview in order to back up his conclusion that she was a fraud. And this is where this becomes really telling, in my opinion.

Lifton announced, shockingly, that he had taped the entire interview and that, with her permission, he was ready to release the interview and make it publicly available. Personally, I may think that to tape an interview this way without the consent of those interviewed, is not fair (David Lifton is a meticulous researcher and I don't believe this had anything to do with any kind of sinister reason). But this is beside the point here. As I understand it, in the US it is not illegal to do the actual recording but it would be illegal to make it publicly available without the consent of, in this case, Judyth Baker. Which in no way refrained Baker from making exactly this kind of accusions; Lifton had illegally taped her – or, he was lying altogether about the existence of such a recording. Which, again, prompts me to note that this is very much like the way where she accused me of stealing confidential information, which I certainly did not do, a preposterous suggestion.

But if Baker's purpose was to distract from the essential question of whether she had said what Lifton claimed, and which she denied, she did indeed achieve this purpose. Suffice to say, to this day the tape has never been released by Lifton and Baker has never answered the question of why she didn't want the recording released. She took this issue to the brink, but when she finally had the opportunity to demonstrate to the research community that her side of the story was correct, well, that's when she backed off. To never return.

Another event that deserves mentioning here, is when Baker claimed that she knew the story behind Oswalds ”missing tooth”, and how it connected David Ferrie to Oswald. Excellently researched and explained in detail by Dave Reitzes: http://www.jfk-online.com/judyth-tooth.html.

In short, when Baker is shown that she has the chronology of some critical events wrong, she changes the story slightly in an effort to save herself. As Dave so brilliantly shows, step by step she entangles herself into a web of absurdities that does nothing but confirm that she'd been making the whole thing up. I also note that she tried various manipulative arguments; ” I only tried to help” for example. Things which probably works far better between four eyes than they do on paper.

But I believe that primarily it is best judged as another example of a pattern where Baker, again, underestimates those asking questions. How in the world is it possible that a woman of her intelligence does not understand that researchers who put some effort into it, will inevitably find out what's correct and what's not? How is it possible that she does not understand how her credibility will suffer fatal damage from repeated issues like this one? And, frankly, how is it possible that there are still a few believers in the research community who apparently refuse to acknowledge this fatal credibility problem? Would they really buy a used car from a dealer that's been proven to scam an endless number of car buyers in the past? Or trusting a car dealer who gives one story about a certain car on Monday, to give a completely different story on Wednesday? Would they really not be suspicious when they see a brand new paint job on that same old vehicle?

There are numerous examples like the ones I've mentioned in this article, but there's not much point in endlessly garble up these things here. Her asylum issue being simply one in a very long row where Judyth Baker basically repeats her behaviors when researchers are looking for answers.These incidents are not a victory to anyone. If anything it saddens me.

Baker has left her children and grand children on the other side of the planet – for what, really? There is a fine line between dedication and obsession. I think we all know that. It saddens me to see her repeat herself in the comment section of my part three posting here – in the instant of the moment obviously making things up out of thin air.

Judyth Baker, April 10th, 2014:

"I make only one statement concerning this man who went to my handler in Sweden and asked questions of her. He had to go quite a distance to do that. When she asked him to write down the questions before she would reply he left her office. She was shocked that I was being followed, so she told me what happened."

This, within minutes of my article three being posted. It is reactions and statements like this one that seriously makes me wonder about her perception of reality. None of this is true. I never visited any of her handlers in Sweden and I never traveled anywhere to obtain the information I gathered, neither was necessary. Met no one, traveled nowhere, period. My research was done over the phone and online, simple as that.

Is she aware of her behavior or does she believe in the things she's simply made up? There is, I believe, also a fine line between obsession and something that would be far worse. Of course, while I certainly have my opinions about this, the answer is that no one knows what the problem is. Maybe the tragic of this thing is best illustrated by the art work of her and Oswald she now has on display at her FB-site and which I attached here.

The overconfidence in her own abilities that I believe she's suffering heavily from, is demonstrated very clearly in the quotation I started this article with:

”You've never met me!”

An argument that she is constantly using. And perhaps rightly so, by the way. It is obvious that she's been very successful in convincing many of those who has met her in person. She does apparently not learn from the fact that most of those have long since changed their mind about her. Generally speaking she does appear completely unable to learn from her mistakes. She can be extremely manipulative and it takes a bit of studying her to see this. Instead she repeats her mistakes, again and again. From this several patterns are quite easily distinguished, as I hope I have been able to demonstrate.

It saddens me to see that of late she's not only the usual, overly dramatical Judyth Baker. Her present endeavours on the Internet to me looks more like crusades. There has rarely been anything casual about Baker, but it seems that since she turned her back on the research community and thereby left all crítical voices behind, it is now Judyth Baker unleashed that we see in action on various subjects. It saddens me also because somewhere in all this I do believe that there's been a complete waste of talent involved. I would sincerely hope that she somehow finds a different path in life. As it looks today though, this does indeed not seem likely anytime soon.







The End. And by that I'm referring also to my research and debates about Baker. I'm signing off all of it now that I finally got my thoughts and experiences down on paper. I wish others who will continue to follow her escapades - Good Luck, she's a handful!

Addendum, 20150122.


The Judyth Baker Vortex of lies, deceit and manipulation continues..

If you are asked a question that you, positively, know that you don't have a very good answer to, then what can you do? Well, if your name is Judyth Vary Baker a dilemma like this is not much of a problem. Just sit down by your computer, get a nice cup of coffee and get right down to business. Why not just use the cut'n paste tools and simply look for a few text passages that seem to fit well and then mix them into a blend that looks convincing - and top all of this off with attributing the entire concoction to someone that you don't much like?

Let's see how it can be done, Judyth Vary Baker style, shall we?

A few days ago JFK-researcher Carmine Savastano was discussing the authenticity of Judyth Baker and asked a number of straight forward questions. One of those questions went like this:

What about you never being in the Swedish asylum program?.
And those who have read my essay knows that this is correct, as Judyth Baker never was in the asylum "program", she was an asylum seeker that had to leave the country after being rejected twice. Which by no means restricted Ms Baker to deliver one of her patented rants:

"The accusation has evolved,. It once was:"What about you being denied political asylum?"
Just to show you what 'my claims' are that S. accesses --WITHOUT talking to me -- WITHOUT reading my books-- here is a tiny bit of what was published by McAdams' Swedish contact, Glenn Viklund, who wrote:"
And now it's started. First make sure to portrait Glenn Viklund a highly suspicious character, a mercenary, by defining me as "McAdams contact". Despite that she's very well aware that the research I did related to her was all done on my very own initiative. She continues:

"In 2008, I provided some information regarding Judyth Bakers asylum process in Sweden...I've been requested from time to time to provide my views on this."

The cut and paste has begun, fair enough so far. Ms Baker found that in my personal presentation at the Education Forum (UK) where I back in 2010 had written this:

"I am a Swedish citizen, economist by profession. My interest in JFK-case started back in the seventies when the congress committe started it's work. I lived in Sacramento, California at the time and consumed all I could get my hands on regarding their investigation. Since then I've followed the debate from a distance so to speak, but always fascinated with the ongoing controversy.

In 2008, I provided some information regarding Judyth Bakers asylum process in Sweden, and as this issue keeps coming back, I've been requested from time to time to provide my views on this."

So Ms Baker got it from that last paragraph. And now she's seriously gearing things up:

"==HE THEN SET FORTH A SERIES OF LIES (Perhaps because of a bad translation from Swedish?) :
-
He wrote .."Has it been mentioned that ...she worked for the CIA in the Mormon Church,,," [A BRAZEN LIE!]
"...that she had met Osama Bin Laden ..."

[Viklund, after posting this, was informed by others that David Lifton, who has spread many lis about me, made this story up and it was not true -- though it was still on the Internet]

"...and was involved in (which war) the anti-war movement...."[?????]



"...and after Hungary went to Greece?" Finally, a true statement!"

Not bad, is it? Where in the world could I possibly have found this "series of lies"? Well, I didn't, really. And the fact is, neither did Judyth Baker. In the infamous JVB exile thread at the Education Forum, another forum member, John Dolva, made this posting:



"[Posted by John Dolva on 14 March 2010 - 05:06 PM in JFK Assassination Debate]

"Has it been mentioned that she was a Socialist who didn't like Castro and that she worked for the CIA in the Mormon Church, that she had met Osama Bin Laden and was involved in (which war) the anti-war movement and after Hungary went to Greece? "

A little creative and selective cut'n paste from Judyth Baker and just like that, I had produced this series of lies! One has to give her a bit of credit though, very creative stuff this when you want to smear someone.

As if this wasn't enough, this little Baker fantasy gets even better, much better. Where could John Dolva possibly have found that information, did he just make things up out of thin air? Not at all. He got it straight from the mouth of the beast herself, Judyth Baker.

Here's how this works. John Dolva, an aussie with his roots in Sweden knew that I had obtained the Swedish Migration Courts decision and so a couple of days earlier I provided him with a copy. John read it - he does still understand Swedish pretty good indeed. He had a couple of questions and after I confirmed that he had understood things correctly, John confirmed to everyone at the Education Forum that all the translations of these documents that I had previously provided, were spot on. In fact, John was kind enough to say this in the forum:

"I want to defer all Swedish - English translations to Glenn Viklund from now on, he's a master!"

Well I'm not, but this was still very kind and no one questioned the translations I had provided. Not even Judyth Baker, of course. As a couple of days earlier she done nothing less than accused me of being a translator that had stolen the information in those Court decisions!

But back to John's posting again, here it is:

"Has it been mentioned that she was a Socialist who didn't like Castro and that she worked for the CIA in the Mormon Church, that she had met Osama Bin Laden and was involved in (which war) the anti-war movement and after Hungary went to Greece? "

From the mouth of the beast? How would this stuff have anything to do with Judyth Baker? Incredibly enough, considering how she uses snippets from this above, it comes straight from her very own witness statement to the Migration authorities. Every asylum seeker is of course given the opportunity to give their reasons for applying for political asylum. In Ms Bakers case, she gave them a story, some six, seven pages long.

And that's precisely where she told them that she'd indeed been an anti-war activist, a socialist, and part of the Mormon Society. She made quite a lot of claims, apparently whatever she thought would give the authorities a reason to grant asylum.

But the last little twist is just too good to be true. but still is. John Dolva had misunderstood the part where he wrote "she had met with Osama Bin Laden".

Judyth Baker, above, quickly saw another little detail that she could transform into a lie that I had accused her of making up stories about. When, in fact, I in a separat posting at the EF told John Dolva and everone else that he got that part wrong. What Baker had told the authorities was not that she had met with Bin Laden - but that this had been said about her on the Internet!

I've said it before. Judyth Vary Baker is most probably the nastiest and most manipulative little lady that I've ever had the displeasure of having anything to do with, and I would hope that this story makes this judgment even more understandable. It is so bad that people sometimes have a hard time understanding what she's really capable of doing to those she want to discredit. The lies, the creativeness and her utter shamelessness is beyond incredible.

This, as many, many researchers who has been critical of her story knows, is how the real Judyth Baker is behaving. Ruthless and shameless. A far cry from the image she so often conveys of herself; holier than thou:

"This is a group that exists without any restraints as to kindness, decency, fairness, telling the truth or having any ethical standards. Nobody who posts here can trust what is posted in this group. So you get to vent. Without responsibility. Not caring who gets hurt, or why. I will not be reading any of this. Go ahead and attack me. I've asked God to step in. I'm at peace. Wonder if you will be, in a place like this."

From a posting in the FB Group JFK Ventor, January, 2015.




Addendum, July 8th, 2014.

I had forgot about mentioning this typical Judyth Baker rant, made in the comment section of a New Orleans newspaper last summer. The context is that I found it interesting that Bakers publisher actually was participating. For the second time in five years I decided to ask a few questions about Judyth Baker. This is how she responded:

Thank you for the story. However, you call Oswald the assassin instead of accused assassin. The man, Mr. Glenn V, stalks me. His last post to refute my story was in Stockholm, attacking my veracity when a journalist named Steffan Westerberg wrote about me there. he cites a very old website written by several people who never met me. I believe Mr. Glenn Vigland has a mental problem, since he's been doing this since 2007. Your article did not mention that my story was on THE HISTORY CHANNEL as a full-length documentary. It does not mention that my story is supported by witnesses on film and audiotape as to my relationship with Lee Oswald. The ancient website that this stalker from Sweden provides to readers needs to be balanced with what others have written. For example, 14 reasons to believe Judyth Vary Baker, posted at Dr. Jim Fetzer's site. Then there's lola4jvb4lho, as well as Vindication for Judyth Vary Baker on Fscevbook, with over 400 members there fed up with slanted newspaper stories that never mention my verified credentials..I ask that readers go to meandlee.com and look at some of the evidence there. New Orleans will one day be proud of Lee Oswald. The response to the Symposium at Loyola on the 19th has resulted in the formation of the LEE HARVEY OSWALD MUSEUM ASSOCIATION which is dedicated to preserving Oswald's residence in this city as a historic site and to create a museum presenting HIS side of the story. I thank the thousands of supporters who financed my trip to New Orleans and to the twenty cities I will be visiting between now and November, when I will be hosted at the Arlington Conference. God bless America, and again, thanks for the story. JVB"


I quickly was deemed "mentally disturbed" and " a stalker". This is a characteristic example of how Baker responds to her critics. The fact that I caught her off guard about her asylum process where she believed she could claim anything without risk of being exposed was, and evidently is, a thorn in her side.

Moreover, Baker in her crusade style missions on the Internet is often accusing others of censorship. 
What she managed to do in this case at the New Orleans newspaper was to have me censored for asking a few questions. I tried to reach the editor but got no reply. 


This is - the true facts about her - and how she acts when someone exposes her lies and fantasies. Really nasty stuff and not a word, of course, is true. The sites she's referring to above are those of  Dave Reitzes and John McAdams. Both of which have long since concluded that Baker is a fraud. And who have done many years of research into her shenanigans.

To be clear, Judyth Baker has not provided one single piece of evidence which proves that she even knew Lee Harvey Oswald. She has repeatedly said for more than a decade that she would, but she still never has. She has produced a pay stub from a Coffee Company in New Orleans that indicates that she was working there for a few months when Oswald was working there as well. That's it.  She has claimed to be various women seen in photos but this tactic has been disastrous to her credibility as it all turned out to be lies.


Her tactics of  today is exactly what can be seen above; to pretend these sites are old, "ancient", and not trustworthy. This is another lie. Reitzes site in particular deals with her first years when he had extensive email exhanges with Baker. It is amazingly revealing to read all the lies that Reitzes brings forward. And this is the reason for Baker not wanting her fan club members of today knowing about these sites. This type of completely shameless BS is, unfortunately, Bakers modus operandi and I doubt this will ever change. Dave's site can be found here:

http://www.jfk-online.com/home.html

Well known JFK conspiracy theorist David Lifton had this to say about Judyth Baker more than ten years ago, he turned out to be absolutely correct:



"At the point when it finally dawns that this story is a complete fantasy and a fabrication ("corroborated" here and there by well-known kernals of truth that this woman absorbed from the public record) her credibility is going to go down the drain."

**********

Addendum, October 30th, 2014.

Pamela Brown, JFK researcher and a long time supporter of Judyth Baker, has joined the ranks of former supporters to Baker. This piece was published on Brown's blog,, yesterday:

Judyth Baker's modus operandi consists of one main tenet -- belief.  If you 'believe' her, you are her friend; if you do not, you are her enemy.  In fact, most any interest in anything Judyth has to say pretty much begins and ends with 'believing' that what she says is true, and that she is in a position to make such a statement.

Here is the dilemma as I see it -- Judyth did work at Reilly Coffee in NOLA at the same time as Lee Oswald.  This is documented.  They could have met there.  It is not impossible that they became involved to some extent or another.  However, beyond that, there is no actual objective documentation. There are no photos of them together.  There are no love letters to her from him.  No postcards.  So what everyone is left with is "Judyth's word".  And it is for this reason that 'belief' is so important.  With 'belief' she is able to pick and choose what she calls 'documentation' and weave it into a fabric of appearances.  And that is just what it is.  In fact, it is my thinking that she has created a parallel universe  which can only be entered by 'belief' because there is not sufficient actual documentation.

When Judyth contacted me in 2003 I explained that, as an historian, I did not 'believe' nor 'disbelieve' people.  I weighed and evaluated what they had to say.  I kept an open mind.  I assured her that I would do that with her until her book (she was trying to sell her manuscript) had been published.  However, that quickly translated into "Pamela must believe me".  I was inundated with emails and drafts of chapters of her book (which I deleted in 2010 when we parted company) and brought into the circle of 'believers'. 

When Judyth's 'unauthorized' book was published in 2007, called "Lee Harvey Oswald" (I am divesting myself of my copy today, sending it on to another researcher, and heaving a big sigh of relief) I began researching Judyth's claims in it.  That was what I had agreed to.  Now that her book was out, my end of the bargain, to remain objective, had been completed.  Judyth became angry, insisting that this was not an authorized version and contained countless errors and that I should not yet research her claims.  I fell for that one, and waited until 2010, when "Lee and Me" came out to tell her once again that our agreement was completed.  At that point, she expressed astonishment and claimed there had been no such agreement to begin with.  This is Judyth.  A user.  I felt I had been cleverly manipulated.  And, during that time, my own status in the research community had been challenged, as I worked like a little hamster on a treadmill to keep an open forum for Judyth, and to try to quell the massive tide of those calling her a fraud perpetrating a hoax.

My thanks for seven years of objectivity was her apparently emailing all of her current 'believers' (she had by that time left hundreds of others in the dust) to tell them of my defection.  She then emailed me, claiming with vicious hypocrisy -- "Who will believe you now?"  This is the real Judyth.

So, if you decide to "believe" Judyth, expect to be flattered and flooded with emails.  Expect to live a Judyth-centric life.  Expect requests for money (which she did offer to repay).  Expect to be pulled into a negative vortex of suspicion and subtle threats.  If she has contacted you and asked you to be a believer, you can be confident that she considers you a threat to her parallel universe in some way and will attempt to undermine your credibility.  When and if you defect, prepare to be treated badly. If you have walked into her alternate universe on your own (I will include Haslam here too, as it seems he created the universe that Judyth walked right into with his book Mary Farrie and the Monkey Virus), then you may have the option of remaining objective and weighing and evaluating what you are being told…good luck..."

http://findingjudyth.blogspot.se/