The integrity of evidentiary contentions is based upon verifiable accuracy and correction of all mistakes. If the claims are repeated but not verified they remain merely unproven assertions. Yet claims are not compelling, evidence is. Claims, no matter who offers them, require substantial proof. Unbelievable assertions require substantial evidence. Mistakes uncorrected lead to future greater errors.
Seeking greater answers to past questions regarding the grand claims of Judyth Baker I decided to seek her out and ask her directly. The prior inquiry began publicly conducted in Baker's Vindication Facebook group. Baker’s own prior claims were at times her references; they were not supported by verifiable evidence and relied largely upon faith in the writer. So when I began my polite, if direct questioning, my prior article was offered.
No subversion was attempted. I directly challenged her claims, yet also stated if I was wrong I remain willing to accept any evidence that proves her various accounts. Other reasonable people with evidence also challenged these claims as well. The evidence to prove her claims is more important than just the claims themselves. No matter how often a person asserts something, repeated assertion is not truth. The truth needs to be proven for effective investigation. Reasonable doubts must be dispelled and myths consigned to the dustbin of history.
Less than ten years ago, Baker wrote "Me and Lee". In the book, she offers claims "based on her life" in her estimation. Unfortunately, this account is lacking most required evidence and most firsthand legal corroboration. This absence of evidence renders all of the related claims doubtful at best. This account again supports that all feasible myths contain their undoing within their own incongruent stories. Each at some point defies reason and proof.
The first of Baker's many wholly unproven ideas states Oswald knew endless facts about Cuba; she asserts he was told to memorize them by his unproven bosses. The problem is when asked questions about Communism, Marxism, and Cuba during interviews Oswald never offered substantive information. Why would he do so to her and neglect to on media programs where he could spread his alleged ideas?i Yet this is just the beginning of the later deemed memoir.
Baker attests that Oswald had knowledge of a restaurant in the territory of Mafia boss Carlos Marcello with a contact referred to as "Mr. P". She then offers a wholly unsubstantiated tale regarding this unnamed figure. Lee Harvey Oswald never mentions this to a single person in his lifetime verifiably. These represent additional evidenceless claims. Baker claims that a message is sent to Oswald's uncle. The information is widely known far before her story emerges.ii Evidence proved Charles Murret possessed Mafia connections during official inquires, yet Baker provided none of it.
Baker refers to David Ferrie as Dr. Ferrie. Ferrie was never a doctor, nor possessed a doctoral degree of any sort.iii She claims that the Tulane Monkey Research Center supplied her and the alleged "cancer" bio-weapon project, of which there is no proof. There is no verifiable scientific basis for any of her claims. She is absent the documents, W-2's, prisoner medical records, chemical analysis, schematics of the weaponization method, etal.iv
Baker asserts she was assisting Ferrie and Dr. Mary Sherman with cancer research. Baker, Ferrie, and Oswald did not possess the necessary scientific training. None of them was qualified to do advanced medical experimentation, nor the weaponization of cancer. They lacked a suitable lab with the necessary devices, experience in handling dangerous material, and no certifications required to obtain such material.v No evidence exists to support any of this.
Baker claims she and Oswald went to the Murret home, yet the Murrets, guests, and not a single neighbor ever mentions her. This account relies on belief alone.vi In one instance, she claims Oswald weeps over her lack of confidence in his ability to protect her. He had physical confrontations with the police, endured accusations, and press coverage implied his guilt as the lone suspect. Yet he never was observed weeping.
When officials ignored Oswald's civil rights, he was angry. When the public hated and cursed him at every turn, he still declared his innocence. He never cried. It is highly improbable he would over the feasibly mythical short-term girlfriend. He feasibly had greater proven matters on his mind.vii
Another myth associated with Baker is her implications that she, Oswald, David Ferrie, and others knew and aided the Castro assassination plots.viii Baker asserts that David Ferrie asked to her to join the Castro plots. Baker claims she waited to talk to Dr. Ochsner before accepting. Yet the primary evidence dispels her claim. There is substantial evidence of the Castro Plots. Yet Ferrie, Baker, Oswald, and Ochsner were never in a position to have knowledge of them.ix
The verifiable evidence does not support anything Baker suggests. Yet it does prove Allen Dulles suppressed evidence from the President's Commission. It does offer that some officials were not honest and obstructed justice. We can prove this with primary evidence. All without the fables offered by some.
Baker asserts she impersonated Marina Oswald. She claims Oswald wanted to pass her off at Guy Banister's office. Yet there is no feasible reason why Oswald would do so. If Oswald cared about her or knew her, why bring her and attempt the additional unnecessary deception? No witness corroborates her assertions.
Baker subsequently states Oswald drove them elsewhere. Yet Oswald had no significant driving experience, license, and no car.x Baker also claims Oswald made repeated overnight plane trips without access to necessary funds. She never mentions specifics or provides evidence for these stories.xi
The weight of evidence crashes upon these many insubstantial beliefs. Often when a criticism of Mrs. Baker's claims emerges, the preferred response is "have you read the book?" I have, it has not helped answer questions, but offers endless new problems. The book further damages her claims when compared against verifiable evidence and her evolving tales. It proves that her ideas are untenable and most offered are lackluster and without evidence.
In a ponderous display, a radio show host Popeye stated he would give a "free t-shirt" to anyone who took a picture of Baker's book next to Lee Harvey Oswald's grave. Baker responded "Fantastic" and explained she collects such pictures.xii She also held a gathering photographed at Oswald's grave. These gruesome promotions support a few of the worst claims made regarding Baker's true intentions.
Perhaps Oswald was never the focus, their alleged relationship unproven, her claims without significant evidence, and herself the star. She feasibly occupies a role without much verifiable proof of anything. A probable myth has wasted over a decade of people's time and obscured the evidence. All myths are undone by reasonable doubts and evidence.
i. Judyth Vary Baker, "Me and Lee", Trine Day Publishing, 2010, p. 126
ii. Ibid, p. 135
iii. Ibid, p. 137
iv. Ibid, p. 365
v. Ibid, p. 141, 165
vi. Ibid, p. 137
vii. Ibid, p. 143
viii. Ibid, p. 165-166
ix. House Select Committee on Assassinations, Segregated CIA Files, Roselli, John, Box 1, File 942, February 15, 1972, p. 2, 3
x. Me and Lee, p. 171
xi. Ibid, p. 365, citation no. 5
xii. Down the Rabbit Hole w/Popeye, Judyth Vary Baker interview, April 29, 2012, federaljack.com
If you wish to view more of the claims of JVB see her blog site, Facebook page, or Vindication group.