TO SEE A FORMER FBI’S BIG BATCH OF LIES ABOUT THIS CONFERENCE’S
CO-FOUNDER, AND LIVING WITNESS, JUDYTH VARY BAKER,
WHO SEEKS LEE OSWALD’S EXONERATION, SCROLL DOWN– AND PREPARE
TO BE SHOCKED.
Walt Brown – Former FBI – In 2019 wrote a 245-page book – his second- SUPPOSEDLY “IN
HER OWN WORDS,” attacking witness Judyth Baker with blatantly open lies
But what kind of person would dare write such a book, with at least 96 Errors,
Omissions, Inaccuracies, and Unsupported Declarations of Fact? –
Because people “respect” Mr. Brown, formerly with the FBI and doing the
reputation of that agency no favors. By 2021 it became necessary to finally respond to
this screed, which is his second such attack against Baker.
As you read, ask yourself if this man should be called “a researcher.” Yet, he’s published in magazines and journals.
JUDYTH RESPONDS – (THIS GARBAGE IS WHAT JUDYTH HAS HAD TO FIGHT FOR 22 YEARS)
JUDYTH: RESPONDING TO ERRORS and OMISSIONS, INACCURACIES and
WORTHLESS OBSERVATION/QUIBBLES by WALT BROWN (he sells this book to people
inquiring about Judyth Vary Baker) At “Linked In” he described himself oin 2021 as
“the most widely published JFK researcher in history, having compiled over 40,000 pages since 1992.”
Prepare to be shocked, as thisFBI-related ‘researcher’ proceeds to openly lie:
#1: ERROR. p.73 : “In providing the clock-in and clock-out times, but not the cards,
we are asked without corroboration to believe that the cards themselves contain
the initials of Judyth Vary Baker.”
THE TRUTH: Six photos of Time Cards with my initial “J” on them are on page 401.
Two more photos of Time Cards with my initial “J” are also on pages 588 and 589.
Here are two of Lee’s time cards with my initial “J.”
AS SHOWN IN ME & LEE
#2: WORTHLESS OBSERVATION. p. 71: After describing that Lee and I cleaned up
the apartment at 4905, Brown next states that “Lee went out and bought
a new garbage can, and they put[ – p. 72–] some trash in it –source unknown.”
Any idea where the trash came from, folks?
#3: WORTHLESS QUIBBLE. p. 70: Applying the simple statement that we were warned
not to write down anything that would leave a paper trail, and ignoring the fact that
Ochsner said all written material was routinely destroyed after statistics were logged,
Brown applies this to EVERYTHING written or even read. Quote: “Baker was told by
William Monaghan cited above and in Note 1, “I expect you to produce a believable
and unremarkable report on Mr. Oswald,” Monaghan told me.” (2) (We were
promised nothing would be written down!)
#4: INACCURACY. On p. 70, Brown says “Baker clocked Oswald out of Reily’ at 4:30 p.m.
As written, that means she performed the action at 4:30, which is not the same as
saying “I clocked him out FOR 4:30” which could have been done in the morning.
(emphasis by JVB) Either way….”But there was NO “either way.” We had to deal with
an automatic electric time-stamping clock where it was impossible to clock Lee
Oswald out before the actual hour was reached by the clock. It was a major
irritation to me because I would have to WAIT for the clock to reach the
appropriate time to clock him out.
#5: ERROR. p. 69: Brown says that since I refused to pay A-1 Employment their fee,
his “suspicion is that the agency would have brought litigation, because technically,
they are in the right. Given the massive “cloak and dagger” machinations between
Oswald and Baker, would they have risked this?” (He is arguing that the scenario never happened)
FACT: Thanks to Lee, I only had to make one small payment. Since Brown
apparently didn’t read all the book, and somehow didn’t see the check itself on
p.584 (back and front).
#6: ERROR. p. 68: Brown insists on stating the FBI’s lie that Lee lived at 4907
Magazine Street and will use this objection to discredit Judyth Vary Baker:
“Baker will frequently refer to the 4905 Magazine Street address, but the
reality was that Oswald rented 4907 (sic) Magazine Street.”
FACTS: Here are just three sources showing Lee rented 4905 Magazine Street,
not 4907 (though the FB I tried to confabulate 4907-4905 in a couple of their
reports and the Warren Commission’s Liebeler would refer to Lee Oswald’s “address” as “4907-4905.”
Source #1: Marina Oswald to the FBI: FBI agent Branigan to FBI agent Sullivan,
doc 62-109 060: Our interviews of Marina Oswald reflect Oswald lived with her at 4905
Magazine Street up until late September, when Oswald left to go to Mexico City.”
Source #2: Wm. Stuckey to the FB I: FBI Report, Nov. 26, 1963: William K. Stuckey visited
Oswald “alone, 4905 magazine Street, about 8:00 a.m. on Aug. 17, 1963, to invite him to
appear on his radio program.” FBI file # 89-69 S.A. Milton, S.A. R. Kaak
Source #3: Marina Oswald to the HSCA: Record #180-10099-10064 002035:
Marina: “He had already rented a place.”
Q: “He had already rented a place?”
Marina: Yes, sir.” Q. “And where was that place?” Marina: “It was 4905 Magazine Street, in New Orleans.”
#7: ERROR. On pg. 69, Brown writes, concerning the “security check” (
actually a background check – he uses a term that is never used in the book)—
“What is unstated is how a security check for Judyth would be arranged—
was she supposed to investigate herself?”(emphasis by JVB)
FACT: The arrangement was described in detail on pages 289-290.
Monaghan and Mr. Desmare, the Manager of Retail Credit, wrote up MY
background report together, right at the Retail Credit office. Didn’t Brown
read those pages?
#8: ERROR. On p. 68, Brown writes the following: “Nowhere is it stated in this
account that Oswald paid any money in order to obtain the [apartment] keys,
and given the Evans’ feelings for him, it is highly unlikely that they would
put their reputations as rental agents on the line without seeing at least some cash.”
FACT: Myrtle Evans drove Lee around as a favor, not as a rental agent. Lee paid
cash for 4905 to the building manager, Mrs. Garner, and obtained the keys.
Myrtle Evans had no part in that. The Evans were landlords of a different rental
property, but had nothing left to rent.
#9: OMISSION. p. 68, Brown describes me and Lee sitting together listening to
“Let It Be Me” –”After a dinner and a stroll”– without mentioning that we were
|DOUBLE-DATING that night with known Banister investigator David Lewis
and his wife, Anna Lewis. Anna Lewis is a witness on tape and film to the fact.
He deliberately ignores the fact that we were double-dating, or did not read the page.
#10: INACCURACY. p. 67: Changes the third floor of Newman Building
(Banister building) into Banister’s OFFICE, saying I described it as full of military equipment.
#11: Unsupported Declaration of Fact. p.66: States as a FACT that
“The leafletting campaign… did not root out any ‘pro-Castro’ people.” How does he know?
#12: ERROR. p. 65, Brown asks how did Robert know where to write to me,
since my address changed after the police raid from The Mansion to 1032 Marengo.
If Brown had actually read all the book, he would have learned we stopped by
The Mansion’s mailbox (which was located at the gate at the sidewalk) to check the
mailbox there, regularly.
#13: WORTHLESS QUIBBLE. p. 63: “Ochsner told her she would be seeing Sherman
every week, for Sherman to review her reports. [We were promised “nothing
should be written down!”] Ochsner stated clearly—but Brown ignores or never read
–that AFTER REPORTS ARE WRITTEN AND STATISTICS TAKEN FROM THEM ,
THE REPORTS ARE DESTROYED.
I had asked Ochsner in our first interview if I could look at the prior reports and
was told that they were regularly destroyed. But Brown will continue to repeat this useless
objection.
#14: Unsupported Declaration of Fact. p. 61: Brown states that Lee could not have
written “Wen Orleans” when painting souvenirs at Rev. James’ over and over because
he never miswrote “New” before. He added, of Lee: “He’s often stated as dyslexic,
but that involves reverse letters in reading, not writing.” “WEN” is called reverse
sequence in writing, which exist among some dyslexics. Briefly, some dyslexics,
if they have to write a word over and over again, especially under pressure,
may suddenly began transposing letters. This ‘tended to the left rather than right,”
according to a 2009 study by S. Jikem (“Six Techniques that May Solve the Problems
of Reversed Numbers and Letters”). This happens especially if the letters are similar
in shape. In the word N E W, the “W” can seem to be an “N” after a dyslexic has
written it over and over. The problem is called “word reversal.”
(See dyslexia.com/about-dyslexia/signs-of-dyslexia/test-for-dyslexia-37-signs.cannot-page-3/)
.Brown declares that ‘word reversal’ occurs only in reading, not writing, which is
an unsupported declaration of fact.
#15: ERROR. p. 59-60, Brown claims I would not recognize Jack Ruby’s accent
as from my former place of residence up north, “…having spent the majority
of her life in Florida.”
I was born in South Bend, IN, 90 miles from Chicago, in 1943. I lived there 11 years.
I moved to Florida in 1954. I also lived in Fort Wayne, IN in 1961 in September and
October, and spent the entire summer in NY, so I only spent 7 months in Florida in 1961.
In 1963, I spent the majority of the year in New Orleans. Putting it all together, I spent
the majority of my life outside Florida, not inside.
Why the fuss? Brown claims I would not be able to recognize an accent coming from
Chicago. He forgets that both of my parents, who raised me for 17 of my 19
years, came from that same area. He tries to say that Jack Ruby has a Texas
accent. Hear for yourself the truth here: https://youtu.be/NiPl2DNwJJk
#16: ERROR. p. 58: Brown writes: “Oswald is risking death or torture (according to
Judyth, he means—JVB) in Castro’s prisons to join into a plot against Castro.
In order to get to meet his Hollywood hero. No mention that he did, in
fact, meet his hero.”
FACT: INCA planned to hire Herbert Philbrick, an FBI informant whose biography
I LED THREE LIVES and subsequent TV program of the same name, indeed
inspired Lee from his early teens. It factored into his decision to work at Reily’s
working as a photographer, because as a Reily employee he would be able
to finagle a way to meet Philbrick face to face.
Brown says I didn’t mention that Lee “did, in fact, meet his hero.” But the
book says Lee did. Here it is on page 133: “In 1963 Philbrick presented
officials in INCA – the anti-Red organization headed by Dr. Alton Ochsner—
an anti-communist film prior to becoming an advisor to INCA. Lee told
Judyth he met Philbrick there, but was dismayed because Philbrick acted as if
Hoover was “Jesus Christ.” Note that this is in an information box, which was
written by the editors of ME & Lee (the reference to “Judyth said” shows I did
not write it). Brown will later reference an error in one of those boxes as if they
were “my” words, instead of some exterior reference’s words.
#17: Unsupported Declaration of Fact. p 175: Concerning my getting lost so
frequently: in this case, missing my bus stop, because I didn’t recognize it until
well past the stop. Brown writes, “If she could not recognize her own street
corner, how could she recognize various types of cancerous tissues?” Interestingly,
The Daily Mail (27 May, 2013) reported a study on high IQ individuals and discovered
“They excel at seeing small, moving objects but struggle in perceiving large,
background-like motions…[such as what you see out the window of a moving bus?—jvb]
The results show that individuals with high IQ can pick up on the movement of
small objects faster than low-IQ individuals can. That wasn’t unexpected, Tadin says.
The surprise came when tests with larger objects showed just the opposite:
individuals with high IQ were slower to see what was right there in front of them.
‘There is something about the brains of high-IQ individuals that prevents them
from quickly seeing large, background-like motions,’ Tadin added.
In other words, it isn’t a conscious strategy but rather something automatic and
fundamentally different about the way these people’s brains work. The ability to
block out distraction is very useful in a world filled with more information than
we can possibly take in. It helps to explain what makes some brains more
efficient than others. An efficient brain ‘has to be picky’ Tadin said. The findings
were reported in the Cell Press journal Current Biology.”
#18: Unsupported Declaration of Fact. p. 176: “(Baker) has no caveat whatsoever
that what she was reporting was “her recollection” of the moment, or “to the best of
her memory.”(emphasis by JVB)
On p. 559, I wrote: “This story is true, and I have told it as accurately as I can.”
#19: Omission. p. 177: Brown asks “why is there such a paucity of “science.” (!!!-jvb)
All we really know is that she killed probably thousands of animals in order to make
some recipe to kill Fidel Castro. Instead, there’s dialogue by the bushel…” It seems
Brown never read the 1st hundred pages:
(1) invented an improved method to obtain Magnesium from seawater and devised
a safe furnace to safely refine 1.2 grams of the pure metal, when in high school.
(2) induced skin cancer in mice using tobacco-derived carcinogens, when in high school.
(3) induced lung cancer in germ-free weanling mice using carcinogenic aerosols
derived from tobacco filters. This lung cancer was induced in a ground-breaking
seven days, while in high school.
(4) summer 1961 did hands-on cancer research and helped advance the
formula for the RPMI1640 cancer-growing medium which is still used today.
Did kill a few marmosets.
(5) Fall 1961 did cancer research at St Francis College in melanogenesis.
Didn’t kill anything.
(6) Fall of 1962 devised a new method at UF to detect live cancer cells in
the bloodstream using radioactive labeling of the injected cancer cells.
Interestingly, in 2020 “Cell Tracking in Cancer Immunotherapy” by Perrin1†1†,
Mougin-Degraef1,2, Guérard1, 1,2, Rbah-Vidal1, Gaschet1, 1,
Kraeber-Bodéré1,2,3, Chérel1,3 and Barbet all from French Universities and
hospitals, cited Charoenphun P, Meszaros LK, Chuamsaamarkkee K, Sharif-Paghaleh
E, Ballinger JR, Ferris TJ, et al. as to their
long-term in vivo cell tracking by positron emission tomography in
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2014) 42:278–87. doi: 10.1007/s00259-014-2945-x.
Their report laments the fact that cell tracking use in vivo has not advanced all
that much: “New methods have been developed, but has in vivo cell tracking advanced
(cancer) immunotherapy? In vivo imaging has the potential to contribute as a drug
development tool to improve the understanding of complex mechanisms of action,
as a tool to improve efficacy, for example, by stratifying patients as possible responders
or non-responders, and as a non-invasive treatment response biomarker to guide
immunotherapy and recognize early signs of loss of efficacy…At this point,
preclinical studies have been numerous, but transfer to the clinic remains
quite limited (74).” (emphasis by JVB).
(7) And finally, detailed descriptions of the research methods and progress in
developing the bioweapon occurred at every stage.
In fact, scientific descriptions of what we were doing were laid out in great detail in Me & Lee.
#20: Worthless QUIBBLE. p. 183: Brown ignores page 114 or did not read it.
OUR WEDDING RINGS. My Hungarian grandmother wore her wedding
ring on her right hand. My grandfather also wore his wedding ring on
his right hand. Their matching stones can be seen in this photograph. They
are also both wearing their wristwatches on their right wrists. My grandmother
is holding a pearl and diamond necklace in her left hand. A Russian Samovar
is on the table to the left.
Lee Oswald also wore his wedding ring on his right hand. As did his Russian wife, Marina.
This is why I thought he was not married at first, and so I flirted with him. Later, when we held hands,
our rings therefore “clinked” against each other. In his 245 pages of criticisms, Walt Brown often
indicates that he did not read a number of pages, though it may seem that way to the reader that
he reads ‘everything’ since he assiduously lists page numbers and quotes, as if he has conducted
a thorough examination of the book. Tis is obviously not the case.
Brown did not read (or forgot?) page 114 in Me & Lee where I stated: “…I noticed a thick wedding band
on his right hand and remembered that both Russians and Hungarians wore their wedding rings
on their right hands.”… (p 548) Instead, Brown wrote, mocking me where I said “we walked along slowly
…aware of the rings that touched and made (Brown writes ‘make’) the tiny clinking sound that meant
we were still linked to others…”
Brown ignores this, writing, “Obvious difficulty” he tells the reader. “This entry would ask us to believe
that as Oswald and Judyth walked hand-in-hand, their wedding rings clinked against one another.
Considering that wedding rings are worn on the left hand, it meant that Oswald’s left hand was
holding Baker’s left hand, suggesting either some convoluted physical abilities, or that one of them
was walking backwards.”
But wait. On page 7, in his own book, Brown quotes me as saying “She then noticed a wedding ring
on his right hand, in what she claimed was Russian-Hungarian style.”
So he knows (or knew) that I said Lee Oswald was wearing his wedding ring on his right hand, yet
declared on p. 183 that one of us had to be “walking backwards” to have our rings touch,
as wedding rings are worn on the left hand.
There are many other such “errors.” In Brown’s 245-page book criticizing my testimony, so far, I have found
45 such omissions, quibbles, inaccuracies and errors. This man, a former FBI agent-turned-school teacher,
writes essays about the Kennedy assassination that are being published in journals such as “garrison.”
#21: Inaccuracy. p. 180: Here is yet another instance where Brown exhibits his not owning or not having
access to the actual book. Because he cannot see pages 455 and 456, in Me & Lee, which are large photos
showing the INCA record album “Self-Portrait in Red” he writes: “on the page where this entry appears,
there is either a front or back cover of a “recording” entitled (sic) “I Am a Marxist” (actual title is
“Self-Portrait in Red”—JVB) based on statements by “Lee Harvey Oswald.” (emphasis by JVB)
Here is what Brown cannot/did not see on pages 455 and 456:
The “statements” were actually a recording of the famous radio “debate” between Lee,
Carlos Bringuier and two additional antagonists, conducted by FBI informant Ed Butler
at WDSU TV-Radio for Dr. Alton Ochsner’s (and WDSU’s) INCA, a propaganda arm of
the CIA. The recording was sent to hundreds of Latin American radio stations in August,
1963 and was also put on sale to the general public by INCA the day after JFK’s assassination.
#22: Omission: p. 181: Moving past the above blunder, Brown next uses a page-and-a-half
to describe the actual debate, which he calls “a radio panel discussion.” Unaware that the
recording he called “I Am a Marxist” was made from this debate, he omits all reference to
the recording, which he does not recognize was made at this time, relying on a deposition
by Ed Butler that the “discussion” “finished him” (Oswald’s efforts to promote his local
FPCC)“as an admitted Marxist.” He ignores Ochsner’s actual presence at the debate.
#23: Worthless Observation demonstrating ignorance. p. 180: It is important to
understand that in this book, Lee stated more than once that he had become so deeply
embroiled into the assassination plot that if he ran, his wife, his children, his relatives and
his lover (me) would surely be killed, and that the perpetrators would probably find him
and kill him anyway. But apparently, in the excerpts available to Brown, he read none of that,
for he writes, “If Lee Oswald truly believed such a thing, he would have made certain
that he was never in any geographic area where the President was.”
#24: Omission of Fact: p. 178: Brown states as fact the following: “Given Oswald’s and
Judyth’s extremely limited contact with Dr. Ochsner it is impossible to know how
Judyth could have known that Ochsner was responsible for these arrangements
(the radio debate, TV appearances, etc – JVB). Brown ignores or is unaware of:
(1) my several private meetings with Ochsner where Ochsner says Lee will become
“a movie star,”
(2) the telephone calls Ochsner made to me at Reily’s.
(3) David Ferrie also met with Ochsner, as well as getting information from Clay Shaw
face-to-face from Ochsner. And finally,
(4) Dr. Mary Sherman was in daily proximity to her boss, Dr. Ochsner, and I was in
contact with Sherman face-to-face at least once a week. I discern between “meeting”
Dr. Sherman and “working” with her, as she was a different person in the lab – strict, rigid,
distant–from the friendly person she was outside the lab, and usually, at Ferrie’s kitchen lab.
Brown’s statement that Lee and I had “…extremely limited contact with Dr. Ochsner”
is inaccurate, false and misleading.
#25: Inaccuracy. p. 178: Brown criticizes me, saying:
“Judyth Baker wrote: “Lee and two paid helpers to hand out leaflets.”(“…p. 453)
He describes only one (Charles Hall Steele, Jr.), ignoring the Cuban Lee also hired.
It is on record that Lee hired TWO helpers, not one. Here is an official photo
showing the Cuban (who I believe was Rafael Cruz, who was in New Orleans
at the time visiting relatives) and A-1 was used to obscure the fact that
Lee had previously arranged to “hire” them. They had to wear a nice shirt
and tie and nice slacks,m but Steele, I was told, chose to wear Bermuda shorts.
I only saw Steele as he stood with people in front of him and didn’t know that.
#26: Worthless quibble, once again, on p. 175: Brown insists throughout his book that I
could not be able to remember conversation details because I also get lost. To him,
all kinds of memory and recall are the same. This is not true. There are at least six different
kinds of memory. Brown insists that because my short-term memory concerning
spatial orientation is deficient, that my long-term memory of historically-important
conversations (that I took the trouble to memorize) must also be deficient.
See: https://www.brainhq.com/brain-resources/memory/types-of-memory/
Sixty Minutes was impressed with my memory. I have been gifted with the ability to
recall conversations and even details of important days of my life with formidable
accuracy. Despite three concussions due to so-called “car accidents” that forced
me to live overseas for some fourteen years, where I used fake names, I have
retained most of my memories, especially of conversations that occurred.
As recently as July 2021, noted trial attorney Mark Mueller, whose own memory
is phenomenal, wrote in his Afterword to the 2nd edition of Me & Lee– Lee Harvey
Oswald and Me, the following, after observing and questioning me, sometimes
on a daily basis, between November 2020 and July, 2021:
“It was obvious Judyth combined an almost unfathomable amount of research
with a rare and freakish memory for details. Her memory is so unusual and
beyond the range of normal that she has been attacked on that basis alone.
Fortunately for her she kept what I will call souvenirs that support her recollections
and was able over time to assemble other supporting pieces of material. Judyth
is without a doubt extremely intelligent as well as extremely traumatized by her
life experiences, of which seeing Lee Harvey Oswald murdered on television
was the most damaging. It is a credit to her that she has battled back against
nearly impossible odds to tell her very important story.”
#27: Quibble based on false assumption. p. 9: Brown writes:
“Oswald arrived in New Orleans April 25, 1963. Why would he be looking for mail,
at the general delivery area, the following day? Who would have written to him?”
Brown dismisses any idea that Lee Oswald was sent to encounter me at the Post Office.
Obviously, to meet me, Lee had to pretend that he was at the Post Office for a
legitimate reason. What would I have thought if he did not ask for mail, and simply
started walking with me? I was new to New Orleans. I would have considered such
an action suspicious. By pretending to ask for mail, I was unaware that Lee had come
to the Post Office purposely to meet me. In fact, only when this was pointed out to me
in 1999 by Sixty Minutes investigator Dr. Howard Platzman did I realize that Lee had
to have been sent to the Post Office to become my babysitter until my doctors returned
from their journeys. I was a valuable asset to their project who was presently “on my own”
–consorting with strippers and their seedy boyfriends!
#28 & #29: Inaccuracy and prejudice. p 9: Lee Oswald presented himself as neat and
clean-cut. His Marine buddy, Jim Botelho, Lea McGeHee—a barber in Jackson, LA, Bill
Stuckey of WDSU and others described Lee in the same manner. A “fake” Oswald –
called “Leon” – appears in Garrison testimony records associated with David Ferrie
(see my book David Ferrie: Mafia Pilot). But Brown slams me for describing Lee as clean-cut,
writing,
“Just as I will take exception to her characterization of Oswald as “an interesting man,”
below, I certainly would take issue with him being seen as “clean cut.” Most people found
him slovenly in the extreme, and having made a bus ride of reasonable distance,
it’s hard to imagine anyone as clean-cut.” Since on the same page, Brown says Lee
arrived in New Orleans on April 25, and it is now April 26—when Lee was observed
looking “clean cut” at the Post Office, apparently Brown is unwilling to allow Lee Oswald
a chance to change clothes, shower and shave before meeting Judyth Baker on the 26th
at about 10:00 a.m.
(Brown may have been copying what researcher David Lifton wrote early-on, when
Lifton insisted that Lee did not arrive in town until April 26. He later retracted that
statement, since other sources showed Lee arrived in New Orleans on April 25, but
his “April 26” objection is still to be found on the Internet without any correction.
Brown’s prejudice against Lee Oswald, objecting to my calling Lee “an interesting man”
is another example of how far Brown will go to disparage both me and Lee. Lee had spent
time in Japan, spoke Russian, was married to a Russian, had been a defector and was walking
around a free man upon his return to the USA, despite having proclaimed that he would
give away military secrets—at the height of the Cold War. And he was only 23 years old.
That’s not an interesting man?
#30: Unimportant Quibble. p. 9. “If Vary’s Russian was extremely limited, how
could she know that Oswald had spoken to her in this instance in perfect Russian?”
Of course, I meant in comparison to my own, Lee’s Russian sounded perfect!
Brown goes on to say that Lee spoke with a Byelorussian accent, trying to claim that
therefore his Russian was not good and was not even fluent. My reply: I could read Russian
and had heard plenty of Russian from my instructor, which was quite a contrast compared to
me and my classmates. I observed that Lee spoke Russian clearly and without hesitation.
Of course, I could tell that Lee spoke fluent Russian, Belorussian dialect aside, as he
spoke so easily and rapidly, without hesitation.
Brown’s approach is like trying to object to John F. Kennedy’s Boston accent, as if the
highly-educated JFK spoke poor English, due to his accent, even though his English vocabulary
was outstanding. Incidentally, George deMohrenschildt thought Lee spoke fluent Russian,
almost perfectly. But George spoke Belorussian Russian! He was born a couple dozen
miles from Minsk, Belarus, so he also had a Belorussian accent.
#31: Inaccuracy. p 12: Calls Royal Castle “the pancake house where she worked.”
We didn’t sell pancakes.
#32: Inaccuracy. p. 14. “He then took her to a slightly better lodgement site, which turned
out to be a brothel…” Slightly better? In fact, I called it “the Mansion” due to its elegance
and beauty.
The room I rented was a fancy parlor – considered to be the best room in the house, with a
view of the lawn and majestic oak trees. We were unaware that this mansion was indeed
a house of ill repute, though high-class. The accommodation was light-years better than
the small, crowded, dirty room at the YWCA.
#33: Unsupported Declaration of Fact. p. 15: “…Ferrie had intended to rape Lee.
Using fists and broken bottles, the two fought it out.” WRONG. What I really wrote:
Lee and Dave agreed that Ferrie never intended to rape Lee. Ferrie said he’d
never raped anybody in his life. Yes, Lee broke a windowpane and tried to defend
himself with a piece of broken glass, thinking Ferrie intended to rape him, but Ferrie
knocked the piece of broken glass from his hand and the fight began.
No bottles were involved: Brown made that up. (pages 143-144, Me & Lee)
#34: Brown repeats the ‘rape’ accusation #33 on p. 15 again on page 18, adding
that David Ferrie was a pedophile (actually, Ferrie liked older teens – a different category).
Without excusing Dave as “sinless,” nevertheless I’ll defend Dave, since Brown ignores
Dave’s reluctance to speak of the incident, and his shame and agitation as he confessed
the incident in my presence. Instead, Brown wrote: “How many pedophiles, upon
meeting a young woman for the first time, openly confess to attempting to rape
a man present at that point in the room?” In fact
(1) This was not our first meeting
(2) Ferrie was drunk
(3) Ferrie denied any attempt at rape
(4) and Lee agreed.
#35: Inaccuracy. p 17: “At that point (April 28, 1963 – JVB) there were no American
blockades of Cuba and no quarantines of Cuba.” Brown IGNORES THE FACTS:
“Since the 1960s, the United States has imposed an embargo against Cuba, the Communist
island nation 90 miles off the coast of Florida. The embargo, known among Cubans as
“el bloqueo” or “the blockade,” consists of economic sanctions against Cuba and
restrictions on Cuban travel and commerce for all people and companies under US
jurisdiction.” Ref: https://cuba-embargo.procon.org/history-of-the-cuba-embargo/
#36: Brown repeats a fable: “the lost tooth.” p. 18: this legend was expanded by John
Armstrong (Brown frequently quotes him) and McAdams sycophant Dave Reitzes’
narrative where they insist Lee Oswald lost a tooth, because two brothers claimed
that when they beat up Lee, in Jr. High, they believed they knocked his tooth out.
A Jr. High photo that shows Lee horsing around with his mouth wide open which
seems to show a “missing tooth,” but I recollect an explanation that is more reasonable.
This is not the place to put forth a big argument about the fact that the real Lee was
indeed buried – not an imposter. There are gruesome details, but most important are
the dental records, proving it was the real Lee who was buried.
A front tooth is identified as ‘rotated’ in Lee’s dental record, which at times can
occur when the bone holding the tooth is damaged so the tooth moves, or rotates,
from its original position and the bone then re-grows around the tooth in its
new position.
Either Lee saved his tooth if it was knocked out, and got it re-seated in his mouth by
a dentist — and his cousin was a dentist– or it was simply loosened enough to have a
blow against it knock it backwards, creating the impression that it was ‘missing’ in the
photo Armstrong uses. The fact that we can find not a single photo of his “Harvey” later in life
with a missing front tooth, does not faze Armstrong.
What we do know is that THE REAL AND ONLY LEE OSWALD (who was later impersonated,
but by different people, not some kind of weird ‘twin’) NEVER HAD A MISSING FRONT
TOOTH. The ‘missing tooth’ in the yearbook photo that is used to ‘prove’ Lee lost his
front tooth was likely pushed backwards by a blow to the mouth on his loosened tooth,
when he had a schoolyard fight, but it could almost certainly be pushed forward again
manually. Maybe Lee was grossing out the kids by manipulating it to make it ‘appear’ and
‘disappear.’
Lee had a great sense of humor!
When Lee said he was in the fight with David Ferrie, both Lee and Dave agreed that Dave
almost knocked his front tooth out. The fight on the school grounds likewise involved a serious
blow to Lee’s tooth, either before or after Lee’s fight with Dave. In one incident, or in the other,
the tooth was severely loosened. Lee was told he had to soak the tooth in milk to save it if
it fell out, and go to the dentist quickly “if” the tooth fell out. There is a record of Lee’s
visiting the dentist, probably to save the tooth. Sorry to put you, the reader, through
all of this.
Note the dental record makes a big issue about the #9 upper front tooth being
rotated.It had been loosened at the jawbone level,but it stayed in his mouth.
#37: Misquote and Exaggeration. p. 18: Between April 19 and April 27 – a
period of 8 days–I lived in the New Orleans YWCA with two strippers, a Playboy Bunny
trainee and a waitress (who was moving from near the airport to the downtown area
—I took over some of her hours at Royal Castle to make some emergency money.
In those 8 days I learned about raids made by Jim Garrison, about Jack Ruby, who
was after “Jada” – a stripper he wanted to perform in his nightclub in Dallas—and
that he had the power to take talented strippers “all the way to Vegas” if he liked
them and slept with him.
But Brown thinks it was impossible for me to get to know these things so quickly.
He wrote: “…consider what Judyth Vary has learned in less time than was consumed
by the “assassination weekend” seven months later.” (emphasis by JVB) Brown tells the
reader that in less than two days, I was “aware of a long list of facts. That was false.
The list includes: that a new district attorney, “Big Jim” has been installed in New Orleans
Parish and is laying down the letter of the law and cleaning up the town.”
(I learned that from a cab driver when I first arrived in New Orleans, when we heard a gunshot.)
Brown then goes on with the list, all ‘learned’ according to him, in less than two days!
“She is aware that a man named Jack Ruby is in New Orleans, or has been, in order to
sign a performance contract with Janet Conforto, a/k/a “Jada,” and that this Ruby
fellow handles all of Carlos Marcello’s activities in the city of Dallas (untrue-jvb)
despite having been an FBI informant at one time (Brown emphasizes this).
First of all, Jada was being harassed by raids at the Sho Bar where she stripped, orchestrated
by Ruby, according to one of the strippers I knew who worked with her there. The gossip
about Ruby was that he had influence and worked for Marcello in Dallas, but I never said
Ruby handled “all” of Carlos Marcello’s activities in Dallas.
His list continues, as if someone as garrulous as I am would never care to learn a thing
about the new city I found myself in!
“She is fully aware that Carlos Marcello is the Mafia Godfather of New Orleans;
she is further aware that “Dutz” Murret does bookkeeping for him….” and so Brown carries on.
First of all, I was very naïve and the girls I met at the YWCA had fun “acquainting” me with
“real life.” Second, by meeting Lee, I met David Ferrie, for example, who worked for Carlos
Marcello’s attorney, G. Wray Gill. How long would it take to learn that the Godfather ran the
town, simply from that fact? New Orleans was not that big of a town, as anyone who lived there
will tell you, and in 1963, I spent several exciting nights at strip clubs and bars with my new friends.
By the way, I thought Jada’s last name was “Cuffari” because it was in the newspaper the same
date I arrived in New Orleans. “Cuffari” rhymed with ‘Vary’—which helped me remember that name:
Brown tells his readers that I learned all of this in the space of less than two days,
when the time period was actually between April 19 and early May.
#38. Quibble based on a False Assumption. P. 19: Brown says, “The totality of this data
[she has quickly collected] is staggering in its dimensions, and so extremely unlikely as to have
happened…” But I have the mind of a scientist: I collect data by nature and inclination.
Brown decides what I should have said to someone I “just met.”
He decides that I– who had met a real spy while in high school, and who was involved
with Tony Lopez-Fresquet and other fiercely anti-Castro Cubans, would not have asked
if Lee’s deep study of Cuba was for the purpose of killing Castro, though anti-Castro talk
was the favorite topic of my Cuban friends. That seems an impossibility to Brown.
He decides what I should have not have said to a man I recognized as a hero – a returned fake
defector, that I considered him a hero. He finishes by adding, “– two days (sic) in the life of
Judyth Vary, who was supposed to be getting married four days later—as if she has nothing
else to do.”
But wait. What did I have to do, after returning from my 6-8 am job at Royal Castle, in New Orleans?
By 9:30 or 10:00 a.m. –at latest– I checked for a letter from Robert at the post office. And then
—what did I have to do? Nothing.
I expected to be working for Dr. Mary Sherman as soon as she returned.
I had never had so much free time on my hands, literally, in years.
I preferred the company of Lee Oswald. He was different – thoughtful, interested in the
same things I was interested in. His aunt Lillian Murret, when asked by Mr. Jenner of
the Warren Commission, had this to say about Lee:
“I asked him, “Why don’t you go out with the boys from school?” and so forth, and
he said, “Well, they don’t like the same things I like.” But I do remember when he was
at my house he used to call some little girl all the time and talk to her quite a long time
on the telephone…” She also said, concerning when Lee lived in Exchange Alley, in what
she termed a “very nice” apartment located over a pool hall:
“Of course, they had these poolrooms and so forth in that section, but I don’t think that Lee
ever went into those places, because he never was a boy that got into any trouble.
For one thing, he never did go out. We all knew that he should have been going out, but he
stayed in and read or something. The average teenager who was going to school at
Beauregard would have probably been in there shooting pool and things like that,
but he didn’t do that. His morals were very good. His character seemed to be good,
and he was very polite and refined.”
Concerning Lee’s manners, in how his aunt Lillian observed him (this was after
Lee promised me he would never hit Marina again), Lillian said:
“…he was very attentive too to Marina.
Mr. Jenner.
Always?
Mrs. Murret. Always. Now, what he did at home how he acted around her there, I don’t know,
but when he was in my presence he was very attentive to her and very well mannered.
He would, I mean, open the car door for her, and so forth–very attentive. He would pull
the chair out for her and things like that. He was very well mannered. I have to say
that for him.
She added later, in reply to Mr. Jenner’s question,
“What was your impression of the morality of Lee Oswald during his lifetime?”
Mrs. Murret. His morality, as far as I know, was very good. That’s what baffles me,
being the type of boy he was, I just couldn’t see how he could do anything like that,
but it’s hard to judge a person that way.
Marina Oswald told the HSCA what Lee was like when she met him:
Mrs. PORTER. He was polite, neatly dressed, very courteous, well mannered, and he was quite attractive.
But Brown, who never met Lee Oswald, consistently describes Lee as an oaf — slovenly, dirty and rude.
#39: Error as to Fact. p. 20: To my statement that Lee was sent to Youth House, in New York, after
being arrested for chronic truancy, where Lee told me he had been “brutalized,” Brown disputes that,
erroneously declaring, “The reality is that he was not sent to any ‘facility’; he was interviewed.”
FACT: Lee was in Youth House from April 16 to May 7, 1953, during which time he was examined
by its Chief Psychiatrist, Dr. Renatus Hartogs.
The Warren Report observed: “…on April 16, Justice Delany declared him a truant, and remanded him
to Youth House until May 7 for psychiatric study.217 In accordance with the regular procedures at
Youth House, Lee took a series of tests and was interviewed by a staff social worker and a probation
officer, both of whom interviewed Mrs. Oswald as well.218 Their findings, discussed more fully in
chapter VII of the Commission’s report, indicated that Lee was a withdrawn, socially maladjusted boy,
whose mother did not interest herself sufficiently in his welfare and had failed to establish a close
relationship with him.219 Mrs. Oswald visited Lee at Youth House and came away with a highly
unfavorable impression; she regarded it as unfit for her son.220 On the basis of all the test results and
reports and his own interview with Lee, Dr. Renatus Hartogs, the chief staff psychiatrist, recommended
that Lee be [released – jvb] placed on probation …he recommended that Lee not be placed in an
institution unless treatment during probation was unsuccessful.221
Lee returned to court on May 7. He and his mother appeared before Justice McClancy, who discussed
the Youth House reports with them.222 He released Lee on parole until September 24, and requested
that a referral be made to the Community Service Society for treatment….<snip>”
Page 678
“…During the few weeks of school which remained, Lee attended school regularly, and completed
the seventh grade with low but passing marks in all his academic subjects.227 (He received a failing
mark in a home economics course.)228 His conduct was generally satisfactory and he was rated
outstanding in “Social-Participation”; the record indicates that he belonged to a model airplane
club and had a special interest in horseback riding.”
(Needless to say, both Lee and I liked horses. He took me to the New Orleans Racetrack
and showed me the grave of the courageous horse, Black Gold. My whole family knows
I loved horses and I often paint and draw them.)
#39: Accusation based on assumption. p 25: “A story was concocted [by Judyth] that Oswald
had brought a box of [Marina’s] clothing with him.”
FACT: In Ruth Paine’s first session of testimony before the Warren Commission, she stated that
when she came to visit the Oswald, she found them packed, about to depart on a bus trip to
New Orleans, and Ruth volunteered to save them taxi fare and drive them to the bus station.
Mrs. PAINE – Marina went, and he checked the baggage. It was rather more than he could
have carried on the city bus, and I am sure he preferred me to a taxi because I don’t cost as much.
Mr. JENNER – You didn’t cost anything?
Mrs. PAINE – That is right. And he then bought a ticket, he bought a ticket for Marina, I mean
I was thinking, while he was in the bus station, and suggested that it would be a very difficult thing
for a pregnant woman with a small child to take a 12-hour, 13-hour bus trip to New Orleans, and
suggested that I drive her down with June.
Mr. JENNER – You volunteered this?
Mrs. PAINE – I volunteered this, and suggested further that instead of her staying at her–at the
apartment, as was planned at that time, while waiting to hear from him, that she come and stay
at my house where he would reach us by phone, and where she would have someone else with
her while she waited to hear if he got work…<snip>.
Representative FORD – This took place where, in the car?
Mrs. PAINE – Probably in the bus station–in the car near the bus station. He then took the bus
ticket back, returned it, and got the money.
The CHAIRMAN – Ticket for her?
Mrs. PAINE – Ticket for her.
Mr. DULLES – (for) Her bus ticket?
Mrs. PAINE – Yes; and he left some money for her for buying things in the next few days
before she could join him.
Mr. JENNER – Did he get on the bus then and depart?
Mrs. PAINE – No; the bus left in the evening. We all drove back to the apartment
after he had checked the baggage, and he helped load the baby things and
things that Marina would need during the next few days into my car,
and we emptied what was left there of the things that were in the apartment, and
which belonged to them, and then drove, I drove with Marina and June and my two children
back to my house, and he stayed at the apartment. He was scheduled to leave by bus,
city bus, and an interstate bus that evening.”
NOTE: Lee only left behind the “things that Marina would need during the
next few days”—not everything Marina owned.
Obviously, Marina would not have kept ALL her things. They were sent on
ahead by bus with Lee.
Lee’s Aunt Lillian had this to say: (Warren Commission testimony) Mr. Jenner.
Would you say that there were at least two duffelbags, and that there could
have been more than two?
Mrs. Murret.
Yes. I think some of the boxes must have contained baby clothes and things
like that, and in fact, I was wondering how in the world he got all of that stuff
on the bus. I never did ask him, but he really had a load of stuff with him.
It was all there at the bus station though.
(Actually, Lee even brought a couple of boxes over to 4905 ahead of time…)
#40: Chronology Error Used to Demean the Witness. p. 28: “[Judyth says]…Lee
borrowed a car from one of the Murrets – on the day before they were aware
he was in the United States.” [April 28]
Brown even uses this quote from Lee’s aunt Lillian: “…on the first Sunday he was there,
(emphasis jvb) he was talking–we were talking about relatives, and he said to me,
“Do you know anything about the Oswalds?” and I said, no, I said that I didn’t. I said,
“I don’t know any of them other than your father, and I saw your uncle one time.”
I said, “I don’t know anything about the family; I don’t know them,” so he said,
“Well, you know, I don’t know any of my relatives.” He said, “You are the only one I know.”
Brown leaves out the next sentence:
Now, this was on a Sunday, and Lee had come to my house on a Monday.
[Later in her testimony, she adds:]” “… and he sat down and took the telephone book,
and he called all the Oswalds in the telephone book until he came to the one person who
was the right Oswald, and this was an elderly lady living in Metairie. She was the wife of
one of the Oswalds… So he went to see this lady, and she was the wife of one of the brothers
in the Oswald family, and she told him that everybody was dead, I think, and she gave him
a picture of his father, and she gave him some other pictures, and then she invited him back.
He said she was a very nice lady, and was very, very happy, but I don’t think he ever went
back to see her.” This was the old lady Lee visited in Metarie, who told him where his father’s
grave was located.
“So the next day, Monday, well, he went back to his job hunting again…” Lillian stated.
Obviously, Lee was living with the Murrets when he borrowed his uncle’s car to
visit his father’s grave.
Note that Lee’s Uncle Dutz did not speak favorably of Lee when questioned. He had good reasons:
he worked for Carlos Marcello, who was under suspicion as who was behind JFK’s assassination.
Dutz had to pretend to dislike Lee, but this was not the actual case. At any rate, he conveniently
died in 1964, along with Guy Banister, Dr. Mary Sherman and Lee’s pilot friend, Banister’s business
associate Hugh Ward, who was taught to fly by David Ferrie.
#41: Failure to Read Information in Book. p. 26: Brown writes: “The “Marina” impersonation
is fraught with difficulties…if it was necessary to fool Banister, [WRONG! NOT TO FOOL
BANISTER- IT WAS TO FOOL HIS STAFF] then how do you convince him that a stranger is the real wife?
He adds, “Did Banister know Marina’s wardrobe? Did Banister have any idea whatsoever what Marina
looked like?”
Here are the facts:
(1) Lee wanted me to wear Marina’s clothes because she owned some that were very plain
and “Russian-looking” (Lee changed his mind later and bought some very plain second-hand clothes,
since Marina might have missed something when she moved in.)
(2) It was not necessary to fool Banister. Guy Banister already knew I was not the real Marina.
This was mentioned several times in the prior chapter, which Brown seems not to have read
in full. Banister had agreed to meet me to assure me that the project was sanctioned by “the
government.” Once inside his private office, he offered to answer any questions I had about the
secret project (Marina never knew anything about Lee’s business.).
(3) The charade was put on for the sake of Banister’s secretaries and staff in the outer office.
Anthony Summers wrote that Delphine Roberts and her daughter, Delphine Jr., both thought
“Mrs. Oswald was beautiful” – and that she spoke in a foreign language –but Marina
insisted she had never been to Guy Banister’s office.
Nor has anybody described Lee’s aging mother, Marguerite, as ‘beautiful.’
(4) And would Marina ever be brought to meet Guy Banister?
Lee kept Marina sequestered away from Banister’s office and most other public places.
For example, in the anti-Oswald book Marina and Lee, by Priscilla McMillan Johnson, Marina
finally gets to see the French Quarter when Ruth Paine shows up late in September. On ~Sept. 23,
they go with their small children and Lee stays behind “to pack.” But Lee, who had kept Marina
away from the French Quarter all summer, did not want to be seen with Marina and
Ruth Paine because Lee and I had gone there together frequently.
#42: Distortion of Fact. p. 16: Brown, who seems to know very little about
David Ferrie’s life, asks “What is all this “Dr. Ferrie” nonsense? He had a piece of parchment
that he purchased through the mail.”
WRONG. FACT: I was a 19-year-old who noticed that David Ferrie had a PhD diploma prominently
on display at his apartment. Lee called him “Dr. Ferrie” when introducing me, probably
so I would respect his cancer research abilities, which were technically correct.
Years later, I learned that Dave had taken courses by correspondence with Phoenix University
in Italy, and then traveled to Italy to Phoenix University’s campus to pass his oral exams and
to submit and defend his dissertation. The dissertation, of which I have a copy, Dave told me
was actually a “cover” for the MKULTRA-based (Project Artichoke)sponsored hypnosis research
he was doing for the CIA.
While Phoenix University was not accredited and was considered a diploma mill, compared to
U.S. standards, David Ferrie did not simply purchase his diploma through the mail.
Significant travel and a campus stay-over, some innovative research and the writing of
a surprisingly technical pa per, plus correspondence courses, were involved to obtain
Ferrie’s PhD diplOma. This kind of carelessness in handling facts is rampant throughout Brown’s book.
#43: Worthless inserted denigrating comment. p. 48. In his ardor to find fault, Brown
criticizes my most routine statements, such as, “I got up and got dressed.” He says,
“—not surprisingly, since very few people begin their day having breakfast while
asleep and naked. in 1963.”(sic) He inserts absurd negatives at every opportunity,
placing non-existent imagery in the reader’s head (for example, I did not generally sleep naked).
#44: Failure to Read Information in the Book He Criticizes. p. 49 : Ignoring or failing to read
or understand David Ferrie’s telling me and Lee that the two Cuban teens he introduced us to
cared for hundreds of mice and kept the “Mouse House” clean (we could phone in an order of
50 or more mice at time, which would arrive within 15 or 20 minutes), Brown writes:”Ferrie
hen gave a demonstration of hypnosis on two young Cubans who visited Ferrie’s place
to clean up (apparently, not particularly effectively, based on extant photos.”)” WRONG.
#45: Misleading the Reader. p. 53: Brown writes: “Judyth wanted to know what INCA was,
and Oswald explained, yet in a 1961 entry, she stated that Dr. Ochsner had been one of the
prime movers in the founding of INCA. Two years later, she didn’t know what it was.”
Brown is referring to a side panel where Ochsner’s biography and entire medical and public career
was shown to familiarize the reader with Ochsner, who entered Judyth’s life (a third time) in April, 1961
to inspect her cancer research. Throughout the book, where editors added these side panels,
Brown acts as though I personally wrote them. I didn’t know much about Dr. Ochsner or INCA
or International House, etc.in 1961.
I found 46 other errors, falsehoods and specious objections in the second half of
Brown’s book, for a total of nearly 100 matters worthy of dispute,
in a book only 246 pages long (with no index), an average of a problem
referenced every two or three pages.
BECAUSE RESEARCHERS THINK MR. BROWN IS A “GREAT RESEARCHER”
THEY HAVE USED BROWN’S MATERIAL TO ‘DEBUNK’ ME.
“WE DON’T HAVE TO READ HER BOOK–IT HAS ALREADY BEEN
ANALYZED BY BROWN, AND HER CLAIMS ARE FULL OF PROBLEMS.”
DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. THE MAN IS A FORMER FBI AGENT.
As such this shoddy work of Brown’s is a shame to the FBI.
Judyth Vary Baker Oct. 2021
An error has occured.
