JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 510)


DAVE REITZES SAID:

Folks,

Today [4/10/09] I received this bizarre email purportedly from Judyth Vary Baker. I had not had any communication with her in over 6 years. I am as bewildered by this as anyone could be.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dave R.,

Did you get specific permission from Rich DellaRosa to cross-post that JFKResearch.com message on this forum?


RICH DELLAROSA SAID:

No, he did not. He should not have had access to the post at all since he is not a member.


DAVE REITZES SAID:

I let my [JFKResearch.com] membership lapse some years back when they started demanding a donation.

Someone was clearly willing to risk their membership in order to forward me this breaking news about Judyth.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm just curious, because cross-posting is the reason I was booted off Rich's forum:

"IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THIS FORUM, NO PORTION OF THE ABOVE POST IS TO BE CROSS-POSTED ON ANY OTHER NEWSGROUP OR FORUM."

Oddly, Rich won't even allow non-members to read any posts at his forum, which is something I've never understood at all. A most curious restriction.


RICH DELLAROSA SAID:

My forum is not intended for people who need to hide behind aliases or those who cannot abide by the rules. My members are entitled to know who their audience is when they post and feel confident that they know who can and cannot read their submissions.


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

Why?

If somebody is telling the truth, should they not be willing to shout it to the whole wide world?

Are your posters only willing to address posts to just a certain small group of people?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As I said before, it's a very odd stance to take when it comes to "Internet Forums" (IMO).

I would think that if people are proud of what they post and they think it's worthy of being posted on a JFK forum (and why would anyone post stuff that they DON'T feel is worthy of posting?)....then why on Earth would any such person object to his or her messages being seen by the Internet world at-large?

~shrug of bewilderment~

I truly wish Mr. DellaRosa would remove his "Only Members Can Read Posts" restriction at JFKResearch.com, because I'd enjoy reading some of the stuff that is posted at that forum.


RICH DELLAROSA SAID:

Not having certain provocateurs turn submissions into strawmen and fanning the flames of dissent causes many members to post freely and confidently. There's no one there to call them "kooks" or "retards."

Further, there's no need for moderators to review submissions prior to allowing them to be posted. All that is required is that members conduct themselves with civility.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What has that got to do with allowing people to simply READ your forum's content?

I'd very much like to read the posts at JFKResearch.com, but Rich just won't permit it.

You might as well just make it a forum accessible only by private e-mails. Your current set-up is practically the same as that.


RICH DELLAROSA SAID:

That is how we evolved. In the late 90s, we had various email groups, but at the time not everyone was capable of attaching or viewing photos. So we moved to a web based forum.

The folks who abide by the simple rules of civility can read and post to their heart's delight. And it is not necessary to agree with me or any other member. There is considerable debate, but the debaters don't use the "sharp stick in the eye" technique to get their points across.


JUDYTH VARY BAKER SAID:

I have given up everything for the sake of one person--Lee Oswald--and I seek his exoneration and vindication.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The above quote is a truly sad one indeed.

Judyth Vary Baker has some serious problems it would seem. I often wonder if Judyth has ever even studied ANY of the many, many pieces of hard evidence that easily would have convicted her "lover" (Lee Harvey Oswald) in a court of law, had he lived to stand trial, such as the stuff discussed at my blog below?



My guess is that Judyth probably has not seriously studied and evaluated the hard evidence that exists against Lee Oswald in the TWO murders that he was charged with in 1963.

Nor has Judyth focused very heavily on another very important aspect of the JFK murder case -- the ACTIONS and the PROVABLE LIES of her "lover", both before and after the assassination of President Kennedy.

Judyth even admits (as recently as her April 10, 2009, e-mail to Rich DellaRosa) that "I am not a 'researcher' about the JFK assassination".

In short, Judyth Vary Baker either has been inflicted with a terminal case of "denial" regarding the obvious guilt of Lee Oswald, or (perhaps) she can be defined as author Vincent Bugliosi defines her in VB's 2007 JFK book "Reclaiming History" -- "a sick puppy".


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

Interesting that you are comfortable pushing the fairy tale of the WCR, not to mention Bug's [Vincent Bugliosi's] fiasco, and yet complain at Judyth speaking out on behalf of Lee's innocence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, imagine the gall of me complaining about a proven liar (Judyth Baker) telling lies. Who'd ever thunk it?!

Two words that can never be placed together are these words:

1.) Lee's.

2.) Innocence.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

That's the easy way to avoid discussing tough issues. Just call everyone a liar.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've called very few people outright liars. Very, very few, in fact.

By my rough count, I think I've only called three people who are connected in some way with the JFK case "liars" in any of my forum posts over the years:

1.) Roger Craig
2.) Jean Hill
3.) Judyth Vary Baker

It's possible (and probable) that a few more people could/should be added to the above list as proven liars, but I think I've used the word "liar" only when speaking of the three individuals named above. (Not counting members of JFK newsgroups and forums, of course.)


PAMELA BROWN SAID:

You seem to be comfortable calling people names who don't agree with you. You claim Judyth is a liar for believing in Lee's innocence? Guess that's an easy way to debate when you don't have any evidence.

[...]

"DVP" seems to think his credentials allow him to designate people as liars.

But just what does he say his credentials are?


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Did Judyth ever say Lee was innocent?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good gosh, Tony....READ!!

What do you think these words from Judyth's own mouth mean?:

"I have given up everything for the sake of one person--Lee Oswald--and I seek his exoneration and vindication." -- Judyth Vary Baker; April 10, 2009

Tony,

Do you think that Judyth is seeking to "exonerate" and "vindicate" a person whom she believes to be GUILTY of killing President Kennedy and Officer Tippit? That would be a rather strange (not to mention evil) thing to do, wouldn't it (even if she DID have a love affair with Lee Harvey)?

David Von Pein
May 4, 2009
May 5, 2009