I realize that people are tired of this - I sure am, but this deserves a more detailed response. My comments in caps for clarity.
When Witnesses Are Attacked by Theorists:
Somebody has a theory, but an inconvenient witness stands in the way of the theory, the book and the reputation of the theorist. The Theorist never met the person he has studied. The task of the theorist, in order to proceed, is to destroy the credibility of the witness.
In the matter of the Kennedy assassination saga, we have both credible and non-credible witnesses, of course, but a large number of witnesses who have defended the innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald in one way or another have been murdered or otherwise silenced.
When a witness is supported by other witnesses who verify what the witness says, it is then necessary to discredit or ignore the other witnesses.
In my case, witnesses who have verified my relationship with Lee Oswald ---Anna Lewis,Mac McCullough, and Charles Thomas ---have been either disparaged or ignored. After all, they verify that I knew Lee Harvey Oswald and was his confidante. Shame on them, right?
But when a witness is also recognized by a researcher who has gathered evidence for years supporting what the witness has stated, atop his own personal experiences, it is then necessary to also discredit the researcher.
In my case, Edward T. Haslam,a native of New Orleans who has presented his private experiences and research in two books, must be disparaged --or ignored. Haslam, whose reputation for honesty and personal presence in New Orleans are twin towers of credibility,must have his reputation hijacked and shot down. Shame on him! Right?
I note that one way to attempt to discredit Haslam is to offer the almost religious belief that linear particle accelerators are incapable of vaporizing human tissue and bone. Haslam has kept to himself proof positive that this event has, in fact, occurred, having interviewed persons who have reported such an event. Haslam has wisely accumulated much supporting evidence for his statements,but does not ask the reader to accept his conclusions. He only asks that they be considered.
Oh, and we are somehow supposed to have colluded--met somehow--to agree on what Haslam wrote in his book, though Haslam's name was unknown to the critics now scrambling to poke holes in what Haslam has always presented as the most reasonable explanations for what he discovered. I do not see Haslam presenting anything as "set in stone" except what he has personally experienced.
Haslam saw for himself that the remnants of Guy Banister's files were inexplicably in the hands of INCA years after Banister's death.
Haslam was present in classrooms when various events were discussed But now, Haslam is supposed to be lying about his personal experiences?
These critics and researchers who have tried over the years to heap the blame on Lee Harvey Oswald for Kennedy's death have had to call dozens of decent, good, honest people --including Haslam--liars and connivers.
And so we enter the vapid world of Stephen Roy--AKA David Blackburst--who assures everyone that a man he never met --David William Ferrie-- never met me! He relies on the accounts of friends of Ferrie -- all of whom I had avoided at all costs. When necessary, he denies what Jim Garrison or others say (yes, they are either lying, or mistaken).
I hoped that Mr.Roy/Blackburst would be able to see the David Ferrie I knew -- a brighter, funnier, deeper and far more intelligent man than Mr.Roy/Blackburst portrays.
Mr.Roy's/Blackburst's following has been created largely because he has posted almost everything known about Ferrie from official records, with his private observations supported with comments from ever-anonymous 'friends. ' From the beginning, though Mr. Roy/Blackburst apparently scoured the earth to meet "all" of Ferrie's friends, he never met me.
Being a witness was never a position I wanted to be in. But there was no help for it. After 3.5 decades,the bad guys seemed to be winning. Lee Oswald's children were grown up and never knew all that their father had done to try to save Kennedy. It was time to tell them. And you.
Edward Haslam did not know about me or find me when he wrote his first book. Sixty Minutes told him about me, and he was skeptical and dismissive. Fine. Understandable. The story I had to tell was complex.
Haslam's is an important voice telling the American people the truth about the polio vaccine's link to cancer-causes monkey viruses, and the New Orleans milieu that produced it.
And so we enter the arguments that Mr.Roy has placed (in "CAPS") in what I have had to speak about,concerning Mr.Roy's/Blackburst's handling of me as a witness.
Let's look at what he has to say.
STEPHEN ROY, AKA DAVID BLACKBURST, "TAKES THE GLOVES OFF"
DAVID FERRIE: WHY HE IS IMPORTANT IN THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION -- AND EFFORTS BEING MADE TO HIDE IT
Judyth Vary Baker
David made a joke about me and Mary Sherman and himself when we three met for the first time. “Dr. Mary, Dr. Ferrie, and Dr. Vary!” he laughed. He repeated “Mary, Ferrie and Vary” a few more times that summer. It was an example of Dave’s wit and affability.
I GUESS A REAL DOCTOR LIKE SHERMAN HAD NO PROBLEM BEING COMPARED TO TWO NON-DOCTORS. WHAT EVIDENCE DO WE HAVE THAT THIS JOKE (OR THIS ENCOUNTER) EVER TOOK PLACE?
Today, efforts are being made to erase all traces of David Ferrie as an active anti-Castro CIA asset in 1963 who knew many details about who killed John F. Kennedy, and why. Almost desperate means are being used on the Internet, in rigged computer re-enactments, and in media statements of “fact” to train the public to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the president and that our government had nothing to do with it. Most of those who fight the truth emerged after the film "JFK" revived America’s attention concerning Lee Oswald’s innocence or guilt.
Hundreds of thousands of documents have been forced from government files since then. I have always said “Time is on my side” since I spoke out in 1999 that Lee tried to save Kennedy’s life. Today, we have Abraham Bolden and James Douglass and Douglas Horne and Edward T. Haslam and any number of other intrepid writers/witnesses who stand with me on that fact and others, that were initially mocked or discarded when I first asserted them.
The role of David Ferrie was important in the Kennedy assassination. Efforts to recreate David Ferrie into a dumbed-down version – one who never knew Lee Oswald or me – have been strenuous and persistent and ongoing to this day.
I KNEW DAVID WILLIAM FERRIE
Lee and I both thought it interesting that “David” was our favorite male name, while “William” was my father’s middle name and “Ferrie” rhymed with “Vary” (my maiden name). We saw it as a kind of confluence of coincidences – a confluence that extended broadly into our daily lives in other directions, as well. Certainly, David Ferrie was not someone who could easily be mistaken for anybody else.
WHAT IS THIS FIXATION WITH ALLEGED SIMILARITIES?
David W. Ferrie is probably best known today through his portrayal by Joe Pesci in Oliver Stone’s film "JFK". Ferrie was taller and had a deeper voice,
ABOUT WHICH BAKER SAID NOTHING UNTIL I POSTED IT ON THE INTERNET.
but Pesci did a good job of showing Ferrie’s level of high energy, his intelligence, and his feelings. I know, because I knew David Ferrie.
WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS, FALL BACK ON "THE EVIDENCE THAT IT'S TRUE IS THAT I KNOW IT FROM MY OWN KNOWLEDGE." I DON'T BELIEVE BAKER EVER KNEW FERRIE.
There are some people in New Orleans who knew him, too. One “Ferrie expert” claims that, since these men (most of whom were homosexuals)
THAT'S NOT TRUE. BUT IT'S INTERESTING HOW YOU USE THE WORD.
- July 26, 2003
- 02:43 PM
MSY/HOU employees info: email: firstname.lastname@example.org submit: \ Date: Monday July 28, 2003 Time: 08:43 AM
I am on the staff of a college; I am very interested in a controversial EAL pilot named David Ferrie, who served at MSY 1951-1961. There is a lot of exaggerated information about him, but I am trying to find out what he was really like, to set the trecord straight. I will eventually write it all up for publication. I am looking for people who knew him, flew with him (mostly MSY-HOU) any available pictures, and the like. This is a serious effort, not sensationalist at all. Confidentiality will be assured if requested. Thank you!
did not see me with Ferrie, therefore I am to be dismissed as a witness. As I pointed out long ago, when this was not a generally known fact, Ferrie was bisexual,
AGAIN, I WAS THE FIRST TO POST THIS ON THE INTERNET. THIS IS ONE REASON WHY I AM SOMETIME RELUCTANT TO POST ANY NEW INFO ABOUT FERRIE - IT IS THEN RECYCLED.
though his proclivity to seduce teen-age boys is what’s best known about him – except for his sometimes alarming looks, due to how he tried to handle his alopecia problem. Alopecia is a hair loss condition that can be recurrent or permanent. The hair loss can extend to all parts of the body, including even eyelashes.
ANYTHING CAN BE LOOKED UP ON THE INTERNET, CAN'T IT?
Dave didn’t lose all of his hair, but for all practical purposes, he was bald enough to need to wear a wig. I saw an old wig that was much smaller than the one he usually wore in 1963. I concluded from our talks that Dave had not one, but several bouts with alopecia, where some hair grew back again before he finally lost most of it.
AGAIN, I FIRST POSTED THIS ON THE NEWSGROUPS IN THE LATE 1990s.
None of his wigs looked natural. As for his eyebrows, they did not exist: his “made up” eyebrows were thickly penciled in. On many occasions, bits of fuzz were carefully stuck on these drawn-on eyebrows in an attempt to look more natural. It was a futile attempt.
But appearances meant little to me compared to being in his presence and soaking up what he had to say. He was a true “Renaissance man” with considerable knowledge in a wide range of fields. His success for a considerable time in the role of leading and teaching teen-aged boys in the Civil Air Patrol deserves to be emphasized, since efforts have been made to downplay Dave’s charismatic qualities.
NOT BY ME. HE IS REMEMBERED BY THOSE WHO REALLY KNEW HIM AS BRILLIANT, BUT SOMETIMES NOT PUT TO GOOD USE.
Subject: Re: Jack Martin & Dean Andrews
Date: 25 Aug 1999 00:00:00 GMT
A now-famous photo shows Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald in the same camp-out.
AGAIN, A SARCAP EXERCISE, TAKEN IN AUGUST 1955, 8 YEARS BEFORE THE ASSASSINATION, WHEN OSWALD WAS 15.
I wish to say without equivocation that Dave Ferrie would not have forgotten that Lee was in this small group,
FERRIE SAID THAT, OF HUNDREDS OF CADETS AND SCHOOL STUDENTS, HE DID NOT RECALL OSWALD'S FEW WEEKS IN THE CAP.
even if an incident had not occurred between them that at first soured, but eventually secured, their mutual respect and friendship.
AN INCIDENT THAT ONLY BAKER CLAIMS HAPPENED, AND HAS BEEN CHALLENGED FOR ITS TIME ACCURACY.
Much has been said by anti-Oswald “Ferrie experts” that Ferrie was involved in CAP with over a thousand teen-aged boys and had not known him personally; David, of course, denied ever knowing Lee when questioned by authorities after the assassination.
ANTI-OSWALD? ALL I HAVE SAID IS THAT I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT OSWALD WAS TOTALLY INNOCENT.
Moreover, Ferrie’s friends, in general, gave untrustworthy testimonies (and those who are alive probably still do) rather than have the whisper of suspicion that they might have been associated with somebody who could have been involved in a plot to kill the President. It is highly unlikely that any of Ferrie’s friends would ever change their stories and thus prove they had committed perjury or lied to government officials. They will stick to their original stories.
FIRST, SOME OF THE PEOPLE I'VE SPOKEN WITH WERE FERRIE'S FRIENDS, BUT OTHERS WERE ENEMIES, CASUAL ACQUAINTANCES, BUSINESS ACQUAINTANCES, ETC. SOME TESTIFIED OR GAVE STATEMENTS IN THE PAST, BUT MOST DID NOT. FOR WHAT REASON WOULD THEY ALL BE TELLING COORDINATED LIES, MORE THAN 40 YEARS LATER? SO, WE SHOULD DISREGARD PEOPLE WITH PROVEN RELATIONSHIPS WITH FERRIE, TO BUTTRESS THE UNPROVEN CLAIMS OF BAKER? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
In my case, however, I am pledged to telling exactly what the situation was. I don’t care how many “Ferrie experts” come out of the woodwork declaring that Ferrie’s friends never saw any mice (which were used as subjects in our bio-weapon research), or never knew about the technical scientific research that Dave was conducting in 1963. I even remember quite clearly asking Dave, at the only party I attended at his apartment, “Where are the mice?”
“I don’t want anybody messing with my mice,” he replied.
He had moved them – probably a block down the street – where hundreds (perhaps thousands) of mice were being inoculated with a cancer-causing monkey virus that had been roasted with deadly radiation. I saw a “crusty old rat” that Dave had in his apartment the first few times I visited there. Later, I saw cages, too, housing about 50 mice. These mice were all white, with red eyes – lab mice – and they were quite young. They were actually being killed and replaced constantly but, since they all looked alike, nobody would have guessed.
BALONEY. I HAVE NEVER FOUND ANY PERSON WHO SAW MICE IN THAT APARTMENT AT THAT TIME. SOME OF HIS FRIENDS LIVED THERE FOR PERIODS OF TIME. FERRIE'S APARTMENT WAS A HANGOUT FOR A GROUP OF PEOPLE. HOW DID HE HIDE 50 OR MORE MICE, SHERMAN, OSWALD AND BAKER FROM THEM, CONSISTENTLY, ALL SUMMER?
Mr. Stephen Roy (who calls himself "David Blackburst" in the John McAdams’ newsgroup, where all kinds of anti-Oswald mischief is carried on) has presented himself as a person who has been deeply interested for decades in David Ferrie. One might ask why, since Mr. Roy has absolutely nothing in common with Ferrie – except the ability to play music.
I BECAME INTERESTED IN FERRIE MANY YEARS AGO, OBSERVING THAT HE PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN ASSASSINATION LITERATURE, BUT THAT VERY LITTLE RELIABLE BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION HAD YET EMERGED. I ACQUIRED A BUNCH OF DOCUMENTS AND DID INTERVIEWS, AND REALIZED THAT I HAD ENOUGH FOR BOOK (ON WHICH I CAN ONLY SPEND A FEW HOURS A WEEK). BUT YES, I DO HAVE SOME MUSICAL SKILL.
Mr. Roy has recently declared that Lee Oswald had probably killed Kennedy,
I FIND IT HARD TO DISMISS ALL OF THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE AS PHONEY, BUT I'M NOT CLOSED-MINDED.
following in the footsteps of several others in McAdams’ newsgroup, who remind me of Gary Mack (someone who wants all my readers to know that he does NOT make a six-figure salary as the Curator of The Six Floor Museum).
SURE, SET UP MACK AS THE DEMON, THEN ASSOCIATE ME WITH HIM.
Mr. Roy has been busy compiling statements from Dave’s former friends and accumulating data, purportedly for a long-awaited biography of him.
PURPORTEDLY? NOW SHE'S ACCUSING ME OF HAVING A SECRET AGENDA. SHE SHOULD TALK WITH STEVE TYLER, WHO HAS READ MOST OF MY MANUSCRIPT.
For years now, he has not wavered in his efforts to create the impression of a David Ferrie who was very different from the man I knew, a man whom Mr. Roy never met.
THE REASON FOR THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT I'VE RESEARCHED DOCUMENTS AND DONE INTERVIEWS WITH PEOPLE WHO REALLY KNEW HIM, NOT WITH SOMEONE WHO NEVER MET FERRIE.
Mr. Roy’s David Ferrie is described as a broken man in 1963 who had lost his dream job with Eastern Air Lines, and whose life and prospects had deteriorated to a point of no return. His considerable past activities in the anti-Castro movements had all but ceased, according to Mr.Roy. All he was interested in was getting his job back and piloting flights for the godfather, Carlos Marcello. He had moved into a crummy little apartment and was going nowhere with his life. His life had come to a screeching halt, to hear Mr. Roy tell it.
SEE MY EARLIER POST. FERRIE'S MORALS ARRESTS CAUSE HIM TO LOSE HIS JOB, HIS STANDING WITH THE ANTI-CASTRO MOVEMENT, HIS HOME AND HIS FALCON SQUADRON. AND IN A ROUNDABOUT WAY, HIS MOTHER.
To consider Ferrie as intelligent enough to do cancer research or to be involved in plots to kill Castro or Kennedy or, for that matter, to have any interest whatsoever in his former pursuits, is, according to Mr. Roy, not remotely plausible, since Ferrie’s former – and, by the way, always un-named – friends all deny. Mr. Roy concedes that Ferrie once ‘did’ have lots of mice, though he doubts that they were used for research: apparently the same man who had a human skeleton set up with its own electrified circulatory system (a teaching tool for young cadets) would keep hundreds of mice merely as pets!
AGAIN, SOMETHING I POSTED HERE 6 YEARS AGO.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE EVIDENCE STANDS: A BIG PILE OF TRUE EVIDENCE VS. BAKER'S CLAIMS.
Forget the fact that Dave worked daily for Marcello’s attorney downtown and that I was regularly in his apartment several afternoons a week
A FACT? SHE'S CITING HER UNSUPPORTED CLAIM AS A FACT?
– and knew how to “clean up and put away.“ I have described the kind of work that was being done at his apartment and how much of the equipment would not have seemed special to untrained eyes, such as a Waring blender and what looked like a pressure cooker – an autoclave that they would never have identified as such, because of their lack of technical knowledge.
SURE. THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED AND PARTIED THERE SAW NO EVIDENCE OF THIS. INCLUDING MEDICAL STUDENTS MO BROWNLEE AND TOMMY COMPTON. AND I POSTED PICTURES HERE OF FERRIE'S KITCHEN IN 1967.
Microscopes and science paraphernalia were also present, which “Ferrie’s friends” supposedly saw. At the very least, however, we have a description of Ferrie’s activities that summer as filtered through Dr. Isadore Yager and reported by Australian researcher Greg Parker, who wrote – in July 2003 – about David Ferrie and his activities with regard to the medical arts in 1963:
“Dr. Isadore Yager was the representative of the local medical association. In 1961, David Ferrie came to his attention due to reports of Ferrie practicing medicine without a license, in particular, members of his "Falcon Squad", which I believe was a quasi-CAP group he had formed.
"Dr Yager, in recalling his discussion with Ferrie before the Grievance hearing held by Eastern Airlines in Miami during July, 1963, stated: "He told me he had several Ph.D.s and that he was on the faculty at the Tulane Medical School and he was doing some research in the department of physiology of a very highly secretive nature, that if this works out well, it would really help us in all sorts of fields of medicine, and this went on for something like 30 minutes."
AGAIN, THIS HAPPENED IN AUGUST 1961. AND IN HIS 1963 TESTIMONY, YAGER WENT ON TO SAY THAT HE HAD CONNECTIONS AT TULANE AND CHECKED, AND FERRIE WAS LYING. AND THAT FERRIE WAS UNQUALIFIED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE.
Thirty minutes in 1963 – or even today – would be a considerable time to discuss something that, according to Mr. Roy, David Ferrie wasn't doing in 1963, which he claims to know because “Ferrie’s friends" said so. Indeed, about 15 years later, the HSCA would report, contrary to Mr. Roy's insinuations, that,
"Ferrie spent considerable time studying medicine and psychology,(28) especially the techniques of hypnosis which he frequently practiced on his young associates.(29)
Ferrie had even set up a laboratory over his garage,
ON ATHERTON DRIVE, SOME TIME EARLIER, WHEN HE WAS TEACHING CAP CADETS.
(30) where he claimed he lost his hair, alternately attributing it to a radiation experiment, chemical explosion, and cancer research experiments.(31)
THAT WAS GOSSIP. FERRIE KNEW HE HAD ALOPECIA SINCE JANUARY 1944.
He listed his name in the telephone book as "Dr." David Ferrie;(32)
HE SAID IT WAS BECAUSE OF HIS DEGREE IN PSYCHOLOGY.
many friends did erroneously believe he was a medical doctor and a psychologist. (33)
AND THAT'S WHY YAGER CALLED HIM IN.
This veneer of respectability and achievement could be the reason Ferrie referred to his Ph.D. degree as his 'most prized possession.'(34)".
HE SAID THIS AT AN EASTERN AIR LINES HEARING, WHEN THE COMPANY WAS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ITALIAN CORRESPONDENCE SCHOOL DEGREE.
The committee based these findings on statements by John Johnson, Robert Morrell, Karl Koster, John Irion, Al Landry, Landry's father, Larry Adams, and Dr Yager, whom its members regarded as reliable sources.
SEVERAL OF WHOM I'VE SPOKEN TO AND OBTAINED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM!
An Overheard Conversation
Researcher Robert Harris, who has some unusual theories himself, has had some wise words to say about Mr. Roy, too, which bear repeating, since they involve a sighting of David Ferrie in Canada. I was present when Dave Ferrie, a Latino, a man called “Lambert” [whom I knew to have been Clay Shaw] and Lee flew early one evening at sunset to Toronto, so there is no doubt in my mind that David Ferrie might have been seen in Winnipeg, Canada, at some later date.
BALONEY. SORRY, BALONEY.
(LONG SEQUENCE WITH BOB HARRIS SNIPPED FOR BREVITY, BUT IT CAN BE READ IN ITS ENTIRELY IN MY POST #31 ABOVE. BOB AND I PROFOUNDLY DISAGREE ABOUT THIS, BUT THE DISCUSSION TOO QUICKLY DESCENDS INTO ACCUSATIONS OF DISHONESTY. IN 1964, LONG BEFORE HE EVER SAW A PICTURE OF FERRIE, GIESBRECHT DESCRIBED THE MAN AS WHITE MALE, ABOUT 48 YEARS OLD, ABOUT 175 LBS AND SLIGHTLY ON THE STOUT SIDE, WITH DARK HAIR, BUSHY EYEBROWS AND HEAVY RIMMED GLASSES. HE THOUGHT THE MAN MIGHT BE FROM THE EASTERN UNITED STATES. I'VE WRITTEN ABOUT 3 PAGES ON THIS MATTER IN MY MANUSCRIPT.)
Mr. Roy describes his book as a biography and not as an “assassination evidence book” – and I have to agree that Mr. Roy is likely to exclude anything that might even remotely connect David Ferrie with the Kennedy assassination.
What would that mean?
Those who would read the biography he is writing would surely wonder why David Ferrie was ever considered to have been involved in the assassination. If they don’t find ‘evidence’ in the biography, they may falsely believe that it doesn’t exist, since so much other data will be there.
WRONG. I INCLUDE EVERYTHING ABOUT HIM, WITH VERY LITTLE JUDGMENT. WHY WAS FERRIE INVOLVED? I DO A DETAILED (ALMOST HOURLY) PRESENTATION OF HOW THE INVESTIGATION OF HIM UNFOLDED IN THE DAYS AFTER THE ASSASSINATION.
But if potentially “false data” is collected – such as if a former “Ferrie friend” refuses to allow his name to be made public but asserts that he drove David to Cleveland – if this is in the biography without any mention of his having been sighted in Winnipeg – that witnesses had observed a person who looked like Ferrie who had talked about involvement in the assassination – then the possibility that Ferrie was in Winnipeg has been removed by stealth, which is not an honest practice for someone posing as a biographer of Ferrie’s life. Unless he addresses the data he wants to discount, the author would have to be suspect as a shill for the official account of the death of JFK.
The problem is that Mr. Roy has decided whom to choose as “Ferrie’s friends.” He has chosen some who are not in the record, as he himself admits, since he refuses to disclose their names. But he has also refused to include me as a witness. Despite his stating that I “refused to meet" with him, a claim he later changed to indicate that I would if I had a car available (which is also untrue), everyone who knows me knows that I have been willing to travel great distances to see Gerry Hemming, for example, among others. Mr. Blackburst (as I knew him at the time) simply didn’t have time for me.
I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK OVER THIS AGAIN. I WANTED TO MEET HER. DUE TO MONEY (HOTEL) AND TIME ISSUES (RECOVERING FROM OPERATION), I WANTED TO FLY INTO NO INTERNATIONAL, SPEND A FEW HOURS WITH HER, THEN FLY HOME. WE WERE UNABLE TO FIND A DATE THAT WORKED FOR BOTH OF US.
When I offered to send Mr. Blackburst copies of notes I made in May 1963 – of two lectures given to me and Lee by David Ferrie – he ignored the offer.
BECAUSE THEIR AUTHENTICITY COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED.
He has also done other things that he should not have with regard to me. He has written that, to “test” me as having been in Dave’s apartment, I ought be able to describe an object hanging between the dining room and the living room on the door jamb. Try as I might, I could remember nothing hanging there, and told him so. Mr. Roy then announced to a newsgroup that I 'failed his test’ – since a toy monkey had been hanging there and that I should have remembered such an object. He claimed a photo existed showing the monkey hanging there. I have a photographic memory. I can remember where everything was in Dave’s living-room and dining room. There was no monkey. Then the photo was published on the Internet:
The “monkey photo” shows a toy monkey
The “monkey photo” was made the day David Ferrie died – on February 22, 1967. Mr. Roy knew that. He also knew that the last time I had been inside David Ferrie’s apartment was at the end of August 1963 – three-and-a-half years before! This is the kind of contrived – better, rigged! – “test"’ that Mr. Roy used on me and then announced to the newsgroup that I had failed. He dishonestly did not mention the date that the photo had been taken.
THE REAL TEST, WHICH I WAS INVITED TO GIVE, WAS THE GARGOYLE RING TEST. BUT I DON'T SUPPOSE SHE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THAT ANYMORE.
Mr. Roy has also claimed that nobody noticed any mice in Dave’s apartment when he had his birthday party there in 1963.
IT WASN'T HIS BIRTHDAY. IT WAS SOMEBODY ELSE'S.
Dave’s birthday was March 28, 1918. He was born the same year as my father, so the date is easy for me to remember. But the part of the project involving the ring of secret labs – which also included Dave’s house and a house nearby – did not start until April 1963, as I explained in my book, ME & LEE. Mr. Roy asserts that only Garrison’s aide, Gurvich, who was later discovered to be corrupt, had reported mice – in 1957 – with which Dave had been working.
Mr. Roy reiterates often that no mice were seen anywhere in 1963. But that has meant that he also has to claim that Jim Garrison was lying – or, at the very least, had a seriously distorted memory – when Garrison wrote this in his book, ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS:
YES, I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE WHAT OTHERS SAID VS. WHAT GARRISON SAID. HOW CAN ONE SMELL MICE, SEVERAL YEARS LATER AND BE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH THEM FROM THE SMELL OF FERRIE'S DOG?
Garrison states that he was at Ferrie’s apartment the same day Ferrie was found dead, but that the body was gone. When Mr. Roy had asked me, back in 1999, "What was the first thing [I] noticed on entering Dave’s apartment?", I had told him at once: the smell! The smell of animals – mice – in Dave’s apartment! Mr. Roy alleged that Ferrie’s friends reported no such smell. But Jim Garrison had also noticed it. Years later, in 2011, Mr. Roy posted this:
“Having spoken with many people who knew Ferrie (and some who spent a great deal of time at the Louisiana Avenue Parkway apartment), I have not been able to find anyone who recalls seeing mice THERE in 1963 or any other time. Some say there were never any at that apartment, to their knowledge. The police and coroner's reports and pictures from the time of Ferrie's death, as well as interviews with some of the officers, show no indication that there were mice there on February 22, 1967.”
So if what Mr. Roy is asserting is true, then Garrison is a liar. And if what Garrison is saying is true
THIRD OPTION: I THINK HE WAS MISTAKEN.
– which I know on the basis of having been there
– then the one perpetrating the deception is Mr. Roy, who appears to be employing the method of selection and elimination: selecting the evidence that agrees with a predetermined point of view and eliminating the rest!
OR: IGNORE ANY EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO BAKER'S CLAIMS.
The “established local doctor” whom Jim Garrison mentions, by the way, was Dr. Mary Sherman. Mr. Roy claims no witness has ever stated that Ferrie and Sherman knew each other. That is false, since I have made that assertion.
BUT SHE IS NOT A WITNESS!!!!
but Mr. Roy accepts only certain witnesses. Jim Garrison has as well, but Mr. Roy accepts only certain people’s statements. Author John Davis has, but Mr. Roy accepts only certain authors. Davis mentions that Ferrie and Sherman knew each other in MAFIA KINGFISH on page 372. (Davis’ book is also loaded with important information about how the Mafia was being used by the CIA.)
Mr. Roy has inspired the members of two newsgroups to conclude that I had lied when I had said that David Ferrie "owned" a car during the time I knew him (late April-early September 1963). It’s another instructive example of how my simple and honest statements have been distorted and then described as “lies.”
THAT WAS NOT MY PHRASE.
Mr. Roy, in contrast, has told everyone that Dave Ferrie had NO car during the period I knew him:
"She vividly describes she and Oswald being driven all over the
New Orleans area during the summer months in Ferrie's car. Not a
rental or a loaner, but Ferrie's owned car, which she describes in
colorful terms. But primary research shows that Ferrie did not have a
car that summer. He had a car repossessed (sic) in March 1963 and
he did not have another until he purchased one in November."
The truth is that I never thought to ask David if he owned the car or not. The car was there and he and Lee used it. Mr. Roy initially stated that Dave Ferrie “had no car that summer” and the reader is left to think that he had no access to one at all. That made me look bad. But later, Mr. Roy acknowledged that a “neighbor” had lent Ferrie a car. Why should I have been expected to have ASKED Dave Ferrie if the car belonged to him when he was using it? People don’t do that. The fact is, Mr. Roy falsely implied that Dave Ferrie had NO ACCESS TO A CAR at the time I said he was using a car, which was his basis for implying that I had lied.
I never said any such thing. I said – in the unauthorized book published by Harrison Livingstone – that David had complained that he “deserved better” than the car he was using. At my young age, I had no idea if the car belonged to him or not. I simply knew he had a car. At no time did I say that he owned a car. I describe the car’s mechanical problems in ME & LEE and David’s prayer to get the engine started, for example; but again, I did not know if the car belonged to him. I simply assumed it, as anybody might.
Mr. Roy says that he told me in early 2000 that David's car had been repossessed. But he did no such thing. This was a man that told me very little. I was offering him information, while he was tight-lipped. At any rate, Mr. Roy has finally acknowledged that David had had access to a neighbor’s car. I was surprised to see the comment sent to me under a heading of “Judyth's Lie About Ferrie's Car”, when I should have been commended instead as a witness for remembering that Dave had access to a car as proof I had been there that summer, rather than condemned, as later Blackburst-Roy would acknowledge that Dave had had access to a neighbor’s old car. I described Dave driving an old car four times, as I recall, and Lee driving it once.
FERRIE'S CAR WAS REPOSSESSED IN MARCH 1963, AND HE BOUGHT ANOTHER IN NOVEMBER 1963. AT THAT TIME, NEIGHBORS SAID HE HAD NO CAR, AND USED A MOTORCYCLE THAT SUMMER.
The Final Word
Jim DiEugenio is a good researcher who does not believe my testimony (but he has never met me personally). I hold no grudges against a researcher simply because of that. I feel that if he met me, he’d be persuaded otherwise. DiEugenio, who published DESTINY BETRAYED: JFK, CUBA, AND THE GARRISON CASE in 1992, has rather important things to say about Blackburst-Roy’s methodology, especially concerning composing a biography about Ferrie that takes Ferrie’s friends’ words at face value. Here is what he has to say:
Garrison mentions the mice in both his Playboy interview and the cages in his book. Its pretty clear that Garrison had decided to reinvestigate the Sherman murder when he discovered the things Ferrie was doing, plus the treatise he had in his posession. The treatise is kind of fascinating since Ferrie could not have written it. It was much too sophisticated.
So to say that somehow Garrison screwed up a document pertaining to 1957, with 1967, is a real stretch. And what Stephen actually means by this is elusive: I mean did Gurvich know Ferrie in 1957? Or is the source for the year 1957, Ferrie himself.
Further, to say that Gurvich is controversial is an understatement. There is little doubt in most objective minds that Gurvich was an infiltrator in Garrison's camp, as so many others were. And from private sources I developed, there is little doubt at all he was CIA. Garrison came to look askance at everything he did afterwards, when he defected to Sheridan and Shaw's lawyers with munificent copies of Garrison's files. So if this is Ferrie filtered through Gurvich, the info is, to put it mildly, suspect.
I also find it odd that Stephen would believe Ferrie's buddies. They have all been faithful to Ferrie and were all too eager to attack Garrison, especiailly when Sheridan and Aynseworth came in and swooped up people like Layton Martens and Al Beabouf. I mean all you have to do is look at what they told Gus Russo for his pathetic book.
Speaking of which, Russo covered up one of Ed's most powerful discoveries which showed why these guys could not be trusted: When the secret war against the Contras began in the eighties, Martens and Butler joined up forces for local rightwing talk radio in support of it. Ed did some PR for them and discovered that Butler had boxes of Guy Banister's files in his office. Interesting to speculate how he got them and if he shipped them to California when he learned Garrison was on his and Ochsner's trail in 1968.
Finally Chetta's son is also on record here. I find Chetta much more credible than the police department who, as Garrison said, he did not have a brotherly relationship with due to his crackdown on their kickbacks in the French Quarter B girl scandals. In fact, you can see this in how Garrison went over them and he requested State Trooper help from McKeithen, and also how the city police helped Shaw's lawyers during Shaw's trial.
Stephen's reliance on these kinds of sources worries me. If you go all the way with these people then why not go into Shaw's lawyer's records and offices? There you will learn things like Garrison never tried a case when he was an assistant DA and the CIA never helped Shaw's defense. These are both provable lies. But this is what his lawyers told me. You will also hear the same from Ferrie's buddies, and Russo printed it.
This post has been edited by Jim DiEugenio: 31 March 2011 - 02:44 AM
SEE POST #31. I DISAGREE WITH JIM ON THE SHERMAN ISSUE.
Although Jim Fetzer, who has edited three books on the death of JFK, has had differences with Jim DiEugenio across a spectrum of issues, he received DiEugeio's commentary in this matter very warmly and responded to it with the following remarks:
SNIPPED. HE WOULDN'T ALLOW MY COMMENTS ON HIS BLOG. I DISAGREE PROFOUNDLY WITH FETZER ON THIS.
I greatly appreciate their observations about Mr. Roy and his methods, which includes attempts to distort the available evidence about David Ferrie up to and including not only my own position but even that of Jim Garrison. Robert Harris and the HSCA witnesses have highlighted a crucial aspect of the divide that separates us, which seems to me to cast light upon Roy's dupicitous methodology, where I would like to believe that those who read and understand the issues dealt with here will gain a deeper appreciation of the convolutions of JFK research and of the necessity to exercise one's critical faculties in appraising sources who may not be what they seem.
OK. BAKER CLAIMS THAT I AM DISTORTING THINGS TO EXCLUDE HER, OR FOR SOME OTHER NEFARIOUS PURPOSE. I COUNTER THAT SHE IS MAKING THESE CLAIMS IN AN EFFORT TO PRE-EMPTIVELY DISCREDIT MY DISBELIEF OF THE FERRIE PORTIONS OF HER STORY. SO BE IT, LET THE READER BEWARE.
I GUESS THE GLOVES ARE OFF.
To: Robert Vernon
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 1:07 am
Subject: Re: EXPLAIN
To all who are interested in whether or not researchers in the JFK
research community should use fake names: from Judyth Vary Baker
I have been told that David Blackburst (Stephen Roy) has posted on the
Education Forum, but I cannot seem to find the post.
I read his post here, and now reproduce that post here, with my
Before going any further, I would like to say that I regret having
made Mr. Roy feel uncomfortable about telling people about his other name. I
didn't do it to be mean to Mr. Roy.
Since Mr. Roy has said he has even used both names at the Lancer
Conference, I do not wholly understand why he is upset with me for
mentioning his fake name now. He also said he would be publishing his book
under his real name, so again, I do not understand why he is upset with me
at revealing his true name to you here.
I brought out Mr. Roy's real name on this forum because I believe that
we must be frank and open with each other if we are to work in harmony
together and in trust.
Mr. Blackburst, below, wrote that he believed we were friends.
BUT -- Mr. Roy NEVER told me his real name all the years we were
I had to discover by accident that he was Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy was at the 2000 Lancer Conference, for example, but Mr.
Blackburst, my friend, apparently did not attend, for he was cc'd about my
concerns and did not mention that he was a panelist there.
Mr. Roy did not bring up my name at the Conference, whereas my friend,
Mr. Blackburst, had he attended the Conference, would surely have done so,
for he knew how impoprtant it was to me to tell people that I believed Lee
Oswald was an innocent man.
Mr. Blackburst, my friend, had he attended the conference, would have
asked me if I would have wanted to have my name mentioned. In fact, he
already knew that I would have preferred it, because it was new information
for those who came to the conference, and they had the right to know that a
new witness was presenting. After all, I had already been known to Mr.
Blackburst, my friend, for a year by then. And I had communicated in private
emails that I was even thinking of attending the conference myself. I was
dissuaded from doing so by my friends.
When I told Debra Cionway I suspected that she instructed the panel on
which Mr. Roy sat not to mention my name, Mr. Roy wrote back to Lancer and
said he had not been so instructed. My friend, Mr. Blackburst, would have
comforted me at this time and perhaps given me advice on how to handle the
situation. But only Mr. Roy was involved at Lancer....
Even as late as 2005, my friend, Mr. Blackburst, never told me in
private what went on. I had to learn from the post of Mr. Roy, today, what
my friend, Mr. Blackburst, really was thinking at the Conference.
This is just the kind of thing that has to stop.
We must be frank and open.
We must not play the old games.
We can continue to go in circles, or we can be upfront and honest.
My friend, Mr. Blackburst, treated me fairly.
Mr. Roy, who never admitted to being my friend or to even knowing me,
For those who wish to read any more (I do not, but feel I must
continue....My comments are interspersed with Mr. Roy's =====like this====
I would also like to say that I have never experienced any problem
with Mr. Roy personally, except that I feel he was not entirely candid with
me, as I have indicated above, and I shall note below.
I did indeed feel we shared a friendship until I realized that he was
not treating me entirely honestly. If I have been in error concerning this,
I will certainly be happy to apologize. But please come with me to Mr. Roy's
post. There are always two sides to every story.
Best Regards, Judyth Vary Baker ====comments below=====
Stephen Roy Today, 05:00 PM Post #51
> New Member
> Group: Members
> Posts: 2
> Joined: 7-January 05
> Member No.: 2230
> A big thank you to John Simkin for allowing me to pop in here an
> clairify a few points. I have been in touch with Judyth Vary Baker
> about 1999, and we have had a on-again/off-again private
> For some reason, Baker chose to go public with it in this forum over
> past week.
No, Stephen, I have not gone public with your correspondence, which is
voluminous. I have mentioned only a very small part of the matter, as also
have you. I have not posted your emails except as it touched upon using a
false name on forums concerned with the JFK assassination, while using your
real name elsewhere. You also used your real name at Lancer, so still I
cannot understand why you are so upset that I have told people that these
two people happen to be the same person. =========more below========
>ROY/BLACKBURST: I came onto the internet in the mid-90s under a
variant of my given
> name, and I engaged in discussion on some JFK newsgroups. One day
> was at work, a scraggly 40-ish man came to my door and said
> my wife about me "perpetuating the coverup." She excused herself,
> me and the police, but the man walked away. My wife insisted and I
> to adopt a "screen name", something a bit more anonymous. I tried
> possibilities but AOL said they were already in use. AOL allows up
> characters, so I tried a TV term, "blackburst" (the signal to which
> video devices are synchronized in a TV studio), and AOL accepted it.
> became known as a David Ferrie specialist in the JFK groups. When
> would ask my first name, I arbitrarily chose "Dave" (after Ferrie).
This is all fine and good, except that you, Stephen, are not just
'anybody.'You have been declared THE expert on David W. Ferrie. YOU have
been the one who is, in fact, quoted everywhere.
But the name people quoted as THE authority was NOT the name that you
recently said would be listed as author of the book on Dave Ferrie. So,how
would anyone not in your inner circle know this?
You said you were my friend, but you never told me, for example, that
you were really Mr. Roy.
I am sorry if your wife was frightened, and I can understand your
decision to use the false name. However, since you used your real name at
the Lancer Conference, I believed, and I think quite reasonably, that you
were no longer afraid to use your real name since you had come forth and
presented yourself in person using your real name.
Meanwhile, we have identity problems -- a number of people use
multiple names and support their statements by writing to themselves and
praising themselves...just one example of how false names create the
illusion of many behind one, when that is not the case.
-- I felt it imperative to begin to identify those who have used false
names. My special concern with you remains that you are not just anybody.
YOU are THE expert on Dave Ferrie. As such, everyone needs to know that you
use two names in the research community--Blackburst and Roy.
=========================more below ============
I explained publicly on a number of occasions that Blackburst was a
> pseudonym, and why I chose it. I also explained this by email to
> people. Eventually, I did share research with a few folks, which
> necessitated using my real name, but in a spirit of privacy.
In other words, Stephen, you have been posting information on the
Internet publicly under a fake name, but sharing research with a few people
privately using your real name. We have had a lot of that going on in the
In late 1999 or early 2000, I was contacted by Baker and her
> associates and we had numerous exchanges. I had a clear impresson
> Baker wanted to keep these exchanges private at that time. I also
> to remain on her bulk email list so that I could get the details of
This is not quite correct, Stephen. I did not contact you.
Dr. Howard Platzman did, and after awhile, I received copies of your
emails ABOUT me. I finally wrote to you because I did not like being talked
ABOUT when I felt it would be better if we could speak to each other
directly. I began to cc you on a large list on contacts after that.
In the summer of 2000 I signed on to the JFKLancer Forum, but the
> rules required that I use my real name. I never used "Blackburst" on
> few posts on that forum.
But Stephen, how would anybody know that MR ROY and MR BLACKBURST were
one and the same on the forum? How did they know that if they asked you
qwuestions about Dave Ferrie that YOU would be able to answer them, whereas
hardly anyone else in the world could do that? But they had no idea you were
that same expert, Mr. Blackburst.
Debra Conway invited me to speak at the Lancer
> NID2000 conference, and the topic of my 30-minute talk was agreed