Judyth Vary Baker - Oswalds älskarinna?

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

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

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

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


Artiklarna publicerade i mars och april, 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


And this is the reality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bakers explanation? As usual she had one:

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

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




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

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

Also note down below the photo:

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

End of part two.


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

Operation Smear; Character assassinate the researcher

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

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


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

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

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


”he is a highly dubious source” [Fetzer]
”..considered a spy” [Baker]
”What kind of man is this Mr. Viklund, if that is his name?” [Baker]
”get Xeroxes about who YOU really are, Mr. Viklund” [Baker]
”they also think you're a spy” [Baker]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[See above.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of part three.


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

"You've never met me!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judyth Baker, April 10th, 2014:

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

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

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

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

”You've never met me!”

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

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

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

Addendum, 20150122.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum, July 8th, 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


Addendum, October 30th, 2014.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



  1. I found your interaction with Judyth Baker fascinating and would like to send you an essay of my impressions of having met her that is too long to post here. My email is schoenrobert@hotmaiil.com. If you contact me I will be happy to send it to you
    sincerely Robert Schoen

  2. Thank you for commenting here. Robert. I will send you an email, even though I'm done as far as Judyth Baker, of course I would like to know about your experiences with Baker.

  3. I posted this essay as a book review of Lee and Me on Amazon.com giving it three stars. If yoI look for the three star reviews there are only 11 and it comes right up.I don't blame you at all for wanting to be done with Baker, as I was instantly repulsed by her in the short time I met her. I think you will enjoy reading imy post because you and I have the exact same opinion of her! Thanks for you efforts to illuminate this weird personality I deem to be the Sarah Palin of JFK assassinology!

  4. Thank you very much, Robert. The "Sarah Palin of the JFK case" Hehehe, that's a good one. Agreed! :-)

  5. Robert,

    Your essay is fascinating and it is indeed no coincidence that we have similar experiences of Judyth Baker. The difference being that you found out much quicker than I did about this womans true personality. I've actually seen another couple of people who met her IRL, who just like you found her not very pleasant. I'm no phsychologist but still have no doubt there's something seriously wrong here. I really hope that more people get to read your comment on amazon.com.

    Again, thanks for notifying me of your excellent essay.

  6. Robert. I have a question for you, but it seems the email you gave above is no longer active? If you read this, please get in touch with me again.

  7. It indeed was, and is, Mark. Thanks.

  8. Mark, I screwed up your posting here, but as for your question:

    Has Mr. Schoen's interactions with the Baker woman been shared anywhere?

    Yes, they were as he points out above, published on Amazon, but a little later they were gone. Moreover the email address doesn't seem to work. So somehthing obviously happened..

  9. Thank you, Glenn Viklund, for the time and effort you put into this revealing chronicle. It only confirms what careful researchers have discovered elsewhere, but with respect to her asylum claims, which is a different angle. This is vital documentation, and I cannot thank you enough for it. Having only just recently encountered "Me and Lee" and having lots of questions after muddling halfway through it, it is refreshing to find critics such as yourself who have done so much homework to demonstrate that this self-described scientific prodigy seems entirely unfamiliar with scientific method when it comes to proving her allegations, and engaging in discourse with her critics. Surely peer review should be cordially welcomed by a "scientist," no?

    1. Thank you very much, Ken. You are of course correct; any honest broker would welcome researchers to conduct serious vetting of their claims. That's how credibility can be achieved. For fifteen years, Ms Baker has not only refused to honor such a process; but she's gone after researchers with a blow torch. Like so many others I don't have the slightest doubt that Ms Baker is not who she says she is.


Skicka en kommentar

Populära inlägg