Monday, April 25, 2011

INSIDE HIGHER ED ignores 9/11 evidence

April 23, 2011

Inside Higher Ed Ignores 9/11 Evidence

By Jim Fetzer

A relatively obscure conflict between the Editors-in-Chief of an international journal for philosophy of science and the Guest Editors of a special issue on "Evolution and It's Rivals" has led to the call for a boycott of the journal until the Editors-in-Chief correct an action that is widely viewed as having been inappropriate. In a column about this controversy in INSIDE HIGHER EDUCATION, "A Peculiar Disclaimer" (20 April 2011), the reporter, Libby Nelson--who, to the best of my knowledge, has never studied 9/11--implies the contention that 9/11 was "an inside job" is one for which there is "no accepted evidence". In an effort to set the record straight, I have tried repeatedly to post the following commentary but have been repeatedly rejected.

The article itself went through an intriguing evolution. At 3 AM/CT, Inside Higher Ed had it that "Fetzer is also no stranger to controversial theories for which there is no evidence; outside his work on philosophy, for instance, he is a proponent of the claim that the U.S. government is responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks." By 6 AM/CT, after I had submitted my comment, it had changed to "no accepted evidence", where it stood when I submitted this to OpEdNews. Now it only says that I am no stranger to controversial theories and claim that the U.S. government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I assert that because the evidence supports it. I agree with Michael Moore, who said, when ask if he believed in conspiracy theories, "Only those that are true!"

Since the issues involved here are of more than passing interest, I am publishing it here in the hope that the public will become aware of the disconcerting fact that most faculty are unwilling to come to grips with even the most blatant falsehoods promoted by the government and reinforced by the main stream media, even though evidence that exposes these falsehoods and reveals underlying truths can be found from many sources, including articles published previously here at OpEdNews, which appears to be one of the few remaining bastions of freedom of inquiry and of freedom of the press. If faculty are not willing to deal with travesties like 9/11, it is difficult to see why they deserve the public's respect when they could contribute but fail to do so.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
South Tower Tilting by public domain

Apart from its own peculiar lapse about research on 9/11, "A Peculiar Disclaimer" from Inside Higher Education offers an excellent overview of the issues, where I was involved in dealing with the Editors-in-Chief about these questions, which Glenn Branch, my co-editor, and I had thought we had resolved until the disclaimer appeared in the hard copy edition. Contrary to the author's insinuation, there is a great deal of evidence that what we have been told about 9/11 cannot possibly be true, where the official account--authored principally by Philip Zelikow, whose area of academic specialization was the creation and maintenance of "public myths"--has been falsified on virtually every major count by experts and scholars across the disciplines, including those of physics and of engineering.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
North Tower Dustifying by public domain

As Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has explained, the towers cannot have been demolished in about ten seconds apiece without the use of powerful explosives, where a collapse due to fire would have been impossible. Indeed, no steel structure high-rise has collapsed due to fire before 9/11 or after and, we have found, did not occur on 9/11, either. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has discovered that black box data they were given by the NTSB corresponds to a plane on a different approach that was too high to have hit any lampposts and appears to have flown over the Pentagon rather than crashed into it. And as David Ray Griffin, the leading authority on 9/11 has found, the available evidence shows that the alleged phone calls from the planes were faked to induce a sympathetic emotional response in the public.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY by Open Court

Since the official account of 9/11 entails the violation of laws of aerodynamics, of physics, and of engineering, it is "just fine" as long as you are willing to believe impossible things. See, for example, "Why doubt 9/11?", on the home page of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, the research society I founded, and especially, a web site that features bio sketches, photos, and statements from several thousand professionals from government, military, aeronautical, engineering, architectural, and other backgrounds, who are convinced that we have not been told the truth about 9/11, a sentiment shared by Thomas Kean and William Hamilton, who have published their concerns that the Pentagon, for example, gave the commission three versions of the events of 9/11. If the chairs of The 9/11 Commission don't know what happened on 9/11, who does?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
WTC Devastation by public domain

Since even George W. Bush qualified 9/11 as "the pivotal event of the 21st Century", it might be a good idea if more academicians and scholars were to apply their backgrounds and abilities to sorting out truth from fiction. 9/11 has been used to justify wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq that have depleted the national treasury by over a trillion dollars, which could certainly have been used for more constructive purposes here at home. When you realize the false rationales that were advanced to justify those invasions--including that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq was in collusion with Al Qaeda, and that Osama bin Laden was responsible (a claim for which even our own FBI acknowledges it has "no hard evidence')--it should be obvious that the public interest would be well served by more research on 9/11 than even the debate over evolution and ID.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Just because you are retired doesn’t mean you’re done!

Just because you are retired doesn’t mean you’re done!

"Rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated!" -- attributed to Mark Twain

Having recently discovered that the University of Minnesota publishes a newsletter for retired faculty, I thought that some of those who are in that category might enjoy reading about one of their own, who was among the first ten faculty appointed as Distinguished McKnight University Professors in 1996, when the program was initiated. My wife, Jan, has observed that, since I retired, I have been busier than I was when I was teaching full time--and I think she's right! For those who might like to know more about McKnight Professors, here is a link to the page devoted to the program:

Unlike old soldiers, old McKnight Professors do not “just fade away”. Not, at least, if they are named “Jim Fetzer”, one of the first ten to be selected for that distinction in 1996. He graduated magna cum laude from Princeton in 1962, served as a commissioned officer in the U.S. Marine Corps for four years, and earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science in 1970, eventually joining the UM faculty on the Duluth campus, where he taught from 1987-2006, when he retired after a 35-year career spent primarily offering courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning.

It will not come as especially surprising that Fetzer has continued with his scholarly research in philosophy. His last book prior to retirement, THE EVOLUTION OF INTELLIGENCE (2005), for example, in which he argued that humans are not the only animals with minds, has been complemented by RENDER UNTO DARWIN (2007), where he tackles some of the most sensitive social issues in society today, such as the difference between creationism, creation science, and intelligent design in comparison with evolutionary theories from a scientific point of view, and also explains why morality does not require religion and offers a spirited defense of abortion, stem-cell research and cloning.
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
He has now co-edited a special issue of SYNTHESE (January 2011), on “Evolution and its Rivals” with Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education, which includes an article of his own, “Evolution and Atheism: Has Griffin reconciled science and religion?” Another article on “Limits of Simulations of Thought and Action” is about to appear in the premiere issue of the International Journal of Signs and Semiotic Systems, which is a natural extension of his work in cognitive science and as the editor of MINDS AND MACHINES, which he founded in 1991 and edited for the next ten years.

What may be most intriguing with regard to his article on evolution and atheism is that David Ray Griffin, another professor emeritus of theology and the philosophy of religion, is the foremost figure in the 9/11 Truth movement, which he invited Fetzer to join in 2005. Not one to take half-way measures, Jim founded Scholars for 9/11 Truth that December and has managed its web site since. In 2007, he edited its first book, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, organized its first conference in Madison, WI, and produced its first DVD, “The Science and Politics of 9/11”. He has given hundreds of interviews and lectures about 9/11.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Griffin had become aware of Fetzer because of Jim’s research on JFK, where he had organized a research group of some of the best-qualified individuals to ever study the case, including a world authority on the human brain who was also an expert on wound ballistics; an M.D. who is also a Ph.D. and board-certified in radiation oncology; a physician who was present when JFK was brought into Parkland Hospital and then, two days later, was responsible for the treatment of his alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald; a legendary photo and film analyst; and another Ph.D. with a specialization in electromagnetism, the properties of light and images of moving objects.

Their research led to the discovery that the autopsy X-rays have been altered to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of his head, that another person’s brain was substituted for that of JFK, and that the home movie of the assassination was recreated prior to its release. Jim has edited three books on this subject, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) and THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Even Vincent Bugliosi, a leading proponent of the “long gunman theory”, has described them as the only “exclusively scientific” books published on the death of JFK.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

The research produced by Scholars and others within the movement has created quite a sensation. Jim presented the principal lecture on 9/11 at the American Scholars Conference held in Los Angeles, CA, the same month he retired from UMD. C-SPAN filmed a panel discussion on that occasion, which featured him with three other members of Scholars—Steven Jones, Bob Bowman, and Webster Tarpley--and the host of the conference, Alex Jones. Since C-SPAN broadcast this 1:45 long session seven or eight times, it has had considerable influence in shattering the glass ceiling that had inhibited public discussion of 9/11.

Jim has been featured as a guest on “Hannity & Colmes” (twice) and with Bill O’Reilly on “The Factor”, who wanted to trivialize the truth movement, but without success. Today there are many professional societies, including Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth and many other groups, a sampling of which may be found at where more than 2,000 photos, bio sketches, and statements from scholars, experts, and others across a broad range of professions may be found. For those who may initially consider the very idea that we have been misled by our government about 9/11 rather implausible, this site is highly recommended.

His reception abroad has been even more striking. In December 2006, for example, he and his wife, Jan, were flown to Athens, where he was the featured guest on a 3.5 hour television program broadcast world-wide by satellite. He has been flown to Buenos Aires twice (in 2008 and 2009), where, on 11 September 2009, he presented the principal lecture at The International Symposium on 9/11 Truth and Justice at The National Library. And on 14 July 2010, he moderated a conference on “Debunking the ‘War on Terror’”, in London, the presentations from which are archived at He has been a guest many times on radio programs, including “Talk Radio Europe”.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Fetzer’s research on controversial subjects continues unabated. “The Dartmouth JFK-Photo Fiasco” he co-authored with Jim Marrs appeared in OpEdNews (20 November 2009) and was republished by GLOBAL RESEARCH. “JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn’t”, was published by (13 June 2010). THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO (March 2011) has just published, “Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?” And a recent article, which combines his interest in AI with his research on moral theory, “On the Ethical Conduct of Warfare: Predator Drones”, has been widely republished.

It would be remiss not to mention that Jim published a co-authored book on the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, AMERICAN ASSASSINATION (2004). His final public lecture at UMD, which was a three-parter on JFK, 9/11, and Wellstone in November 2005, can be found archived at the bottom of the menu bar of, which is his public issues web site. Jim would follow up with additional research in collaboration with John P. Costella, Ph.D., which they published as "The NTSB Failed Wellstone” in Michael Ruppert’s “From the Wilderness” newsletter in 2006. A new documentary, “WELLSTONE: THEY KILLED HIM”, in 15-segments, vindicates their research on Wellstone’s death.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Jim continues to contribute to conventional philosophical research, where his 29th book, THE PLACE OF PROBABILITY IN SCIENCE (co-edited with the late Ellery Eells) appeared last year. It seems to be accurate to conclude that he has devoted himself to (what he takes to be) the most pressing controversies confronting our society—and with great energy and enthusiasm. In retirement, he has become one of those “public intellectuals”, like Paul Craig Roberts (who happens to agree with him about 9/11 truth), if on a lesser scale, who are doing their best to convey to the public the kinds of knowledge it needs to steer the nation in something just a bit closer to the right direction.

Monday, April 11, 2011

Flossing Can Be Murder: Inventor becomes victim of apparent corporation scam

Flossing Can Be Murder: Inventor becomes victim of apparent corporation scam

Sean Dix

Editor's Preface: Sean Dix has invented an ingenious device known as "the floss ring". He brought it to Johnson & Johnson (hereafter "J&J") in 1994, unaware that J&J had been attempting to develop a similar product of its own, but without success. That began a series of horrendous experiences that culminated on 21 December 2009, with an apparent attempt on his life by means of a massive injection of flouride administered by his long-time dentist. He has made heroic attempts to expose the malfeasance by J&J by contacting local and state authorities. As you will read here, they now include efforts to file charges for attempted murder that have reached as high as the offices of Manhattan District Attorney then Robert Morganthau/now Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., the Office of the Attorney General then Andrew Cuomo of the State of New York, and even the Office of then Governor David Paterson/now Andrew Cuomo of New York.

On Sunday, 5 December 2010, Sean Dix, the inventor of the Floss Ring, sent the following letter to the prominent law firm of Dear, Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Lason, Anello & Bohrer, P.C., which lays out the basic elements of his story. To facilitate easy of reading, I have done some stylistic editing and added a few graphics. I have found his history so compelling that I interviewed him as my featured guest on "The Real Deal" on Friday, 1 April 2011, where the interview is archived at But there is nothing the least bit "April Foolish" about what he has had to endure. This is such a stunning example of corporate corruption that I am going to devote several blogs to exposing it. Lest anyone doubt that Sean had invented something of great interest and potential value, here, as a preface, is an excerpt from an article that appeared in The New York Times:

The New York Times
Business Day… Monday, November 16, 1998

Patents – Sabra Chartrand
“An entrepreneur hopes that sterilized dental floss will encourage people to keep their teeth cleaner.”

Many people dislike flossing their teeth and do so irregularly. Flossing has such a bad image that people tend to floss erratically even when they understand that it is the only way to really clean below the gum line. But Sean Dix is hoping that those people who do use dental floss will prefer a sterile product. Mr. Dix is a former diamond cutter turned inventor who won a patent a few years ago for inexpensive plastic rings that aid flossing. He had trouble flossing himself because of a skin condition: wrapping thin floss around his fingers irritated them. So he designed the rings, won a patent, quit his diamond-cutting job and became a full-time floss entrepreneur. Now Mr. Dix, who lives in New York, is expanding his business to include his newly patented sterile dental floss. His latest invention started when he learned how floss is traditionally manufactured...."

Sean's Story

In 1993 I invented FlossRings & the first truly Sterilized Floss.

In 1994 I offered them to J&J not knowing that J&J had lied by falsely advertising its own floss as "Sterilized and Surgically Clean" 120 years ago as one of the longest false-ad campaigns in corporate history.

Few know that J&J helped underwrite the first Food and Drug Act of 1906 to ensure that this lie, among others, would not be exposed. On 30 September 2010, the Congressional Oversight Committee had J&J and the FDA answering questions about J&J's largest recall in corporate history. It's no mystery as to why J&J was reprimanded along with the FDA together, since J&J had been instrumental in the creation the FDA.

I own 55 years worth of these false floss ads--more than the ADA and Google combined. Here are some samples of its false advertising from 1906, 1912, and 1921:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Johnson & Johnson's "ABSOLUTELY ASEPTIC" floss (1906)

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Johnson & Johnson's "guaranteed surgically clean" (1912)

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Johnson & Johnson's "Surgically Clean Floss" (1921)

The floss discovery led me to uncover the biggest of J&J's misrepresentations, namely: that J&J had founded its company with the first "Sterilized Sutures" beginning in 1887. (You can visit J&J's website for its own "History".)

I have every J&J ad from January to October 1887, where J&J did not advertise in November or December of that year. All ten months in 1887 are full page advertisements for "Zonweiss Dental Cream". J&J claims as of this date to have pioneered Sterilized Sutures beginning in 1887. The truth is that J&J's first ad, which appeared in January 1887, had a "Gulliver's Travels" theme ending in October 1887 with a witch, who was selling "Zonweiss Dental Cream".

Sterilized sutures would not come for several more years and only after J&J had exhausted its advertisements for the failed Zonweiss Dental Cream. J&J had to finally get serious and come up with something that was useful. They did, but it took over a decade to perfect sutures and, as you can see, even today they are still recalling them because of contamination issues, so they never really did even get that right.

Of course this has nothing to do with J&J's Cat-A-Logs from the 1950s, where J&J mockingly joked about selling "Contaminated Sutures" in their Ethicons Suture Catalogs. (See Ethicon Catalog 1 and Ethicon Catalog 2). That was in poor taste even in 1950, but with people dropping like flies from J&J's products in hindsight, that is probably something J&J would prefer I hadn't found with several original volumes, with each picture and caption worse than the next.

Needless to say, J&J had and still has a vested interest in keeping me silent and off the market, which they have done for the most part for the past 14 years to everyones detriment, beginning with influencing CNN to air a hatchet job on my company on 12 June 1996, which was one week before my "FlossRings" were placed in the National Museum of Dentistry, where they are additionally listed under "George Washington's Ivory Teeth" as one of its 32 permanent public exhibits.

The Pursuit of Justice

My pursuit of justice eventually appears to have led J&J to have an operative contact me to threaten my life by describing the numerous ways that I could be killed and make it look like an accident or suicide. Poisoning was mentioned more than any other method--and several times. This was unsettling as I had originally offered my patents to J&J, where its unethical negotiating practices had prompted me to end discussions with them. Concerned about these death threats thinly disguised as "worldly advice", I contacted as many of the proper authorities as possible, only to be ignored at the mention of CNN or J&J. I have included three clips of over ten mentions of how I could be killed. [Editor's note: several of them were played during the interview on "The Real Deal" on Friday, 1 April 2011, which can be accessed at]

Frustrated with having my business ruined on CNN and being threatened for pursuing justice and being ignored on both complaints, I felt I had no choice but to document it for the public record by forcing their hand. Seven months after becoming tired of looking over my shoulder, I generated a federal trial by issuing a letter containing threatening language designed to generate a trial to expose the true threats that were made against me insofar as the government was doing nothing on my behalf. My intentions to get into court by violating positive law were not only described in my letter but were explained to Joel Klein--the head of the Federal Anti-Trust Division at the time--in a letter prior to the letter that generated my trial. The arresting detective by the name of "Everett" even testified that this was my stated purpose and that he was had been hired by CNN to try and prevent my letter from going out before I faxed it. They all knew.

I was arrested and finally had a day in court because the government had refused to listen any other way. The federal judge and prosecutor did everything possible to tilt my trial in their favor beginning with introducing me to the jury pool with my hands behind my back being escorted by two correctional officers. I was offered "time served" but declined in favor of documenting the truth for history. Needless to say, I was railroaded and spent a year in jail and was put on probation where my court ordered psychologist, Dr. Caffery, agreed on tape that he believed that what J&J did was criminal and that he was willing to "bet money on it" along with the fact that he knew I generated my trial to expose what happened to me and that the government had further harmed me, knowing full well why I had generated my trial. He stated that he could do something about it, but he, like everyone else. chose not to; so I stopped going to him, which prompted my re-arrest one calender year to the day later.

Another Miscarriage of Justice

This time Federal Judge Clarence Cooper acknowledged on transcript that he knew that I had generated my trial to expose what happened to me and that Turner (CNN) had perpetuated a wrong upon me, but still sent me to prison--this time for another year--stating that at some point I had to give up my campaign for truth and justice. I found it especially ironic to be lectured on giving up by a black judge (Clarence Cooper) in Atlanta, no less, the home of the civil rights movement whose struggles had eventually afforded him his lofty position only by not giving up. In prison I suffered a severe MRSA infection, which I believe was intentionally given to me and lasted for a solid year after my release. This may have actually been the first attempt on my life, since some of the boils were so severe I almost passed out; but I refused to go to the doctor on the prison compound, fearing that they were waiting for me to show up. Pulling out boils the size of marbles with no anesthetic in a prison with inadequate medical supplies was an experience I would not wish even upon those who gave me the experience.

When Governor Paterson replaced Elliott Spitzer, I sent him a package with the death threats and supporting documentation in the hopes that he would open an investigation. He sent back a letter stating for the first time that my difficulties were a "criminal matter". This was the first time any government official had ever classified what has happened to me as a criminal matter and instructed me to contact District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, which I did three times over the next year-and-a-half via certified mail. DA Morgenthau never responded and, when I called to follow up, I was told that the DA's office didn't care what the Governor thought.

On 25 February 2009, I contacted Lucinda Franks, Morgenthau's wife, in an attempt to reach Morgenthau. (I have Lucinda Franks' E-mail.) I had no other agenda other than to reach him but, two days later, I read in Crains, NY, that Morgenthau would be ending his re-election bid. I later explained this to a State Supreme Court Justice, who personally knows Morgenthau, who told me he would look into it. When I subsequently saw the Justice, who refers to me as his friend, he told me, "You did it!", in reference to our conversation about Morgenthau days earlier; and I believed him, even though I had no intention of ending his re-election bid. I simply wanted him to address my concerns.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

A notice about Floss Rings from PREVENTION Magazine (November 1997)

The Attempted Murder

Six months after my last letter to Morgenthau in April 2009, I was poisoned at my dentist's office. The date was 21 December 2009. I was given a syringe full of fluoride sublingually that left me unable to hold a conversation that night with a friend who had called me. I was in a fluoride induced stupor for the next 17 days. I recorded all of my calls with my dentists office beginning the next morning; I was lied to over 40 times by being told that no fluoride was used until she slipped and admitted using fluoride twice two weeks later. I have in total 17 conversations with no less that 60 confirmed lies including the "smoking gun" that fluoride had been used on me. I even saved my urine the morning after as it was the darkest urine I had ever seen in my life. It was blood I was urinating.

My urine later forensically tested positive for fluoride with levels of 160-132mg/L (the EPA standard being 1mg/L or lower), while my creatinine levels were 5636mg/L, which is indicative of acute kidney failure. The normal range is 300-3000 where 1000 mg/L being the normal range. My kidneys, eye sight, bones, and other body parts have been affected, even though, fortunately, I continue to recover due to my diet of primarily raw fruits and vegetables. I have been told that my alkaline diet is what saved me and that I should be dead, with no doubt, where others have died with less fluoride in their urine.

On 27 January 2010, I tried to file criminal charges, but was basically discouraged by the NYPD and the FBI; and, after contacting the DA's office, I left a voicemail message that was never returned. I was told by the NYPD to get a lawyer to bring this case to the DA; but the lawyers I spoke with would not touch my case unless I could have a toxicologist summarize the raw forensics. I found a toxicologist who agreed to provide a narrative and began asking for more data without ever giving me a cost or completion estimate. Six months into this ordeal, I was told that the toxicologist wanted to publish my case in a peer review journal and in her book, at which point I felt awkward saying "No" after she supposedly had been working on her narrative for six months.

A False Criminal Complaint

Eventually the dentist who knew she was being privately investigated filed a false criminal complaint stating that I threatened to kill her no doubt citing my previous case. On 31 August 2010, I was threatened with arrest by a detective named "Morales" from her precinct, who sounded more like a friend of hers who was attempting to intimidate me and who told me that my charges would not be entertained at their precinct, the 19th.

I then asked the toxicologist to please contact the DA's office to let him know that she was working on a narrative and would soon conclude it, since she had finally set a deadline of 1 September 2010, which came and went without the narrative as promised. The toxicologist told the Special Prosecutor, Thomas Wornom, that she would be ruling that I was poisoned but that she was also going to publish it in an article and subsequently promised him a copy of the narrative before I was to receive it, which I objected to since the DA's office had all but ignored everything that led up to my being poisoned.

This led to a rift that was not to be resolved when the toxicologist changed our agreement yet again by stating that she wanted to provide the narrative as a "private letter" to the DA, which, in my opinion, was to protect the publishing rights which had now apparently superceded my request for a one page statement from our first meeting in February 2010, which I needed to have in order to file charges as instructed, so I could discover exactly what kind of fluoride compound I was poisoned with, how much and why. I believe J&J is behind it but that needs to be proven in court through a real investigation.

The Toxicological Report

Eventually I had to hire another toxicologist to review the same forensic data and found Dr. Michael J. Norvell, a Board Certified Toxicologist with 25 years experience, who was able to provide a simple one page statement of fact that I had suffered a classic case of fluoride poisoning and that finding out exactly what the fluoride compound was and how much was critical to my current and future health. I submitted his report (see Flossrings.rtf & CV1.rtf) on 26 November 2010 via fax and followed up monday morning asking whether Thomas Wornom had questioned the dentist Diana Deidan to find out what exactly she poisoned me with, how much and why. I was unable to reach him until Thursday, 2 December 2010, when Thomas Wornom told me that he had not questioned Diana Deidan and had no intention of questioning her and that I should seek a civil attorney.

Stunned at this blatant disregard for my life even after a Board Certified Toxicologist had ruled that I was poisoned, I called the next morning 3 December 2010 and spoke with Jeanette Molina in Cyrus Vance's office to explain that a Board Certified Toxicologist had issued a statement that I had suffered a classic case of fluoride poisoning, while the dentist is clearly on record denying it over 40 times before admitting it twice and then denying it again, after I have been threatened with being poisoned and spent two years in prison for attempting to expose it!

Of special note : Several days after I was poisoned I ran into the Supreme Court Justice with whom I had conversed about Morganthau. Upon seeing me, he looked as if he had seen a ghost. His body language immediately registered as someone who did not expect me to be walking around and he has since avoided speaking with me at all costs. And this is a man knows Morgenthau personally. What am I to make of that?!

Reflections on My Death

If I am to be openly murdered in the not too distant future, I would like a few facts to be known.

I have tried to be a productive citizen but this has been denied in every way possible or the past 14 years.

After living with the threat of premature death for simply trying to fulfill my potential and enjoy the fruits of my labor, I have been unconstitutionally incarcerated and finally poisoned in similar manner to that which I was threatened with. I have suffered the near total loss of all but my physical life and that is still not guaranteed. This is not a life, and I believe that the functions of these various methods of social isolation, financial ruin, intentional poisoning and then denial of any justice is designed to push me over the edge so that I may be murdered "legitimately" by this government .

Unfortunately for this government, I am no murderer and I will not give them an opportunity to destroy what I have tried to build and offer humanity, which has been clinically proven to be as effective as the toothbrush if not more so. Valued at over $250 million a year by Florida State University (using figures supplied by J&J), one would think the government would want to see me thriving instead--but apparently not. There is no shame dying or being murdered for trying to live in peace and contributing to humanity with whatever talents one has the potential to offer. There is shame in never living for any other purpose than to deprive others of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the fruits of their labor.

For the Firm

I believe I have a solid case against the City, & State of New York, Robert Mogenthau, the current DA's office, J&J, and many others, where my purpose for contacting you is two-fold:

I hope you [Editor's note: the firm to whom this letter, in its original version, was directed] can take my case on contingency, given the overwhelming proof that I have backed up in multiples at the minimum to prevent being wiped out as I have almost been and you can do the right thing by not only me but humanity or you can recuse yourselves, as you might have to defend the current DA, in which case this will serve as a sample discovery for you to digest. I believe in transparency and so I have no problem sharing all of my files with anyone J&J included. That is what a fair trial would consist--a comparison of facts available to both sides.

On a final note. I have been told that I was responsible for Morgenthau stepping down, even though that wasn't remotely on my mind. I am curious to know what a serious effort might yield along with irrefutable facts in an article that is soon to be posted. The last one can be found googling "CNN J&J" where you should find, "Sean Dix: The American Dream and Justice, Part One", by Mary Sparrowdancer. "Part Two" was nearing its completion when I was poisoned. Now my story has become even more convoluted. Truth is stranger than fiction.

If you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact me.


Sean Dix
The FlossRing Company
145 East 15th Street 12-A
New York, NY 10003

P.S. I forgot to mention that the 86 year old holocaust survivor whose shop I learned the jewelry business in some 25 years ago right around the corner from your office on 47th street stated right off the bat that J&J must have been behind my being poisoned without any prompting on my part.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011



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.

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.


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.

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, 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.

There are some people in New Orleans who knew him, too. One “Ferrie expert” claims that, since these men (most of whom were homosexuals) 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, 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.

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. 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. A now-famous photo shows Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald in the same camp-out.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

I wish to say without equivocation that Dave Ferrie would not have forgotten that Lee was in this small group, even if an incident had not occurred between them that at first soured, but eventually secured, their mutual respect and friendship.

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. 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.

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.

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. Mr. Roy has recently declared that Lee Oswald had probably killed Kennedy, 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).

Mr. Roy has been busy compiling statements from Dave’s former friends and accumulating data, purportedly for a long-awaited biography of him. 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.

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.

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!

When I spoke out as a witness in 1999, I immediately identified David Ferrie – just as Jim Garrison had done so some 30 years earlier – as a primary figure in the case. Efforts to discredit me have often rested on disagreeing with what I’ve said about David Ferrie concerning his considerable medical expertise. I have spoken out that David Ferrie was actively involved in cancer research activities in the summer of 1963. Mr. Roy has stated that Ferrie’s friends have claimed they saw “nothing” that remotely seemed like cancer research going on and that they never saw me.

Forget the fact that Dave worked daily for Marcello’s attorney downtown and that I was regularly in his apartment several afternoons a week – 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.

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."

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, (30) where he claimed he lost his hair, alternately attributing it to a radiation experiment, chemical explosion, and cancer research experiments.(31) He listed his name in the telephone book as "Dr." David Ferrie;(32) many friends did erroneously believe he was a medical doctor and a psychologist. (33) This veneer of respectability and achievement could be the reason Ferrie referred to his Ph.D. degree as his 'most prized possession.'(34)".

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.

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. In regard to how Mr. Roy handled the idea of Ferrie being involved in the assassination (which, according to Mr. Roy, he was not), Harris has written:

April 27, 2010 11:49 pm

By far, the most powerful indictment of David Ferrie was his identification by a fellow named, Giesbrecht, in Winnipeg, Ontario.

For years, David [Blackburst-Roy] told people that Ferrie was at his uncle's funeral on the day that he was allegedly spotted at the Winnipeg airport, but during our discussion on that, I made a phone call to the Cleveland Plaindealer and confirmed that the funeral was not Feb. 13th, but on the 14th, which means that Ferrie was at the airport at precisely the right time to catch a plane to Cleveland to be at the funeral the next day, and even attend the open casket showing that evening.

Mr. Roy subsequently conceded this point and replied, "I stand corrected. I was working from rough notes and memory, and got the date wrong."

Mr. Roy has also claimed that he has spoken to one of Ferrie's associates who had told him that he drove Ferrie to Cleveland that day, but he refuses to divulge the man's name or even his story. He even states that he made no effort to take notes or record his conversation with this guy, which is a strange way to research a book. But he did say that he would contact the man for permission and then report back. That was about 7 months ago and he hasn't said another word about it.

For those who are unfamiliar with this issue, Giesbrecht, who was an extremely credible witness, as even Mr. Roy has acknowledged, overheard a conversation among several men at the airport in Winnipeg, in which a man with the "oddest eyebrows" – he also called them "streaky" – he had even seen was going on and on about his fears that, if Oswald told his wife about the conspiracy, then she might tell the Warren Commission about it.

He also stated that he believed that at least two of the men, including the one he would later identify as Ferrie, were homosexuals. Giesbrecht had no idea who the men were, until two years later, when he saw a photo of Ferrie in the newspapers and immediately recognized him. So, not only did Mr. Roy's "alibi" for Ferrie fall apart, but the man Giesbrecht identified as Ferrie was in exactly the place he needed to be in order to catch a flight to Cleveland in time to attend the viewing of his uncle's body that night as well as his funeral the next day.

Interestingly, he also heard Ferrie say that he "wondered why he got involved with someone so 'psycho' as Oswald." That's exactly how Marcello had described Oswald when he told an FBI informant that Ferrie introduced him to the alleged assassin during a meeting at his brother's restaurant.

The Giesbrecht incident is probably the most underrated issue in the JFK case. Because of Ferrie's unique physical appearance, it amounts to solid proof of conspiracy. And even if someone were so deeply in denial that he could convince himself that Giesbrecht overheard someone other than Ferrie, we would still have proof that persons other than Oswald had been involved. Yet Mr. Roy insists on hiding both the identity of a source who might have information about this as well as his significant story. Like too many others, Mr. Roy demonstrates the irresponsible consequences of taking a position of blind advocacy rather than simply searching for the truth.

Robert Harris

Mr. Roy also replied (in part): "Are you asserting that Ferrie WAS in Winnipeg?"

To Harris’ statement, “Because of Ferrie's unique physical appearance, it amounts to rock solid proof of conspiracy”, Mr. Roy replied, “I disagree.” He added,

“I found the info about the funeral, and passed it along to Peter Whitmey, among others, which places Ferrie, at least, 'up north', and not at home running his gas station. A guy, a community leader who doesn't want to be associated with 'the homosexual stuff' went with him, and doesn't remember him being absent for any period of time (some 30 years earlier). This was for a biography, not an assassination evidence book. I have been upfront with all comers, and graciously accepted his pinpointing of the exact day of the funeral. Robert is spinning this all into 'coo-coo land'."

Mr. Harris came back with a solid list of problems with Mr. Roy’s position:

“And he had the strangest hair and eyebrows he had ever seen.” Why did an
objective guy like you, just happen to forget that?

"David, there is no room for denial here. Alleging that *someone else*
with srange, 'streaky' eyebrows who was a homosexual, and was
paranoically shrieking about his fears that Marina would blow the
conspiracy is just crazy.

"And if you actually believe that, then you have someone other than
Ferrie, confirming conspiracy in the JFK case.

"Somewhere along the line, you have to do what you guys always wind up
having to do - call the witness a liar or delusional.

"If you don't, then how could you remain the LN advocate that you are?
Yes, and that 'one day' just happened to be the difference between a
perfect alibi and a perfect match with Ferrie being at the airport, just
in time to make it to Cleveland to attend both the viewing of the corpse
and the funeral the next day."

Mr. Roy replied: “It didn't seem to make sense to me that Ferrie would
somehow travel from New Orleans to Winnipeg, be seen at the airport,
fly 1882 miles to Cleveland for the wake and funeral, and not have his
absence noticed by his traveling companion.”

Harris: “Of course it does. He flew to Winnipeg and called in while he
was there to check on his uncle's condition. When he was told the man
died, he caught a plane, right on schedule to be there when he had to.

I cannot in my wildest imagination, understand how that wouldn't make
sense to you:

> David also claims that he has spoken to one of Ferrie's associates who
> told him that he drove Ferrie to Cleveland that day, but he refuses to
> divulge the man's name or even his story.”

Mr. Roy replied: “He doesn't want to be identified by name at this time,
because of the position he holds.”

Harris: “Uh huh.

But when you told him you were writing a book, he was eager to give you
a detailed story.

> He even states that he made no effort to take notes or record his
> conversation with this guy, which is a strange way to research a book.

Mr. Roy: “The guy put me up in a room in his home for several days on a research trip for a BIOGRAPHY of Ferrie. I didn't carry a tape recorder or note pad 24/7.”

Harris: “Damn! If only the guy had some paper in his house!

And I guess you can't remember his story either, right?

> But he did say that he would contact the man for permission and then
> report back. That was about 7 months ago and he hasn't said a word.
> For those who are unfamiliar with this issue, Giesbrecht, who was an
> extremely credible witness, which even David has admitted…”

Blackburst-Roy: “He may have heard such a conversation. I am not convinced it was Ferrie. “

Harris: “Of course you aren't convinced, David. A DNA test and a confession by Ferrie, signed in blood, wouldn't be convincing to you."

- - - - - - - - - - -

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.

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.

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. 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:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

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.

Mr. Roy has also claimed that nobody noticed any mice in Dave’s apartment when he had his birthday party there in 1963. 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:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

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 – 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!

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

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 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.)

Ferrie’s Car

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.” 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.

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

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:


In my opinion, this is an excellent post – you at your finest! I have long been troubled by Stephen Roy's practice of making sweeping claims while offering very little or even no evidence to substantiate them. He claims you cannot prove a negative, but you can prove there is no elephant in your living room by going there now and observing no elephant present and you can prove that not all ducks are white by observing a non-white duck. I think you are taking the right approach by looking for contemporaneous indications about Ferrie and Garrison's investigation. I also agree that Roy is too disposed to believe whatever he is told that offers even tenuous support for his claims. So I commend you for this. And, in relation to Michael Hogan, DR. MARY'S MONKEY is jam packed with documents, records, and photographs, just as is the case for ME & LEE. Both of them are exceptional in that regard as books intended for the general reader. Why he wants to deny something that obvious is beyond me.


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.