Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

JIM RESPONDS TO BERNICE WITH REGARD TO REASONING ABOUT JUDYTH BAKER

Bernice,

This is a bit long-winded, even "professorial". But then, what would you expect from a
retired professor? In my opinion, Ed Haslam has nailed down the key questions to ask,
discussed at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...ys-monkey.html:

1. Is “this Judyth” the real Judyth Vary Baker from Bradenton, Florida? Or is she
the impostor?

2. Did Judyth know Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in 1963? If she does not have
reasonable proof to support this claim, then there is little point in pondering her story.

3. Was Judyth trained to handle cancer-causing viruses before she went to New Orleans
in 1963? If 1 and 2 above are true, then this point would qualify her as a suspect for “the
technician” that I wrote about in “The Pandemic” chapter.

As he explains, the answers appear to be "Yes", "Yes", and "Yes". And I find it increasingly
difficult to believe that anyone who has studied the evidence could disagree with him on this.

I have remarked that many of Judyth's reports about her life with the man she knew are
highly implausible, which means that they are difficult to believe and, on initial consideration,
appear to be more likely to be false than true. The point I have made is that, when claims
that are initially implausible turn out to be true (or, at least, supported by better arguments
than the alternatives), that has the effect of greatly increasing the credibility of the source.
Monk concedes that this is a human psychological tendency, but expresses hesitation over
whether it is warranted rationally as a matter of logic. The answer, however, is that it is.

The study of the impact of new evidence upon our beliefs (or degrees of belief) is among
the most extensively studied subjects in the philosophy of science and epistemology, where
the predominant approach is known as "Bayesianism" for its appeal to a theorem due to a
mathematician by the name of Thomas Bayes. It interprets probability as a measure of the
strength of our beliefs in relation to the evidence available to us. There are objectivist and
subjectivist interpretations of Bayesianism, but the core of the objectivist interpretation has
it (correctly) that there are definable objective standards relating evidence to hypotheses.

Your beliefs about an hypothesis h1, such as that Judyth Vary Baker knew Lee Oswald in
New Orleans, given the evidence e1 available to you initially, which might be formalized as
P(h1/e1) = r1, is called your prior probability. When you gain new evidence, call it e2, the
difference it makes can be measured by the difference between your prior probability and
your posterior, P(h1/e1 & e2) = r2. The new evidence might increase, decrease, or leave
the value of r2 in relation to r1. When it increases the value of r2 in relation to r1, then it
is called "positively" relevant. If it lowers the value of r2 in relation to r1, then "negatively"
relevant. And if r2 = r1, then the new evidence qualifies as neutral or even as "irrelevant".

Those who are responsive to new evidence would be expected to have their priors affected
by the acquisition of new evidence in ways that correspond to objective standards. Those
who are non-responsible to new evidence have priors that are not affected by new evidence,
which can represent "closed mindedness". Indeed, one method for pursuing truth is to adopt
the method of tenacity, which means that, when you are subjectively satisfied with what you
believe, then you simply disregard any new evidence. That has been the case with many on
this forum, including, as a prime example, Jack White. No matter what Judyth could present,
Jack is not going to change his mind about her. His prior, which is approximately zero, will be
his posterior, even if we had a video of Judyth and Lee talking with Marcello at the 500 Club!

The fact is that we have a witness, Anna Lewis, who has testified that she and her husband,
David, double-dated with Judyth and Lee in New Orleans and made a visit to the 500 Club,
where they actually met Carlos Marcello. There is more than enough evidence to establish
that Judyth was lured to New Orleans by Alton Ochsner, who wanted someone who had the
ability to conduct cancer research but who was not known to the public and could be tossed
aside when her usefulness had expended. She worked with Lee Oswland and David Ferrie
under the supervision of Mary Sherman on the development of a rapid form of cancer that
could be used as a bio-weapon to take out Castro. That did not occur, of course, but there
are reasons to believe it was used to kill Jack Ruby, who, like Lee Oswald, knew too much.

During the course of this thread, Judyth has produced documents and records that show
she was a talented science student who had precocious knowledge of certain aspects of
cancer research. She and Lee were hired on the same date by Riley Coffee Company, a
front that provided cover for their covert activities. She even signed Lee's work records,
even though her role was never explained to the Warren Commission. As Ed Haslam has
documented, Judyth and David and Mary (who referred to themsevles as "Mary, Ferrie,
and Vary") performed extensive studies with mice and monkeys, all of which was under
the ultimate supervision of Alton Ochsner. Mary was killed in what appears to have been
an arranged "accident", which took place as the commission was turning attention to LHO.

In general, for a person to be rational, there should be an approximate correspondence
between their degree of belief (or strength of conviction) and the strength of the evidence
for that belief when objective standards are applied to the available relevant evidence. As
a general indication of this relationship, consider the following schematization that applies:





where persons are rational in relation to their beliefs when there is an appropriate correspond-
ence (which need not be an exact alignment) between their degrees of subjective certitude and
the objective degrees of evidential support. Persons should properly be incredulous about what
cannot possibly be true (such as that 2 + 2 = 5 in pure mathematics, for example, or that rabbits
are not animals in ordinary English) and completely credulous about what cannot possibly be false
(such as that 2 + 2 = 4 in pure mathematics and that bachelors are unmarried in ordinary English).

With respect to measures of truthfulness, therefore, we might employ a truth-quotient index as a
ratio of true statements made to statements made. Persons who are truthful obviously have high
truth-quotient indices, while those who are not have low. In a case where it is suspected that a
person might be a non-truth teller, presumably their truth quotient index will be low. And that is
certainly going to be the case for someone who is presumed to be a fabricator (teller of tall tails).
If such a person's story seems far-fetched initially, then that creates the presumption that they are
not truth-tellers because they have what appears to be a low truth-quotient. But should it turn out
that initially implausible elements of their story are true, the situation reverses itself dramatically.

The basic measure of evidential support is that of likelihoods, where the likelihood of hypothesis
h given evidence e is equal to the probability of evidence e if that hypothesis were true. Judyth
has made many implausible claims about her experiences in New Orleans and her relationship with
Lee. The probability of making false claims when you are "the real deal" is extremely low, which
means that, if most of these claims are FALSE, then the likelihood that she is telling the truth has
to be extremely low. But if it should turn out that, under further investigation, most of those turn
out to be TRUE after all, then the likelihood reverses and becomes very high, since the discovery
that those claims are true, when they were initially implausible, powerfully supports her position.

What has troubled me during the course of this thread is that, time after time, Judyth has produced
support for initially implausible claims. Yet the vast majority of her critics have not budged. They
continue to disbelieve her, long after she has produced supporting evidence. As an illustration, just
follow the posts in which she responds to Jack. He must have lodged at least a dozen criticisms of
Judyth, where, so far as I have been able to discern, none of them has turned out to be true. He
has observed that if Judyth had not claimed to have had a romance with Lee, he might find her the
more believable. But, in spite of the huge range of issues that have been discussed on this forum,
he has never budged. His priors have remained constant and he has studiously avoided her posts.

Doug suggests that Judyth is a damaged witness because of her involvement in research on JFK.
But OF COURSE she is a damaged witness. After deciding to come forward and tell her story, she
has been abused and attacked--often quite viciously!--by those on the McAdams site, where she
initially attempted to present herself, but also on other forums, where she was treated more or less
equally dismissively. She had to conduct research to find out where those who were attacking her
were coming from. In my opinion, she has demonstrated great ability at research, far greater than
most of the members of this forum, including studies of photos, eye-color, linguistics and much more.
Doug is probably right about some of the details of her story, but its core appears to me to be intact.

After having dealt with Judyth extensvely, evaluated the arguments presented on this thread, and
studied DR. MARY'S MONKEY, among other sources (most of which are cited or archived in the blogs
I have done about her at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com), I agree with this list of basic findings:

- 1. Judyth went to New Orleans in the 1963 at the invitation of Dr. Alton Ochsner.

- 2. Ochsner had known Judyth for several years and had previously arranged for her to be trained
at the famous cancer research center discussed above.

- 3. Ochsner promised Judyth early-admission to Tulane Medical School in return for her services in
Dr. Mary Sherman’s cancer lab at Ochsner Clinic. Ochsner also provided her with cancer research
papers on the state-of-the-art techniques such as cancer-causing viruses.

- 4. Judyth wound up working under Sherman’s direction in the underground medical laboratory in
David Ferrie’s apartment instead of in her cancer lab at the Ochsner clinic.

- 5. Judyth met Lee Oswald at the Post Office in what she thought was a chance encounter. In hind-
sight, she realized that this had to be intentional, since Lee was already working with David Ferrie,
Dr. Mary Sherman and Dr. Alton Ochsner on the bio-weapon at the time. Lee introduced her to “Dr.
David Ferrie” the following day and helped Judyth find an apartment.

- 6. When Judyth went to meet Dr. Ochsner in a room within the bowels of Charity Hospital, Lee
Oswald accompanied her to the appointment and went in first to meet with Dr. Ochsner alone.

- 7. Lee was working with ex-FBI agent Guy Banister as has been reported by many sources. Lee
took Judyth to meet Banister in his office to satisfy her concerns that the bio-weapons project is
really a secret government operation. Banister confirmed that Lee was working with them on a
get-Castro project.[10]

- 8. When Judyth went to Dr. Sherman’s apartment for a private dinner with her, David Ferrie was
the only other guest. Sherman and Ferrie discussed the nature of their project with Judyth. They
deemed the idea of using cancer-causing viruses to kill Castro as morally ethical since is might
prevent World War III. Lee phoned Judyth that same night at Sherman’s apartment. Dr. Mary
Sherman was the operational director of “the project.” Ferrie and Oswald were participants.

- 9. Lee escorted and transported Judyth all over town, including to Dr. Sherman’s apartment where
Judyth dropped off “the product” and related reports forSherman’s review. Lee was “the runner.”

- 10. Judyth and Lee were provided cover-jobs at Reily Coffee Company where they were allowed to
slip out several afternoons a week to work in the underground medical laboratory in David Ferrie’s
apartment.[11]

- 11. Lee Oswald’s connections to the Mafia in New Orleans are much stronger than have ever been
reported publicly.[12] Judyth and Lee ate-for-free at restaurants owned by Carlos Marcello and went
to his headquarters (500 Club and Town & Country Motel).

- 12. Lee’s role in the kill-Castro portion of the project was to transport the bio-weapon into Cuba.
The radio debates and film clips of Oswald’s leafleting were arranged by Ochsner (at Oswald’s request)
to make Oswald appear to be an authentic defector so he could get into Cuba more easily.

- 13. Judyth heard the subject of assassinating JFK was discussed at various times by various people,
including Ferrie, Sherman and Oswald. Part of the logic that was explained to Judyth was that they had
to hurry up and kill Castro with their bio-weapon before Ochsner’s friend ran out of patience and decided
to kill Kennedy instead.

- 14. After testing their bio-weapon on dozens of monkeys, they arranged to test it on a human “volunteer,”
a convict brought from Angola State Penitentiary to the Jackson State Mental Hospital in rural Louisiana for
that purpose. The weapon was successful. The man died in 28 days as a result.

- 15. Judyth wrote a letter to Dr. Ochsner protesting the use of an unwitting human in their bio-weapon test
and delivered it to his secretary.[13] Upon seeing the letter, Ochsner exploded in anger and threatened both
Judyth and Lee. Everything fell apart for Judyth as a result. Ochsner reneged on his offer to place Judyth in
Tulane Medical School. Lee was ordered to Dallas. Judyth went back to Florida with her husband.

- 16. For the next few months, Judyth and Lee stayed in contact by telephone, thanks to access to the Mafia’s
“secret” Miami-to-Las Vegas sports betting lines courtesy of David Ferrie. While the phone company and the
U.S. Government might not have been able to listen to their conversations, the Mafia would have been able to!

- 17. On Wednesday, November 20, 1963, Lee told Judyth that there would be a real attempt to kill President
Kennedy when he visits Dallas on Friday. It is the last time they talked.

Other aspects of her story may involve embellishments, such as recollecting the details of conversations they
had on various occasions. I certainly agree that the "reading list" Judyth provided appears to be a bit much,
where it reads more like a "wish list" than actual reading by the man who was killed in Dallas. Yet, even here,
Judyth has some support for what she has to tell us in the form of a report by Marina about what Lee read.

Given the strength of the evidence that supports the core of Judyth's story, I am hard pressed to compromise
on the basis of friendship. I have done my best to give Judyth a fair shake on this forum. I am convinced she
is genuine, even if others remain in doubt. The most interesting point that Bill makes and you also note is the
original "Judyth Vary Baker" whom Ed Haslam met. This is quite remarkable: there were two "Judyth Bakers".

What this tells me, however, is that Judyth has to be "the real deal" and posed such a threat that the agency
even went to the trouble to create an impostor. That is stunning in and of itself. Ed did not pursue the chance
to talk with her on a second occasion because his girlfriend did not want him to discuss politics, which is a shame.
I can understand the situation he was in. But if Judyth is not "the real deal", then why would it have bothered?

I would not have been so hard on some of my old friends had they displayed more open-mindedness about the
evidence she was presenting and the findings of others, especially Ed Haslam. But it has become increasingly
obvious that none of this new evidence has made any difference to the vast majority. Their posterior probs
are just the same as their initial priors. None of this has affected them. Which denotes a lack of rationality.

If they had said, "Well, you know, I don't know about that reading list, but the core of her story appears to be
true" or, "Well, I really believe in Armstrong, but you have raised some good points about the 'index' blunder,
the mistaken date for founding the Warren Commission, the "lost tooth" at Beauregard Junior High, and that
eye-color study and commentary on some of the photos deserve to be taken seriously." But no one did so.

This has been a draining experience, Bernice. I have lost several friends over this. Perhaps, with time, those
relationships can be repaired. And I know it must have been difficult for you. I know how much you like and
admire Jack and Doug and others involved in this dispute. I cannot abandon the search for truth about JFK on
the ground that it might cost me friends since, as I have explained, then there would be no truth, only friendships.

Jim

[quote name='Bernice Moore' post='190333' date='Apr 21 2010, 08:55 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='190329' date='Apr 21 2010, 02:17 PM']
What's the deal, Lee? You want to play "amateur philosopher"? I hate to say it again, but when people I like abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, there is a point at which I have to question their competence or their integrity. Do you think I LIKE being at odds with some of my oldest and dearest friends? Jack White, David Lifton, and Doug Weldon have been close friends and allies in the past. For some reason, this Judyth thing has affected them in ways that, in my considered opinion, has taken them off the deep end.

For example, given my response to Pat, which of them has actually read DR. MARY'S MONKEY? Well, I am quite sure that Jack has not and that David will not. Doug is a possibility, but, to the best of my knowledge, he has not yet either. IF EVERYONE WOULD READ WHAT ED HASLAM HAS WRITTEN, based upon extremely patient and thorough research, MOST OF THIS CONTROVERSY WOULD SUBSIDE. I have posted a chapter of his from the revised version of MARY, FERRIE, AND THE MONKEY VIRUS, but so far as I can tell, no one here is actually reading it. That's the score.

Of course, I would like to have my friends and truth, too. But when Dean Hagerman, for example, tells me that I am letting Judyth disrupt my relationships with some of my old friends, I am confronted with a dilemma. I KNOW THAT JUDYTH IS THE REAL DEAL. I HAVE STUDIED HER, TALKED WITH HER, READ ABOUT HER, EVALUATED THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST HER, AND I AM CONVINCED. I HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. So what am I supposed to do? Dean says I should choose Jack (and Lifton and Weldon) and abandon Judyth. That is the conflict that I confront.

I can only do that if I abandon my commitment to truth. If I have to choose between friendships and truth, I have to side with truth. If friendships take precedence over truth, then there is no truth, only friendships. Given who I am, that is not something that I can do. I want to have both. Who does not? But if I am compelled to choose between friends who abuse logic, ignore evidence, and make fallacious arguments, again and again and again, I have no choice but to stand with truth and let friendships go. Forced to choose, my choice is truth.

And let me add one more point. I did not drag them into this. I created a thread to discuss Judyth because I find her story fascinating, not least of all because it transforms our understanding of the assassination, especially with regard to those mysterious days in New Orleans. What may have escaped notice in all of this is that Jack, David, and Doug HAVE BEEN ATTACKING ME. To the best of my knowledge, I have not initiated a single attack upon them. But I will not stand by and allow them to abuse a crucial witness whom I am convinced is telling the truth.

[quote name='Lee Farley' post='190327' date='Apr 21 2010, 07:35 PM'][quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='190312' date='Apr 21 2010, 02:28 PM']As for friendships, I value them greatly. But if we place friendships ahead of truth, then there is no truth, only friendships. And that is something I am not willing to do.[/quote]
I don't get this Jim.

Why can't you have both?

I've always found the question of what is "truth" fascinating. Fact is Jim, the truth doesn't need us all to believe in it for it still to be true. Agreed?

If I don't believe that the sun rises each morning and sets each evening it doesn't make the fact that it does any less true does it?

If I believe that sound is faster than light it doesn't make the fact that light is faster than sound any less true does it?

Would you or Jack fall out with me and not treat me with respect because I believed that there is nothing after we die and you both believed in heaven?

If your wife turned around and told you that she didn't believe a word Judyth said, would you divorce her? I think not...

I'm awaiting some sanity to return and some further discussion of the issues if possible.

Regards

Lee
[/quote]
[/quote]


DR.JIM I WOULD LIKE TO TALK AT YOU FOR A FEW MINUTES, I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FOR AWHILE AND THINK I SHOULD FOR OUR FRIENDSHIPS SAKE,
YOU ARE CORRECT I DO NOT LIKE SOME OF WHAT I HAVE READ WITHIN THIS VERY LONG THREAD AND I HAVE READ EVERY POST, AND NOT JUST BY YOU, BUT BY SOME OTHERS AS WELL, NO USE PICKING STRAWS AS I WILL NOT BE, MY THOUGHTS ARE MY BUSINESS..

LORDY I, HAVE WONDERED AT TIMES IF this thread would make a good subject for study for a thesis.

It is NOT somehow typical that it has been tried to turn this into a critique of John Armstrong''s work. , we have seen this done in other threads, No doubt Armstrong is open to criticism. as your books were and Lifton's still is, and doug weldon's will be, and so on, Who ISN'T? OPEN TO CRITICISM , I THOUGHT IN THIS THREAD The issue here WAS TO BE JUDYTH Baker and the evidence for her claims.i have seen what she has presented as such, but i admit i find it lacking as i did in her first set of books..

IT SEEMS TO ME AT TIMES WITHIN THE RESEARCH THAT WE START OUT OH SO SMART BUT GET OH SO MUCH STUPIDER AS THE THREADS GROW LONGER...
AND THE INTENTIONS AND THE SUBJECT GETS LOST..SOMETIMES THE SHORTER THE BETTER SUFFICES.

ALL WE NEED TO DO IMO IS TO treat PEOPLE with respect. AND treat FELLOW RESEARCHERS as your equals EVEN IF THEY ARE WITHOUT INITIALS AFTER THEIR NAMES AS SOME HAVE AND AS SOME SEEM TO LEAN ON TOO OFTEN,THOUGH ON THE OTHER HAND I AM NOT YOUR NOR MANYS PEER BECAUSE I HAVE NONE AFTER MY NAME BUT THEN YOU AND THEY CANNOT BE MINE EITHER AS YOU HAVE NOR THEY CAN EVER HAVE THE MANY CHILDREN I HAD,AND CHILDREN I RAISED, WE NEED TO STOP cALLING OTHERS names OR BELITTLING THEM,AND MAKING OTHER such IMPLICATIONS SUCH AS DERIDING THEM BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU OR WITH SOMEONE YOU DO, SO WHAT IF SOMEONE DOES NOT, YOU CERTAINLY HAVE NEVER AGREED WITH ALL THAT ANYONE HAS RESEARCHED IN ALL THE YEARS I HAVE KNOWN YOU.AND PEOPLE NEED TO NOT BE CONDESCENDING AND THEY NEED TO TRY AND KEEP A CIVIL TONGUE IN THEIR HEADS...I AM NOT GOING TO ARGUE SPECIFICS OR DOTS WITH YOU,DR.JIM,EVEN IF THAT WAS WHAT YOU WANTED, WHICH I DOUBT,, I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU NOR ANYONE, PERHAPS TO ENCOURAGE SUCH,SO THAT EVENTUALLY YOU WOULD THROW AWAY ANOTHER FRIEND OR CHASE ANOTHER AWAY FROM YOU...AS FAR AS WHAT HAS OCCURRED WITHIN THS THREAD IT IS DONE, WHAT AMENDS WILL BE TAKEN IN THE FUTURE WILL BE IN THE FUTURE, '......NOW A VERY GOOD TOPIC THAT BILL KELLY MENTIONED, AND I WILL ASK, WHY IS IT AFTER ALL YOU AND JUDYTH HAVE HAD TO SAY ABOUT JACK'S ERRORS OR DOUG'S OR David lifton's opinions being wrong etc, why is it that you have not as far as i recall in this thread ever LEANED ON ED HASLAM,WHY NOT BECAUSE AFTER ALL HE HAS WRITTEN TWO BOOKS, WHICH I HAVE AND READ, HE IS THE AUTHOR RESEARCHER OF SUCH, YET IN ALL THE YEARS THAT IT TOOK HIM TO DO SO, HE NEGLECTED TO DO OR COMPLETE HIS RESEARCH, HE DID NOT FIND AS FAR AS WE KNOW NOR NAME HIS OLD GIRLFRIEND NOR GET HER INFORMATION NOR STATEMENT RECALLING HER INFORMATION PERTAINING TO SAID PARTY, HE DID NOT GO TO THE N/O ARCHIVES WITHIN THE CITY BEFORE KATRINA RUINED ALL,SO I HAVE READ, TO SEARCH FOR THE INFORMATION OF WHOM OWNED OR RENTED THAT APARTTMENT HOUSE AT THE TIME OF THE PARTY, NOR OBTAIN THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS OF WHOM WERE LIVING THERE,HE ALSO MENTIONED YEARS BACK OF BEING REMINDED OF SUCH BY SEEING THE NAME JUDY BAKER ON AN OFFICE DOOR, BEFORE JUDYTH WAS IN CONTACT WITH HIM, I BLIEVE ALSO WHEN HE WAS ON THE ALTS YEARS BACK IT WAS JUDY BAKER THAT THEN EVENTUALLY CHANGED TO JUDYTH,SO PERHAPS NOW IT SHOULD BE ED'S WORK TO BE CRITIQUED UPON, IN A NEW THREAD AND ASKED SOME DIRECT QUESTIONS OF THE WHY NOTS,ABOUT WHAT IS OR HAS NOT BEEN DONE NOR VERIFIED WITHIN HIS BOOK AND RESEARCH, OUT OF WHICH JUDYTH BAKER AND HER INFormation FIRST WAS INTRODUCED, IF JOHN ARMSTRONG'S WORK, AND MANY OTHER'S SUCH AS YOURSELF, CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR WORK THEN WHY HAS ED HASLAM HAD A FREE PASS,IMO SO FAR, THAT IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE...WHERE IS HIS VERIFICATION DOCUMENTATION AND PROOF OF WHAT HE HAS WRITTEN ABOUT HIM MEETING ANOTHER JUDYTH BAKER WHO HELD A PARTY WHO WAS INTERESTED IN LHO AND EVEN THOUGH ED WAS HE REFUSED TO TALK WITH HER...ED NEEDS TO NOW PROVIDE OTHERS HIS PROOF SO THAT RESEARCHERS DO NOT THINK THAT ALL THIS COULD HAVE JUST BEEN PERHAPS ANOTHER CONVENIENT STORY ..WITH BEST REGARDS....B
[/quote]