05-02-2017, 07:14 PM
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Oh my aching back.
Dorothy Kilgallen was a very experienced reporter who did a lot of work in covering controversial trials. Her record on the Sheppard case is quite interesting and commendable.
She had a proven interest in the JFK case and worked with other interested parties like Mark Lane and Thayer Waldo.
She then journeyed to New Orleans to meet with a private source. She had planned at the time of her death, two more investigatory trips, one to Dallas and one to New Orleans. Her phone lines she felt were bugged by the FBI, so she went ahead and called Lane via pay phones.
She actually did have an outlet of 185 papers in syndication that she was communicating her doubts about on the JFK case.
How on earth does any of that compare to Mary M? Mary was an art student. And one of the worst parts of Janney's confection is when he tries to turn her into Vince Salandria. In fact, that part is a bit ludicrous. Actually novelistic.
You don't have to make any of that up with Kilgallen.
The whole idea that Janney has to satisfy an invalid premise like the above is exactly what I'm talking about. All you are doing is creating a specious pretext that has no validity or bearing on what we are talking about. Because Dorothy Kilgallen had a better journalistic background than Mary Meyer does not negate or cancel out her very real victimhood. Nor does it remove her very real association with JFK on a personal basis. I think you tend to guard JFK from the personal bad habits he might have had (like anybody) in order to prevent the inroad some of the "second assassination of JFK" writers access in order to present a false history. Because of this I think you might be denying some very real interactions Mary Meyer had with JFK that made her both aware of what happened to JFK and why, and also a very real threat to the conspiracy that was resolved by covert assassination. So while you have covered the differences between Mary Meyer and Kilgallen you haven't covered their most relevant and important similarities. Jim, you're a smart man. You have to understand what I'm saying here. So I can only interpret your avoidance of it as deliberate. With that in mind your last reply only proves my point and shows that your line of reasoning is consciously, purposely evasive of the real evidence which is counter to the understood purpose of this board. When research reasoning denies a certain amount of real facts it becomes demagoguery and damaging to an understanding of the real truth. If you examine this discussion you have used a specious analysis of Kilgallen's journalistic background to, once again, avoid answering some very real incriminating evidence Janney produced. In my opinion valid research follows all leads of good evidence. If this discussion follows the same course as previous ones you and Tom will stick with your inadequate entries, wait a while, and then return with your negative dismissal of Janney.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:And if Janney is afraid of being sued by Mitchell, maybe he should have never done what he did in the first place?
I note, now he does not even mention the conversation he had with him at his doorstep? He says his maid or someone encountered him at a the door?
Talk about overplaying your hand.
BTW, he never replied to my critique of his book. Although he implies he did.
That omission is probably due to Tom's cherry-picking.
It is my opinion that the present moribund state of the JFK research world is directly due to certain researchers becoming given, unchallenged sources and catering to their own need to fill their conspiracy research venues rather than practice strict objective analysis. The need to be sources for new groundbreaking discoveries and conversations has surpassed careful scrutiny of content leading to reckless claims that diminish the credibility of assassination research. The establishment of James Gordon and ROKC as determinative controlling sources has directly led to the dubious state of present JFK research and a new lowering of standards. One where researchers are encouraged to ignore truths like Davidson's metadata in order to conduct false conversations.
On a side note, I scoffed at Bauer's suggestion that Kilgallen had been knocked-out with a mickey and then given the fatal dose after she was unconscious. However, his suggestion made me realize it wasn't so far-fetched since the barbiturates in question were bitter and the amount that would have overdosed Kilgallen would have been detectable if they were mixed in to a cocktail. Anyone ingesting an overdose amount of those barbiturates mixed in with a cocktail would immediately draw back and say "What the hell is in that?"