22-01-2011, 03:55 AM
Charles, I think you are missing my point.
I am against any theory or writer WHO BEGINS WITH THE CASE SOLVED. Which is what I think Nelson did. Which is what Blakey did. Which is what North does.
That does not work at all. It will never convince anyone.
What you have to do is to accumulate enough evidence and testimony and circumstances that arrange a plot. Then you fit the paradigm over it. That is what I said, quoting Garrison.
The paradigm that fits the most seamlessly over the most circumstances is the one that is correct. So I was working from both ends, but only after doing the ground level investigative work initially. If you do not do that, then your paradigm is worthless, like Blakey's. See, he began with the people who he said did it, the Mob. He then tried to fit it all in afterwards. It did not work. Although that did not stop Waldron from running with it to even nuttier heights.
In fact, I actually sketched my paradigm in Part Five of my Bugliosi series.
I am against any theory or writer WHO BEGINS WITH THE CASE SOLVED. Which is what I think Nelson did. Which is what Blakey did. Which is what North does.
That does not work at all. It will never convince anyone.
What you have to do is to accumulate enough evidence and testimony and circumstances that arrange a plot. Then you fit the paradigm over it. That is what I said, quoting Garrison.
The paradigm that fits the most seamlessly over the most circumstances is the one that is correct. So I was working from both ends, but only after doing the ground level investigative work initially. If you do not do that, then your paradigm is worthless, like Blakey's. See, he began with the people who he said did it, the Mob. He then tried to fit it all in afterwards. It did not work. Although that did not stop Waldron from running with it to even nuttier heights.
In fact, I actually sketched my paradigm in Part Five of my Bugliosi series.