Cahalan and the sorrow of Morrow. Quality Versus Quantity?

[Jan Klimkowski]

Throughout this conversation anyone reading this thread will see that Dawn has continually been making reference to JFK Jr. I have also been continually replying in the context of John Hankey's JFK Jr documentary. Anyone will see that Dawn seems to insinuate a number of things. One of these seems to be that I have denied criticising John Hankey. Further what on Earth has my JFK II stuff got to do with Hankey's JFK Jr? I don't know about members of the forum but I'd sure as hell like to know how you figured that one out.

Speaking personally, as an observer of this spat, my sense is that there has been some misunderstanding about whether Seamus was writing about Hankey and JFK II, or Hankey and JFK Jr.

Jim DiEugenio makes a thoughtful and impassioned case for the quality of analysis of Seamus' article on Hankey and JFK II.

Seamus adds that he has hardly written a word about Hankey and JFK Jr, although the quote I've excerpted above - where I've highlighted what is presumably a typo - does show why the confusion may have continued longer than necessary.

If Seamus has not written about Hankey and JKF Jr, then there's nothing to discuss there.

However, the bigger issue is the tendency to dismiss an entire area of legitimate deep political research because a particular individual has made poorly evidenced claims.

This is one of the reasons why I was deeply unimpressed with the quality of analysis in Seamus' pieces about Diana and her death, which set up an entirely false dichotomy between Martin Gregory (Good) and Mohammed Al Fayed (Nutter).

Al Fayed's deep pockets and connections meant he was played in the aftermath of the Diana death. The case that Diana's death may not have been a paparazzi-caused-road-accident, as per the official story, is not reliant on Fayed or on gullible folk feeding on her celebrity status.

Claims which are not supported by evidence, which misrepresent evidence, or which overinterpret evidence should be exposed.

However, the core hypothesis may still be worth investigating if evidence is rigorously and fairly analysed.

So, as a random example, the case for George Bush Sr's possible involvement in the JFK assassination is not dependent on the photo supposedly showing him at the scene, or whether he chuckled when discussing the Warren Commission a couple of decades later.