Cahalan and the sorrow of Morrow. Quality Versus Quantity?

[Charles Drago]

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.

[Emphasis added by Drago.]

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.

PRECISELY the critical distinction.

Seamus, mate, you need to take a step back and a deep breath, and then think about the logic of Jan's commentary and the manner in which you ignore it at the peril of our shared work.