Mary's Mosaic: Toward Consensus

[Charles Drago]

Acting against type, I shall now play the role of consensus builder.

For your consideration: The falsification of Peter Janney's MPM assassination hypothesis would not resolve the assassination/common crime conundrum at the core of this unsolved murder.

I don't think its well said.

Because I don't know what you mean by the first phrase: "The falsification of Peter Janney's MPM assassination hypothesis...."

I'd counter with, "Well written, but poorly understood." We'll agree to disagree.

Familiarize yourself with Karl Popper's definition of "falsifiable" as "testable." That should get you where you need to be.

Now will you address my original proposition?

I will say this as to what I think you are trying to state: The Meyer case would have been better served if no one had written another book on it instead of the book that Mary's Mosaic is. Once Burleigh filled in the relentless life of crime that Crump embarked upon after the trial, I think that is about as far as anyone could take the case. And, to my knowledge, that had not been done before. And was therefore new.

Again, my original statement was made with clarity. But it seems that you've totally misinterpreted it.

I do NOT contend that "[t]he Meyer case would have been better served if no one had written another book on it." Such a position is anathema to the most basic theory of knowledge. How can ignorance breed understanding?

If people wish to say the murder of Meyer is not solved, I really do not have a serious problem with that. Although personally, I think its hard to ignore Crump's record afterwards.

Events in Crump's post-trial life are irrelevant to the MPM case. The case was tried before a jury of Crump's peers. Their verdict: Not Guilty.

Absent your presentation of material evidence directly related to the unsolved murder of MPM and likely to overturn the Crump verdict, your presentation of Crump's post-trial crimes -- real and/or alleged -- is of no value whatsoever to this discussion.