Manhattan DA To Probe Kilgallen Death

[Albert Doyle]

Tom:

Now Janney is saying that Mitchell had nothing to do with the Mary M case?

I was not aware of that. When did he write it?

I think I was aware of that giant prevarication to that audience in Santa Barbara.

Nice work.

Here you are again Jim. You're crediting Tom but you're not answering the point. While accusing others of distorting the evidence, what Tom is doing is taking what is probably a legal move on Janney's behalf, whose design and purpose is probably to keep Janney from being sued, and dishonestly using it to avoid the general implications of Mitchell himself that still don't disappear because of Tom's tricks. What Tom is doing is using a difficulty in legal proof on Janney's behalf to discredit Janney's entire thesis, but he does so by avoiding the implications of Mitchell himself that Janney has credibly established. That is totally disingenuous on Tom's behalf and leads away from a correct Deep Political understanding. Instead of criticizing it, like you would do with anything else, you credit Tom for it, but as anyone can see Tom hasn't rushed back to answer the real evidence I posted and neither have you. It's a double standard that you would never let anyone else get away with Jim. So while saying "nice work" to Tom you are helping him get away with not answering that there was a real Mitchell out there that Janney found good evidence against that still hasn't been answered. That's not exactly honest of you.

As per Doyle, OMG, I was not talking about comparing Kilgallen to Janney. I was comparing Kilgallen to Mary M. Jesus, can't you even read straight on this?

Jim, you're a smart man. Do I really need to explain how your above answer doesn't make any attempt to respond to what is actually being written? You know as well as I do that you referred to Janney as uncredible in your piece on Kilgallen. I've shown evidence that, contrary to what you and Tom write, there is good reason to think Janney has merit. There's a weird thing going on in the assassination research world. Jim DiEugenio, who is generally a sharp-witted destroyer of dubious research, is openly endorsing the ROKC pariah group and joining them in their attacks on real assassination conspiracy victims and therefore violating the Deep Political ethic of responsibility towards correct evidence. That's something I would never be allowed to get away with and, in my opinion, is damaging to the important standard this site practices (or used to anyway). It is actually myself who is offering the better analogy here since both Kilgallen and Mary Meyer are CIA assassination victims killed exactly because of their dangerous knowledge of the conspiracy behind JFK's killing. You're on the wrong side of this Jim, as your evasive answers show.


Oh, by the way. You once again avoided answering for Davidson's metadata, which proves my point that you don't answer to facts...



.