26-07-2012, 04:04 AM
AD:I don't think CTKA would let someone else get away with a logical violation like that.
I chose to pull this quote for two reasons.
First, as I explained above, there is no logical violation. In Janney's construct, what else was of any value in her place? If its her paintings, then how does that fit in there?
But secondly, at CTKA, this would not fly at all in the first place. For instance, in my book, I will show how Garrison's files were systematically done away with by Harry Connick. But I can prove that. How?
1. The guy who Connick told to incinerate the files signed an affidavit.
2. Connick later admitted to doing this himself.
3. Another witness in the office, Ralph Whalen, also said Connick did away with a lot of Garrison's files once he took over the office.
That is not just evidence, it qualifies as proof. The issue is nailed down at all ends. Including by the perpetrator, who first tried to cover it up.
What do you have here that is in any way comparable to that?
And this is the standard that we have. You can't just say "Oh, before he died, he told someone that he thought someone was trying to get into his place." That is not evidence. This is why I would have never agreed to publish a book like Janney's in this day and age. Because the whole book is like that, or in some cases, even worse. Since he relies upon proven forgers like Douglas, proven liars like Leary, or unstable personalities like Damore and Truitt to make his arguments. I wouldn't rely on those four guys to tell me the time of day.
Take those four people out of the book, and what is there left?
I chose to pull this quote for two reasons.
First, as I explained above, there is no logical violation. In Janney's construct, what else was of any value in her place? If its her paintings, then how does that fit in there?
But secondly, at CTKA, this would not fly at all in the first place. For instance, in my book, I will show how Garrison's files were systematically done away with by Harry Connick. But I can prove that. How?
1. The guy who Connick told to incinerate the files signed an affidavit.
2. Connick later admitted to doing this himself.
3. Another witness in the office, Ralph Whalen, also said Connick did away with a lot of Garrison's files once he took over the office.
That is not just evidence, it qualifies as proof. The issue is nailed down at all ends. Including by the perpetrator, who first tried to cover it up.
What do you have here that is in any way comparable to that?
And this is the standard that we have. You can't just say "Oh, before he died, he told someone that he thought someone was trying to get into his place." That is not evidence. This is why I would have never agreed to publish a book like Janney's in this day and age. Because the whole book is like that, or in some cases, even worse. Since he relies upon proven forgers like Douglas, proven liars like Leary, or unstable personalities like Damore and Truitt to make his arguments. I wouldn't rely on those four guys to tell me the time of day.
Take those four people out of the book, and what is there left?